Greyhounds are racing dogs. Sausage dogs (Dachshund) are labeled bad runners. Of course, this prejudice is socially constructed and has no foundation in rality. Race is only skin deep. From birth on, parents and dog owners are indoctrinated that they can not run well.. Remedial running classes and sausage quotas in races are needed to right past discriminatory wrongs.
In reality, Sausage dogs are born with the same running capacity as greyhounds. Saying otherwise is racist.
- 71 fastest runners on earth: 1 white Christophe Lemaitre & 70 blacks. Are races equal? | Human-Stupidity
- Race and IQ | Human-Stupidity
Sausage dogs discriminated in dog racing
The following video shows a a Sausage dog (Dachshund) race
Once sausage dogs overcome social prejudice, they will be able to compete in the Greyhound Race. As there are many more sausage dogs then greyhounds, a 50% quote for sausage dogs in dog races is only fair to remedy centuries of discriminatory practices.
Pigmy quotas needed in Olympic races
Similarly, pigmies grow up being indoctrinated they can not win Olympic marathons or 100 m dashes. Of course, with affirmative action and special remedial running classes, this can be remedied.
Race is only skin deep and all people are born equal. Kenyan and Jamaican runners are socially expected to excel in running
EGALITARIAN JAY: Everyone wants to live in the best neighborhoods they can. There are middle class Black neighborhoods. I live in one. What I am saying is that studies have shown that when controlling for family & neighborhood quality + Socioeconomic Status (essentially equalizing environment) there is no IQ gap (see Brooks-Gunn and colleagues chapter 20).
FRANK: This strikes me as an outlandish claim. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Studies illustrated that when environment is controlled, black children have a definite increase in IQ but by adulthood the IQ scores have regressed toward the average mean for African-Americans.
Previous studies by credible psychologists have shown that the IQ gap actually remained in place as recent as 2005:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20PSnew.pdf
In fact Rushton used the test score NAEP scores to illustrate the gap has not closed:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
Rushtons most recent work illustrated a hereditarian view of intelligence:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20PAID%20(Brain%20size%20and%20national%20IQ).pdf
Of course, one cannot ignore the fact that environment plays a part in the issue of intelligence as well. However, it is quite silly to completely omit the role heredity plays without offering a fair hearing to the theories.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank is twisting facts. After enduring malicious personal attacks including posters wishing death on me and hurling heinous racist insults through the reputation system I did eventually overreact and explode on Frank in reaction to his attempts at character assassination. I did not lose the debate. The debate is still ongoing.
FRANK: On the other forum Egalitarian Jay has called me a pedophile and a rapist without cause. He has accused me of being a Klansman, a genocidal maniac and a Nazi. He sent me interracial pornography allegedly because OTHER POSTERS were attacking him.
Egalitarian Jay accuses me of “character assassination” when he is the one who publicly and wrongfully accused me of being a rapist.
The fact is Egalitarian Jay has a huge problem when someone can debate him on the issues. If you read the entire thread in question, you will see that I conducted myself in a civilized manner when debating EJ. It was Egalitarian Jay who exploded and went ballistic when the heat got a little too hot for him.
I also addressed Irshan Ali in the following post:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1045734&postcount=352
Just so everyone is clear. I never conceded defeat to Morpheus / EgalitarianJay because he out-debated me. I simply left the forum for a awhile hence forfeited the debate as I could no longer be bothered. Morpheus did not score some knockout victory.
In addition my entire debate with “EgalitarianJay” can be found here:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77355
As a matter of fact you will see me address everything from the twin-egging issues, Darwin, intelligence and you will even witness me expose some of the silly arguments put forth by Joseph Graves.
Admin,
I replied to your dog analogy in the very first post.
I would rather talk about the actual issue than analogies.
Simple answer to your analogy: Dog racing and human racing are not comparable to the Black-White achievement gap because there is no historical evidence of racist discrimination that has disenfranchised certain groups of racing dogs or human runners. Also no one said that there were no anatomical differences and obvious differences like height and bone structure will have an effect on certain athletic abilities. But as far as race being only skin deep is concerned I would recommend that you look at what evolutionary biologists have to say on this topic.
Read this interview with Graves who covers various racial topics including athleticism:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-06.htm
Now back to Rushton and his theories on racial differences. First of all the theory of Asians evolving in more cognitively demanding environments doesn’t stand because there is no biological rationale to make that assumption nor anthropological and archeological evidence supporting that theory.
C Loring Brace actually covers the real scientific evidence on the matter which indicates that intelligence is not unevenly distributed across human populations.
Follow this link and download the article:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58822
As for the alleged racial patterns, as Graves said he has provided serious reasons to doubt such a pattern exists. There is no evidence that crime rates are so constant that we should give any credibility to the idea that certain populations have a natural tendency towards criminal behavior. For instance there are African and Caribbean countries that are majority Black with low crime rates as well as European countries with very high crime rates (most perpetrators being White).
If race determined cultural achievement and a society’s standard of living how do you explain the large gap in government quality between North and South Korea? You’ve got the same ethnic group with essentially the same genetic stock but radically different quality in government and standard of living for the citizens. There are too many examples that contradict Rushton’s racial generalizations.
Rushton’s research on biological data is no more credible. No serious scientists in recent times are trying to make racial correlations with hormone assays and Graves pointed out numerous flaws in the sources that Rushton cited. Read the section on Hormone Biology within the article “Misuse of Life History Theory”:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z0B1T5YV
Twinning rates vary within and between populations and rates have changed through time. Significant environmental effects on twinning rates are well-documented. There is simply no evidence that any documented variation between ethnic groups is indicative of genetic differences that cannot be changed and establish ranking.
Here is a reply to Rushton’s email that I showed you from another scholar named Scott MacEachern:
As for that email, the bulk is just filler, a restatement of the abstract for Rushton’s book. His thesis here is simply that this conjunction of data (his ‘highly consistent three-way pattern of racial differences’) is significant and can only be explained genetically.
The problems with this claim are so great that it’s sometimes hard to know where to begin, but in general, here are some of the main problems:
(1) Aggregation of data is only useful if some degree of control and comparability are exerted over the data being aggregated – otherwise, you end up with the GIGO Rule (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Many of Rushton’s data sources are exceptionally poor, to the point of being caricatures of scientific research: thus, one of his primary sources on ‘sexual behaviour’ is a book of 19th-century travel porn, of no serious scientific value, and many of the studies that he cites on IQ and brain size are based on datasets that even people who agree with him accept as unreliable. In the most direct sense, many of his data are the garbage in the GIGO Rule. You may or may not have read David Barash’s review of Rushton’s methodology: “…the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit.” Barash, David 1995. Review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. _Animal Behaviour_ 49:1131-1133
(2) Aggregating data on (say) brain size or twinning rates into his three ‘racial’ groupings conceals the very significant variations in aggregated characteristics _within_ those racial groups. Essentially, he reduces very, very, very diverse characteristics down to single numbers, then generalises those single numbers to every population within his putative races. However, averages among diverse populations tell you almost nothing about the distributions of those diverse characteristics, nor about the evolutionary pressures that might have brought them into being.
(3) Many of the characteristics that he thinks are evolutionarily determined have actually changed dramatically over historical time-periods in different parts of the world (and are extremely variable _within_ his ‘racial’ populations – see #2 above): besides obvious things like longevity, fertility and infant mortality rates, these include characteristics like twinning rates, speed of sexual maturation/first menarche and so on. He treats them as immutable evolutionary differences, whereas in fact they seem entirely sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.
Everyone wants to live in the best neighborhoods they can. There are middle class Black neighborhoods. I live in one. What I am saying is that studies have shown that when controlling for family & neighborhood quality + Socioeconomic Status (essentially equalizing environment) there is no IQ gap (see Brooks-Gunn and colleagues chapter 20).
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news.htm?articleId=3699
The problem with Rushton’s work is that he is advancing a theory based on evolution when he himself does not have even a basic grasp of the experimental methods required to test his genetic hypothesis. The flaws in his research were detailed in Graves critiques of his work, the general arguments of which were presented to Rushton at the debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Rushton has never responded to Graves in print.
I believe he has not because he can not. He simply doesn’t understand evolutionary genetics.
Frank, who I debated at The Phora, emailed Rushton to get a reply to his views of Graves arguments. You can view Rushon’s reply here:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=978416&postcount=60
Basically he summarized the thesis for his book and claimed that Graves ducked responding to his data (not true Graves addressed the data).
This is Graves reply:
Rushton’s memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like “social organization” and “crime”. Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails. So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.
———————————————
Rushton’s work is pseudoscience. He’s basically seeking to prove the validity of racist stereotypes.
Not only Graves but many other scholars who have reviewed his work consider it to be garbage.
I recommend reviewing those articles by Graves that I sent you but for a shorter critique you can read C Loring Brace’s review of Rushton’s book.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55536
I’m am pleased to see that my sharing of information has gained traction. Tim Wise wrote an article about Race-Realism and cited some of my research on the message boards:
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realism/
In the HeyRuka youtube debates a Youtuber made an excellent video refuting Ruka and cited the Brace review of Rushton’s book that I put on The Phora.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8RefZ1Hcvo
You’re entitled to your opinion Admin but I do feel strongly that this Race and Intelligence segment hurts the credibility of your blog. Again some taboos I actually agree with like teen sexuality and the child porn witchhunt.
But Rushton and his like-minded colleagues are academic propagandists with a racist agenda.
Racism is stupid.
If Rusthon really misinterprets r-K theory, then the hypothesis about life in Asia needing more discipline and long term planning then in Africa, stands on its own.
If that theory is false, then there still is the consistent world wide data about IQ, criminality and more, that stands on its own. The data are are undeniable facts, there are even biological differences like in twin birthing and testosterone.
So what is left is to discuss theories that explain the findings, and to experimentally validate them, if possible. So far all experiments to get blacks, as a whole, up to the level of whites have failed. Just as white attempts at winning the 100 m dash in the Olympics have failed.
Egalitarianjay, thanks for linking to Rushton’s reply.
The discussion always gets to the same academic topics. I am sad though, this article here is totally left aside and ignored.
Thus I request you to comment my article above:
to explain the discrimination of sausage dogs who are born equal to greyhounds, but hampered by negative expectations, discrimination, and lack of running training. After all, differences are only skin deep.
What do you think about affirmative action and 50% quotas for sausage dogs in dog races? After all, there are many more sausage dogs then greyhounds in this world. They just don’t get their chances in the dog races. Regular training, head start, affirmative action could close the gap in running ability, and in a few generations sausage dogs could have equal running speed as greyhounds.
And please speak about the negative expectations in pygmies (whose race does not exist), that makes pygmies lose their chances to Olympic 100 meter gold medals.
You might want to start a top level reply thread, if this is getting too far indented. Thank you for your valued answer.
High Socioeconomic class blacks: From what I understand, high intelligence blacks flee to white suburbs. They flee the crime, violence and poverty of the less capable or fortunate blacks.
This is the black elite, and they can keep up with the white middle class. Unfortunately, they leave only the lowest of the low in desolate inner city ghettos, devoid of their own black elite that could provide some economic and cultural support and jobs. And provide positive role models.
Real research, and rebuttals by the likes of Rushton, would be interesting.
Egalitarian Jay said:
When you control for family and neighborhood quality along with Socioeconomic status the Black-White IQ gap is virtually eliminated. There is plenty of evidence that there is no genetic component to IQ disparities between demographic groups. The IQ gaps have actually been decreasing gradually as the environment of Black Americans improves. African immigrants to the USA are actually outperforming Asian-American and European-Americans academically. This strongly suggests that culture rather than biology is responsible for these general trends in disparity.
In all this discussion about generalities of race and IQ, nobody bothered to try to disprove my post.
That sausage dogs should get 50% quotas in greyhound races, and that sausage dog’s slow running is due to expectation bias and discrimination.
And that pygmies, with the right affirmative action, will get their due share of Olympic medals.
After all, races, sub-races, breeds are all socially constructed. If raised among Kenyans, pygmies will flourish in the marathon races.
Enough about racism!
African people consistently score low in intelligence tests and contribute very little to academic fields.
Ashkenazi Jews consistently score high in intelligence tests and dominate most academic fields.
It looks like there are at least some inherent differences in intelligence between populations.
It’s very simple.
By the way Admin I’ve decided to take this debate to a couple of message boards in the interest of sharing my information. I’m going to stop debating Frank and the racists on The Phora for awhile because I’m tired of the hostile environment and long-winded debates. I don’t have time for that style of debate but I can share info.
Check out this post on a thread I recently made where I quote Graves addressing the running ability angle commonly used by racialists.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75875449&postcount=1458
@AB
Yes I am the same EgalitarianJay from Youtube.
I agree with you. Some of the subjects the Admin talks about I can actually agree with. There are a lot of silly, irrational taboos out there and the world would be a better place without them. The race and intelligence controversy is considerably different from some of the stuff I consider to be good on this blog. These racial theories do nothing but insult people and are socially harmful. They are promoted by people with racist agendas. Racism is stupid not the belief in a general human nature or cognitive capacity. We’re not all the same but we’re also not all so different that broad groups of people can not function in modern society.
The belief in this idea is what has lead to a lot of social injustices that create the illusion that there may be a real biological inequality.
Check out my channel to watch Race: The Power of an Illusion.
I will have all 3 episodes up soon.
I find these films terrible. Wrong. Totally biased by political correctness dogma. Faulty logic.
Nevertheless, this is the brainwashing we all grow up with, this is the official politically correct party line. This extremist stuff is the normal dogma that is taught incessantly.
I thank you for posting this and even link to it again
http://www.youtube.com/user/EgalitarianJay
So we can not deny the existance of such videos. Maybe someone (Frank?) bothers to debunk it or to post a rebuttal video.
Could you please re-link to some other videos where the other sides also have a chance to speak, like the Rushton Graves discussion and the other 7 or 9 part film which I consider somewhat biased, but which lets Rushton and others speak.
Someone else uploaded the full event where Rushton and Graves had their debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRtjgKlt8s
If you want to link to the Race: Science’s Last Taboo video and provide your opinion be my guest. Unfortunately the copyright owner has blocked a few segments of that video on my channel. It is available on Dailymotion.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9i7a_race-and-intelligence-1-7_school
I disagree with you about Race: The Power of an Illusion. It is a very good video series. The video is intended to be educational and provide the mainstream scientific perspective on race and human diversity. This isn’t all about Race & IQ.
Race is a very complex topic that has a major impact on society.
The goal of my Youtube channel is to combat racism with both a scientific understanding of what race is and what isn’t as well as address the social ramifications of racism. I’m going to upload an episode of Oprah which addresses race that I think may be far more important to my mission than the scientific arguments.
Hey , are you the same EgalitarianJay that has videos on youtube and dailymotion?
I like your videos and anti-racism.
Although I agree with human-stupidity on most issues, this one area where I don’t agree.
There’s alot of interesting discussion on Youtube about Race & IQ revolving around a Youtuber named HeyRuka.
Anyone interested should check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=HeyRuka&aq=f
@Frank&Admin:
Without getting into a huge debate or shouting match, what I’d like to ask is has any research been done about possible solutions to this? While this may be tip-toeing into Eugenics, I’m just interested in what possible solutions Rushton or other scientists have proposed?
`The attitude of most researchers is:
If you start from false premises, you can not solve a problem. That was also Watson’s approach: you can not solve Africa’s problems, if you think all races have equal IQ.
Head start, affirmative action, all mysteriously did not yield significant results in the long run. Of course, if intelligence, by birth, is significantly different, then you can not expect any affirmative action to totally eliminate this.
This is the message of this post here, too. No amount of affirmative action, of remedial running training will ever make a winning champion out of a sausage dog, out of a pygmy. You have to face the truth, even if you don’t like it.
Ok but what solutions have been proposed? Is the concensus “sucks to be you”? Or is there mutable factors that can mitigate this? Basically just how MUCH of it is due to genetics?
I don’t know whether you’re trying to lecture me to suck it up or what, but if the science is showing that blacks have a lower IQ on average, that’s what it’s showing. So blacks have a lower likelihood of being rocket scientists, so what? What I refuse to accept is that it’s something that can’t be remedied, and you can chalk it up to me “not liking the truth” or however you take it.
*excuse my last comment as I took the time to read the earlier posts where the percentage that is genetic was discussed
and my apologies as well for coming off overtly hostile, I just wouldn’t want a genetic basis for IQ differences to be a justification for mediocrity, so there has to be a way to at least mitigate it, even if it can’t be taken care of fully
There is absolutely no doubt that there are differences in IQ, criminality, hormones etc.
The ONLY doubt is if this is immutable, genetic.
Now science seems to show pretty clear that IQ is very strongly hereditary, and half a century of affirmative action have not managed to get black IQ as high or higher as white IQ, while Asians, grandchildren of poor refugees, overcrowd elite Universities.
Now, nobody in his senses denies that bad culture, bad rearing, bad environment makes things worse. But no matter how much good environment and schooling, there still is a deficit, which seems to be hereditary intelligence.
You have to read Rushton’s abbridged edition, and some of the other posts here to really be able to understand the issues.
When you control for family and neighborhood quality along with Socioeconomic status the Black-White IQ gap is virtually eliminated. There is plenty of evidence that there is no genetic component to IQ disparities between demographic groups. The IQ gaps have actually been decreasing gradually as the environment of Black Americans improves. African immigrants to the USA are actually outperforming Asian-American and European-Americans academically. This strongly suggests that culture rather than biology is responsible for these general trends in disparity.
All of this has been discussed over the course of the discussion here.
Rushton’s research has been exposed as pseudoscience.
Here are the summary arguments of Graves concerning Rushton’s work:
1. Rushton’s arguments rely on r- and K- life history theory. These designations are general descriptions of investment in reproduction and somatic tissue on opposite ends of a spectrum (r- = more reproduction/less soma and K- = less reproduction/more soma.) The problem with this notion is that it has been shown to be incorrect in a series of experiments with a wide variety of organisms. No one took this theory seriously after about 1990.
2. Even if r- and K- theory were correct, I showed that Rushton applied it backwards. By the theory, Africans should be K- selected (K selection occurs in stable environments, such as the tropics) while r-selection was to be favored in fluctuating environments, such as the temperate zones. So by Rushton’s reasoning, Africans should be more genetically capable of intelligence, and Europeans/Asians less.
3. Throughout his work, Rushton selectively uses examples to support his ideas. I have caught him manipulating data in unclear ways, for the purposes of making his points.
4. Rushton requires the existence of biological races, which humans do not have. The existence of geographically based genetic variation is not the same as proving races exist, or that in life history features all Africans are different from all Europeans.
Admin I see that you have not made any more blog entries on this subject. My debate with Frank on The Phora appears to be over. Recently on another board I read replies to a PM from a poster who wanted to enter the discussion but didn’t because the debate had already ended. I will share his replies here:
Frank says:
There is nothing controversial about the term or concept of “race.” It is regularly used in medical science and very prestigious medical institutions have little issue with making a diagnosis and even offering treatments along these traditional racial lines. Interestingly enough even some prominent “race-deniers” have little issue with the validity of such actions.
Inshan Ali says:
Frank’s claim is dubious. “Race” in fact is not “regularly used” in medical treatment in any significant way. Doctors for example may or may not ask about race on their patient intake forms. WHat is much more important to them is the patient’s medical history and that of his/her families, not their “race.” Frank’s notion of this vast web of race-based medicine is a fantasy, that simply does not exist.
Frank says:
We can look at a car and tell it is a car but we are told that “car” is a social construct. Even though we can successfully identify the car by the shape/nature of the frame, style of tires, size of the trunk, position of the mirrors and design of the windows we are told that we are mistaken in our identification.
Inshan Ali:
Frank’s car example is also dubious. His main talking point here is to point out the outward features of the car that can be seen – and then claiming that people are “denying” the obvious. This is a typical strawman tactic of the racialists. In fact though, those who question race specifically question it as a BIOLOGICAL construct in defining species and sub-species. No one “denies” that African Massai are taller and darker on the average than European Greeks for example. The “denier” strawman is entirely fallacious. But let’s give Frank the benefit of the doubt for a moment. Tell us Frank, since you claim that the proof is so self-evident, can you distinguish a random Berber from a Ghanian just by looking at them? A Nubian from an Egyptian? A Mexican from a Turk? Frank would fail miserably is he took such a test. Berber for example is not a racial category but a language category (Frigi 2010, et al), and Berbers come in all skin colors and facial features. Ancient Nubians and and ancient Egyptians were ethnically the closest people (Yurco 1989, Godde 2009, Zakrewski 2007). On a more popular level, would famous Mexican soccer striker Hugo Sanchez be “easily” identified as “Hispanic race” if he donned the uniform of a Turkish soccer team? These examples are only for starters, and expose the simplistic “race eyeballing” Frank and people like John Derbyshire think they are experts at. They also expose the bogus strawman invoked – the notion that those who question race are “denying” routine variation in how people look. It is a strawman, and it is absolute nonsense.
Frank says:
Again, the prestigious Mayo Clinic uses “race” (Black, White and Asian) quite frequently in their risk measuring, prognosis and treatment regiments.
Inshan Ali says:
Actually Frank is off-base here. Mayo does not “quite frequently” use “race” in risk measuring, prognosis and treatment. The web link merely shows Mayo references SELF-REPORTED race as ONE risk factor. There is little in the weblink showing any significant use of “race” in prognosis and treatment. And the Mayo example actually undermines frank’s claim of the importance of race. Some doctors collect detailed background info on their patients where warranted, and provided that said info is RELEVANT. It is highly unlikely any competent doctor will pay much attention to “race” if a black guy shows up for some cold medicine. Much more relevant to any physician are symptoms at hand, allergies to medication, family medical history etc etc, not whether some guy is black or Asian.
Frank builds another strawman by trying to insinuate that those who question race are “denying” that doctors do not collect or use such information. The strawman is dubious. People like Graves, or Keita, or Liberman do not “deny” that race is not in use, nor do they deny that self-reported race can be of use as part of the usual background query. What they object to is (a) basing medical decisions and treatment on the basis of race as a central factor, and (b) people like Rushton who use routine family history info as “proof” of race, and (c) the notion that differences between groups from particular regions are due to “race.” The book Nutrition: a lifespan approach (Simon Langley-Evans), shows typical variation among groups. Heart disease for example is more common among Eastern Europeans than among sothern Europeans. Within the UK, the lowest heart diseases are in the southern and eastern parts of England, compared to other parts. In Scotland, heart disease among men is 60% above that of men from southern England. Regional differences always exist among people. But no serious scholar, student or health professional is running around saying that Scots are a different “race” than English, or that Russians or Bulgarians are a different “race” than Greeks. Yet this is the type of skewed logic Rushton and Frank keep pushing.
Frank seizes on drugs like Bidil to “prove” the usefuness of the race concept. But as Grave 2006 shows, Bidil is not a racial drug. Physicians do not immediately haul it out because a black guy walks in complaining of chest pain. Graves shows that the condition Bidil addresses is much more related to factors such as stress than alleged biological race. For hsitorical reasons, including diet, higher stress levels may be found among those self0reporting as African American. In other words, the key trigger is environmental not “racial.” Graves notes that on some counts associated with the condition Bidil is used under, whites are likely to receive more help from the drug than blacks.
Rushton and his ilk have seized upon what may be quite a peripheral factor in overall medical treatment and blown it up to some major, item of “proof” that race exists. But collecting self-reported ethnic info is hardly “proof” that race exists or is valid as a BIOLOGICAL construct, nor is variation among groups. The book Nutrition: a lifespan approach (Simon Langley-Evans 2009), for example shows shows how variation can occur among groups, even those living close by. Coronary heart disease is much more common among Eastern Europeans than among southern Europeans. In Scotland, heart disease among men is 60% above that of men from southern England. In France, coronary heart disease (CHD) remains low depsite similar levels of fat consumption, smoking, cholesterol etc etc. to the higher at risk UK. A key intervening factor in suppressing CHDs for the French however is high consumption of ethanol (wine), not a different “racial” makeup of the French. Differences always exist among people. But no serious scholar, student or health professional is running around saying that Scots are a different “race” than English, or that Russians or Bulgarians are a different “race” than Greeks. Yet this is the type of skewed logic Rushton and his allies keep pushing as “the truth” and “reality.”
Frank says:
Despite the vast body of evidence now accumulating for important genetic and behavioral differences among the three great macro-races, there is much reluctance to accept that the differences in crime are deeply rooted. Perhaps one must sympathize with fears aroused by race research. But all theories of human nature can be used to generate abusive policies. And a rejection of the genetic basis for racial variation in behavior is not only poor scholarship, it may be injurious to unique individuals and to complexly structured societies.
Inshan Ali says:
Rushton’s statement proffered by Frank is another typical pattern used by assorted “biodiversity” and “racial reality” types- namely a hypocritical double standard. For one thing, in their definitions of crime, they conveniently exclude the crime of genocide, even though it is recognized as a crime under both US and international law. The reason for the convenient skip are obvious: supposed white “role models” are the biggest genocidal mass murders in human history. To put this on the table, would undermine Rushton’s racialist project of disparaging blacks, while presenting whites as paragons of goodness and light. The facts of history however tell a much less flattering tale.
Another pattern used by assorted “racial reality” proponents is to skip over and cover up the data on WHITE groups that have been prominent in crime and violence. Other groups are allowed to vary with little question. But a double standard is quickly applied in the case of blacks. The white Irish for example, until recent improvements were notorious in this field. In the 1800s for example in heavy areas of Irish settlement like NYC, white Irish made up 50% of the people arrested while only making up 25% of the city’s population. The pattern was repeated in imprisonment rates, and in other areas of heavy Irish settlement (Sowell 1981). The same pattern is repeated in a finer breakdown where criminals are compared to criminals- the Irish again, made up a large proportion of imprisoned criminals, two to three times the rates of native born Americans (Migration and Culture By Ira Gang, 2nd, Gil S. Epstein 2010) In short, different levels and patterns of crime among poor people are nothing new. White “role models” are unimpressive, whether measured in genocidal rivers of blood, or street crime. The “bio diversity” double standard is sheer hypocrisy.
I have gone without proper internet access for about a month due to my computer being in the shop. It is finally repaired now. I made a few posts via Blackberry but they do not seem to have shown up.
At any rate I plan to take this discussion message boards by writing a detailed critique of a paper published by Rushton and Jensen. Thanks for the discussion here everyone.
Richard Spencer’s article about the academic fraud of Gould and Boas.
Franz Boas – Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud
Very interesting.
CHUCK: Hopefully, it need not be said that the taxonomic status of various human ancestral populations (that is, whether they qualify as subspecies or not) is irrelevant to the issue of between population genetic differences. No one doubts, for example, that the population called African-Americans differs genetically on average from that called European Americans. Whether those two populations are deemed to be or not to be offshoots of separate human subspecies neither increases not decreases the amount of genetic variation that exists.
FRANK: This is essentially the argument I have provided though I lack your eloquence. We can clearly draw scientific collective distinctions between the traditional racial groups. We are told that these definitions are merely socially constructed and are too arbitrary for classification yet we can do just that with scientific method. I see no reason to provide “scientific criteria” for racial classification as greater scientists have already done so.
Even the “name the races” challenge is non-sense as I could not tell you the breed of every canine but could tell you the difference between a French Poodle and an English Bulldog.
EGALITARIAN JAY: As a Phd in Evolutionary Biology Graves is most certainly qualified to speak on the subject of human evolution and genetics.
FRANK: He is not qualified though to speak on the issue of Ecology, medicinal research or psychology.
Even in cases where psychometric research indicates that varying levels of intelligence exists within various population groups, Graves is not qualified to dismiss that research because he does not support the group classification system.
“MORPHEUS: Jensen’s elaborate thesis on g can be shown to be based on several fallacious premises. IQ tests are merely clever numerical surrogates for social class.”
g or general intelligence refers to the positive manifold of cognitive ability test scores. That there is such a manifold is an indisputable fact; that this manifold is biologically rooted is also an indisputable fact. (Refer to Chabris, 2007. “Cognitive and neurobiological mechanisms of the Law of General Intelligence”). What is debated is the exact relations between the brain, genes, behaviors and this manifold.)
As for the clam that general cognitive ability (varyingly g or GCA or GMA) is “merely clever numerical surrogates for social class” you can refer yourselves to the literature on this:
http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/role-of-general-mental-ability-in-industrial-work-and-organizational-psychology-deniz-s-ones.pdf
Within populations, it surely is not.
“EgalitarianJay:”
The best way to address this issue with racialists is to challenge them to fulfill the following requests:
1. Provide a scientific definition of race
2. Provide scientific criteria for racial classification
3. Name the various races
…………………
Chuck’s comment:
Hopefully, it need not be said that the taxonomic status of various human ancestral populations (that is, whether they qualify as subspecies or not) is irrelevant to the issue of between population genetic differences. No one doubts, for example, that the population called African-Americans differs genetically on average from that called European Americans. Whether those two populations are deemed to be or not to be offshoots of separate human subspecies neither increases not decreases the amount of genetic variation that exists.
That said, “EgalitarianJay:” requests the following:
1. Provide a scientific definition of race
Chuck: “The subspecies category has been defined as “a geographically defined aggregate of local populations which differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species.” A valuable recent modification urged that the evidence for BCS subspecies designation should come from the concordant distribution of multiple, independent, genetically based traits. In an attempt to provide formal criteria for subspecies classifications we offer the following guidelines: Members of a subspecies share a unique geographical range or habitat, a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Because they are below the species level, different subspecies are reproductively compatible, They will normally be allotropic and they will exhibit recognizable phylogentic partitioning, because of time dependent accumulations of genetic difference in absence of gene flow. Most subspecies will be monophyletic, however they will also derive from ancestral subspecies hybridization. ….Occasional introgression or inbreeding should not be viewed as inconsistent with subspecies status, they simply change the phylogenetic description. (O’Brien and Mayr, 1991. Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies)
2. Provide scientific criteria for racial classification
Chuck:
1] share a (historic) unique geographical range or habitat
2] share a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters
3] share a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species.
3. Name the various races
Oceanians, West Eurasians, East Eurasians, Africans, Amerindians
Admin:
Unfortunately, I think people like Graves et al. are not really qualified and contribute nothing but distraction. But, as they are taken seriously even by a majority, it is good you bring them up.
EgalitarianJay:
As a Phd in Evolutionary Biology Graves is most certainly qualified to speak on the subject of human evolution and genetics. Graves makes the salient point in his book that racial hereditarians have a very amateurish understanding of Evolutionary Genetics.
If you watch the full video I uploaded you’ll notice that Rushton doesn’t challenge Graves on any one point that he brought up he asks him questions to get his opinion but gets very frustrated when Graves rejects and counters his arguments. These two scholars are not on the same level when it comes to understanding experimental studies of life history evolution. Graves is an expert and Rushton is not.
Graves is not lecturing anyone on psychometrics and how to properly formulate an IQ test. He actually takes the IQ tests at face value and argues over the validity of experiments claimed to test a genetic hypothesis for racial differences in intelligence as well as the biological rationale used to explain those differences.
FRANK: Race-deniers have merely changed the definition of race to mesh with their arguments. They use a lot of long-winded pseudo-scientific jargon in an attempt to justify their rape of the term. However, in the end, the science is clear on the issue that the three traditional racial groups are distinctive enough to classify within these racial lines both genetically and anthropologically. This is the area one should stick to in debating such people.
EgalitarianJay: Admin, I have one recommendation to make on the subject of the existence of human races. Consider the credibility of the source. These are not fringe scholars or political commentators making these arguments against the concept race they are mainstream experts on human evolution and genetics.
When I first heard the claim that there were no races I thought the idea was absurd despite being a hardline Egalitarian. But as I became more educated on what the argument actually was I began to understand the position.
Despite Frank’s relentless argumentation on the issue this is the position of mainstream science and it is a position based on scientific correctness. The premises of traditional race models have been tested and falsified. They do not accurately describe human biological variation. One of the key problems with this debate is an issue of semantics. Race have been defined differently over the years.
The best way to address this issue with racialists is to challenge them to fulfill the following requests:
1. Provide a scientific definition of race
2. Provide scientific criteria for racial classification
3. Name the various races
Failure to do this exposes the fact that they have no objective criteria for classifying humans into racial groups.
Frank always goes in the same direction on this issue. Listing research in scientific disciplines like forensic anthropology, population genetics and medical science which are capable of analyzing human genetic variation and utilizing it in a scientifically meaningful way to justify the existence of races. However race doesn’t simply mean difference and I have discussed this issue with Frank ad nauseum. It’s really become a waste of time. He has his opinion and I have mine. My position is with the mainstream scientific experts on the issue. His is with the fringe scholars and opinion of scholars who don’t have a solid grasp of the evolutionary mechanisms that determine human genetic variation.
Btw Frank I will not be on The Phora for awhile because my computer crashed. I have to get it repaired. In the meantime I will be posting from the library. Because The Phora is listed as a hate site it’s blocked.
Hello:
Unfortunately, I will not be able to contribute to the blog due to recent events in my life; I simply cannot spare the time. I apologize for any inconvenience. However, I will respond to the following questions:
ADMIN: Comparison of African nations that allegedly are richer, and less criminal then some Asian or white countries.
FRANK: In all fairness I am unaware of any Sub-Saharan African nation that is “richer” or “less criminal” than European and NE Asian nations.
“Nationmaster” is regularly used as a source in a feeble attempt illustrate such a point even though Nationmaster itself argues that one cannot compare nations in this regard using NM. NM argues that statistics are not always compiled honestly, reasonably and what constitutes certain crimes in one nation may not be deemed so in others.
Also one must keep in mind that the presence of minorities in western societies can drastically increased a nations crime rate.
If America did not have a black population, the murder rates would be cut in half. According to government statistics African-Americans make up 50% of the U.S. murder and violent crime rates.
In Russia crime would be cut by 40% if non-Russian minorities from “developing” nations were not present.
If I may, I would suggest that you read the articles on the following webpage:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/JPRvitae.htm
You will find many studies / articles that deal with race, crime and correlating intelligence.
ADMIN: Comments about black upper middle class in the US and Africa, and about black immigrant students at US elite Universities. It seems that these students are the intellectual elite of their countries and ride on racial quotas intended for the disenfranchised local US blacks.
FRANK: People have to realize that anomalies do exist. These highly intellect people make up a tiny percentage of their overall population. It is no surprise that the best and brightest of the third world would seek to escape those conditions.
There are black people who are highly intelligent. There are white people who are incredibly stupid. There are Asian people who are incredibly stupid. Does this mean that IQ averages are negated because of the anomalies? The answer is “no”…
Lets say we can find one Sub-Saharan African nation that is technically “richer” than some poorer European nation, ask yourself the following question.
Is this the rule or the exception? What does the overall pattern illustrate? This is how we truly measure…
ADMIN: What are the types of arguments, the logic how people avoid the facts and the truth? Where do they get evasive? Which arguments are simply absurd (race does not exist). But how do they uphold the absurd argument with a veneer of respectability. And why are they still believed.
FRANK: Race-deniers have merely changed the definition of race to mesh with their arguments. They use a lot of long-winded pseudo-scientific jargon in an attempt to justify their rape of the term.
However, in the end, the science is clear on the issue that the three traditional racial groups are distinctive enough to classify within these racial lines both genetically and anthropologically.
This is the area one should stick to in debating such people.
@Frank: a few topics I am unclear about (that would require explanations and rebuttals)
Comparison of African nations that allegedly are richer, and less criminal then some Asian or white countries.
Comments about black upper middle class in the US and Africa, and about black immigrant students at US elite Universities. It seems that these students are the intellectual elite of their countries and ride on racial quotas intended for the disenfranchised local US blacks.
@Frank: I made you an author on Human-Stupidity. Feel free to write a contributing article.
I am interested in one Human-Stupidity aspect:
What are the types of arguments, the logic how people avoid the facts and the truth? Where do they get evasive? Which arguments are simply absurd (race does not exist). But how do they uphold the absurd argument with a veneer of respectability. And why are they still believed.
The video discussions would be interesting in that respect. People take up one tangential side topic like r-K definition, which, true or not, does not detract from empirical data and the fact that Rushton’s logic could support itself without leaning on r-K definitions. Or rather, some r-K definitions depend also on some pre-suppositions like collapsing populations/overpopulation or expanding populations with available resources.
@EgalitarianJay: thanks for contributing to the discussion. Especially for posting links and interesting video series where the really qualified and famous people argue their points in more qualified ways then we can do.
You are already aware that I disagree with most of your positions, but qualified dissent makes the discussion lively.
Unfortunately, I think people like Graves et al. are not really qualified and contribute nothing but distraction. But, as they are taken seriously even by a majority, it is good you bring them up.
Nisbett and Flynn were the only people I took seriously, and I did not have qualifications to rebut.
Thankfully Frank posted an article by Rushton where their arguments were rebutted. I was shocked to find out that Nisbett’s arguments hinged on cherry picking among the literature and outright academic dishonesty.
That was my clear impression after a quick reading of Rushton’s article.
Of course, to truly judge these topics one would have to spend weeks reading Rushton’s citations and sources and Nisbett’s original articles and citations.
MORPHEUS: When race is equated with sub-species we find that the genetic diversity of human populations with different phenotypes do not meet the phlyogenetic criteria for classification as sub-species. Their DNA does not structure into evolutionarily distinct lineages which indicate a fission of human populations into emerging species
FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this argument is that races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct in order to have biological meaning. Two scientists from your side of the camp concede:
“Biologically meaningful races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct is obvious when we consider the case of ecotypes. The concept of ecotype was introduced by Turesson (1922) to describe genetically based specific responses of plants to certain environmental conditions, although the idea has been applied to the animal literature as well. The King and Stansfield’s dictionary defines an ecotype as a ‘‘Race (within a species) genetically adapted to a certain environment.’’ It is important to understand three things about ecotypes: (1) there must be a connection between genetic differentiation and ecological adaptation, (2) ecotypes are not (necessarily) phylogenetic units; rather, they are functional-ecological entities, and (3) ecotypes can be differentiated on the basis of many or a very few genetic differences.”
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~kaplanj/2003-PhilSc-race.pdf
MORPHEUS: “Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define ‘races’ emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable ‘racial’ divergence.
FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this position is that we can demonstrate racial differences along the lines of Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.
This can be done scientifically and correlates positively with racial self identification…
“The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups – African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-the-differences-between-humans-425432.html
I will not rehash the fact that even medical science operates along these lines but merely provide evidence with this link:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=996416&postcount=72
This classification is also possible through forensic anthropology with the majority of forensic anthropologists supporting the concept of biological race…
“As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
I would also direct people to the following link:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=997826&postcount=129
MORPHEUS: Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard……the ‘common factor’ which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership
FRANK: Now this argument makes very little sense:
1) If a cultural bias exists why do impoverished Asian kids perform well on the tests?
2) If self-esteem issues effect the tests why are black youth able to score adequately well?
3) If social class is truly the basis of g why is their a universal measured increase in intelligence during the childhood of subjects and a universal regression toward the mean toward brain development? There is no class discrimination in this regard.
MORPHEUS: “Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large ‘knock-on’ effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.”
FRANK: I fail to see the argument. The ‘g factor’ or intelligence is rather accepted as a reality and supported by mainstream scholarship.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19634053
Mr. Richardsons arguments are mildly provocative but hardly strike me as worth considering.
MORPHEUS: An argument which has been challenged by many…
FRANK: Yes, it has been challenged but many of the challengers have been challenged.
Nisbett is by far the most critical and detailed of Jensens/Rushton challengers:
1) Nisbett has been challenged repeatedly by Rushton:
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/100723_nisbett.htm
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/100125_nisbett.htm
2) Graves is in no way and authority on intelligence testing hence cannot offer a credible learned refutation on the intelligence tests themselves. Graves has offered very little reason to dismiss the intelligence tests and the position that they are entirely culture only:
A) The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
B) Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
C) Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
D) IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
E) Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or “Head Start” programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
SOURCE: Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least 50% genetic, major law review journal concludes – EurekAlert!
And I am omitting the information about brain size and life history theory to illustrate how the above alone creates a fatal blow to culture only theory.
3) With Sternberg and Wicherts; Wicherts is the only one of the two worthy of a response. While Wicherts offered the better responses but he is selective in what he chooses to quote. For example, when discussing brain size he omits Rushtons citation of the Halloway autopsy results. His math also leaves something to be desired…
I would suggest that the forum read the actual study offered to by Rushton and to compare the two sides:
“The human brain may contain up to 100 billion (1011) nerve cells classifiable into 10,000 types resulting in 100,000 billion synapses (Kandel, 1991). The number of neurons available to process information may mediate the correlation between brain size and GMA. Haug (1987, p. 135) showed a correlation of r = 0.48 (N = 81, p < 0.001) between number of corticalneurons (based on a partial count of representative areas of the brain) and brain size. The regression equation was number of cortical neurons (in billions) = 5.583 + 0.006 (cm3 brain volume). The difference between the low end of normal (1,000 cm3) and the high end (1,700 cm3) worked out to be 4.283 billion neurons. Subsequently, Pakkenberg and Gundersen (1997) found a correlation of r = 0.56 between brain size and number of neurons."
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2009%20IJN.pdf
That’s unfortunate Frank. Perhaps you can make another one and save as a precaution.
Hello Morph:
I did issue a point by point response to your longer post. However, I do not see my response posted.
Frank
MORPHEUS: Jensen’s elaborate thesis on g can be shown to be based on several fallacious premises. IQ tests are merely clever numerical surrogates for social class.
FRANK: I would agree with Morpheus and encourage people to examine all of the evidence…
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
MORPHEUS: When race is equated with sub-species we find that the genetic diversity of human populations with different phenotypes do not meet the phlyogenetic criteria for classification as sub-species. Their DNA does not structure into evolutionarily distinct lineages which indicate a fission of human populations into emerging species
FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this argument is that races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct in order to have biological meaning. Two scientists from your side of the camp concede:
“Biologically meaningful races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct is obvious when we consider the case of ecotypes. The concept of ecotype was introduced by Turesson (1922) to describe genetically based specific responses of plants to certain environmental conditions, although the idea has been applied to the animal literature as well. The King and Stansfield’s dictionary defines an ecotype as a ‘‘Race (within a species) genetically adapted to a certain environment.’’ It is important to understand three things about ecotypes: (1) there must be a connection between genetic differentiation and ecological adaptation, (2) ecotypes are not (necessarily) phylogenetic units; rather, they are functional-ecological entities, and (3) ecotypes can be differentiated on the basis of many or a very few genetic differences.”
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~kaplanj/2003-PhilSc-race.pdf
MORPHEUS: “Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define ‘races’ emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable ‘racial’ divergence.
FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this position is that we can demonstrate racial differences along the lines of Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.
This can be done scientifically and correlates positively with racial self identification…
“The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups – African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-the-differences-between-humans-425432.html
I will not rehash the fact that even medical science operates along these lines but merely provide evidence with this link:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=996416&postcount=72
This classification is also possible through forensic anthropology with the majority of forensic anthropologists supporting the concept of biological race…
“As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
I would also direct people to the following link:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=997826&postcount=129
MORPHEUS: Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard……the ‘common factor’ which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership
FRANK: Now this argument makes very little sense:
1) If a cultural bias exists why do impoverished Asian kids perform well on the tests?
2) If self-esteem issues effect the tests why are black youth able to score adequately well?
3) If social class is truly the basis of g why is their a universal measured increase in intelligence during the childhood of subjects and a universal regression toward the mean toward brain development? There is no class discrimination in this regard.
MORPHEUS: “Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large ‘knock-on’ effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.”
FRANK: I fail to see the argument. The ‘g factor’ or intelligence is rather accepted as a reality and supported by mainstream scholarship.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19634053
Mr. Richardsons arguments are mildly provocative but hardly strike me as worth considering.
MORPHEUS: An argument which has been challenged by many…
FRANK: Yes, it has been challenged but many of the challengers have been challenged.
Nisbett is by far the most critical and detailed of Jensens/Rushton challengers:
1) Nisbett has been challenged repeatedly by Rushton:
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/100723_nisbett.htm
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/100125_nisbett.htm
2) Graves is in no way and authority on intelligence testing hence cannot offer a credible learned refutation on the intelligence tests themselves. Graves has offered very little reason to dismiss the intelligence tests and the position that they are entirely culture only:
A) The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
B) Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
C) Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
D) IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
E) Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or “Head Start” programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
SOURCE: Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least 50% genetic, major law review journal concludes – EurekAlert!
And I am omitting the information about brain size and life history theory to illustrate how the above alone creates a fatal blow to culture only theory.
3) With Sternberg and Wicherts; Wicherts is the only one of the two worthy of a response. While Wicherts offered the better responses but he is selective in what he chooses to quote. For example, when discussing brain size he omits Rushtons citation of the Halloway autopsy results. His math also leaves something to be desired…
I would suggest that the forum read the actual study offered to by Rushton and to compare the two sides:
“The human brain may contain up to 100 billion (1011) nerve cells classifiable into 10,000 types resulting in 100,000 billion synapses (Kandel, 1991). The number of neurons available to process information may mediate the correlation between brain size and GMA. Haug (1987, p. 135) showed a correlation of r = 0.48 (N = 81, p < 0.001) between number of corticalneurons (based on a partial count of representative areas of the brain) and brain size. The regression equation was number of cortical neurons (in billions) = 5.583 + 0.006 (cm3 brain volume). The difference between the low end of normal (1,000 cm3) and the high end (1,700 cm3) worked out to be 4.283 billion neurons.
Subsequently, Pakkenberg and Gundersen (1997) found a correlation of r = 0.56 between brain size and number of neurons."
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2009%20IJN.pdf
“EgalitarianJay” (Morpheus) self-destructs:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77355
EgalitarianJay loses race debate and explodes.
Frank is twisting facts. After enduring malicious personal attacks including posters wishing death on me and hurling heinous racist insults through the reputation system I did eventually overreact and explode on Frank in reaction to his attempts at character assassination. I did not lose the debate. The debate is still ongoing.
While there is some good information there both sides are guilty of juvenile behavior. I will admit to behaving immaturely at times myself, mostly in a reactionary manner.
Frank has conceded defeat and now the debate appears to have finally been resolved.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1062335#post1062335