Running skills are socially constructed and race is only skin deep?

greyhound-dog-race0557

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.

miniature-dachshunds-300x200

In reality, Sausage dogs are born with the same running capacity as greyhounds. Saying otherwise is racist.

racist-dog2

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

kenyan_marathon_runners_200808221138

pygmy

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

kenyan-runners

Share

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

243 thoughts on “Running skills are socially constructed and race is only skin deep?”

  1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: Why average of groups is important than individual performance?

    FRANK: Who says it is more important? It does hold importance though if we base social and political policy on the fact that any minority short coming must be based on racism and racism alone.

    AB: Why the arbitrary classification of black and white is important, if classifications can be done many other ways, even based on geographic traits?

    FRANK: I could “classify” based on “hair colour” or fingernail length if I choose to do so. I can legitimately classify genders and I can even classify geographical groups based on artificially created citizenship laws.

    However, none of this changes the fact that we can classify population groups by race. Just because we may be able to classify one western chimp, as they contain great genetic diversity, from another does not mean there are no sub-species of chimps.

    AB: How one defines black or white if there is no scientific way to define it?

    FRANK: There are scientific ways to define these things. It has been done genetically, forensically and anthropologically. Medical scientists use race as a tool in diagnosis and treatments.

    You simply ignore any evidence that goes against your belief structure.

    AB: How do you justify statistical misuse in IQ studies? Explain why IQ is important if many successful people do not have super-high IQs and if it can increase.

    FRANK: When discussing IQ’s in the average to superior range it is not overly important. However, when discussing IQ in groups with much smaller scores, this can have great effect in how we deal with those groups.

    How do we best help them? How do we assist them in creating a quality a decent quality of life? Some would ask should we even attempt to do so but leave them alone and to their own devices?

    AB: How do you explain Flynn effect being strongest in g-loded tests and highest in the socially backward classes?
    And even assuming that blacks are not closing the gap as quickly as Flynn states, it is closing and you fail to give explanations.

    FRANK:I have already provided explanations that you have completely ignored.

    1) Some portions of older g-loaded tests lose their g-loadedness over time. However, critiques by Rushton illustrated that black subjects still performed less than average over the most g-loaded sections of the tests while the lesser loaded questions improved.

    2) If we use Flynn’s own numbers the gap has not decreased at all AB. By age 18 the black scores almost mimic the scores from 17 year old blacks from the MTRAS.

    By age 24, the black IQ regresses toward 83.4 which actually increases the gap by 1.6 points. As the brain develops and the elasticity leaves through age the black IQ returns to a score closest to its mean.

    3) Flynn has been cited for cherry-picking information. Flynn ignored g-loaded tests that illustrated a black failure to close the gap. He only used tests that supported his viewpoint on the issue.

    AB: Also, there is no fallacy in Lewontin’s argument.

    FRANK: There certainly is a fallacy in the conclusion.

    AB: So, there is no “convergence” in adulthood.

    You have no argument really. All you have done is presented some shallow pseudoscientific studies by hereditarians.

    FRANK: The regression toward the mean was even cited in Flynns studies. The regression toward the means have been shown in numerous twin studies not to mention transracial adoption studies with a adult follow-up.

    If you consider a cheesy 4 minute youtube video with crappy Sesame Street music to be a real scientific counter to all of these studies, you are not qualified to lecture me on pseudo-scientists.

  2. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    EgalitarianJay, I will PM you on your youtube channel when I have the time(maybe next month). Currently, I want a break and I have other things to do.
    Anyway, interestingly, I followed admin’s link and related videos and found that plenty of youtuber’s have anti-racist videos.Here is one:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoGenVideos#p/u

    I hate getting into debates. It never gets us anywhere since the vast majority have a strong bias.
    I have stated my reasons, EJay has stated his and Frank has his.
    If a neutral person comes across, then he is free to look,think and decide for himself.
    I don’t know why I came back to this. But this time I will definitely stay away from this section.
    I don’t think I can convince Frank (or the admin). I will keep going to other sections when I have time, but this is the end of my discussion here.

    One last words to admin. I am surprised that you don’t consider racial stereotypes as stupid. We do agree that anti-male stereotypes are stupid. Even if I assume that “whites” on the average are “smarter” than “blacks”, I really don’t know how it is important.

    IMO any politically motivated research that trashes one group is stupid.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone!(in advance)

  3. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB,

    Great posts!

    PM me on my Youtube channel. I’d like to discuss the topic with you when you have time.

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Thank you very much.
      What happened to the new videos that you promised to upload?

      I would like to discuss with you too. Is there another place you are, apart from YouTube? Any blog, perhaps?

      1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        Tell me your screenname on Youtube here, so I know who you are and then give me a PM on Youtube. We can exchange emails and talk about this.

        1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          The problem is that I only have an old Youtube account that I created to bypass age restriction.
          It does not allow me comment since I used a fake email ID that I could not register.

          I sometimes use a friend’s account, which he said that he doesn’t use anymore. He said I am free to use it in emergency, but I am hesitating to give it away. I will either try to create a new account soon or ask for his permission because I plan on uploading some sports based videos. When I do that, i will pm you.

          I have to confess, though, that I prefer anonymous blog talks than registering. That’s why I suggested using a different blog where you are more comfortable.

        2. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          I was hoping we could talk in private via email.

          If you register a hotmail account and use that to register on Youtube you can get on there very easily.
          I don’t have a blog nor post on other blogs.

  4. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: I am getting the feeling, Frank, that you did not even understand what I am saying since you just keep sidestepping and repeating.

    FRANK: I understand what you are saying but most of what you are regurgitating comes from Lewontin-Fallacy 101. You also ignore evidence while accusing me of doing that very thing. You argue that “race does not exist” but you ignore every shred of evidence to the contrary of that view.

    Sadly, this is the world of race-denial.

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you as well…

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Frank, there is no evidence, not even a single shred, in support of race. There is only some politically motivated pseudoscience.

      You have yet to answer:
      Why average of groups is important than individual performance?
      Why the arbitrary classification of black and white is important, if classifications can be done many other ways, even based on geographic traits?
      How one defines black or white if there is no scientific way to define it?
      How do you justify statistical misuse in IQ studies?
      Explain why IQ is important if many successful people do not have super-high IQs and if it can increase.
      Why use the hereditarian falacy if the concept of heritable doesn’t make sense?
      How do you explain Flynn effect being strongest in g-loded tests and highest in the socially backward classes?
      And even assuming that blacks are not closing the gap as quickly as Flynn states, it is closing and you fail to give explanations.
      Explain that just motivating a group for some time can make them improve their performance in IQ test by 7 points more than normal.
      Explain why simply ignore the immidiate rise in IQ scores produced by educational interventions.
      Give us ONE, just ONE allele for intelligence that is in ALL members of one race and ONLY in them. If you can’t do that do that, you are trying in vain.

      Also, there is no fallacy in Lewontin’s argument.
      Only racists think that way. Hereditarianism is itself a falacy, as I have logically demonstrated.

      Even identical twins diverege as they grow older.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV8FM_d1Leo
      So, there is no “convergence” in adulthood.

      You have no argument really. All you have done is presented some shallow pseudoscientific studies by hereditarians.

  5. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I just came so say Merry Christmas to everyone, since this is one website I visited today and since it may be weeks before I visit again. And it will be certainly not this section next time.

    I have already promised I will not continue this debate.
    I am getting the feeling, Frank, that you did not even understand what I am saying since you just keep sidestepping and repeating.

    I will end with this(not a part of the debate):
    Races don’t exist.
    “white” and “black” are social constructs because of the geographic continuum and interbreeding. Scientifically classify them? To do that you have define them scientifically. One cannot even define them properly. Obama can be defined as white as easily as he can be defined as black. Only pseudoscientists will try to classify them. Of course geographic traits exists. But just how you divide them into groups is a matter of choice. There is even no logic to saying that they can be “scientifically” classified. They can be classified, but according to whims, not in any meaningful scientific way.

  6. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: Frank, once again you have not really answered anything other than the heritability and IQ issue. I will answer to that and this will be my last comment here.

    FRANK: The simple fact is you have provided little beyond IQ etc.. that warrants a response.

    FOR EXAMPLE:

    AB: I already agreed that geographical classifications can be done and in some areas like forensics – it can still serve as a “useful tool”. But I pointed out that that still makes the notion of “white” and “black” social constructs since classifications can be done in other ways, even geographically. That should be enough to put “race” to bed.

    FRANK: This is by far the most silly non-sequitur I have ever read on any forum. It does not follow that because one could genetically map every human being individually or by numerous magical criteria that one cannot scientifically classify black and white.

    AB: Why should group results even be important if we can see individual results? Would you pick a 4 feet black person for your basketball team over a 6.5 feet white? Generalizing too much in medicine can kill. I already pointed that out.

    FRANK: This is the second most silly comment I have read on this forum. You really think that such a ridiculous argument even deserves a response?

    Maybe you should read the following and then get back to me…

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=6398

  7. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: The last part of my reply was meant to be at the end and mainly for Frank. Instead, it gets posted where I was trying to post a link.

    FRANK: Regarding twins you may be interested in the following:

    We carried out two studies to test the hypothesis that genetic and environmental influences explain population group differences in general mental ability just as they do individual differences within a group. We estimated the heritability and environmentality of scores on the diagrammatic puzzles of the Raven’s Coloured and/or Standard Progressive Matrices (CPM/SPM) from two independent twin samples and correlated these estimates with group differences on the same items. In Study 1, 199 pairs of 5- to 7-year-old monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins reared together provided estimates of heritability and environmentality for 36 puzzles from the CPM. These estimates correlated with the differences between the twins and 94 Serbian Roma (both rsZ0.32; NsZ36; ps!0.05). In Study 2, 152 pairs of adult MZ and DZ twins reared apart provided estimates of heritability and environmentality for 58 puzzles from the SPM. These estimates correlated with the differences among 11 diverse samples including (i) the reared-apart twins, (ii) another sample of Serbian Roma, and (iii) East Asian, White, South Asian, Coloured and Black high school and university students in South Africa. In 55 comparisons, group differences were more pronounced on the more heritable and on the more environmental items (mean rsZ0.40 and 0.47, respectively; NsZ58; ps!0.05). After controlling for measurement reliability and variance in item pass rates, the heritabilities still correlated with the group differences, although the environmentalities did not.

    Puzzles found relatively difficult (or easy) by the twins were those found relatively difficult (or easy) by the others (mean rZ0.87). These results suggest that population group differences are part of the normal variation expected within a universal human cognition

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/PRSL2007.pdf

  8. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: I have already pointed out that adoption studies like the Minnesota one do not take into consideration the poorer placement of one group. This is also extremely true for twin adoption studies. Twins rarely get placed in a different social class, let alone different culture. In fact most separated twins are raised by different members of the same family (example- the pair’s uncle and grandfather).And in fact, studies based on several twin studies show that there has been 24 point gap between identical twins. That’s a HUGE amount. There was a big gap in the education and social background in which these twins were raised.

    FRANK: You continue to ignore the following points:

    1) The black youth benefited from their environment. If anything the unrefined MTRAS illustrated that their average IQ was 4 points higher than the normal mean for their groups.

    2) The mulatto subjects who “suffered” the same treatment as the black youth, the were mistake for blacks. However, they managed to score in between the white and black median. Even at age 17, the maintained an IQ between their White and Black counterparts.

    3) The regression took place universally, all three groups thrived in their controlled environments yet they all regressed toward the means for their groups. The White subjects fell closer to the 100 average for Whites, the Black youth fell closer to their racial mean of 85 while Mulatto’s fell in-between.

  9. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: Here is a study on cancer.

    FRANK: And it really does not counter any of the information I have provided:

    http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1055195&postcount=19

    http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1056878&postcount=51

    The utility of race plays a legitimate part in medical science. Now this does not mean that every ailment, cancer or disease has an established racial pattern but enough serious diseases do have such a pattern that the racial division is taken into account.

    Everything from colorectal cancer to Scleroderma to hypertension to Osteoporosis to Gestational diabetes possess unique racial considerations.

    AB: Studies by David Marks in African countries like kenya have shown that the flynn effect is largely related to literacy and improvement in social conditions.

    FRANK: And hereditarian scientists acknowledge that environment plays a part in intellectual development. The problem with Flynn is that his math is rather creative and non-sensical:

    In fact, there is very little evidence of any significant narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap. Rushton and Jensen [25] disputed Dickens and Flynn’s [24] claim that Blacks gained 5.5 points by showing that Dickens and Flynn excluded several tests and then “projected” forward by multiplying a small gain from their highly select group of tests by more years than were available for most of the data. Dickens and Flynn excluded the Wonderlic Personnel Test, which showed a gain of only 2.4 points for Blacks between 1970 and 2001; the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), which showed a loss of 1 IQ point for Blacks between 1983 and 2004; the Woodcock-Johnson test, which showed a zero gain for Blacks; and the Differential Ability Scale, which showed a gain of only 1.83 points for Blacks between 1972 and 1986. Moreover, even the test data they did present did not directly support their conclusion. Simple arithmetic, rather than a multiplied projection, yielded a mean gain for Blacks of 3.4 points (23%), not the 5.5 points claimed (37%). Including the aforementioned tests reduced the gain from 3.4 to 2.1 points (14%). Nisbett does not explain how he arrived at an overall Black gain of 4.5 IQ points (30%) after including the four small (or negative) gain tests. Simple arithmetic applied to all eight tests yielded a mean gain for Blacks of only 2.1 points (14%).

    Other researchers have also failed to find a significant narrowing of the Black-White gap over the 30 years covered. by Dickens and Flynn (i.e., from 1972 to 2002). For example, Murray [26, 27] concluded there was “no narrowing” in two independent studies. In the first, he found no narrowing in either verbal IQ or achievement test scores for children born to women in the 1979 sample of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. In the second, he found no narrowing for 6- to 65-year-olds in the Woodcock–Johnson standardizations of those born in the last half of the 1960s and early 1970s. When Roth et al. [9] confirmed the 1.1 SD difference in a sample of 6,246,729 corporate, military, and higher education testees, they also addressed the question of whether the differences were decreasing. They concluded that any reduction was “either small, potentially a function of sampling error…or nonexistent for highly g loaded instruments” [9, p. 323, our italics].

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf

    I have caught Flynn in some rather unique math personally. Flynn allegedly argues that the black and white IQ gap has decreased over the years. The average White American IQ is 99-100. By age 14 the American black IQ was 89.4 according to Flynn, this would support that the gap has closed by nearly 5 points. At age 18 the scores were 87 proving a gap closure of 2 points.

    However, when the subjects were again tested at age 24, we see that the subjects had a score of 83.4. Flynn argued that the IQ gap closed by 5 to 7 points ignored that his own numbers illustrated hat gap widened to 1.6 points at age 24 and the gap was only closed by 2 points by age 18.

    Flynn cherry picked the highest score during adolescents when IQ is elastic and pronounced a closure of the gap based on this one score. He conveniently omitted the numbers that did not support his argument.

    AB: JACK KAPLAN(mathematician/statistician):

    “The argument that IQ tests are valid measures of intelligence rests ultimately on the mathematically complex subject of statistical factor analysis, and therefore cannot be fully understood by people who lack technical training. But common sense should convince any reasonable person that something is fishy. Count me among those who regard the study of intelligence as more pseudo-science than science.”

    FRANK: That is his opinion:

    http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

    AB: That leaves me only to address the twin and adoption studies.

    The IQ scores of identical twins tend to be closer than IQ of fraternal twins who are in turn closer than normal siblings.
    This can be easily explained without a “genetic model”. All identical twins share 100% epigenome and prenatal environment. Fraternal twins share much less (about 50%) epigenome and prenatal environment. Normal siblings also share lesser epigenome, but they don’t even have same prenatal environment.

    More interestingly, even the post-natal environment tend to be more similar for identical twins than fraternal twins who in turn tend to have more similar environment than normal siblings. This happens even if not deliberately designed to be that way.

    See how easy it was to explain that?

    FRANK: You have not provided any information that would lead me to treat the following as flawed:

    Heritabilities of 50%–80% are found for both brain size and GMA as well as the
    relation between them. For example, Bouchard and McGue (2003) reviewed data on more than 10,000 pairs of identical and same-sex fraternal twins living together and found the mean correlations were 0.86 and 0.60, respectively. They also found that for identical twins reared apart, the correlation was almost as high as for identical twins reared together (r = 0.78 for 93 pairs). For more than 27,000 pairs of nontwin siblings living together, the correlation was 0.49.

    In an MRI study of 112 extended twin families, Posthuma et al. (2002) found heritabilities of 82% for whole-brain gray matter volume, 87% for whole-brain white matter volume, and 86% for GMA.

    Detailed three-dimensional brain maps reveal how brain structure is influenced by individual genetic differences. In a study of 10 identical and 10 same-sex fraternal twin pairs (N = 40), Thompson et al. (2001) found a genetic continuum in which brain structure was increasingly similar in subjects with increasing genetic affinity. Genetic factors were most marked in cortical structures in Broca’s and Wenicke’s language areas, as well as in frontal brain regions, which appeared to mediate differences in GMA in this study. Evidence suggests that the age, SEP, sex, and population group differences are at least partly heritable because the heritabilities are about the same magnitude in all groups (Jensen, 1998; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001). Moreover, Rushton, Bons, et al. (2007) estimated the heritability of scores on the diagrammatic puzzles of the Raven’s Matrices a culture-reduced test of GMA, from data on the identical twins from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart and found the differences between East Asians, Europeans, South Asians, and Africans were all more pronounced on the more heritable items (mean r = 0.40; Ns = 58; p < 0.05). This finding implies at least some genetic causation for the group differences. However, more definitive evidence will require the identification of the specific genes involved, although such evidence has been slow in coming (Plomin, Kennedy, & Craig, 2006)

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2009%20Int%20J%20Neuroscience.pdf

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      That is very interesting. The Flynn effect has been debunked by Rushton? At least partially?

      Sorry that posts with too many links need my approval. You might consider splitting up some posts into several ones. Or just wait for my approval. Actually, you were already registered, I send you another password now.

      I also registered AB and EgalitarianJay. Hope everyone gave their true email address.

      You are a contributor, you may even write posts that I would then have to approve. A summary of the race and IQ issues, with links to the more important papers and discussions, including arguments of the opponents and their debunking, would be a great article.

      The links are very important, so they should not be omitted. Alternatively, I ended up registering you guys and then it probably gets accepted automatically.

      1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        Thanks, admin, for registering us.

        And no, Flynn effect HASN’T been debunked. Flynn Effect is the strongest on g-loaded tests like Raven’s progressive matrices. Rushton and Jensen have cherry picked one or two studies so that it looks that Black IQ drops in adulthood. The reason for that is that those tests simply ignores the drop in motivational and environmental factors. In reality, though, MAJORITY of studies show that IQ is fairly stable after age 7.

        Rushton and Jensen then went for more g-loaded portions within those tests after Flynn demonstrated the effect. That’s like a drowning man clutching at straws.

        Rather, Rushton and Jensen’s use of statistics has been debunked by statisticians themselves.
        Read “misuse of statistics in the study of intelligence”. The use of IQ tests and “g” is circular logic really. And they have confused correlation with causation.

        Moreover,I have already shown that heritability is a meaningless concept without defining a relevant environment. MRI scans of the same person can change significantly over time. If you practice juggling or meditate for months, your brain scan will be different. MRI, just like genes, is merely a new tool to which pseudoscience can be applied. Robert Epstein has pointed out many of that in his articles.

        As for the fallacies of using race-based medicine, you may consider watching this video.

  10. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The last part of my reply was meant to be at the end and mainly for Frank. Instead, it gets posted where I was trying to post a link.

    The arrangement of this website is really hard to deal with. I agree with theantifeminist on this. And I routinely see “object object”.

  11. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @AB said: Finally, after removing most of the links and two hours of struggle, my comment gets posted.

    I am sorry. Please post link collection is separate posts which then I can approve.

    Unfortunately I turned off registration when hundreds of spam registrations happened. I think as registered user you could be allowed to post links. I think the links are the most interesting parts in everyone’s posts.

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      OK. Thanks, admin.

      Well, it still doesn’t seem to accept all the links. there were 4 total.

      Here is a study on cancer.
      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/cancergenomics/page28
      It shows mutations on different genes can lead to the same effect.

      Below is an old study on yeasts proving that different genes can produce similar traits.

      Also, similar proteins/enzymes can be produced by distinct genes.
      I already pointed out the red-hair and red-lips connection.
      I have already given a link for the converse: same gene producing different effects.
      —–
      I actually think that “whites” as a group might indeed have a small amount of genetic advantage on the average over “blacks”. I do believe, however, that environment can have a tremendous impact over generations. Studies related to epigenetics have shown that the lifestyle of your grandfather/grandmother can effect yours from the time of your birth.

      However, I agree with EJay completely that this section is the weak link of this website because on one hand you are defending the men against the “evil” or “demon” stereotype, but at the same time promoting other stereotypes like “dumb” against blacks. It seems self-contradictory.
      The only thing that I agree with is Watson’s freedom of speech.

      1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        Frank, once again you have not really answered anything other than the heritability and IQ issue. I will answer to that and this will be my last comment here.

        Feynman’s IQ corrected for Flynn effect will be around 100 now. Poincare, one of the most creative mathematicians ever, actually FAILED an IQ test, so he was supposedly below average. Even 123 IQ means about 1 in 15 white people having it and millions of people worldwide having it. Feynman was considered one of the top minds of his time.

        The whole concept of “g” has been labeled as a useless statistical artifact by many statisticians themselves.
        It’s ridiculous really. More “g-loaded” portions means portions of the test that correlate more with other portions of test. And for the most part it means nothing more than portions related to greater simple raw skills like working memory, ability to count fast etc. One of the best predictors of “g” is backward digit span.

        And how much statistical corrrelation with other parts is even important? Why is it important?
        Flynn has already shown that more g-loaded tests like RPM or WISC have shown significant environmental gains. Jensen/Rushton reverts back to high g-loaded portion within those tests. That’s like a drowning man clutching at straws.

        Many statisticians reject the validity of “g” and the error-prone methods used by Jensen, Murray etc. Jack Kaplan has pointed out many of that in “Misuse of statistics in the study of Intellegince”.

        JACK KAPLAN(mathematician/statistician):

        “The argument that IQ tests are valid measures of intelligence rests ultimately on the mathematically complex subject of statistical factor analysis, and therefore cannot be fully understood by people who lack technical training. But common sense should convince any reasonable person that something is fishy. Count me among those who regard the study of intelligence as more pseudo-science than science.”

        Studies by David Marks in African countries like kenya have shown that the flynn effect is largely related to literacy and improvement in social conditions.

        IQ doesn’t predict creativity and some have have even suggested that testosterone levels are far better predictors of creativity or genius.

        That leaves me only to address the twin and adoption studies.
        The IQ scores of identical twins tend to be closer than IQ of fraternal twins who are in turn closer than normal siblings.
        This can be easily explained without a “genetic model”. All identical twins share 100% epigenome and prenatal environment. Fraternal twins share much less (about 50%) epigenome and prenatal environment. Normal siblings also share lesser epigenome, but they don’t even have same prenatal environment.
        More interestingly, even the post-natal environment tend to be more similar for identical twins than fraternal twins who in turn tend to have more similar environment than normal siblings. This happens even if not deliberately designed to be that way.
        See how easy it was to explain that?

        I have already pointed out that adoption studies like the Minnesota one do not take into consideration the poorer placement of one group. This is also extremely true for twin adoption studies. Twins rarely get placed in a different social class, let alone different culture. In fact most separated twins are raised by different members of the same family (example- the pair’s uncle and grandfather).And in fact, studies based on several twin studies show that there has been 24 point gap between identical twins. That’s a HUGE amount. There was a big gap in the education and social background in which these twins were raised.

        And let’s not forget that environmental influence has to be continuous because IQ is a relative scale. It’s like Alice in Wonderland, you have to run fast just
        to stay where you are. If the childhood advantages on environment disappear in adulthood, then you tend to fall behind.

        Now I believe that motivation and natural tendencies may be genetically determined to some extent. For example, I believe that higher testosterone levels results in greater goal-oriented aggression. This is probably a major reason why men are much more successful than women despite having a small amount of IQ advanatage. Women, however, have proven that they can be quite good if they try hard (which they are normally unwilling to do).

        Unlike testosterone levels though, which are almost universally greater among men, there is little evidence of anything important being univerally greater in one socially defined race(a majority percentage does not count as “universal”). And even if there was something universally different, there is no reason why blacks can’t be successful if they try.

  12. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    There is no such study that shows 100% genetic, or even mostly genetic. Even the poorly designed Scarr & Weinberg 1976 study, showed that blacks and mixed-race children adopted in Minnesota white homes, had IQ scores 1 SD above the mean of the IQ average of black children raised in the typical Negro Minnesota home. When they were retested 10 years later, only 196 of the original 265 children remained as part of the study (mostly lower IQ whites dropped out), and a different IQ test was used, but even then, it still showed higher scores for Negroes and mulattoes than the black mean. Even the authors of the study admit to the many confounding factors, such as the varying pre-adoptive environments of the participants, for example, the poorer placement of the Blacks, and even the mixed race groups, as compared to white adoptees, or that the Blacks were adopted significantly later than the other two groups, or that the IQ of the natural parents of the adoptees was unknown, etc. The only thing the Scarr study might have demonstrated is that enhancing the environment can improve IQ scores.

    AB:The only other major transracial adoption study, Elsie Moore’s well-designed 1986 study, eliminated the many confounding factors found in Scarr & Weinberg’s earlier study by keeping certain variables constant. It was designed to study blacks and mulattoes raised in black middle-class homes, as compared to blacks and mulattoes raised in white middle-class homes. The results were devastating for HBD. All groups were tested with the WISC between 7 and 10 years of age. There was no difference in the IQs between blacks and mulattoes raised in middle class black homes, nor between blacks and mulattoes raised in the white middle class homes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in middle class homes was 103.6, over 1SD higher than mean IQ of Negroes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in white middle class homes however, was a whopping 117.1! This study would be the definitive case for the environmental hypothesis but for its sample size (46 subjects), and the one confounding factor of not knowing the IQs of the natural parents of the adoptees.

    FRANK: How is it damaging to the non-zero BGH side?

    1) The study was conducted on children without a following up component. You admitted yourself that the children were tested between 7 and 10 years of age while Flynn did not notice any regression until age 14.

    2) The population sample size was minuscule and as you pointed out the IQ’s of the parents were not known. Yet for someone reason you quote this study as one that controlled the factors lacking in the MTRAS? Do you realize that these two monumental flaws in your study essentially kill its credibility?

    3) The arguments against the MTRAS are quite silly as well. Did you know that the children adopted later in the study had a lesser regression toward the mean than those who were in longer. The number of children that did not show up for the follow up test actually benefited the black scores as the corrected scores offered by Loehlin reduced the black 17 year old score to 83.7 instead of the 89 score offered by the MTRAS. The nutrition arguments are equally silly as the environment actually proved beneficiary to the black youth. Weinberg and Scarr actually viewed the original results as prove of zero-BGH.

    The problem is the researchers had an environmental bias and tried to explain away the problems as flaws in their own study. Even Scarr admits that they had an environmental bias going in which would explain why it took them so long to publish their results.

  13. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: Finally, after removing most of the links and two hours of struggle, my comment gets posted.

    Frank , here is the reply to last two comments of yours. I see you are doing nothing more than repeating yourself with the support of few people who think along your lines.

    I even agreed with most of your “facts”, I disagreed with conclusions that your are drawing.

    However, I have yet to see you addressing the logical points I made. For example,

    FRANK: The problem is I do not challenge much of your information. I am challenging your conclusions. Your logical arguments are you laughably call them are so ridiculous that they do not warrant a response…for example:

    AB: I pointed out that IQ, or even “g” is not very important for high achievement – for example, chess experts can overcome the limitations of G. Plenty of high achievers have only slightly above IQ including several nobel lauretes, inventors, mathematicians, chess players, physicists, putnam fellows etc. For example, contrary to popular myths, Garry Kasparov’s IQ is 135(not 195), Feynman’s 123 and Einstein never took a test and Poincare did poorly in IQ tests, so did the inventor of transistors. And if with proper environment we can raise the IQ of anyone to 115 range, why should it matter?

    FRANK: A person with an IQ of 135 is a genius or superior intellect by any IQ standard. Of course someone with an IQ of 135 is going to be a great success if they utilize their intellectual abilities. This would also apply to someone with an IQ of 123.

    Einstein not taking an IQ test is meaningless to the debate as it proves neither point. The other scholar you mentioned lived in time where the Binet scales were being revised. He died a year prior to the revisions. So this does not prove anything either.

    Now, you mention that IQ can be improved to 115. The problem is you neglect to realize that regression toward the mean takes place by late adolescents and early adulthood.

    Your points are so ridiculous that they do not warrant a serious response.

  14. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: Flynn was referring to the 1.33 SD change in IQ (on Raven’s Progressive Matrices) of the Dutch from 1952 to 1982 (not the entire 20th century). Using Jensen’s own argument, the cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1952 would have to be 4 SD [4 X .33 (the correlation between environment & IQ) = 4] below the average cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1982. As this is highly implausible, either the large gap must be due to some mysterious “factor X” (since significant genetic enhancement in that 30 year period is demonstrably false), or Jensen’s argument is very weak. Hence, the Flynn effect shows that Jensen’s claim that for the environmental hypothesis to account for the 1SD black-white IQ gap would require that the black cognitive environment be 3 SD below the white cognitive environment (3 X .33 = 1) or, evading this, caused by some factor X “hidden institutional racism,” is a red herring and therefore, it fails to support his inference from this that the gap must be due to genetics. FE demonstrates that no matter how high you push the heritability estimate of IQ (.80 in Jensen’s speculation, .50 for IQ and .60 for g posited by most experts), even moderate changes in environment can result in large gains in IQ over time.

    Frank: Actually, Jensens works seem to be confirmed by the Dutch studies….

    A Jensen Effect for heritability has also been found, with
    the g loadings from various subtests correlating with the
    heritabilities of these same subtests (Jensen, 1998). A Jensen Effect for heritability provides biological evidence for a true genetic g, as opposed to the mere statistical reality of g. It makes problematic theories of intelligence that do not
    include a general factor as an underlying biological variable,
    but only explain the positive manifold, such as the model
    proposed by Dickens and Flynn (2001), and the mutualism
    model by van der Maas, Dolan, Grasman, Wicherts, Huizenga, and Raijmakers (2006)

    Recent Jensen Effects for heritability come from two studies conducted in the Netherlands (Kan, Haring, Dolan, & van der Maas, 2009; van Bloois, Geujes, te Nijenhuis, & de
    Pater, 2009). In a psychometric meta-analysis on 1512 twin
    pairs, van Bloois et al. (2009) found a value of +1.01 for the estimated true correlation between g and heritability. In a reanalysis of the Raven Matrices data by Rushton, Bons, et al. (2007), we correlated the 36 item heritabilities on the
    Colored Matrices (e.g., from twins reared together) and the
    58 on the Standard Matrices (e.g., from the Minnesota Study
    of Twins Reared Apart), with the item g loadings (e.g., from
    the item-total scores) and found a mean r of 0.47 (Pb0.01).
    Correcting the correlations raised the value from 0.55 to 1.00 (depending on whether using the test’s alpha coefficient or the item’s test–retest correlation). Arranging the items into parcels also raised the original value (The item-level data are available on-line at the journal; Rushton, Bons, et al., 2007)

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf

    Rushton and Jensen also point out the flaws in the Flynn Effect defenses:

    “That Black-White IQ differences are more pronounced on the more g loaded and more heritable components of tests does indeed imply the differences are partly genetic in origin.

    However, it is a false claim that g and inbreeding depression correlate with the secular rise in IQ. We review the tortured history of this claim and in the process find we have eliminated the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect any narrowing of the Black-White differences.

    The story begins with a 1972 study by Nichols [33] who
    found a .67 correlation between 13 IQ test heritabilities and
    the magnitude of Black-White differences on the same tests.
    In 1973, Jensen [21] calculated environmentalities (defined
    as the degree to which sibling correlations departed from the pure genetic expectation of .50) for 16 tests and found they were inversely related to Black-White differences on the
    same tests (r = -.70). In 1989, Rushton [34] correlated inbreeding depression effects for 11 subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) with Black-White differences on the same tests in the US (r = .48; P < .05). Inbreeding depression, a purely genetic effect, occurs when offspring receive two copies of the same harmful recessive gene from each of their closely related parents. The inbreeding depression effects had been calculated by Schull and Neel [35] from 1,854 cousin marriages in Japan and showed a 5 point decrement (.33 SD) in the offspring. There is no explanation other than a genetic one for inbreeding depression.

    With respect to the g factor, Jensen [22, pp. 369-379]
    summarized 17 independent data sets of nearly 45,000
    Blacks and 245,000 Whites derived from 149 psychometric
    tests and found the g loadings of the subtests consistently
    predicted the magnitude of the Black-White differences (r =
    .62, P < .05). This was true even among 3-year-olds administered 8 subtests of the Stanford-Binet; the rank-order correlation between the g loadings and the Black-White differences being .71 (P < .05) [36]. In Hawaii, IQ differences between East Asians and Whites (favoring East Asians) were greater on the more g loaded of 15 subtests among people of Japanese, Chinese, and European ancestry [37]. In Zimbabwe, Rushton & Jensen [38] found 77% of the difference between Africans and Whites was due to g in a principal factor reanalysis of WISC-R data from 12- to 14-year-olds originally published by Zindi [39]. In South Africa, Rushton et al. [40, 41] found the differences between Black, South Asian, and White engineering students were greater on the more g loaded items from the Progressive Matrices

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf

  15. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Finally, after removing most of the links and two hours of struggle, my comment gets posted.
    Frank , here is the reply to last two comments of yours. I see you are doing nothing more than repeating yourself with the support of few people who think along your lines.

    I even agreed with most of your “facts”, I disagreed with conclusions that your are drawing.

    However, I have yet to see you addressing the logical points I made. For example,

    1> Why should group results even be important if we can see individual results? Would you pick a 4 feet black person for your basketball team over a 6.5 feet white? Generalizing too much in medicine can kill. I already pointed that out.
    Why is the frequency of a gene in a “race” more important than if an individual has it, if that frequency is not even anything like 99%.

    2> I already agreed that geographical classifications can be done and in some areas like forensics – it can still serve as a “useful tool”. But I pointed out that that still makes the notion of “white” and “black” social constructs since classifications can be done in other ways, even geographically. That should be enough to put “race” to bed.

    3>I already pointed out that the concept of heritability can be very misleading explaining the complex interplay of various genes, epigenome and environment. You are yet to reply to that.
    I have pointed out ho many heritable traits are highly mutable.

    4>I pointed out that IQ, or even “g” is not very important for high achievement – for example, chess experts can overcome the limitations of G. Plenty of high achievers have only slightly above IQ including several nobel lauretes, inventors, mathematicians, chess players, physicists, putnam fellows etc.
    For example, contrary to popular myths, Garry Kasparov’s IQ is 135(not 195), Feynman’s 123 and Einstein never took a test and Poincare did poorly in IQ tests, so did the inventor of transistors.
    And if with proper environment we can raise the IQ of anyone to 115 range, why should it matter?

    5>If two whites can easily be more genetically different than a white and black, then why are only geographic traits given so much importance?

    I have wasted my last few days repeating myself. I have other things to do than commenting here.
    Since I have already made my point and since I don’t think I can change your mind this is likely to be my last post in this section.
    I once told admin that I will try and stay away from this section and I will try to do that from now on.

    “a child’s brain is elastic and developing. The g factor plays a role when the child’s brain is developed. ”
    pure speculation and irrelevant to the topic of race.

  16. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    May be I will remove the links.

    And let me tell you , similar phenotype can be produced by different genes .
    The converse is also true. Same genotype can produce different phenotype
    http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/4/510
    One gene can be expressed differently and produce slightly different proteins.
    Also, similar proteins/enzymes can be produced by distinct genes.

    So that little thing means nothing, really.

    Let me give you another example. The “red hair” is universally accepted as a geographically determined trait. Yet, the protein that produces red hair is nearly identical to the one that universally produces red lips.

    And even if ON THE AVERAGE one group does have a genetic advantage, that still doesn’t mean anything related to race. It’s much more important to identify the individual with a trait, than to identify a group that’s “more likely” to have a trait.

  17. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    “You introduced a red herring in an attempt to disprove something entirely different.”

    No, I did not . In several of my previous posts, I have pointed out that why the concept of heritability can be misleading – most elaborately in my second last post.

    And so there is a correlation between certain allele and “g”? And what does that prove?

    Firstly, correlation is not causation. Secondly, even if were a cause for high “g” ,it does not prove that it can be the only cause.

  18. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Regarding heritability of general intelligence:

    Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic.

    Davies G, Tenesa A, Payton A, Yang J, Harris SE, Liewald D, Ke X, Le Hellard S, Christoforou A, Luciano M, McGhee K, Lopez L, Gow AJ, Corley J, Redmond P, Fox HC, Haggarty P, Whalley LJ, McNeill G, Goddard ME, Espeseth T, Lundervold AJ, Reinvang I, Pickles A, Steen VM, Ollier W, Porteous DJ, Horan M, Starr JM, Pendleton N, Visscher PM, Deary IJ.
    Source: Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

    Abstract

    “General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549,692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ∼1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826061

  19. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: It’s very important that people who dictate medical policy are like me because if you treat a person not based on individual profile but based on group correlations, then while majority will be treated correctly, many people will be die because of obvious mistreatments and misdiagnoses that are the results of false generalizations and which can be avoided otherwise.

    FRANK: This is exactly why people like you should never be allowed to even have a say on medical policy. Because you based your position on ideology rather than science. The reality is “race is a useful tool” in medicine according to Dr. Sharonne Hayes, cardiologist and director of diversity at the Mayo Clinic.

    Could you imagine the effects on psychiatric medicine if we gave people like you a say on the issue:

    “Almost every day at the Washington drug clinic where I work as a psychiatrist, race plays a useful diagnostic role. When I prescribe Prozac to a patient who is African-American, I start at a lower dose, 5 or 10 milligrams instead of the usual 10-to-20 milligram dose. I do this in part because clinical experience and pharmacological research show that blacks metabolize antidepressants more slowly than Caucasians and Asians. As a result, levels of the medication can build up and make side effects more likely. To be sure, not every African-American is a slow metabolizer of antidepressants; only 40 percent are. But the risk of provoking side effects like nausea, insomnia or fuzzy-headedness in a depressed person — someone already terribly demoralized who may have been reluctant to take medication in the first place — is to worsen the patient’s distress and increase the chances that he will flush the pills down the toilet. So I start all black patients with a lower dose, then take it from there.

    In my drug-treatment clinic, where almost all of the patients use heroin by injection, a substantial number of them have hepatitis C, an infectious blood-borne virus that now accounts for 40 percent of all chronic liver disease. The standard treatment for active hepatitis C is an antiviral-drug combination of alpha interferon and ribavirin. But for some as yet undiscovered reason, African-Americans do not respond as well as whites to this regimen. In white patients, the double therapy reduces the amount of virus in the blood by over 90 percent after six months of treatment. In blacks, the reduction is only 50 percent. As a result, my black patients with hepatitis C must be given a considerably less reassuring prognosis than my white patients.”

    SOURCE: I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor – The New York Times | May 5, 2002 – By Sally L. Satel

    AB: Also, in Venezuela, introduction of chess to school children improved their IQs by few points compared to those who didn’t take chess sessions. This must be an increase in “g’ factor, because they did not train for IQ tests. The result was so successful that nearly all schools in Venezuela started to apply it. And of course training in WM games like dual-n-back has shown improvements in fluid intelligence or “g”.

    FRANK: Prof. Arthur Jensen said he could raise a child’s IQ by merely playing with him. Of course, this is no surprise as a child’s brain is elastic and developing. The g factor plays a role when the child’s brain is developed.

    One of the reasons it is silly to draw a conclusion on general intelligence on child subjects is that the brain is more open to environmental stimuli and has not regressed to its general mean. This is why scholars like Rushton call for conclusions based on initial studies and follow up studies in adulthood.

    Your entire premise is ridiculous. To argue that this increase must be due to “g” instead of the normal child elasticity found in early intellectual development is outright fallacious and unfounded.

  20. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: As for the Minnesota studies. It has been interpreted in many ways. Firstly, people who actually did the study actually considered racial IQ differences to be inconclusive. It was pointed out that these adopted blacks still did better than non-adopted ones, even in adulthood. It was pointed out that earlier adoptions resulted in greater gains.They drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of “socially classified” black children was greater than the U.S. white mean. The followup data was collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992 and interpreted their results still supporting the original conclusions.

    FRANK: What you neglected to mention is that researchers themselves held an environmental bias. In 1998 Sandra Scarr wrote:

    “The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions.”

    Richard Lynn also pointed out that the information actually helped the position of Jensen which is something I contend as well…

    http://www.amren.com/ar/1994/03/

    AB: Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: “[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers.Willerman and his colleagues suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one

    FRANK: This is where you seem to be missing the boat. Nowhere do I state that environmental factors play a part in IQ development.

    However, there are serious issues with the 100% environmental position on the issue:

    1) Mulatto children mistaken for black children scored in the middle of the black and white children. They would have faced the same social discrimination as the black kids. The only noted difference between the two groups was the level of European ancestry.

    As Rushton points out…

    The well-known Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found that Mixed-Race (Black-White) adoptees averaged IQ scores between those of White and Black adoptees (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). All children were adopted into upper middle-class White families in Minnesota by parents whose mean IQ was more than 115. The study thus removed the most frequently proposed causal agents of racial IQ differences such as poverty, malnutrition, poor schools, and dysfunctional neighborhoods. The children (N = 265) were first
    tested in 1975 when they were 7-years-old and the 196 remaining children were tested again in 1986 when they were 17-years-old. The 7-year-old White biological (i.e., non-adopted) children had an average IQ of 117, the adopted children with two White biological parents, 112; the
    Mixed-Race children, 109; and the adopted children with two Black biological parents, 97. At age 17, the non-adopted White children had an average IQ of 109 and a class rank at the 64th percentile; the adopted children with two White biological parents had an IQ of 106 and a class
    rank at the 54th percentile; the Mixed-Race children had an IQ of 99 and a class rank at the 40th percentile; and the adopted children with two Black biological parents had an IQ of 89 and a class rank at the 36th percentile. Expectancy effects were ruled out, at least at age 7, by the finding that
    the mean score for 12 children wrongly believed by their adoptive parents to have two Black biological parents was no different from that of 56 children correctly classified by their adoptive parents as having one Black and one White biological parent (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976).

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2008%20PAID%20(Mixed-Race).pdf

    2) The increase and regression toward the mean was universal amongst all groups. This is a rather surprising result when one one group was allegedly victimized by poor prenatal care and social discrimination.

    The adopted White children lost 11 points by age 17, the black adopted children only lost 6 points by age 17. If we use the corrected numbers by Loehlin adopted White children lost 10 points by age 17 while adopted black children lost 8 points by age 17.

    Non-adopted white children saw similar regressions of 7 points from age 7 to age 17…

    AB: I have also seen racial studies where blacks were shown to have gained significantly, in some case even slightly outperforming whites, but those studies are often conveniently avoided or described as flawed because the population “must not have been random”.

    FRANK: The problem with those studies is they tend to be use young children as subjects without having follow-up studies when they progress into adulthood.

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      That doesn’t change the fact that the results were inconclusive to say that least. You are merely presenting one side of the argument.

      There is no such study that shows 100% genetic, or even mostly genetic. Even the poorly designed Scarr & Weinberg 1976 study, showed that blacks and mixed-race children adopted in Minnesota white homes, had IQ scores 1 SD above the mean of the IQ average of black children raised in the typical Negro Minnesota home. When they were retested 10 years later, only 196 of the original 265 children remained as part of the study (mostly lower IQ whites dropped out), and a different IQ test was used, but even then, it still showed higher scores for Negroes and mulattoes than the black mean. Even the authors of the study admit to the many confounding factors, such as the varying pre-adoptive environments of the participants, for example, the poorer placement of the Blacks, and even the mixed race groups, as compared to white adoptees, or that the Blacks were adopted significantly later than the other two groups, or that the IQ of the natural parents of the adoptees was unknown, etc. The only thing the Scarr study might have demonstrated is that enhancing the environment can improve IQ scores.

      The only other major transracial adoption study, Elsie Moore’s well-designed 1986 study, eliminated the many confounding factors found in Scarr & Weinberg’s earlier study by keeping certain variables constant. It was designed to study blacks and mulattoes raised in black middle-class homes, as compared to blacks and mulattoes raised in white middle-class homes. The results were devastating for HBD. All groups were tested with the WISC between 7 and 10 years of age. There was no difference in the IQs between blacks and mulattoes raised in middle class black homes, nor between blacks and mulattoes raised in the white middle class homes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in middle class homes was 103.6, over 1SD higher than mean IQ of Negroes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in white middle class homes however, was a whopping 117.1! This study would be the definitive case for the environmental hypothesis but for its sample size (46 subjects), and the one confounding factor of not knowing the IQs of the natural parents of the adoptees.

      1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        Flynn has also addressed Jensen’s flawed arguments.

        Flynn was referring to the 1.33 SD change in IQ (on Raven’s Progressive Matrices) of the Dutch from 1952 to 1982 (not the entire 20th century). Using Jensen’s own argument, the cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1952 would have to be 4 SD [4 X .33 (the correlation between environment & IQ) = 4] below the average cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1982. As this is highly implausible, either the large gap must be due to some mysterious “factor X” (since significant genetic enhancement in that 30 year period is demonstrably false), or Jensen’s argument is very weak. Hence, the Flynn effect shows that Jensen’s claim that for the environmental hypothesis to account for the 1SD black-white IQ gap would require that the black cognitive environment be 3 SD below the white cognitive environment (3 X .33 = 1) or, evading this, caused by some factor X “hidden institutional racism,” is a red herring and therefore, it fails to support his inference from this that the gap must be due to genetics. FE demonstrates that no matter how high you push the heritability estimate of IQ (.80 in Jensen’s speculation, .50 for IQ and .60 for g posited by most experts), even moderate changes in environment can result in large gains in IQ over time.

  21. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: Calling the “g” factor “general mental ability” is a fancy way of deceiving general public. The g factor is basically related with the number of variables one can hold in mind while calculating. It’s very closely related to working memory , executive function etc.

    FRANK: You simply do not grasp the meaning of the term. G-factor or general intelligence tests generally involves visual and abstract reasoning. They are designed to measure intellectual ability in favour of skilled sets involved in other tests.

    It is true that some g-loaded tests can be beaten as people take the tests repeatedly and remember the wrong vs right answers. However, as Rushton pointed out even when blacks somewhat improved on the g-loaded tests, they still did relatively poorly on the most g-loaded portions of testing.

    To make matters worse regarding Flynn is he actually omitted some g-loaded tests that would have harmed his case.

    AB: I have already pointed out that appeals to heritability is a fallacy in itself(along with Flynn’s example of Japanese height).

    FRANK: You introduced a red herring in an attempt to disprove something entirely different.

    “The g factor has a normal distribution in the general population, suggesting g is probably a product of several genes that interact with the environment. Moreover, although g correlates with the parental value, it has a tendency to be closer to the population mean, suggesting a regression to the mean. These observations suggest that some genetic variants that influence g will vary between populations rather than within populations. For instance, certain Asian populations have a frequency of 0.60 in COMT Met158 allele, which predicts lower COMT-enzyme activity and thereby better cognitive performance, while Caucasians have a frequency of 0.42 for the same allele”

    SOURCE: Original: Winterer G. and Goldman D. (2003). Genetics of human prefrontal function. Brain Research Reviews. 41, 134-163. Cited: THE GENETIC BASIS OF INTELLIGENCE By Farnoosh Tayyari – 2004

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      As I understand it, g is probably a measure of raw brain power due to the efficiency of the brain cell communications or something like that.

      1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        “You simply do not grasp the meaning of the term. G-factor or general intelligence tests generally involves visual and abstract reasoning”

        Actually, I understand perfectly what g-factor is.
        It’s those questions that tax working memory the most and are most likely to eliminate the benefits of “knowledge” that is culturally biased.

        For example, progressive matrices are less culturally biased because of visual and abstract nature of questions. And the more g-loaded ones rely on more complex calculations that tax more working memory.

        “g” is not dependant on knowledge or “test taking skills”, that’s why it is the hardest to change and that’s also the reason why racists love it. BUT, it can still be trained like muscle strength can be increased.

        Also, Flynn merely pointed out that there has been gains in g-loaded questions too. He did not need to include all the results, because that part was sufficient to prove his point.

  22. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: So unless there is a level playing field, this argument has no place. And of course, genes and environment interact. Some genes may get turned on only under certain environments.

    FRANK: Actually, the environmental playing fields were evened out during the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption studies. The evened out environment demonstrated two very telling results. The IQ’s of all groups increased during the environmentally sensitive child years but regressed toward their means by age 17.

    In fact all such studies with an adult follow up segment illustrate a similar pattern. Flynn discovered that black youth were scoring higher on tests than they use too but he also noted that the IQ’s scores regressed as they aged. By age 24 the black IQ was 83.4.

    SImilar studies of Asian youth, from poor backgrounds, illustrated a similar trend. They averaged IQ’s closest to their means despite their malnourished history.

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Actually, in the last post (which was a reply to a comment on pase 5) I described what a level playing field actually means..

      Actually this has been brought up many times. If you intervene early, both blacks and whites improve their IQs, but the black IQs start to drop after the program ends but still ends up slightl;y greater than average blacks in adulthood .

      Most people forget that these intervening programs last for about 100 hours. IQ is a relative term, so you have to keep up the intellectual stimulation so else you keep dropping on a relative scale.
      Neither 100 hour programs, nor inter-racial adoption levels the playing field. I described what it means in my last post and what you can actually conclude.

      As for the Minnesota studies. It has been interpreted in many ways. Firstly, people who actually did the study actually considered racial IQ differences to be inconclusive. It was pointed out that these adopted blacks still did better than non-adopted ones, even in adulthood. It was pointed out that earlier adoptions resulted in greater gains.They drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of “socially classified” black children was greater than the U.S. white mean. The followup data was collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992 and interpreted their results still supporting the original conclusions.

      Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: “[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers.Willerman and his colleagues suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one

      I have also seen racial studies where blacks were shown to have gained significantly, in some case even slightly outperforming whites, but those studies are often conveniently avoided or described as flawed because the population “must not have been random”.

      .

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Yes, I am aware of that argument.
      That argument basically says that intelligent people may have the genetic component to look for or to seek out intellectually stimulating environment.

      But the problem with that argument is that not everyone may have the option of choosing an intellectually stimulating environment. If you are born in a poor and uneducated family, you may not have the opportunities to seek out an an intellectually stimulating environment.

      So unless there is a level playing field, this argument has no place. And of course, genes and environment interact. Some genes may get turned on only under certain environments.

      Also, it does not in any way negate my original argument that “heritability” is a meaningless concept unless the environment in which it has been tested is properly defined.

  23. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    AB: I agree with you.

    I just think that what happened to Watson was wrong in the sense that he should have the freedom to speak his mind.

    BTW, do you know what exactly did Watson say in that interview?

    FRANK: He said that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” {…} “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”

      1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        To answer your question Watson didn’t say anything of substance whatsoever. He basically told Gates that he wasn’t threatened by racialist research because the more we learn about human nature the more capable we are of helping people.

        They talked about different issues surrounding the Race and Intelligence debate but not about the actual science. Watson did say that he would not be gloomy about Africa if Africans could be educated but suspected that different groups of people had different talents and used African-American success at Basketball as an example.

        I do want to upload the interview so people can hear Watson in his own words. Also I found out that Graves was interviewed on CNN (Anderson Cooper 360) for their segment on the controversy over Watson’s comments.

        I have not seen that interview but the transcript is available online. I am going to see if I can get footage of both interviews.

  24. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    EGALITARIAN JAY: In MacEachern’s defense I should point out that he has actually debated Rushton and like-minded colleagues himself. He is certainly not gutless. Taking time out of your day to reply to someone who has read your work and has questions and registering on a message board to debate someone for 20+ pages are two different things.

    FRANK: A man who is willing to back up his big mouth in 1999 hardly indicates intellectual courage in the modern day.

    This gutless clown stuck his nose in my debate with you, actively helped you, insulted me and then suddenly decided
    he was too good to debate me when I called him to a formal one on one debate.

    Now, I could be mistaken in my assessment if he was unaware that you were publicly posting his emails to a publicly accessible forum like the phora and had no idea that those emails were becoming part of the debate.

    EGALITARIAN JAY: As a professional scholar it’s likely that MacEachern did not have time for that style of debate.

    FRANK: He had enough free time to feed you information.

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      It took MacEachern 4 days to respond to just one of my emails. Our debates on the Phora often spanned 20+ pages at a time and MacEachern was aware of this. It’s perfectly rational that he would not have time for that style of debate.

      In any case I see no point in drumming up old issues.

      Our debate is finished.

      If AB or anyone else wants to continue to debate Frank be my guest.

  25. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    FRANK: The great modern chicken never sent me anything Jay! He sent YOU the emails to debate me while he refused to debate me personally one on one…

    EgalitarianJay: Actually I was referring to the email Rushton sent you which MacEachern responded to.

    FRANK: You are correct on one issue. My personal feelings toward the man border on contempt because I view MacEachern as intellectually gutless

    EgalitarianJay: In MacEachern’s defense I should point out that he has actually debated Rushton and like-minded colleagues himself. He is certainly not gutless. Taking time out of your day to reply to someone who has read your work and has questions and registering on a message board to debate someone for 20+ pages are two different things.

    As a professional scholar it’s likely that MacEachern did not have time for that style of debate.

  26. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    EGALITARIAN JAY:Your responses regarding MacEachern are becoming increasingly hostile and juvenile. It appears that you are still upset that he dismissed you as a two-bit racist when you challenged him to a debate.

    FRANK: Actually, I saw his behaviour as an act of cowardice which I explained to you in the next post:

    http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1053491&postcount=416

    You are correct on one issue. My personal feelings toward the man border on contempt because I view MacEachern as intellectually gutless.

    I do not like people like that Jay.

    EGALITARIAN JAY: You are letting your personal feelings towards a scholar degrade the quality of discussion. The Admin has already warned both of us about personal attacks so why not attempt to keep the exchange civil? Criticizing a scholar is one thing. Childish insults and name-calling is another.

    FRANK: While I admire your new-found civility, I have not called you any names. In addition, I find your criticism most perplexing as you have insulted off-forum parties and scientists that you do not like:

    http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/racial-differences-intelligence/race-a-social-construct-pretty-women-weigh-in-on-youtube#comment-209997

    Maybe we should all start practicing what we preach before telling others to stop with the name calling?

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.