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: You know full well that Scott MacEachern is an archeologist and an anthropologist.
http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/smaceach/
FRANK: Scott MacEachern is a clown who fancies himself a scholar because he can recognize a bone and dig in the sand. Hell, my hound dog can do that Jay.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Rushton attempted to use research from archeology and physical anthropology to support his evolutionary theories about racial differences.
MacEachern is an authority on those topics.
FRANK: What makes him an authority on IQ testing, the effects of Apartheid on Rushtons test or the various IQ scales being used?
This guy’s expertise would allow him to guest star in a Lassie movie but what credentials allows him to critique Rushtons IQ test results.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Watson while an imminent geneticist has not done any research relevant to the race and intelligence debate and admits as much.
FRANK: But Marmaduke MacEachern has carried out studies on IQ testing?
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.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1053458&postcount=415
Frank,
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.
MacEachern is not a Psychologist or Psychometrician and made no critiques of IQ tests themselves but rather the evolutionary, biological and historical arguments that Rushton and his colleagues are trying to draw from IQ testing.
He does have authority to speak on that aspect of the debate.
AB: The whole argument seems to be about this g factor. However, this g factor is closely related to working memory and can be improved.
FRANK: “g-factor” is merely general mental ability. On tests that have greater g-loadings the gap has not decreased. On tests where general mental ability is not the forefront of testing, the gap has not increased. The g-gains are not illustrated by the tests taken apart by Jensen in this correlated vectors.
Now you are correct when you point out that even g-loaded tests can be beaten. As Rushton points out:
Heritable g is at the core of the debate over how much the
mean Black–White gap in IQ and school achievement is due to the genes rather than to the environment, and therefore, how much it can be expected to narrow. While g and genetic
estimates correlate significantly positively with Black–White
differences 0.61 and 0.48 (Pb0.001), they correlate significantly negatively (or not at all) with the secular gains (r=−0.33; Pb0.001) and 0.13 (ns). Similarly, g loadings and heritabilities from the items of the Raven Matrices correlate significantly positively with each other and with Black–White differences (mean r= 0.74, Pb0.01). Although the secular gains are on gloaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests.
Tests lose their g loadedness over time as the result of training, retesting, and familiarity (te Nijenhuis et al., 2007)
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf
If we continue to give the same black kids the same tests, there is a chance they will retain some of the answers and close the gaps to some small degree.
For information sake you may find the following to be of interest:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Templer%20&%20Rushton%202011%20Intelligence.pdf
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. And I already pointed out that WM is neither immutable, nor are the limits of WM important because experts can overcome the limits of WM and reaction time. A chess expert with limited WM can still play blindfold chess, something even extremely high WM holders struggle to do without proper training.
Even in the test on “g” loaded questions the gap has decreased, but to a much lesser extent. And I have already pointed out that Flynn has himself responded by saying that more gains on less g-loaded questions compared to more g-loaded ones can also be explained by environment.
I have already pointed out that appeals to heritability is a fallacy in itself(along with Flynn’s example of Japanese height). I have also pointed out that average scores don’t mean anything, and it means even less if you don’t take into consideration the environmental factors. There is a big gap between the average cognitively demanding environment of black and whites.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Watson actually declined an interview with the host admitting that he was not qualified to speak on intelligence testing
AB: Neither are Graves and MacEachern but you give their opinions on the issue some credibility don’t you?
Especially that sandbox-scientist clown MacEachern:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=995039&postcount=53
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=997636&postcount=118
It amazes me how a guy who makes a living teaching teenagers to play in mud believes himself an expert on anything other than plastic shovels and toy plastic sand buckets.
You know full well that Scott MacEachern is an archeologist and an anthropologist.
http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/smaceach/
Rushton attempted to use research from archeology and physical anthropology to support his evolutionary theories about racial differences.
MacEachern is an authority on those topics.
His critique and refutation of Rushton is based on scientific arguments he is qualified to make.
Watson while an imminent geneticist has not done any research relevant to the race and intelligence debate and admits as much.
EGALITARIAN JAY: I should point out that Watson’s statements on African intelligence were not based on his own research but on reading a book by Richard Lynn, one of the aforementioned “witch doctors” with a degree in Psychology. If you go to my Youtube channel and watch Race: Science’s Last Taboo this is mentioned. Watson actually declined an interview with the host admitting that he was not qualified to speak on intelligence testing.
Watson did give an interview with Henry Louis Gates Jr. which I have tried to track down but he wasn’t able to make any scientific points. All he did is speculate on the ramifications of his opinion being true.
FRANK: Yeah but then Mr. Rushton showed up! 😀
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2008%20Med%20Hypotheses.pdf
And he is a slight expert on intelligence testing:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2006%20IJSA.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Ravens%20inIJSA04.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Rushton-JensenIQdiffs03PAID.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Intell03Ravens.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Ravens%20III.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Intell02Ravens.b.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/BW%20diffs%20on%20g%20PAID%202001.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Intell00Ravens.pdf
EGALITARIAN JAY: Notice first of all that Frank does not list these 60 traits he claims are heritable. It’s very likely that he hasn’t even seen the list himself. He just takes Rushton’s word that such a list exists and that the data supporting the continuum is reliable.
FRANK: Because this is a common tactic you use Jay. You demand that your opposition go through every variable listed in Rushtons evolutionary work from the 90’s to 2011 and then to present them.
Of course, if Jay has read Rushtons works he already knows them. However, should his gullible victim take the hour or two to collect the information he will utlimately ignore it and simply respond with some pre-selected cut and paste he has stored on his computer.
He tries to wear the opposition down with this tactic…
EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank instead chooses to focus on one variable listed by Rushton, that being twinning rates. He completely misrepresents the source provided by MacEachern. Infact MacEachern sent me three sources supporting the overall point made in an earlier email I posted which is that traits like twinning rates, rather than being evolutionarily determined are sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.
FRANK: I not only debated Jay on this issue but I destroyed him in the debate on the issue. Morpheus presented the most recent and credible source provided to him by Scott MacEachern. The other sources deal essentially with the variations to the rule.
Jay argues that nothing I have provided disproves MacEacherns claims. However, this is yet another one of Jay’s tactics. He simply ignores what he does not like and declares his source not refuted because he does not like the counterview.
If you look at the following links, you will see the following:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1058361&postcount=77
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1057553&postcount=68
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1056878&postcount=51
1) Several medical sources concede that twin-egging is influenced by genetics.
2) There is an established racial pattern as put forth by Rushton.
3) In fact, Jay was so sloppy in his presentation that he did not grasp that one of his sources contradicted another.
Frank,
All I asked you for was a list of these 60 traits so we can verify what sort of evidence you are presenting. Providing a link with the citations supporting those sources would also be helpful. If they were available online it would be very easy to simply provide a link. This is not an unreasonable request.
I have read several of Rushton’s articles in PDF format and never seen this vaunted list of 60 Life-History variables. I assume they are in Rushton’s book but have not had a chance to read the book. How can you criticize someone for ignoring sources you can’t even show them and possibly haven’t even seen yourself?
Your Phora links are simply a rehash of the same fallacious arguments. Again neither Rushton nor any of the sources you cited provided evidence that twinning rate patterns are evolutionarily determined. Being influenced by genetics is not them same thing as patterns being determined by evolutionary differences between races.
Rushton’s evolutionary arguments were refuted by Graves, MacEachern and others.
AB,
I should point out that Watson’s statements on African intelligence were not based on his own research but on reading a book by Richard Lynn, one of the aforementioned “witch doctors” with a degree in Psychology. If you go to my Youtube channel and watch Race: Science’s Last Taboo this is mentioned. Watson actually declined an interview with the host admitting that he was not qualified to speak on intelligence testing.
Watson did give an interview with Henry Louis Gates Jr. which I have tried to track down but he wasn’t able to make any scientific points. All he did is speculate on the ramifications of his opinion being true.
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?
AB: Also, I find it funny that you repeatedly repeat Rushton’s comments.Rushton’s sources have been questioned again and again. I think EJay has also pointed that out. He doesn’t even have a degree in genetics. He isn’t even a qualified biologist.
FRANK: His statement is absolutely correct AB. His statement is also supported by logician and philosopher Neven Sesardic who addressed similar Diamond-type arguments:
“It is interesting that none of these sources cites any empirical evidence for these race-undermining claims. Furthermore, these claims clearly go against the entrenched common sense belief that racial recognition is not actually based on a single trait (like skin color) but rather on a number of characteristics that are to a certain extent concordant and that jointly make the classification not only possible but fairly reliable as well (a point that Diamond himself actually acknowledges sotto voce but which, buried at the end of his article, has been completely lost on most
readers amidst his thundering denunciations of the race concept)
Worse still, forensic anthropologists are quite successful in correctly inferring a person’s race from the skeletal characteristics of human remains, impossible if the statements in the above quotations were true.”
http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/race-1.pdf
AB: For example, height is considered a highly heritable trait. But James Flynn points out that after WW2 ended the average height of Japanese male was merely 5 feet 1 or 2 inches. Now it’s about 5 inches more. But the small amount of immigrant population is clearly unable to explain it.
FRANK: Only a fool would take a single trait and attempt to build a race around this single trait. As explained again by Sesardic, racial recognition actually requires more than one trait similarity to make a solid near error-free classification:
“Indeed, a quick look into the literature confirms this. For instance, a study that covered 17 populations over the world and that relied on 34 different measurements managed to assign 98% of the specimens to their correct major racial group (Brues 1990, 6).
Another more recent study had a success rate of 80% in distinguishing between American Whites and Blacks, although it used just two variables. With seven variables, however, it reached the reliability of 95%, and with 19 variables the probability of correct classification rose to 97% (Ousley et al. 2009).
Also, estimating generally the reliability of attributing a given data point to one of the five racial categories, another team of experts calculated that under some realistic conditions it is sufficient to use as few as 13 characteristics to have the posterior probability of the correct classification attain the value of 99% (Konigsberg et al. 2009).
The empirical reality appears to refute decisively the claim so confidently advocated by many philosophers that ‘‘as the number of traits increases, racial classification becomes increasingly difficult’’ (Andreasen 2004, 428), or that ‘‘multiplying phenotypic racial traits has the result … that … they correlate with one another in no particular order, throwing the alleged features for biological racial reality into an unorganized mess’’ (Glasgow 2009, 88). This is exactly backwards: multiplying relevant phenotypic racial traits brings more order and structure, and indeed lays ground for an objective biological classification”
http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/race-1.pdf
AB: Most people in the field of biology DO NOT support the notion of biological races. This should not be confused with the fact that one CAN make useful classifications that can help in forensics.
Again, this is an appeal to anonymous authority. However, even if polls supported that view I cannot help but hear the words of Anthropologist Henry Harpending (2000):
“Dominant public ideology these days is that race
is a “social construct” and that there are no meaningful biological differences among human groups. In a similar way Marxism was the dominant public ideology behind the Iron Curtain until the fall of the Soviet empire, after which it became apparent that no one really believed it. What do Americans really think about race, race differences, and public position that there are no races
My own informal impression is that there are three widely shared viewpoints about the issue of race and human differences. No one really knows: a poll about views of
race would be like a poll about Marxism in East Germany in 1980. Everyone would lie. What I see in my own informal survey is probably as good as anything available”
AB: One of the few respected racist comment that I have heard is that by Watson. But the actual comment was actually quite vague and it was never clear what exactly he meant. (But even if Watson really meant it in a racial manner, that will still place him in the minority.)
FRANK: So we ignore any evidence that you dislike because you have set up this belief that the majority of scientists will not agree with them?
Imagine how many people would die if we allowed people like you to dictate policy to the medical profession.
I guess we should just ignore geneticist Glayde Whitney as well?
http://euvolution.com/euvolution/races_differ.html
http://www.amren.com/ar/1997/03/index.html
Damn the evidence correct?
It’s like I am going in circles. It’s like I just have to repeat myself over and over.
I never denied that there are geographically separable genetic traits. I argued that that does not define race as we do in our society – “whites”, “blacks”, “east-asians” etc. Those are races by social conventions, not out of biological necessity.
One can randomly isolate geographic regions into groups and with 17 different different variables, one is bound to have some success in classifying them. It does not have to be “whites” , “blacks” etc. The particular classification used (whites, blacks, east-asians etc) is one of social convention. I bet that with 17 different variables one can make several successful classifications within Africa itself.
I also argued that these geographically separable traits are not necessarily the most important ones. And a white can be genetically more distant to a white than a black.
Not just Rushton’s logic, I actually said that his sources- how he collects data and applies them – has been questioned repeatedly.
I will repeat again that the existence of a small number of geographically classifiable genetic traits does not prove race to be anything other a social construct.
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.
And finally I want to touch upon heritability. I used that example of Japanese height as example of how ideas about heritability can mislead us.
The marathon people in Kenya actually live in high altitudes and have to run a lot from early age to save money. Nobody can convincingly argue that that does not have an effect on both anatomy and epigenetics.
Brain size is considered heritable. London Taxi drivers literally grow their brains as they train for it. It has now been proven that adults can grow new brain cells. Google “neurogenesis”.
Bone density is another trait. People in space lose their bone density. Yet coming back to earth, they gain it back.
Buddhist meditation has actually shown to change the brain waves to become more compassionate – so there goes genetic morality out of the window.
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”.
If you want to really want to see if the “g” factor can be changed, then you have to be honest with yourself. You have to actually train deprived people in many different ways, create an environment where they are forced to be cognitively aware (similar to how high altitude forces an increase in stamina), give them good nutrition and stress free environment during conception in the womb. You also have to maintain that environment for several generations. (remember that due to epigenetics, your health can be affected by the life-style of your grandfather).
Only after all that can you conclude that “it’s difficult” if you don’t get any positive results. You still can’t conclude that “it’s impossible” because the environment can be changed in an endless variety of ways.
“I highly doubt anyone would attempt to define a racial group on the basis of one trait as you have just done.
But as J. Philippe Rushton would argue:”
Frank, I am trying to make the points
1> The only important traits aren’t superficial ones like skin colour, or shape of eyes. For example, individuals belonging two different species can look remarkably similar. I remember reading about these two fishes who are so similar that you can’t even differentiate between them with the naked eye without expertise ; yet, they belong to different species.
The geographically determined traits are only a small fraction of the total number of traits. And even those traits are not completely distinct between two randomly selected groups.
The genetic difference between a white and a black person can be easily less than that between two white people.
2>While there are geographically classifiable traits, they vary on a continuum into little groups and not discretely as white, black, chinese etc. In other words the above classification is one of convention and not one of need.
Also, I find it funny that you repeatedly repeat Rushton’s comments.
Rushton’s sources have been questioned again and again. I think EJay has also pointed that out. He doesn’t even have a degree in genetics. He isn’t even a qualified biologist.
“Of course in contrast he completely ignores the 60 established largely inheritable traits provided by the opposition. ”
Actually the word heritable only makes sense with reference to the environments in which it has been tested and by default you can only control environment to a limited extent. Because of this fact and because genes and environment interact, some people avoid using the word heritable altogether.
For example, height is considered a highly heritable trait. But James Flynn points out that after WW2 ended the average height of Japanese male was merely 5 feet 1 or 2 inches. Now it’s about 5 inches more. But the small amount of immigrant population is clearly unable to explain it.
Also, even assuming the heritability of the 60 traits, and even assuming his data is correct, Rushton only takes the average of groups that he chooses by convention. I don’t really get what average brain size has to do with race. Why is it even necessary to measure the brain size of a group and take its average? If I want bigger brains then why not simply select those who have bigger brains?
“Second, what is with the respectable comment? I have produced numerous genetic maps, studies and research conclusions from medical researchers not to mention forensic experts who support the existence of race. Are they not respectable because they support your friend Jays perspective ?”
There are also some doctors who believe in religious gods. That doesn’t make it a majority opinion in the scientific community.
Most people in the field of biology DO NOT support the notion of biological races. This should not be confused with the fact that one CAN make useful classifications that can help in forensics.
Most people popularizing the notion of races are psychologists and social-scientists. Richard Feynman compared them to “witch doctors”. That doesn’t make them wrong, but definitely less credible.
One of the few respected racist comment that I have heard is that by Watson. But the actual comment was actually quite vague and it was never clear what exactly he meant. (But even if Watson really meant it in a racial manner, that will still place him in the minority.)
AB: However, I feel that your ideas about IQ is largely based on common sense. People routinely use the word IQ in everyday language and make claims that are not supported by evidence. There are just too many IQ myths.
I don’t know if you know this, but the blacks in west today actually do much better in IQ tests than whites from 1950. The IQ scores don’t reflect that because it is a relative measure. (I am sure you have heard about the Flynn Effect.)
FRANK: The Flynn effect is well known…
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2006%20PSnew.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/SecularGainsIQPAID-1999.pdf
The whole argument seems to be about this g factor. However, this g factor is closely related to working memory and can be improved. The article can be translated to- blacks have shown much greater gains in abstract pattern recognition than working memory. Working memory trainings like dual n-back trainings have shown to improve gf and IQ. It seems to be more like muscle. In article itself they explained in the conclusion section that they were unable to explain certain g gains and blamed it on nutrition and pre-natal environment.
Flynn also made a reply to that argument.To the contrary, as Flynn argues in his response (see: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn2010a.pdf), the fact that blacks have shown greater gains on easier tasks than on those of more cognitive complexity (g-loaded), is explained just as well (perhaps better) by the environmental hypothesis as by the hereditarian position
Like I said already, working memory is not the only component of IQ and not even the most important one. Ericsson-Chaness have argued that working memory isn’t even very import for high achievements because limitations of WM capacity and reaction time can be overcome by systemic training.For example, a professional locksmith with lesser working memory will never forget the shape of a key, but an untrained high WM is likely to.
And of course, like I said , heritability is not a valid concept unless environment is taken into account. Nor does average differences actually mean anything.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Rushton simply isn’t a credible source to cite on human evolution or life history variation.
FRANK: You do not view any source that contradicts Graves as a credible source. I have provided studies from Forensic Anthropologists (Not clownish humanity anthropologists), geneticists, clinical medical researchers and Biologists who specialize in medical science and you crapped them all with some cheesy ad nauseam pre-selected cut and pastes by Joseph Graves.
I do not think you would accept any source that contradicts anything he has to say Jay. You certainly did not give any credibility to this review in spite of the fact Graves dismissed the review as an attack by an enemy without addressing a single point.
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v87/n2/full/6889531a.html
And you poo-pooed on the review despite the fact that the person in question, while anonymous, made some valid points
http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/the-emperors-new-clothes-book-reviewcritique/
For example, I do not have to a historian to know that Germans were interned during WWII, a fact Graves apparently denies in his silly little writings.
Notice first of all that Frank does not list these 60 traits he claims are heritable. It’s very likely that he hasn’t even seen the list himself. He just takes Rushton’s word that such a list exists and that the data supporting the continuum is reliable.
Frank instead chooses to focus on one variable listed by Rushton, that being twinning rates. He completely misrepresents the source provided by MacEachern. Infact MacEachern sent me three sources supporting the overall point made in an earlier email I posted which is that traits like twinning rates, rather than being evolutionarily determined are sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.
The stats he cites are not even based on reported stats from the study in question but but from much older, outdated studies referenced by MacEachern’s source in order to address a larger issue. Readers can look up the sources provided by MacEachern for themselves:
1. Hoekstra, C., Z. Z. Zhao, C. B. Lambalk, G. Willemsen, N. G. Martin, D. I. Boomsma and G. W. Montgomery 2008 Dizygotic twinning. Human Reproduction Update 14(1):37-47.
2. Eriksson, A. W. and J. Fellmann 2004 Demographic Analysis of the Variation in the Rates of Multiple Maternities in Sweden Since 1751. Human Biology 76(3):343-359.
3. D’Addato, A. V. 2007 Secular trends in twinning rates. Journal of Biosocial Science 39(01):147-151.
As MacEachern’s point has not been refuted the argument stands.
As far as credible sources that dispute Graves arguments are concerned there is a difference between recognizing a credible source and conceding and argument.
Rushton is simply not a credible source on human evolution, Frank, yet you see fit to continue citing him in debates to support arguments concerning race and human evolution. Calling scholars names does nothing for the credibility of your argument. All of my sources are qualified to speak on issues I have cited them on and more importantly you haven’t provided credible sources that directly dispute their assertions, with the possible exception of
David C Rowe’s book review.
But linking to a book review and then saying a scholar has been refuted is not an argument. Why no try listing specific arguments you’d like to make based on the review? Not only is JewAmongYou not qualified to speak on anything related to this topic but I actually did respond (not “poo poo’d”) to specific points of his that you brought up in our debate.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1063121&postcount=216
I’m pointing this out because you criticized AB for ignoring research that hasn’t even been provided which comes from a source who has no credibility to speak on the topic and was refuted.
And I use the word refuted because the critiques of his work in question come from authority who have provided conclusive evidence that Rushton is wrong. If it was a dispute you’d be able to find a counter source of equal authority that disputes the conclusions of Graves and MacEachern but none exists.
EgalitarianJay: MacEachern dealt with the examples listed by Rushton by exposing the fallacies of his aggregation method. These 60 variables are apparently characteristics that Rushton calls “racial traits” which are supposed to support his Life-History theory which ofcourse was critiqued and refuted by Graves.
FRANK: MacEachern “addressed” them and failed to realize that Rushtons “racial traits” namely twin-egging were supported by not only medical science but his own sources.
MacEachern in his usual complete lack of common sense provided you a source that allegedly disproved the twin-egging patterns based on a few anomalies.
What is fascinating is when I actually did the arithmetic, I discovered that MacEacherns source supported the rankings provided by Rushton and medical science to much more harsh and severe degree. His source provided a more radical incidence of difference between the three groups:
Dizygotic Twinning – MacEacherns’ Source
NEGROID: 17.2 to 66.5 per 1000
CAUCASOID: 11.0 to 20.0 per 1000
MONGOLOID: 9.0 per 1000
Dizygotic Twinning – Rushton
NEGROID: 16.0 per 1000
CAUCASOID: 8.0 per 1000
MONGOLOID: 4.0 per 1000
Dizygotic Twinning – Medical Science
NEGROID: 10-40 per 1000
CAUCASOID: 7-10 per 1000
MONGOLOID: 3.0 per 1000
EGALITARIAN JAY: The medical, forensic and genetic sources you’ve cited which allegedly support the existence of race are more debatable but it’s a joke to continue to cite Rushton when anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have debunked him.
FRANK: Your tactic of debate is to find any clown with a few letters after his name, present his criticisms and present them as absolute truth regardless of the validity of the criticisms. When debating Egalitarian Jay one must remember:
Disagreement = Refutation
Criticism = Debunking
Letters after your name = irrefutable source
CORRECTION TO POST # 20:
“This alone indicates that these divisions are ANYTHING BUT meaningless.”
ADMIN: This argument is very interesting. There seems to have been selection for the tallest and shortest people. For long distance runners and for short distance sprinters. All in different African populaces.
FRANK: What is interesting is how AB ignores the results of empirical studies and opt to promote Diamond and MacEachern style opinions in their place. AB tries to establish “race” through a completely non-predictive trait and a single trait, while a little more predicable, is but a single trait. Of course in contrast he completely ignores the 60 established largely inheritable traits provided by the opposition.
He also ignores that genetic map clustering distinguishes the established races, including “negro”, with great accuracy. We can use forensic analysis to determine the identity of racial groups along their traditional lines with 100% accuracy using skull and pelvic measurements alone.
He even ignores the learned opinions of medical experts who argue that racial medicine is a valuable tool. This alone indicates that these divisions are meaningless.
Again, when debating anti-racists, this is what you get…
Frank: Of course in contrast he completely ignores the 60 established largely inheritable traits provided by the opposition.
EgalitarianJay: What 60 traits? Neither you nor anyone citing Rushton, that I have encountered has ever provided this full list of 60 traits that are supposedly inherited and vary on a continuum. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
MacEachern dealt with the examples listed by Rushton by exposing the fallacies of his aggregation method. These 60 variables are apparently characteristics that Rushton calls “racial traits” which are supposed to support his
Life-History theory which ofcourse was critiqued and refuted by Graves.
Rushton simply isn’t a credible source to cite on human evolution or life history variation.
The medical, forensic and genetic sources you’ve cited which allegedly support the existence of race are more debatable but it’s a joke to continue to cite Rushton when anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have debunked him.
Oooops! Post # 18 was meant to quote the administrator not Jay! Sorry! 🙂
EGALITARIAN JAY: Except EJ’s super performing African students in US elite University. I am eagerly awaiting citation of clearly documented proof in peer reviewed journals.
FRANK: And trust me you will not find it because it is a lie. For all we know these students were affirmative action entry’s who graduated on a D- curve.
In fact it is likely these Africans were AA entry students based on the following complaints from this guy:
“Immigrants make up 13% of the nation’s college-age black population, but their representation in Ivy League and elite universities exceeds 25% of the total enrollment of black students, twice their proportion in the general population! Elite schools are admitting black students, in part to accommodate both legal and sociological goals. Those goals were driven by the Civil Rights Movement of the Vietnam generation. Africans do not necessarily require affirmative action to attend college, but surely many benefit from it. Consequently, many black youngsters that have absolutely no connection to American slavery are benefiting from the Martin Luther King phenomena. Curiously, both the President of the United States, Barack Obama of Kenyan heritage, and arguably the most respected public figure in the nation, Jamaican descendent, Colin Powell, have the same amount of civil rights credentials as Dick Cheney and Pat Buchannan. None.”
http://www.examiner.com/public-education-in-chicago/african-immigrants-affirmative-action-and-harvard-university
EGALITARIAN JAY: MacEachern pointed out the fallacies of his aggregation method when responding to the email he sent you.
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…
What is interesting is that AB uses the same example cited by MacEachern regarding human height variation, he just is just off by one inch.
My response to that argument is here:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1053220&postcount=413
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1053335&postcount=414
I also took pleasure in deconstructing MacEachern in numerous other posts as well:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1053491&postcount=416
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=995039&postcount=53
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=997196&postcount=85
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=997636&postcount=118
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1006913&postcount=293
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1006985&postcount=295
Just to show that MacEachern is out of touch with reality:
MACEACHERN: (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.
FRANK:
1) “Dizygotic pregnancies present wide variations of rate of occurence in different racial groups. The estimates are being revised due to new reproductive technologies. However, dizygotic twinning rates are especially high in African populations (from 1:63 to as high as 1:11 births) and very low in Asiatics (1:330 births). Caucasians stand in the middle (between 1:125 and 1:80 births.) (Bulmer 1970; Little and Thompson 1988; Bryan 1992; Segal 1999). Such differences seem to be linked principally to genetic factors. It is frequently said that twins ‘run in the family,’ and a genetic predisposition has indeed been found to to exist (Allen 1978).”
SOURCE: Twins: from fetus to child – Dr. Alessandra Piontelli M.D. – 2002
2) United States
The incidence of monozygotic twins is constant worldwide (approximately 4 per 1000 births). Approximately two thirds of twins are dizygotic. Birth rates of dizygotic twins vary by race (10-40 per 1000 in blacks, 7-10 per 1000 births in whites, and approximately 3 per 1000 in Asians), maternal age (ie, increasing frequency with increasing maternal age ≤ 40 y), and other factors such as parity and mode of fertilization (ie, most artificially conceived twins are dizygotic; however, 6-10% are monozygotic). Naturally occurring triplet births occur in approximately 1 per 7000-10,000 births; naturally occurring quadruplet births occur in approximately 1 per 600,000 births.
Since 1970, the prevalence of multiple births has been increasing. A combination of factors including the widespread use of assisted reproductive techniques and advancing maternal age at conception are associated with this phenomenon. In the United States, a plateau in the prevalence of multiple births has been observed since 2004. From 2004–2006, the prevalence of twin deliveries in the United States has remained stable at approximately 32 per 1000 live births, compared with the decreasing prevalence of higher order multiple deliveries.[2]
International
The birthrate of monozygotic twins is constant world wide (approximately 4 per 1000 births). Birth rates of dizygotic twins vary by race. The highest birth rate of dizygotic twinning occurs in African nations, and the lowest birth rate of dizygotic twinning occurs in Asia. The Yorubas of western Nigeria have a birth rate of 45 twins per 1000 live births, and approximately 90% are dizygotic.
SOURCE: Multiple Births – Author: Garth E Fletcher, MD; Chief Editor: Ted Rosenkrantz, MD – 2009
3) “There is a well recognized ethnic difference in the twinning rate, twin births being common in the Negro, less frequent in the Mongolian, and intermediate between these two in the Caucasian.
It is widely accepted that the frequency of monozygotic twins is roughly uniform throughout the world, but that of dizygotic twins varies considerably between races. However, there is little difference in the dizygotic twinning rate within each race (Gedda, 1961; Bulmer, 1970), and therefore, the difference between ethnic groups in their twinning rate seems to be of genetic origin”
SOURCE: Epidemiology of twin births from a climatic point of view – KATSURA KAMIMURA Department of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Niigata University School of Medicine, Niigata, Japan – Brit. J. prev. soc. Med. (1976), 30, 175-179
AB: Frank, you are missing the very point. If you just want to classify, you can do it in at least several thousand ways. Nobody denies that. For example, I can come back to the example of lactose tolerance gene and can define a “race” that can digest milk as adults. A genetic test will reveal the members of this race with almost 100% accuracy. And this race will include both white and dark skinned people.
I can also define a “race” as someone taller than 5 feet 5 inches. This is again a very precise definition, but will be harder to classify by simply looking at the genes.
FRANK: I highly doubt anyone would attempt to define a racial group on the basis of one trait as you have just done.
But as J. Philippe Rushton would argue:
“Here I will briefly summarize the findings. Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60 variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist.
Those objecting to the concept of race argue that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. Although critics are correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture, they are in error when they claim that classifications are arbitrary. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover Magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and formed very different races depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan, and the Italians of Europe.
Jared Diamond’s classifications, however, are arbitrary and nonsensical because they have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. More significantly, they confuse the scientific meaning of race, that is, a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a “negroid is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise for a “caucasoid and a “mongoloid. This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the best current theory of human evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia 70,000 years after that, a “negroid” is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa — and likewise, for a caucasoid and a mongoloid.”
SOURCE: STATEMENT ON RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT – J. Philippe Rushton – November 4, 1996
AB: Most respected geneticists don’t think that there is any such thing as a biological race and is mostly a social construct.
FRANK: This is an appeal to anonymous authority and prejudicial language in one statement. You have simply decided that “most” geneticists support your view without any qualification. And even if you did find such a supportive poll I would point out that in East Germany most polls would have proven that political scientists and economists supported Marxism.
Second, what is with the respectable comment? I have produced numerous genetic maps, studies and research conclusions from medical researchers not to mention forensic experts who support the existence of race. Are they not respectable because they support your friend Jays perspective ?
What we call the “races” are populations that have become isolated from one another as they diverged from Africa, which has lead to them evolving distinctive clusters of genotypes and phenotypes.
I don’t see why so many people can’t understand this concept.
My last comment is hard to understand because the quotes didn’t get published. So, I will try again.
” The argument illustrates a legitimate point that greater genetic variation within a group in comparison to between group differences does not negate the ability to make a zoological classification. This is the primary point of the debate. ”
Frank, you are missing the very point.
“If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans”
May be.
“People who believe in race fully accept that environment plays a key role in racial development. Humans tend to develop according to their environment.”
If you accept the roles of environment,
Frank, you are missing the very point. If you just want to classify, you can do it in at least several thousand ways. Nobody denies that.
For example, I can come back to the example of lactose tolerance gene and can define a “race” that can digest milk as adults. A genetic test will reveal the members of this race with almost 100% accuracy. And this race will include both white and dark skinned people.
I can also define a “race” as someone taller than 5 feet 5 inches. This is again a very precise definition, but will be harder to classify by simply looking at the genes.
The question is not whether one can classify, but what makes a meaningful classification. Whether superficial physical traits like skin colour or slanted eyes makes a race.
The thing about race has more to do with “common sense” than science.
The point being that two “white” people can be easily more genetically distant than a “white” and a “black” person. It doesn’t LOOK that way because we only pay attention to some superficial features.
Most respected geneticists don’t think that there is any such thing as a biological race and is mostly a social construct.
Craig Venter is one. EJay’s videos has some geneticists talking about it.
May be.
But the problem with this argument is that we can also do similar classifications with slightly different groups.
This merely proves that there are geographically separable traits such as skeletal structure.
However, these traits change in a continuum and not discretely as white black chinese nativeamericans etc.
If you define a “negro” race, it gives an utterly false picture because within Africa there are thousands of different groups – all very different. For example, Africa contains the tallest as well as the shortest tribes in the world. What we call race in the society is based on nothing but the most superficial features that strike us immediately as belonging to a particular geographic group. However, geographically determined genes are not only a very small percentage in humans, but they also don’t exist separately in groups, and are a part of a continuum. This combined with all the inter-geographic breeding that goes on, makes it impossible to concretely define race scientifically.
If you accept the roles of environment, then I think the very concept of race becomes unneccessary, whether or not it’s real.
I am not claiming that anyone can become Usain Bolt. However, it’s possible that with proper environment anyone not handicapped can run REALLY fast (like under 11.5s 100m). And that can make a difference in more complex sports.
And intelligence is so complex that we can’t even define intelligence properly, let alone measure reliably. So what’s the point of discussions like race and intelligence?
Isn’t it more constructive to experiment on proper environment and training methods for individuals? And when it comes to selection, is it not more constructive to select based on individual merit?
This argument is very interesting. There seems to have been selection for the tallest and shortest people. For long distance runners and for short distance sprinters. All in different African populaces.
So there is major variety in Africa. Except in skin color (for obvious reasons).
But it also seems, no single tribe has high intelligence and high self control in the sense of low impulsiveness.
That selection has happened out of Africa. No-one found the highest IQ tribe in Africa, the math genius Physics Nobel Prize winning African tribe.
Not one African tribe sailed the world to conquer far-away continents. No high technology. And from what I understand, Zimbabwe, South Africa etc. went downhill when white rule ended. But, I admit I am not the specialist in African history.
But the main point which seems very clear: no High IQ low impulsiveness tribe ever was found in Africa.
Except EJ’s super performing African students in US elite University. I am eagerly awaiting citation of clearly documented proof in peer reviewed journals.
Admin, I don’t find it surprising that Africans went downhill after the while rule ended, if that’s true. First of all, civilization makes progress based upon knowledge and resources from the previous generation. If you don’t have a good starting point, it may take a long time to catch up, but by that time those with a good starting point will be already ahead. It’s just like poverty- poverty begets poverty- unless the rich are willing to help, but they never do.
Now, I don’t disagree with you completely. I believe it’s possible that whites are more curious, more explorers on the average. But that’s still an average. Also, most people will not think about exploring new territories unless they are at least moderately confident that they can overcome the risks. If you are a street dog, you don’t try to enter your neighbour’s territory unless you are significantly stronger. Because of that, you just can’t count out all blacks as not interested in exploring and learning.
However, I feel that your ideas about IQ is largely based on common sense. People routinely use the word IQ in everyday language and make claims that are not supported by evidence. There are just too many IQ myths.
I don’t know if you know this, but the blacks in west today actually do much better in IQ tests than whites from 1950. The IQ scores don’t reflect that because it is a relative measure. (I am sure you have heard about the Flynn Effect.)
The main components of IQ seems to be working memory, motivation and knowledge of abstract patterns. The last one is highly learnable and is the main reason why IQ rises with time and why certain brief educational programs has been able to produce IQ gains. Working memory seems to be like muscles – it can be trained with memory related games like dual n-back – and good nutrition also helps. Is motivation genetic? Maybe. But I doubt it’s racially determined because all races seem to have people who are motivated in learning and people who are not, although the percentage may vary.
But let’s not forget that people are only interested in learning and exploring when they have a settled life. Most Africans do not have a nice settled or peaceful life, nor an environment where they can get intellectual stimulation comparable to whites.
If you live in an environment where you have to fight for your bread, you don’t have much interest in learning and exploring. This is also probably the main reason for black violence, because you learn from childhood that physical strength works.
I wonder how many of the Maloney’s reedar’s have donated to the Boys and Girls Club since they are so VERY concerned about an inner city Boys and Girls Club?No thanks, I prefer to give to my local church were I can attend weekly and measure the progress of my giving in the lives of my community. Besides, why would I send money to Gloria Wise of all places, who would with hold money from innocent kids and “loan” my money to Air America?
Honestly Frank,
We’ve debated this stuff for about two years with no resolution. You’re not going to agree with me and I’m not going to agree with you so I see further exchanges as futile. The Admin has already decided which camp he falls into. I think this Race and Intelligence section hurts the credibility of his blog but if he wants to defend this research that’s his business.
I will leave my Youtube channel up and provide videos that counter the arguments made in favor of racialism and the racist ideology behind it.
Actually Frank, Rushton did use the phrase “racially ordained behavior” in his presentation at John Jay College.
The problem with Rushton’s figures is that he aggregates data without consideration for control or comparability.
MacEachern pointed out the fallacies of his aggregation method when responding to the email he sent you.
(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.
The fact is that Rushton is not a credible source on Human Evolution and has been debunked.
Not only Graves but several scholars with Anthropological and Biological expertise have exposed the fallacies of his arguments:
J.P. Rushton’s view of human evolution suffers from the use of antiquated and simplistic theoretical models concerning life history evolution. In addition, his methods of data analysis, results, and data sources call into question the legitimacy of his research. In the unabridged version of his book, he claims ‘to have reviewed the international literature on race differences, gathered novel data and found a distinct pattern’ (Rushton, 1995: xiii). This is fallacious on many accounts. Although the scope of the literature is international, to an extent, the data are not novel and the pattern he ‘found’ is hardly distinct from common racist stereotypes. He has only spun a tangled web of disingenuous construction speculations, in which:
1. He failed to grasp the history and formulation of density dependent selection theory.
2. He failed to review the critical experiments that falsified the central predictions of r- and K-selection theory.
3. He incorrectly applied r- and K-theory to explain human life history evolution.
4. He has presented data that are woefully inadequate to test any specific hypothesis concerning the evolution of human life histories.
Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154
Here we also confuse things. Even if he gets r-k theory wrong, it does not change the data that nowhere Blacks are highly successful, low crime highly intelligent.
That is the DATA. Blacks everywhere, independent of tribe and sub-race show low IQ.
Now there is a sensible theory that long term planning for harsh and predictable withers necessitate stable societies and family structures and fewer children that need stringent care by both parents.
And in Africa, even Southern Europe, a happy go lucky living day by day attitude can work and still produce viable offspring
It fits with menarche data, testosterone levels, twinning rates etc.
Now anyone has a better theory? is this equal to r-k or not?
Is it wrong? it does not change the data on IQ testing, GDP of nations (Richard Lynn), etc.
We are waiting for EJ to create an African community that is highly successful, gains Nobel Prizes as much as Jews, is successful as Silicone Valley.
Only ONE large community would suffice as a head start. Then all other African countries will learn from that example and surpass Taiwan and South Korea in economic success and low crime rates.
I personally would be very happy.
EGALITARIAN JAY: I am using the same standard you are, looking at the crime rates of countries but I am simply looking at every country with available stats and unfortunately for proponents of racialism the averages of many countries do not fit with their theory. Interpol has collected data on a large number of countries so it is possible to go country by country.
FRANK: This is the very thing Rushton did Jay but you argue that Graves discredited him on the issue:
“The global nature of the racial pattern in crime is shown in data collated from INTERPOL using the 1984 and 1986 yearbooks. After analyzing information on nearly 100 countries, I reported, in the 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, that African and Caribbean countries had double the rate of violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries, and three times more than did countries in the Pacific Rim. Averaging over the three crimes and two time periods, the figures per 100,000 population were, respectively, 142, 74, and 43.
I have corroborated these results using the most recent INTERPOL yearbook (1990). The rates of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population reported for 23 predominantly African countries, 41 Caucasian countries, and 12 Asian countries were: for murder, 13, 5, and 3; for rape, 17, 6, and 3; and for serious assault, 213, 63, and 27. Summing the crimes gave figures per 100,000, respectively, of 243, 74, and 33. The gradient remained robust over contrasts of racially homogeneous countries in northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, or of racially mixed but predominantly black or white/Amerindian countries in the Caribbean and Central America. In short, a stubborn pattern exists worldwide that requires explanation.”
http://euvolution.com/articles/crime.html
EGALITARIAN JAY: Regarding military and government, you haven’t provided a valid reason why we should hold military personnel to a different standard than civilians. Several military powers have conducted operations while maintaining a moral standard on war practices which is why we charge people with war crimes when they commit atrocities during war.
FRANK: When did I say they should be held to a differing standard? I am pointing out that military forces do not represent the entire population of their states hence it is fallacious to use your misnamed “cultural history” to gauge societies. I am using your standard against you. Your reasoning for dismissing crime stats as representative is more appropriate to your argument.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Again you want to argue about racially ordained behavior hold people to the exact same standard regardless of social setting and then see if your racial theories pan out. Only by equalizing environment can you really conduct any credible experiments to determine phenotypic and genotypic relationships in the first place.
Graves talked about this at length but it seems that Rushton and his supporters don’t seem to get it or don’t recognize the point as valid.
FRANK: You are the one using loaded terms like “racially ordained” behaviour not Rushton. I will agree with you that the delusional rantings and ravings of Joseph Graves is incomprehensible to people like Rushton. However, this is common for those are being attacked for positions they do not hold. Rushton stated:
“I emphasize at the outset that enormous variability exists within each of the populations on many of the traits to be discussed. Because distributions substantially overlap, with average differences amounting to between 4 and 34 percent, it is highly problematic to generalize from a group average to a particular individual.”
http://euvolution.com/articles/crime.html
I am sure most of us would be confused by the little fantasy world Graves has set up for himself where Germans were never interned in WWII, “racist” professors are free to speak without fear of career ruination and Gould is a valid source of information.
Frank,
First of all I am not talking about exceptions to the rule.
I am using the same standard you are, looking at the crime rates of countries but I am simply looking at every country with available stats and unfortunately for proponents of racialism the averages of many countries do not fit with their theory. Interpol has collected data on a large number of countries so it is possible to go country by country.
Regarding military and government, you haven’t provided a valid reason why we should hold military personnel to a different standard than civilians. Several military powers have conducted operations while maintaining a moral standard on war practices which is why we charge people with war crimes when they commit atrocities during war.
I find no reason to excuse a soldier who breaks into someone’s house, rapes their female relatives and kills their whole family. I judge the person no differently than I would a rapist living in an inner city slum who does the exact same thing. Having a gun and a uniform and being given a license to kill for your country does not justify inhumane acts.
I don’t forget the atrocities in Africa. Again I hold everyone to the same standard. Japanese soldiers did not need weapons of mass destruction to go into the houses of Chinese citizens, rape the women in mass and mutilate them with bayonets behaving in the same manner as Africans in Rwanda killing people with machetes.
Again you want to argue about racially ordained behavior hold people to the exact same standard regardless of social setting and then see if your racial theories pan out. Only by equalizing environment can you really conduct any credible experiments to determine phenotypic and genotypic relationships in the first place.
Graves talked about this at length but it seems that Rushton and his supporters don’t seem to get it or don’t recognize the point as valid.
EGALITARIAN JAY: As I said before I question the logic of using crime statistics to make generalizations about a population in the first place. Criminals don’t represent the average person. At best if you wanted to argue that some people were more benevolent than others you could look at cultural history to see if some societies are generally more peaceful and moral than others.
FRANK: This makes no sense and contradicts your earlier points. If we cannot use crime statistics to judge the peaceful nature of a society how can we use their ruling governments and militaries to do so? The governments and military forces make up a small percentage of those nations.
Second, as we have debated beforehand nobody denies that during times of war people can be vicious. Nobody ever argued that Whites and Asians are free of blame.
You quote Japan and Germany as destructive historically yet you forget that Africans have committed the more recent mass-genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. They murdered millions in the Congo not to mention committed democide on a mass-basis since from recorded history to the modern day. The results would have been much worse had they had the technologically and engineering ability to create military equipment to cause the mass-destruction wrought by Japan, Germany and America in WWII.
However, crime statistics during peace time tells a lot about populations especially when patterns of behaviour can be established via such statistics.
EGALITARIAN JAY: They are not anomalies they are facts that contradict your theories. Like I said Romania is one of several countries where the countries are almost 100% White and there is no reason to assume the perpetrators are not also vast majority White.
FRANK: And this is what I was explaining to the administrator earlier. “Anti-racists” and “race-deniers” deal in absolutes. They do not accept that variations and anomalies do not negate the averages. To them any variation quashes a rule, to them the exceptions are the rules.
The rape and poverty excuse is most amusing. It is merely a quasi-ad hoc last-minute attempt to link a certain crime to environment. What is quite fascinating is that “anti-racists” will treat any of their theories as absolute truth. They will treat their correlations as causations.
Their environmental “explanations” will always be the default proper positions regardless of what evidence is provided in counter…
Of course, let their opposition do the same, even if to a greater more credible degree, they will scream that correlation does not equal causation and they will demand absolute proof of any theory put forward.
And of course if this is successfully done by the opposition, they will just argue that their explanations are correct and that will be the bottom line.
They will also raise the goal posts of evidence to ridiculous levels such as saying: “Even if I accepted the claims about Russia or other countries you listed one would need to go on a case by case basis to establish that there is a consistent pattern.”
In other words for these statistics to have meaning I have to examine every criminal in those states and report back as to the findings which is simply impossible. Second, why would this be done when government and law enforcement authorities have provided these numbers for us?
Of course, Egalitarian Jay keeps speaking of Rushtons theories. Here is his earlier theory on the issue:
Race and Crime: An International Dilemma
http://euvolution.com/articles/crime.html
EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank you just took one country (the USA) and made a sweeping generalization about all majority White countries. Yes, the USA is majority White with a near 30% non-White minority and ethnic groups like African-Americans who have been economically disenfranchised are overrepresented in several crimes. But what about countries with high rape rates like Romania that are almost 100% White?
FRANK: I have made no sweeping generalizations Jay. I have provided evidence that the higher rape rate for Sweden is attributed to migrants, they account for 50% of the rapes.
In Norway. most of the rapes have been committed by third world migrants:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/05/shocking_all_ra.php
In Russia, 40% of ALL crime has been attributed to immigrants largely from developing nations.
The patterns of migrant crime are pretty well fluid and well-established. My argument is simple, one cannot assume that White majority nations with higher rape rates disprove Rushtons argument. It is quite possible that migrants and minorities commit a lions share of those crimes. There is evidence pointing to this…
And as far as “economic disenfraschised” goes it certainly would explain crimes like theft but how it explains forcible rape is beyond me.
The Romania argument is equally weak. At absolute best you found one of the few anomalies. Of course, variations do not negate the averages as I have explained to you at least 100 times now across two different mediums.
They are not anomalies they are facts that contradict your theories. Like I said Romania is one of several countries where the countries are almost 100% White and there is no reason to assume the perpetrators are not also vast majority White.
Even if I accepted the claims about Russia or other countries you listed one would need to go on a case by case basis to establish that there is a consistent pattern. Rushton only reports the stats that favor his theory and ignores the ones that don’t.
As far as rape and poverty are concerned there are other variables that correlate with poverty such as drug abuse and domestic violence during childhood which can have a psychological effect on someone’s mind making them more prone to violent or deviant behavior.
Rape is also not always an impulsive crime. It can be cold and calculating with the rapist plotting out their actions in advance so it doesn’t follow that simply having a higher libido makes you more prone to being a rapist.
As I said before I question the logic of using crime statistics to make generalizations about a population in the first place. Criminals don’t represent the average person. At best if you wanted to argue that some people were more benevolent than others you could look at cultural history to see if some societies are generally more peaceful and moral than others.
When we look at cultural history we find that some countries that are peaceful today were very violent and immoral only a couple of years ago (ex. Germany and Japan) which suggests that social policy can change dramatically over short time scales contradicting the theory of biologically determined or racially ordained behavior.
EGALITARIAN JAY: You can make all the assumptions you want Frank but the fact is that I have no reason to hid sources when any information I type can easily be looked up.
I did not hid anything and I did not make any attempt to deceive you.
FRANK: Did you include a citation of your source? Did you include a link to your source? Did you give us any information that even referred to your source?
I already told you my source was Nationmaster.
If you want a source ask for it but as I am typing in a blog and typing in a rush I didn’t feel the need to post a link.
AB: However, this argument can be just as easily turned in favour of the “environmental” side of the argument. The expression of genes themselves are controlled by epigenetics and this epigenetics is actually to a large extent influenced by the environment. Moreoever, this epigenetics can also be inherited from previous generation.
FRANK: People who believe in race fully accept that environment plays a key role in racial development. Humans tend to develop according to their environment. We fully accept the “cline” arguments for example:
“First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.
“The ‘reality of race’ therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether ‘real’ or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
“Morphological characteristics…like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies [used to deny race] are not shaped by these same climatic factors.
“Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the ‘race denial’ faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in ‘race denial’ are in ‘reality denial’ as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.” ( Dr. George W. Gill, 2000)
EGALITARIAN JAY: My point stands on the matter. In fact the subjectivity of crime and sexual behavior definitions is a point Graves brought up in his presentation at John Jay College. There is no universal standard for which to compile these statistics. When you go country by country, regardless of the source the pattern does not fit Rushton’s 3 race hierarchy.
FRANK: You may have a point when you consider that “White” nations technically have higher sexual crime rates due to the inflation created by minorities.
Look at the United States for example. The U.S. is a White majority nation yet in 2010 blacks made up 31.8% of forcible rape arrestees. This is over double their population rate. In 2009 blacks made up 32.5% of all forcible rape arrestees. This information can be located on Table 43 of the FBI Uniform Crime Report.
The rape rates in America would be reduced dramatically if the black rates were not present. If America was a truly White nation, there would not be a 32% rape overrepresentation.
Frank you just took one country (the USA) and made a sweeping generalization about all majority White countries. Yes, the USA is majority White with a near 30% non-White minority and ethnic groups like African-Americans who have been economically disenfranchised are overrepresented in several crimes. But what about countries with high rape rates like Romania that are almost 100% White?
There isn’t just one or two there are several of them.
Can you blame the high crime rates on minorities in ALL of them?
I don’t believe you can.
A scientist would look at this fact and accept the likelihood that there are many environmental factors contributing to trends in crime rates globally such as poverty, upbringing and surrounding influences which impact behavior while ideologically driven racialists want to blame genetics when it suits them.