- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Evidence abounds which invalidates your liberal creationist assumption that all of humanity has an identical intelligence profile..
Prove it's racism. Prove I'm a black racist because I question the assumption that all races were left with equal overall intelligence.
What do you think that tells us? Why shouldn't such science be pursued?I have yet to check if this is a peer reviewed article (it may not be as most researchers and achademics would not want to touch the subject with a 50 ft pole) ..
And here you trump all of the ignorant liberal creationists in this thread...
My post was made Merely to show donsutherland's claim of "99.9"%" was NOT definitive or even logical in being able to 'demonstrate' if there Could be IQ difference among humans.
You have deconextualized my statement.
In doing so, you have unwittingly re-enforced My point about His claim.
The whole "percent" idea, which HE said precluded significant IQ difference .. does NOT.
I assume you agree despite yourself taking an illogical partisan/PC stance on who to oppose.
There are Hundreds/thousands of IQ studies.
Richard Lynn used over 600 with a sampling of over 800,000 people globally in his 2006 book.
IOW, Apologetics.
Your comparison Inapt, and for someone of your intelligence I would say.. Disingenuous.
My post contains the 3 sizes and differentials which correlate to IQ.
Not just abstract verbal leaps as you posted/needlessly muddied, mine contains Numbers where If 6>4:::: 4>2 ::: 6>2. We know this even without the middle number.
That's why this section of your reply was longest. It took More BS to attempt to bury a simple fact.
Additionally, from a Wiki mirror site, not completely updated/PCed yet.
IQ researchers have corrected for variables, including socioeconomic ones. IQ remains consistent not only say, in Subsaharan Africa, or Rural china, but intercontinentally with the same populations in North America.
Additionally your statement is wrong on a statistical basis. Not just that 1 SD is "insignificant", but if one looks at Asians vs Blacks we move comfortably over 1 SD.
ie, Compare East Asian vs Subsaharans we move over 2 SDs. See the Lynn IQ Chart above.
Even an adoption study would add the new variable of the effects of adoption. Intelligence tests, IQ or otherwise, are very difficult to use as objective measurements of intelligence and mental capacity.
So our diversity is at stake if we don't agree with you that blacks are less intelligent than whites? Oh I see.If everyone is equal then no one is diverse.
Evidence abounds which invalidates your liberal creationist assumption that all of humanity has an identical intelligence profile.
The evidence in support of variance in intelligence is so damn broad it's amazing to behold and all of the different lines of evidence reinforce one another and all of the extremist environmentalist determinist explanations are not able to account for the variance.
please post a data from a widely-accepted study showing the 95% confidence intervals for various measures of intelligence (not just IQ, a test that explains only a portion of it, but enough measures to explain most of intelligence) by racial group.
I agree it's the best we have - it's just not without flaws as you've already pointed out. I personally think that we'll never really get the issue resolved completely until environmental factors are equal - which, at best, will take a long time if that ever happens.I agree .. but its probably going to be the best you'll get (most variables are cut out and would likely be deemed sufficient - this is because adopting at birth allows for analysis of both genetic and environmental factors) - general practice in psychology is to allow for small possibly confounding variables - i.e. they state their conclusion and also add that there may be a possibility of confounding variables - it is up to other researchers to prove that said variables could cause a significant effect - i.e. researchers have to start somewhere - one research study cannot address all factors of a large issue in one study alone
do you have any GOOD evidence to the contrary?
btw, Creationism has nothing to do with this topic.
It's backwards? Now your argument is that evolution is caused by population level genetic variance? I'd really LUV to hear an explanation for how this works. The EFFECTS are now driving the CAUSE.
And don't forget that the paper has to have been published in red ink, the type font must be Copperplate Gothic, there can be no more than two authors on the paper, and the paper must have a publication date that falls on a Tuesday.
This tactics of specifying that proof must be delivered in very precise forms is one that I grew very tired of back in my undergrad school days when I was very active in TalkOrigins circles and was battling religious creationists. The same denialist tactics bind the religious creationist camp to the liberal creationist camp.
As expected, the data wasn't provided, as well it couldn't be furnished given the absence of such data...
mbig said:My post was made Merely to show donsutherland's claim of "99.9"%" was NOT definitive or even logical in being able to 'demonstrate' if there Could be IQ difference among humans.
You have deconextualized my statement.
In doing so, you have unwittingly re-enforced My point about His claim.
The whole "percent" idea, which HE said precluded significant IQ difference .. does NOT.
I assume you agree despite yourself taking an illogical partisan/PC stance on who to oppose.
Incorrect and emptily argumentative.nonpareill said:So when you say someone is jumping to conclusions, it's okay, but when I show that you are jumping to conclusions I'm "taking an illogical partisan/PC stance". I have no obligation to call out all fallacious arguments, especially ones I didn't read before, or to repeat anything. I can point out any fallacious arguement I see as long as I can show how it is fallacious - as yours was. Ad hominem and being hypocritical doesn't help your arguements.
mbig said:There are Hundreds/thousands of IQ studies.
Richard Lynn used over 600 IQ Studies with a sampling of over 800,000 people globally in his 2006 book.
[LYNN IQ TABLE showing numbers for many groups]
IOW, Apologetics.
Incorrect and emptily argumentative again.nonpareil said:IOW: I have a high scientific standard.
me said:our comparison Inapt, and for someone of your intelligence I would say.. Disingenuous.
My post contains the 3 sizes and differentials which correlate to IQ.
Not just abstract verbal leaps as you posted/needlessly muddied, mine contains Numbers where If 6>4:::: 4>2 ::: 6>2. We know this even without the middle number.
That's why this section of your reply was longest. It took More BS to attempt to bury a simple fact.
Additionally, from a Wiki mirror site, not completely updated/PCed yet.
[Cranial size and Neuron Data Table/numbers. Jenson; Rushton]
This we will have to say is beyond 'incorrect' and a simple Big Lie.nonpareil said:Your post contain probabilities, not simple numbers. Heuristic and probability are not bull****. People who cannot understand it (even PhD researchers and doctors) make mistakes reading statistics all the time. My arguement was genuine and correct - you couldn't point out anything wrong other than to attack me and use emotional appeals. It was the longest part because I actually believed that I could explain the concept of representative bias to you. Some posters don't get that benefit because I believe they are too narrow minded to understand why they are wrong. But obviously I'm wrong and that was a complete waste of time. You are already convinced that IQ is genetically determined despite the lack of rigorous scientific evidence. All the evidence provided by you from that article shows a statistically insignificant difference coupled with study design that do not properly control for other variables. Science is about evidence before faith, you already have faith in your theory, anything that contradict that you just dismiss as PC-bull****, even though no one here has said anything about scientifically proving that genes determine intelligence being morally or politically wrong - you just keep argueing with your own strawman.
mbig said:IQ researchers have corrected for variables, including socioeconomic ones. IQ remains consistent not only say, in Subsaharan Africa, or Rural china, but intercontinentally with the same populations in North America.
Additionally your statement is wrong on a statistical basis. Not just that 1 SD is "insignificant", but if one looks at Asians vs Blacks we move comfortably over 1 SD.
ie, Compare East Asian vs Subsaharans we move over 2 SDs. See the Lynn IQ Chart above.
Show where I claimed you said it was.nonpareil said:1 std deviation is insignificant for the current standard. If I'm wrong, show where it is accepted that 1 std deviation is statistically significant.
1 Standard deviation on IQ is 15 points. Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedianonpareil said:Secondly do you understand how statistical testing is done? Please show me the article where you claimed they found 3 std deviation difference, or even this 2 std deviation difference instead of you just doing ad hoc arithmetic, and I'll interpret the results for myself, because I don't think you know how to interpret them properly.
I merely used HIS "99.9%" "percent" routine to show his premise was wrong.
5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ Remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
This is quite evident when we observe the differences between different breeds of dogs for example. All breeds of dogs still remain in the dog species, but can still have minor genetic differences which are considered insignificant; i.e. when researchers say there is no significant difference in genotype, they are saying that the differences that do exists do not warrant declaring that organism as a different species.
We also see this between the different races of humans. Forensics, anthropologists etc. use the known differences, such as skeletal structure, to identify different races within the same human species.
Therefore, because we know that there are these differences and we know that skull is cranium differently shaped between races, we know the brain's shape is related to the cranium shape and because we know that physical differences in the brain can cause differences in functioning, how could we not come to the conclusion that different races have slightly differing brain traits and or functioning?
Additionally, because we know that the brain is a physical part of the body and it is thus affected by genetics, how could extremely small differences between different races not lead one to conclude that is is likely that there is some minor differences in functionality?
This does not mean that one race is "superior" over another, but that they can have slightly different physical and brain functioning traits. Superiority is a subjective term. Each race likely has characteristics that are related to adapting to their environment of origin.
The every-day socially defined geographical races do identify groups of populations that are somewhat more closely similar to each other genetically. Most important from the standpoint of the biological meaning of these racial categories, however, most human genetic variation does not show such "race" clustering. For the vast majority of human genetic variations, classical racial categories as defined by a combination of geography, skin color, nose and hair shape, an occasional blood type or selected microsatellites make no useful prediction of genetic differences. This failure of the clustering of local populations into biologically meaningful "races" based on a few clear genetic differences is not confined to the human species. Zoologists long ago gave up the category of "race" for dividing up groups of animal populations within a species, because so many of these races turned out to be based on only one or two genes so that two animals born in the same litter could belong to different "races."
-snip-
In an attempt to hold on to the concept while make it objective and generalizable, Th. Dobzhansky, the leading biologist in the study of the genetics of natural populations, introduced the “geographical race,” which he defined as any population that differed genetically in any way from any other population of the species. But as genetics developed and it became possible to characterize the genetic differences between individuals and populations it became apparent, that every population of every species in fact differs genetically to some degree from every other population. Thus, every population is a separate “geographic race” and it was realized that nothing was added by the racial category. The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology. However, that abandonment was never complete in the case of the human species. There has been a constant pressure from social and political practice and the coincidence of racial, cultural and social class divisions reinforcing the social reality of race, to maintain “race” as a human classification. If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary.
I think the main problem in the OP is talking about an artificial construction of race to try and define variation. The article below shows that 85% of difference is actually between people who are identified as being of the same national or linguistic group. Only 6-10% of variation depends on what is considered a 'racial group' - that is things like hair, kin colour, nose shape.
... by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations
... Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” ...
... The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races
what I always find amusing is that people have no problem admitting that environment has affected physical evolution, but if you dare suggest that environment might have affected mental evolution you are suddenly a flaming racist.
Testing has Already taken into consideration socioeconomic/environmental factors.I agree it's the best we have - it's just not without flaws as you've already pointed out. I personally think that we'll never really get the issue resolved completely until environmental factors are equal - which, at best, will take a long time if that ever happens.
"...I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests DO show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out Not to be true.
If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."
The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are Liberals.
Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the World, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.
[........]
...I never disputed the existence of IQ differences...Testing has Already taken into consideration socioeconomic/environmental factors.
Beyond that we have the Trans-racial adoption studies. Tests remain consistent across continents and circumstance.
What's left?
Can Liberals come to grips?
Here's One who Has.
From the very Liberal Slate.com, 2007.
Liberal Creationism
By William Saletan
Nov. 18, 2007
Race, genes, and intelligence. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
This question is still left unanswered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?