Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic [W:957]

[Tomfoolery]

The questions one must ask themselves are this. Could a person, representative of a demographic of an average intelligence, design an intelligence test that would otherwise have those with an average higher intelligence score more poorly on? Conversly, could the opposite be true? Could a person representing a demographic of average higher intelligence, design a test that would otherwise have the person of average lower intelligence, score more poorly on?

The answer is yes to the latter, and no to the former. The former could never happen, the latter almost exclusively would happen. Therefore, ....

Tim-

What seems obvious to you is not obvious to me, so please explain your contentions rather than asserting them as self evident truth. And show me the peer reviewed scholarly articles published with approval in high impact psychology journals describing the experiments and results with positive comments about tests modeled after your "self evident" interrogatories.

I am inferring that you are trying to say "IQ tests avoid bias and are valid because smart is smart and dumb guys can't fake out the smart ones and smart guys could make dumb look more dumb." Am I right and you are addressing allegations of racial or cultural bias? Finally, isn't your formulation assuming that which it seeks to prove? How do we identify the judgment of "higher IQ groups?" That initial judgment requires a valid test. Surely you see you assumed we had isolated the two subgroups somehow.

 

[Tomfoolery]

It is not the veracity of the studies on racial IQ differences, rather it is obvious conclusions drawn which are politically and socially incompatible with politically correct doctrine.

This, of course, makes argument of the matter pointless.

Show me these peer reviewed scholarly articles published with approval in high impact psychology journals. Perhaps it is pointless because they don't exist.

 

[Hicup]

What seems obvious to you is not obvious to me, so please explain your contentions rather than asserting them as self evident truth. And show me the peer reviewed scholarly articles published with approval in high impact psychology journals describing the experiments and results with positive comments about tests modeled after your "self evident" interrogatories.

I am inferring that you are trying to say "IQ tests avoid bias and are valid because smart is smart and dumb guys can't fake out the smart ones and smart guys could make dumb look more dumb." Am I right and you are addressing allegations of racial or cultural bias? Finally, isn't your formulation assuming that which it seeks to prove? How do we identify the judgment of "higher IQ groups?" That initial judgment requires a valid test. Surely you see you assumed we had isolated the two subgroups somehow.

My assertions require no peer review, that's the beauty of it. Like the perfect equation, there is no need to over analyze the math, it just works to the conclusion everytime, and it works regardless of ANY variables you wish to include or exclude, over every paradigm. No amount of bias matters, in fact bias doesn't enter into the frey at all. Cultural and racial differences matter little, other than that you may wish to assign material identifying qualities for certain groups to help you articulate the results more fluently, and with precision.

And yes, if the "dumb" guys design their test, the "smart" dudes would do better on average than the very same dumb guys taking the same test, conversly, the opposite would be true. Meaning that, the "smart" dudes test would consistently produce poor results on average for the "dumb" guys taking the same test. The dumb guys would never score better on average than the smart guys that designed the test, however, the smart guys would consistently outperform the dumb guys on their test.

Do you really need that peer reviewed? You seem like a smart guy, why don't you review it and get back to me.

if there's a flaw in the logic, please advise.

Tim-

 

[ttwtt78640]

The questions one must ask themselves are this. Could a person, representative of a demographic of an average intelligence, design an intelligence test that would otherwise have those with an average higher intelligence score more poorly on? Conversly, could the opposite be true? Could a person representing a demographic of average higher intelligence, design a test that would otherwise have the person of average lower intelligence, score more poorly on?

The answer is yes to the latter, and no to the former. The former could never happen, the latter almost exclusively would happen. Therefore, IQ is a repeatable, and demonstratable measure for intelligence that will produce consistent results within, and without any variables you wish to include, and control for. It's a real thing that tells us that, whatever, and however you wish to define intelligence, there are measurable differences between certain subset groups of humans.


Tim-

Of course, I will give you and example, as I am a "dumb" guy, try this simple true/false test:

Instructions - Please indicate which, of the following facts, are true or false:

T or F 1) Red is better than blue.
T or F 2) Green is better than blue.
T or F 3) Fred is taller than Jim.
T or F 4) Jim is taller than Susan.
T or F 5) 33 is less than red.
T or F 6) 106 is less than red.

 

[Empirica]

I'd like to summarize.
This is of course with my view but by no means includes all my points or rebuttals.

1. Empirica started a thread that is very controversial. But controversial because of it's truth content.
Had she or her sources suggested say, a reverse order, it would be laughable and ignored.
I told her she had "opened the gates of hell".

I admit to having a propensity for hitting on sensitive issues that frustrate and infuriate the politicly correct_ :angel?:

2. She used mainly the guy (Rushton) with the biggest target on his forehead and who has made some mistakes, but basically has it right.

No doubt, poor ole Doc Rushton comes with a lot of baggage and he's the biggest target only because he's been in the cross hairs a lot longer than most_

But I like Dr Phil because he researched this subject for so long and from so many different angles that I believe he earned the position of top dog in this field_

Besides, anyone whose research produces the same results as Rushton's will be accused of lying and racism exactly the same as he has been, no exceptions_

I thought you might enjoy this article mbig__It's fascinating_
Click&Read the whole thing if you have the time__Gottfredson is amazing_

Flynn, Ceci, and Turkheimer on Race and Intelligence: Opening Moves | Linda S. Gottfredson | Cato Unbound
by Linda S. Gottfredson
The Conversation
November 26th, 2007
Flynn, Ceci, and Turkheimer comment on both issues raised by Saletan: How strong is the scientific evidence favoring a partly-genetic hypothesis? And is it wise to speak openly and honestly about it? All three reject Saletan’s judgment favoring the genetic hypothesis, though with varying degrees of finality. On the second question, Turkheimer opposes “cool-headed evaluation of the empirical evidence” because the hypothesis is, in his view, “offensive” and “dangerous.” Flynn and Ceci side with Saletan in allowing such evaluation, but Flynn echoes Turkheimer’s moral distaste when he labels as “offensive” the IQ-based scholarship with which all three disagree.

The series of posts by these three authors illustrates, in microcosm, the melange of criticism commonly marshaled against mainstream science on intelligence in order to seem to discredit it without actually engaging its large interlocking body of evidence. Indeed, the criticism succeeds precisely by avoiding such engagement. There are two general strategies for avoiding the totality of relevant evidence: (1) create doubt about some small portion of it as if that isolated doubt nullified the totality of evidence, and (2) put unwelcome evidence off-limits by labeling it immoral or ill-motivated.

 

[Hicup]

Of course, I will give you and example, as I am a "dumb" guy, try this simple true/false test:

Instructions - Please indicate which, of the following facts, are true or false:

T or F 1) Red is better than blue.
T or F 2) Green is better than blue.
T or F 3) Fred is taller than Jim.
T or F 4) Jim is taller than Susan.
T or F 5) 33 is less than red.
T or F 6) 106 is less than red.

Oh you so got me...


Please?


tim-

 

[Tomfoolery]

My assertions require no peer review, that's the beauty of it. Like the perfect equation, there is no need to over analyze the math, it just works to the conclusion everytime, and it works regardless of ANY variables you wish to include or exclude, over every paradigm. No amount of bias matters, in fact bias doesn't enter into the frey at all. Cultural and racial differences matter little, other than that you may wish to assign material identifying qualities for certain groups to help you articulate the results more fluently, and with precision.

And yes, if the "dumb" guys design their test, the "smart" dudes would do better on average than the very same dumb guys taking the same test, conversly, the opposite would be true. Meaning that, the "smart" dudes test would consistently produce poor results on average for the "dumb" guys taking the same test. The dumb guys would never score better on average than the smart guys that designed the test, however, the smart guys would consistently outperform the dumb guys on their test.

Do you really need that peer reviewed? You seem like a smart guy, why don't you review it and get back to me.

if there's a flaw in the logic, please advise.

Tim-

You admit your half baked hypothesis has zero scientific support. Thanks for that. I disregard hypothetical tests with presumed results employing circular reasoning that are unsupported by science. And you misspelled fray in that idiom you used. Errors of this nature (phonetic spelling) tend to allow perceptive readers to stereotype you and it diminishes your credibility. I for one simply find it reinforces my estimation of you based upon your absurd assertions.

You are correct. I am very smart due to heredity, environment and as proven by testing and in professional and educational achievement. As a perceptive person, I notice those who frequent message boards promoting or supporting racist causes invariably have the benefit of none of these traits. They appear to be covering an inferiority complex and hope that by buoying their race to elevate themselves. It does not work that way.

I already explained the logical deficiency of your idea. Read it over and over until it takes.

 

[Tomfoolery]

I admit to having a propensity for hitting on sensitive issues that frustrate and infuriate the politicly correct_ :angel?:

No doubt, poor ole Doc Rushton comes with a lot of baggage and he's the biggest target only because he's been in the cross hairs a lot longer than most_

But I like Dr Phil because he researched this subject for so long and from so many different angles that I believe he earned the position of top dog in this field_

Besides, anyone whose research produces the same results as Rushton's will be accused of lying and racism exactly the same as he has been, no exceptions_

I thought you might enjoy this article mbig__It's fascinating_
Click&Read the whole thing if you have the time__Gottfredson is amazing_

More accurately, you have a propensity for making absurd self promoting lies about your background, creating multiple race baiting threads and sock puppets.


Gottfredson has received research grants worth $267,000 from the Pioneer Fund.[1][2]

 

[mbig]

Oh you so got me...

Please?

tim-

Yes, but he hasn't even touched me or a Single one of my meaty posts. In fact he hasn't refuted any of your posts except call them speculation, which they admittedly are, if logical. He's just a Burden Shifter, demanding proof for what is admittedly not proveable.
This debate is about evidence. One side has 100 consistent years of it, the other has apologism ranging from language dissociation (on IQ/Intelligence/Race) to apologism of other sorts about those numbers.

 

[Tomfoolery]

I fear the racist white conservative rural people here will lament that their progeny would be sorted into HG Wells' goblin category should the implications of their beliefs be effectuated. In plain English for the uninitiated, race is not predictive of anything save the treatment one might expect to receive from other humans. The nascent discoveries regarding the genetic code, if they do yield predictive information, will be rife with ethical problems, and those promoting a hereditary theory of intelligence in my estimation may find themselves on the short end of the stick if this new metric is employed.

 

[Tomfoolery]

political correctness.

...or rather it is simply not vocalizing hurtful and false generalizations or epithets towards historically disadvantaged minorities, females or homosexuals because polite people care and have a bit of class. But you can stick to a more complicated psychological theory if it enables you to avoid having class, empathy and intelligent discretion.

 

[Hicup]

You admit your half baked hypothesis has zero scientific support. Thanks for that. I disregard hypothetical tests with presumed results employing circular reasoning that are unsupported by science. And you misspelled fray in that idiom you used. Errors of this nature (phonetic spelling) tend to allow perceptive readers to stereotype you and it diminishes your credibility. I for one simply find it reinforces my estimation of you based upon your absurd assertions.

You are correct. I am very smart due to heredity, environment and as proven by testing and in professional and educational achievement. As a perceptive person, I notice those who frequent message boards promoting or supporting racist causes invariably have the benefit of none of these traits. They appear to be covering an inferiority complex and hope that by buoying their race to elevate themselves. It does not work that way.

I already explained the logical deficiency of your idea. Read it over and over until it takes.

Well Okay..

Oh one tiny little thing though. You mention that my logic is circular. Please point it out, you smart cookie you.

Oh and one other thing; for someone claiming the mantle of superior perceptive understanding, you made quite a few assumptions in your two paragraphs about me. (See how I make my point without the use of unnecessary verbiage in order to make myself appear so darn smart?) One, I never used any reference to racial superiority, in fact my assertions make no use of race at all, and are not required unless the observer injects them into the discussion, or finds them a material quality of any particular study. (That would be you in case you're not following along cookie), Two, I'd be curious how your superior perceptive powers would ascertain my ethnicity, my educational background, and or, my motivations. See, where I come from, your post would be what we call a knee jerk reaction with an over-amplified compulsion to attack any reference where intelligence was a measureable trait diverse among subset human populations.

I dunno, maybe you're one of those really smart Asian dudes picking on this assumed poor white dude since your intelligence is measurably superior to mine, you figured you'd come in here and just blow all us racists up with your massive amont of intellectual word-speak. My you really are impressive.. I bow down to your awesomeness..


Tim-


P.S. I spell checked this post. Wouldn't want to annoy you any further, who knows what lengths you'll go to analyze my syntax.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Well Okay..

Oh one tiny little thing though. You mention that my logic is circular. Please point it out, you smart cookie you.

Oh and one other thing; for someone claiming the mantle of superior perceptive understanding, you made quite a few assumptions in your two paragraphs about me. (See how I make my point without the use of unnecessary verbiage in order to make myself appear so darn smart?) One, I never used any reference to racial superiority, in fact my assertions make no use of race at all, and are not required unless the observer injects them into the discussion, or finds them a material quality of any particular study. (That would be you in case you're not following along cookie), Two, I'd be curious how your superior perceptive powers would ascertain my ethnicity, my educational background, and or, my motivations. See, where I come from, your post would be what we call a knee jerk reaction with an over-amplified compulsion to attack any reference where intelligence was a measureable trait diverse among subset human populations.

I dunno, maybe you're one of those really smart Asian dudes picking on this assumed poor white dude since your intelligence is measurably superior to mine, you figured you'd come in here and just blow all us racists up with your massive amont of intellectual word-speak. My you really are impressive.. I bow down to your awesomeness..


Tim-


P.S. I spell checked this post. Wouldn't want to annoy you any further, who knows what lengths you'll go to analyze my syntax.

I already pointed precisely how your reasoning was circular. You assumed that which you sought to prove. You divided the universe into two sects, the smart ones and the dumb ones, each composing a hypothetical test and asserted without proof that the dumb people could not confound the smart. And you STILL don't get it.

For your next trick will you sort skulls by race using their circumference? Do you get it yet? Your stupid HYPO assumes who is smart BEFORE your stupid test (the creation of an IQ test) is administered. And I won't dumb down my English to placate your fragile ego, sorry. If you have difficulty tracking my thoughts, invest in a dictionary.

 

[Empirica]

More accurately, you have a propensity for making absurd self promoting lies about your background, creating multiple race baiting threads and sock puppets.

Accusing someone of "making absurd self promoting lies about their background" and "creating sock puppets" without a single shred of evidence seems rather "absurd" to me_

Unless of course you have a psychic link to the ouija board gods and therefore don't require proof for your opinions and accusations__Do you have connections to the spirit world Tomfoolery?

Gottfredson has received research grants worth $267,000 from the Pioneer Fund.[1][2]

And exactly why do you see a problem with this???

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- 5b. I previously gave the case of 'Marathoners and Chess Champions' as a small example of what is already obvious in the larger world of #5.
I use these, as open competitions eliminate the 'old boy networks' of say, corporate CEOs.
A small 'sub-race' of Kenyans/Ethiopeans have almost all the best times and Wins in history. Yes, running is prevalent among them no doubt, but there are many more and far better fed, and far better trained in the the Total Universe of Marathoners. Yet who wins? Evolution wins.--

If that were an absolute then non Kenyan/Ethiopean athletes going for extended altitude training would gain no benefit whatsoever - or is that me being "politically correct?"

If you whole thesis is based on such examples I worry about the rest of the argument.

 

[mbig]

If that were an absolute then non Kenyan/Ethiopean athletes going for extended altitude training would gain no benefit whatsoever - or is that me being "politically correct?"

If you whole thesis is based on such examples I worry about the rest of the argument.

Strawman Alert!
We're talking Average IQ and Average Athletic ability, Not "absolutes."
It does not, OF Course, prevent people at the top of their respective Bell Curves from excelling (or improving) at anything.
One Could have a Thai Marathon winner or a Pygmy Physicist. But this is/was about Likelihood.
Above is THEE most fallacious and Childish attempt at 'debate' imaginable.
And you "worry about the rest of MY argument"?
Your attempt was Grade School semantics. If you even know what you're doing, that is.

 

[Hicup]

I already pointed precisely how your reasoning was circular. You assumed that which you sought to prove. You divided the universe into two sects, the smart ones and the dumb ones, each composing a hypothetical test and asserted without proof that the dumb people could not confound the smart. And you STILL don't get it.

Au contraire.. The universe is divided into two average degrees of intelligence, the smarter than the dumb dudes, and the dumber than the smart dudes. Now, of course that's a false dichotomy on its face, but not entirely since the baseline for adding and or nixing controllable variables is now established, and... I'm pretty sure I made that part clear in my post. Now, maybe you just missed it, -or- perhaps you're not as perceptive as you might think, cookie, but either way, you're wrong, and I'm correct. (As usual).

For your next trick will you sort skulls by race using their circumference? Do you get it yet? Your stupid HYPO assumes who is smart BEFORE your stupid test (the creation of an IQ test) is administered. And I won't dumb down my English to placate your fragile ego, sorry. If you have difficulty tracking my thoughts, invest in a dictionary.

Oh again cookie, you're reading comprehension is rather quite narrow. I do not assume anything, we already have statistics for who’s smart and who's dumb. Now, what we would do as a scientific exercise is now calculate (Without any other variables other than score) what the mean averages are above a certain threshold to help us determine the smart category and the dumb category, and then take it a little bit further and from that list determine what the average smart dude score is, and the average dumb dude score is. From this point we (Or you) could add other variables for whatever type of study you're attempting to prove correlation from. We could add gender, race, those that pick their nose, bite their nails and whatever else you can imagine, but I hope that now you understand what most intelligent people would have gathered from my original posting that, indeed, the dumb group would never outperform the smart group.

I'm beginning to wonder what group you might belong in? Reading is a very large part of IQ measuring, I mean heck you have to read the questions carefully, so thus far you're not exactly shinning in this regard, but I'll allow you more time to take this all in and perhaps revise your original assumptions about exactly what it is, I was getting at in the first place.

In a court of law, the burden of proof is to establish a prima facie showing. That which is true on its face. (dumb dudes are dumber than smart dudes). Once that burden is met, the burden then lies with the party seeking to prove otherwise.

Your argument seems to be that there’s no such thing as dumb dudes and smart dudes, yet, I’m pretty sure you have already (I think you said as much) insinuated that you’re smarter than me. Now, how much smarter would be a judgment call, and whether I belong in the dumb dudes group, and you in the smart dudes group would require a bit more effort, but the allegation is clear that you think you’re clearly smarter than me. Kinda agrees with my original premise, no? You have some work ahead of you councilor, or do you prefer cookie?


Councilor?


Tim-

 

[Hicup]

Strawman Alert!
We're talking Average IQ and Average Athletic ability, Not "absolutes."
It does not, OF Course, prevent people at the top of their respective Bell Curves from excelling (or improving) at anything.
One Could have a Thai Marathon winner or a Pygmy Physicist. But this is/was about Likelihood.
Above is THEE most fallacious and Childish attempt at 'debate' imaginable.
And you "worry about the rest of MY argument"?
Your attempt was Grade School semantics. If you even know what you're doing, that is.

I think cookie and him are from the same school.


Tim-

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Strawman Alert!

Who was it that based part of his argument on physical performance of Kenyan / Ethiopian runners? If there's a strawman - you created it I'm afraid.

-- Above is THEE most fallacious and Childish attempt at 'debate' imaginable.
And you "worry about the rest of MY argument"?
Your attempt was Grade School semantics. If you even know what you're doing, that is.

I think cookie and him are from the same school.


Tim-

No, I think "thee" most fallacious" attempt at debate is ad hominem and you two are a lovely pair of bookends.

Now, if we can leave your childishness aside - can you tell me what the ultimate goal of your argument is, (I'm asking seriously) is it to bring back eugenics/ reduce spending on lower IQ races (why put them through school if they're (to use hicup's phrase) "dumb" / / ship them off US soil? I'd really like to know.

 

[mbig]

Who was it that based part of his argument on physical performance of Kenyan / Ethiopian runners? If there's a strawman - you created it I'm afraid.

I based my argument on their AVERAGE (and pretty dominant) performance, not an Imbecilic assumption that they would win every race. Same on IQ.
Again, you can have a Low IQ East Asian, (or a Burmese Marathon winner) (or a Pygmy Physicist). It doesn't change the Fact or average.
Your post was too inane to believe and clearly you are unable to discuss this matter on the most fundamental level.
What' also remarkable is that's all you could take issue with from a long and meaty post.

Now, if we can leave your childishness aside - can you tell me what the ultimate goal of your argument is, (I'm asking seriously) is it to bring back eugenics/ reduce spending on lower IQ races (why put them through school if they're (to use hicup's phrase) "dumb" / / ship them off US soil? I'd really like to know.

I already dealt with the "eugenics" charge (in the same post you wildly short-quoted) I knew would be coming from those who objected tacitly agreed.
This is just part, and one of the most fascinating ones, of the Evolution debate. What's telling is all these people who say the believe in evolution, want to say it stopped with the first Homo Sapien skeleton (or 150,000, or 50,000 years ago), when there's strong Evidence to the contrary.
And others, including Ejay, who want to say it's OK for 'Blacks' to be superior physically, but no concommitant differences are allowed mentally. Only the latter makes you a 'racialist' not the former according to him. Again, many previous posts in more detail.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I based my argument on their AVERAGE performance, not an Imbecilic assumption that they would win every race ever. Same on IQ.

Now you're either lying about your "meaty" post or you failed to explain yourself in the post. You decide - here's your own words to help you.

"A small 'sub-race' of Kenyans/Ethiopeans have almost all the best times and Wins in history. Yes, running is prevalent among them no doubt, but there are many more and far better fed, and far better trained in the the Total Universe of Marathoners. Yet who wins? Evolution wins."

How's your strawman doing or can yu twist "almost all" and "best" to somehow mean "average?"

I bow before your mighty and meaty intelligence if you can.

-- Forgetting the word 'childish' I think we should go with 'post-content-age' in which case, again, there is no possible conversation.
I already dealt with the "eugenics" charge I knew would be coming from those who objected tacitly agreed.
This is just part, and one of the most fascinating parts, of the Evolution debate. What's telling is all these people who say the believe in evolution, want to say it stopped with the first Homo Sapien skeleton (or 150,000, or 50,000 years ago), when there's strong Evidence to the contrary.

I asked a simple question -which is "what is the ultimate point of your argument?" and you respond with yet more ad homs. Don't dodge, I can handle the flaming and baiting but I would like an answer please. I'm off to do something more constructive and will give you time to either engage in more ad homs or actually take the time to explain yourself.

 

[Hicup]

Who was it that based part of his argument on physical performance of Kenyan / Ethiopian runners? If there's a strawman - you created it I'm afraid.





No, I think "thee" most fallacious" attempt at debate is ad hominem and you two are a lovely pair of bookends.

Now, if we can leave your childishness aside - can you tell me what the ultimate goal of your argument is, (I'm asking seriously) is it to bring back eugenics/ reduce spending on lower IQ races (why put them through school if they're (to use hicup's phrase) "dumb" / / ship them off US soil? I'd really like to know.

I have no goal or agenda, sorry to disappoint you and your friend, cookie. Other than being correct, my mission was benign. Science of sultry types, fearful of accepting the truth about a particular outcome are NOT my cup of tea. In fact, folks like you that deny what is obvious to most everyone else - even with a cursory passers-by understanding of the facts are dangerous to the integrity of the scientific process. Your semantical style of debate leave me breathless, and remind me of what one can expect when they venture into an intellectual (Self described) philosophical forum and find Aristotle, and Plato arguing about the meaning of what “is”, is, and “it”, oh and let’s not forget the most common definition of what is “real”…

Folks like you, and others that share your view think that because you’ve placed yourself on the correct side of the debate that you can bash and bruise your way to a draw. Well, apparently you failed to read this whole thread because if you had already you’d know that there were two other dudes that thought that they could get away with the same thing. Instead, they were shocked and horrified to find people like me that were not about to let them get away with it. I used careful language (Certainly not rising to the level and sophistication as our beloved, Cookie but comprehendible none the less). Chose my methods, and points to a fault, and beat them over the head with their over-arching presumptions about motivation, intent, and innuendo of the members on this forum reflecting their own well-articulated ideas on the OP’s topic for discussion.

We were not about to let a few trolls shut down a thought provoking discussion because they felt that it wasn’t a discussion worth having, or even merited a thread of its own.

What I found particularly interesting and perfectly timed was that the Sci Channel dedicated a whole hour to the exact same subject matter that we here discussed, and to my amazement came to the same conclusions. What conclusions? That the topic is far from decided, but the general consensus among the scientific community is that yes, indeed, populations of humans do indeed share unique genetic traits not found in other populations suggesting, (Oh Lord here it comes) that humans are branching, or perhaps have always been distinct from one another, and that if left untouched, would evolve independently into something other than the rest of the modern human population.

Interestingly enough, this episode of “Through The Wormhole” (Hosted by a flaming liberal no less) raised even more thought provoking issues such as if modern humans are really not all from the same location or two locations, but it could be that many “varieties” of H. existed at the time, and evolved similarly into groups that exist today as modern humans. Of course no evidence of this, but the question was raised and could not be immediately defeated on the merits of its suggested claim.

Sp if you’re interested in truly discussion the issue rather spending your time trying to figure out who all the racists are in this thread, then I’m sure some will accommodate you, but if it is your goal to shout down honest observations and opinions, then piss off, you’re not welcome.


Tim-

 

[mbig]

Now you're either lying about your "meaty" post or you failed to explain yourself in the post. You decide - here's your own words to help you.
"A small 'sub-race' of Kenyans/Ethiopeans have almost all the best times and Wins in history. Yes, running is prevalent among them no doubt, but there are many more and far better fed, and far better trained in the the Total Universe of Marathoners. Yet who wins? Evolution wins."
How's your strawman doing or can yu twist "almost all" and "best" to somehow mean "average?"
I bow before your mighty and meaty intelligence if you can.

Alas, it's not my "intelligence" that's the problem.
Your posts of late have been breathatkingly !ncoheherent.
ie, http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/123021-tip-iceberg-w-193-a-20.html#post1060390750
or http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/123021-tip-iceberg-w-193-a-17.html#post1060385801
You didn't, and still don't!, even realize what an goofy straw man you posted at the bottom of the last page.

I asked a simple question -which is "what is the ultimate point of your argument?" and you respond with yet more ad homs. Don't dodge, I can handle the flaming and baiting but I would like an answer please. I'm off to do something more constructive and will give you time to either engage in more ad homs or actually take the time to explain yourself.

And I didn't "dodge" anything, I answered you.
I wish you well, but discussion with you is now impossible and has been for at least months.
Good Luck IC.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I have no goal or agenda, sorry to disappoint you and your friend, cookie. Other than being correct, my mission was benign. Science of sultry types, fearful of accepting the truth about a particular outcome are NOT my cup of tea. In fact, folks like you that deny what is obvious to most everyone else - even with a cursory passers-by understanding of the facts are dangerous to the integrity of the scientific process. Your semantical style of debate leave me breathless, and remind me of what one can expect when they venture into an intellectual (Self described) philosophical forum and find Aristotle, and Plato arguing about the meaning of what “is”, is, and “it”, oh and let’s not forget the most common definition of what is “real”…

Folks like you, and others that share your view think that because you’ve placed yourself on the correct side of the debate that you can bash and bruise your way to a draw. Well, apparently you failed to read this whole thread because if you had already you’d know that there were two other dudes that thought that they could get away with the same thing. Instead, they were shocked and horrified to find people like me that were not about to let them get away with it. I used careful language (Certainly not rising to the level and sophistication as our beloved, Cookie but comprehendible none the less). Chose my methods, and points to a fault, and beat them over the head with their over-arching presumptions about motivation, intent, and innuendo of the members on this forum reflecting their own well-articulated ideas on the OP’s topic for discussion.

We were not about to let a few trolls shut down a thought provoking discussion because they felt that it wasn’t a discussion worth having, or even merited a thread of its own.

What I found particularly interesting and perfectly timed was that the Sci Channel dedicated a whole hour to the exact same subject matter that we here discussed, and to my amazement came to the same conclusions. What conclusions? That the topic is far from decided, but the general consensus among the scientific community is that yes, indeed, populations of humans do indeed share unique genetic traits not found in other populations suggesting, (Oh Lord here it comes) that humans are branching, or perhaps have always been distinct from one another, and that if left untouched, would evolve independently into something other than the rest of the modern human population.

Interestingly enough, this episode of “Through The Wormhole” (Hosted by a flaming liberal no less) raised even more thought provoking issues such as if modern humans are really not all from the same location or two locations, but it could be that many “varieties” of H. existed at the time, and evolved similarly into groups that exist today as modern humans. Of course no evidence of this, but the question was raised and could not be immediately defeated on the merits of its suggested claim.

Sp if you’re interested in truly discussion the issue rather spending your time trying to figure out who all the racists are in this thread, then I’m sure some will accommodate you, but if it is your goal to shout down honest observations and opinions, then piss off, you’re not welcome.


Tim-

A cursory read was enough to tell me “who the racists are in this thread.” Scientific racism is scientific racism, no matter how you dress it up. Personally, I find fault with a system of measuring an entire group of people whose score keeps shifting. Psychometrics initially told us 100 years ago that the inferior black race had a particular IQ yet 100 years later we see that it’s a different score. This pseudoscience causes huge damage and yet we continue to find one truism – intelligent people raised on a particular and abhorrent set of assumptions will continue to create tests and theories that support those assumptions. Pretentions about objectivity in studying the human race are a poor substitute for true science so please, don’t lecture me about “honest discussion.”

I’m done here.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Au contraire.. The universe is divided into two average degrees of intelligence, the smarter than the dumb dudes, and the dumber than the smart dudes. Now, of course that's a false dichotomy on its face, but not entirely since the baseline for adding and or nixing controllable variables is now established, and... I'm pretty sure I made that part clear in my post. Now, maybe you just missed it, -or- perhaps you're not as perceptive as you might think, cookie, but either way, you're wrong, and I'm correct. (As usual).


Oh again cookie, you're reading comprehension is rather quite narrow. I do not assume anything, we already have statistics for who’s smart and who's dumb. Now, what we would do as a scientific exercise is now calculate (Without any other variables other than score) what the mean averages are above a certain threshold to help us determine the smart category and the dumb category, and then take it a little bit further and from that list determine what the average smart dude score is, and the average dumb dude score is. From this point we (Or you) could add other variables for whatever type of study you're attempting to prove correlation from. We could add gender, race, those that pick their nose, bite their nails and whatever else you can imagine, but I hope that now you understand what most intelligent people would have gathered from my original posting that, indeed, the dumb group would never outperform the smart group.

I'm beginning to wonder what group you might belong in? Reading is a very large part of IQ measuring, I mean heck you have to read the questions carefully, so thus far you're not exactly shinning in this regard, but I'll allow you more time to take this all in and perhaps revise your original assumptions about exactly what it is, I was getting at in the first place.

In a court of law, the burden of proof is to establish a prima facie showing. That which is true on its face. (dumb dudes are dumber than smart dudes). Once that burden is met, the burden then lies with the party seeking to prove otherwise.

Your argument seems to be that there’s no such thing as dumb dudes and smart dudes, yet, I’m pretty sure you have already (I think you said as much) insinuated that you’re smarter than me. Now, how much smarter would be a judgment call, and whether I belong in the dumb dudes group, and you in the smart dudes group would require a bit more effort, but the allegation is clear that you think you’re clearly smarter than me. Kinda agrees with my original premise, no? You have some work ahead of you councilor, or do you prefer cookie?


Councilor?


Tim-

That was retarded, straw man laden and your previous reasoning remains circular. And it's spelled counselor, retard. I will get past insinuating I may be smarter than you, I know I am, both because I am generally smarter than everyone around me and you are a damned fool based upon your poor, slipshod posting.