Race and IQ differences

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by rayznack2, Apr 26, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    Chinese from Hong Kong and southern China are going to be closely related to Chinese from the north, Koreans and Japanese.

    This is really a non-issue.

    How are BLL's taken in Hong Kong circumstantial evidence to BLL's for those people? Hong Kong has an average IQ of 106 and has been high for many years. The children exposed to lead in 1987 are the adults today.

    Even if IQ were not taken with the data on BLL's, we see societies with high lead having high IQ.

    (Yes, I understand IQ wasn't taken with BLL, but average IQ is compared to average BLL, and I am not arguing BLL does not affect IQ)

    Again, my argument isn't high prenatal, neonatal and childhood lead levels do not affect IQ, but that the data from Hong Kong challenges your assumptions on one cause of Black and White IQ differences.

    Here are more sources on higher heavy metal levels in East Asia:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09603123.2013.769204

    Taiwanese BLL's averaged 8.10 - 8.99 ug/dL; but the article concludes BLL's were not significantly higher than most developing and developed nations.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7843836

    Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong are societies with both higher lead levels and higher IQ than any White population.

    So you have correlation data between body size and brain volume? You're simply making an assumption. Until you have the data showing positive correlation between body size and brain volume I won't take your word for it.

    I also am amused you would think average body size differences exist between blacks and whites to a sizeable degree.

    I will not do your homework for you. If you do not show the degree to which brain volume and body size are correlated, and the gap in black-white body size, I will neither reject, qualify or modify the data.

    The incoherence of your argument is telling.

    You are assuming environmental factors you do not bother to quantify are potential causes for the brain volume gap, but do not offer explanation how the sub-region of one part of the brain in fact was larger for blacks than for whites.

    How could the environment cause all but one regions of the brain in blacks to shrink, but for the orbitocortex to be larger?

    How does the orbitocortex being larger in blacks than whites support the position of no racial brain volume differences?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    I'm pleased to see that Rayznack actually stepped up and joined the forum for debate. The reason I invited him here is because I believe that Sciforum offers a higher level of debate than Political Forum which is to be expected considering this is a Science Message Board and the other is a Political Message Board. Rayznack claims to have a scientific educational and career background (Chemistry was it?). My scientific background goes as far as taking electives in college in subjects such as Psychology, Anthropology and Biology. So I want to test his knowledge of this subject against a more scientifically literate crowd than that found at Political Forum. When I saw Phill/Mikemikev step up here and get his ass handed to him I knew this would be a great place to test Rayznack and other racists. Obviously I do not wish to flood the board with racist propaganda but this looks like a good testing ground for people who want Scientific Racism to be taken seriously. I hope that this thread does not get prematurely closed. I think that defeating Rayznack in debate (e.g. debate him until he gives up) would be more productive than closing the thread and banning him but I understand why Phill was banned, Bell outlined his reasons well.

    With that said I would like to present what I consider the definitive refutation to the brain size and race argument:

    Exhibit A: Lieberman (2001)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In this article Leonard Lieberman showed that Rushton's use of the race concept was invalid and that the studies he cited to support his argument did not adequately control for variables that could render reliable brain measurement. Rushton's dependence on the concept of aggregation was also methodologically flawed. I encourage everyone to read this article. Rayznack and I have debated this at length. It would be refreshing to get some new feedback on Lieberman's research.

    Also I think that Rayznack should comply with Bell's request to first define race and show evidence that races differ in brain size for genetic reasons with a primary source of his own. I don't think the study he cited supports his conclusions as others have pointed out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    You are the challenger here. It is to you to provide proof.

    But you won't: You will continue your racist trolling until banned, and good riddance.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    Except I did not bring in those 'environmental variables' except lead contamination.

    Those who brought claims against my argument need to provide evidence.

    Nice try.
     
  8. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29

    This is typical of the garbage evidence you use and why your arguments shouldn't be trusted.

    You know by now Morton has been vindicated by the accusations against him by Gould and Leiberman of sampling errors and yet you quote Leiberman and cite Gould in defense of your argument.

    Since you knowingly posted inaccurate accusations by Lieberman of Morton, then I encourage the moderators to reprimand you for your use of sources.
     
  9. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    That's hilarious. I should let you know that the thread I was working on for Political Forum was one showing that Gould was right about his criticisms of Morton and vindicated by another scholar who analyzed Lewis et al. (2011) and showed that they were wrong.

     
  10. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    Weisberg doesn't conclude the Lewis et al. study was wrong.

    Did you actually read the study?

    The Lewis study still falsifies Gould's claim of sampling error in favor of whites over blacks. Weisberg does not challenge this, and your quote from Lieberman is therefore still wrong.

    There was no sampling error by Morton in favor of whites over blacks.

    Your are knowingly posting inaccurate information.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,467
    I referred you to Phill's linked graph and analysis - in that PCA analysis the Japanese are more closely related to Malaysians than they are to many Chinese people. So are the Han in Hong Kong. Many Chinese people are more closely related to North American Navajo than they are to the average citizen of Hong Kong.
    But you don't know why.
    Here's one proposal your data support: Hoisin sauce in the diet protects against the effects of maternal lead exposure during gestation.
    Here's another: the Han people of Hong Kong really are a "race", and one of their racial characteristics is a genetically established resistance to the effects of lead exposure. They develop normal, average human intelligence even in high lead environments.
    Here's a third: The people you call "blacks" really are a race, and among their racial characteristics is an unusual sensitivity to maternal and even grandmaternal lead exposure - even small amounts of lead have large effects on their brain development, much more than they do on other races.
    Here's a fourth: Stress in their mothers from living around bigoted white people damages the brain development of some American black children.
    But it doesn't. Those aren't even "Black" or "White" people.

    Which you have yet to describe, btw - who are you talking about?
    Nope. Don't need it.
    Not as amused as I am to see the same old basic errors in reasoning showing up in every single one of these racial bs posters. I don't think anything of the kind.
    I don't need an specific alternative mechanism to deny the validity of an inferred causation without even a valid correlation to support it. All I need to do is point to the muddled logic and ridiculous assumptions, and the fifteen other possibilities.
    Do they? Who knows?

    If that were ever established - and the first step would be figuring out who you are talking about with this "blacks" language - one would begin by taking a close look at the many known factors that influence human brain development. So come back in forty years.

    If your problem is that you can't even think of any way such a barely statistically valid finding could turn up in a sample of 25 people drawn non-randomly from the immediate neighborhood of a big city medical laboratory in the US, there's not much hope for you in this field, but here's one possibility to chew over:

    Black people in the US have naturally larger brains than white people, but various obvious and common environmental influences (some listed above) collectively damage their development - except for a couple of brain regions that happen to be less sensitive, such as the OFC, which develop normally (possibly because they develop largely after birth https://books.google.com/books?id=0...enatal brain development stages ofc \&f=false)

    That fits your data, and all of your silly assumptions about "Blacks", perfectly.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  12. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    Yes, he does say that their rejection of Gould's conclusions were wrong.



    At best Gould's critique was not infallible, he did make errors, but he did correctly show that Morton mismeasured skulls to conform to the racial biases of his time. I read the article. I suggest you do the same.
     
  13. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    That's not the point of contention.

    You quoted Lieberman claiming Morton made measurement errors in favor of his supposed bias.

    The article you cite does not challenge the falsification of Lieberman's and Gould's claims against Morton's measurements.
     
  14. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    It does exactly that. The author clearly claims that Gould's work should remain an example of exposing bias in science and that Morton made errors in his measurements.
     
  15. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    Great. I'll look forward to seeing the data showing Han Chinese are more closely related to Navajo than to Japanese.

    Yes, that's a very nice back-pedaling to overlapping lines of evidence contradicting your assumptions.

    Just to repeat, I've cited three different studies showing Chinese, Taiwanese and Koreans have higher BLL than whites.

    Your entire reply boils down to not bothering to explain the data.

    Yes, actually you do need to show positive correlation between brain and body size in humans because without it you are assuming.

    It's funny (not really) you want to reject evidence when it suits you but don't bother on the justification.

    Like your inability to notice the incoherent conclusions you made after acknowledging black Americans have smaller subregions except their orbitocortex which, in fact, was shown to be larger in blacks than whites?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  16. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    So why does the author not dispute the findings of the 2011 study which showed no skull measurement errors in favor of Morton's alleged bias?

    You claimed the 2011 study was falsified when the main conclusion was untouched
     
  17. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    Did you read the article? Weisberg clearly showed that Morton made errors in sampling and that most of Gould's conclusions were correct.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



     
  18. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    Are you illiterate?

    Weisberg doesn't say Morton made sampling errors or 'errors in sampling'.

    The extract you quoted does not touch the 2011 study showing no sampling bias in favor of Caucasoids over Negroids; which falsifies Gould's claim of sampling errors in favor of Morton's supposed bias.

    The graph isn't relevant to your argument.

    The problem with your arguments is you have an inability to understand the issues being discussed.

    You quoted Lieberman as saying Morton made sampling errors and then quoted a study you believed exonerates Lieberman and Gould from a 2011 study which remeasured a percentage of Morton's skulls to determine if his measurements were a) inaccurate and/or b) showed a bias for Caucasoids.

    The 2011 study show Morton 'positively' mismeasured Negroid Egyptian skulls more than chance would allow - falsifying Gould's assumptions.

    The Weisberg study does not challenge this conclusion.

    Therefore, Gould's claim that Morton mismeasured skulls is still falsified.
     
  19. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    You either don't know how to read studies or you are being dishonest. What part of "Lewis et al. have not falsified Gould’s claim" do you not understand? The whole article is a critique of Lewis et al. (2011)'s conclusions and shows that they were wrong in their assessment of Gould's critique of Morton. The graph shows that Morton's cranial capacity measurements changed from one method of measurement to the next and that the African skulls show the most dramatic change indicating that there was an error in measurement that conformed to Morton's biases.

     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,467
    Was the error there deliberate? A complete misreading like that is always possible, but this is your third or fourth - and always in the same direction.

    Please read more carefully.

    Meanwhile, regarding the fact that by some measures many Chinese people are more closely related to the Navajo than they are to the Han: You claimed to have read over the thread in which Phill was so unfairly dismissed - I have twice now referred you to his major link, which you cannot have missed if you did review the discussion there. Have you forgotten?

    I'm going to just keep on watching you argue that the mere possibility of a correlation between head size and body size in humans is an "assumption", while your descriptions of a race you call the "Blacks" is supported by IQ data from Hong Kong.
    No, you haven't. You aren't even paying attention to the dates on those studies, let alone the content.

    And when you have been, you will need yet another set of studies, in which IQ scores are controlled for at least the dozen or more known environmental influences on them, and the populations defined on biological grounds in the first place.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have a personal opinion, that the Northeastern Asian are indeed more intelligent on average than others, say Americans which are quite a mix. They are very disproportionally represented in tough programs at the graduate level, say working for a Ph.D. in physic or math - my personal observation. Because that has been my observation I pondered why.

    I concluded that most of modern man "exploded" out of Africa about 50K years ago. Those that via many generations, went the farthest from their origin, faced and survived many new challenges without help of accumulated culture knowledge. For example, the less wise drank toxic water when crossing deserts, or fell thru thin ice they had never seen before, or ate plants that were toxic, etc. The more intelligent ones let others do these new things first. So migration from central Africa was a Darwinian selection process, most extreme for those who ended up in North East Asia.
     
  22. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    Morton was concerned over the accuracy of using seeds so later used BB's.

    The 2011 study examined his results and found no bias beyond random sampling error in favor of Caucasoids over Negroids.

    In fact, Morton's sampling error was greatest for Egyptian Negroids more than random chance would predict; however, he over-measured Egyptian Negroid skulls.

    The 2011 study exonerates Morton's measurements.

    Weisberg not only does not challenge the core conclusion of the 2011 study, but certainly does not falsify the study.
     
  23. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    What precisely do you think Weisberg is arguing in his article?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page