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

    Did I actually say I read over the thread? If I did, I will say now I have not in fact read the entire thread or anywhere near the entirety.

    So the correlation between brain volume and body size in one or two standard deviations of an average sized body of a person is now a mere possibility where before it was something to throw away a study because we did not control for it?

    Do you have any evidence to support some argument you may wish to make or are you running on vapors here on out?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    He is not arguing Morton mismeasured the skulls in his collection in favor of his supposed personal bias.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. EgalitarianJay Registered Member


    Then what did he mean by the quote in bold and what was he really arguing in your opinion?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    This is over the seed packing that Morton's assistant conducted. Morton later used BB's whose results were corroborated by the 2011 study.

    Weisberg did not dispute the results of the 2011 study and therefore did not falsify the study as you claim.

    Neither the seed packing nor the BB shot changes the hierarchical data showing Caucasoids to having larger brain volume than Negroids.
  8. rayznack2 Banned Banned

  9. Bells Staff Member

    That is not what it actually said..

    It also did not state that "blacks", as you are incorrectly labeling people, are not immune to "environmental variables".

    I have asked you on page one, to please identify what you mean by the terms you are using, provide a definition and support this definition with scientific evidence that "race" exists. You need to provide evidence that "blacks" are a distinct race, and that "whites", are a distinct race.

    We are on page 3 now and you are yet to do this.

    So what does "blacks" even mean? From where? The same goes for "whites". Not to mention your use of people from Hong Kong to classify them as being one racial group that you seem to refer to as North East Asians.

    Let's see, you have made ridiculous claims in this thread that you are yet to support.

    You claim to have read the other discussion with Phill, yet you seem to not understand what was being discussed in that thread, so much so that you are making the exact same mistakes.

    I have read the links provided and frankly, I cannot see how or where you came out with what you have come out with. And this is after you raised the expectation of what is expected of you on this sub-forum - since it was all very clear in the other thread. To wit, you need to support your claims. You do not have a right or reason to demand that everyone supports their claims while you provide absolutely none.

    You keep using terms like "blacks" and "whites" and making ridiculous claims about race, without any scientific evidence that race exists, and without any definition or evidence to explain what you mean by "blacks" or "whites". You need to provide scientific support that race exists and that "blacks" and "whites" are distinct racial groups and from where.. If you fail to do this, then this thread will end up like the other ones of late. This isn't a blog site. It's a science forum and you are required to back up your claims with scientific data.

    Let's look at your claims that people from Hong Kong would classify as North East Asians as a racial group, which encompasses the whole of China, Korea and Japan. Did you not read the genetic studies that were completed across Asia recently? It was provided in the other thread where this was also brought up by Phill and his ridiculous misrepresentation of maps he posted from studies he had not even read. Ethnic Chinese are fairly diverse and are closely related to other groups in Asia and while there is a close relationship genetically with Koreans and the Japanese, you have completely disregarded that the genetic links closely mirror the geographic spread across China. As such, people in North Western China are not genetically closer to Koreans or the Japanese. And the Japanese and Koreans are closer to each other genetically, than they are to other groups. You have lumped huge swathes of groups together, incorrectly, and you have determined that they are of the same race. The reality is that North East Asia and Asia itself is a genetic melting pot.

    In particular, those population groups derived from Mongolia or near by provinces including Oroqen, Hezhen, and Daur show relatively large differences with Han Chinese. Similarly, two of the ethnic groups in the southeastern region of China, Lahu and Dai, also showed large paired Fst values with Han Chinese. With respect to population groups derived from very populous groups, the data indicate that Japanese and Korean were very closely related, as were Korean and Han Chinese but that these groups are much further from the south-east Asian populations (Filipino and Vietnamese). The Han Chinese and Japanese groups showed larger separation than either with Korean, although the paired Fst values were still small relative to Chinese/Filipino Fst. The Fst values also showed a close relationship between the Dai ethnic group in China and the Vietnamese population sample. Each of the groups had large paired Fst values with the Yakut from Siberia with the exception of the Mongolian, Hezhen and Oroqen ethnic groups that derive from north-eastern China or Mongolia. The relative size of the Fst values also generally corresponded to the geographical separation of the EAS population groups

    And I would encourage you to define the terms and labels you have assigned to population groups and define that race exists with scientific support. You have yet to do this. In fact, you have provided virtually nothing to support your claims.

    You keep saying this, yet you keep posting and responding to everyone and you are still to provide any support for your arguments.

    You have 12 hours. Failure to meet these demands will see the thread closed and sent to the Cesspool and you will be moderated.

    Sooo..? Where is your scientific evidence that "race" exists?

    Who do you mean by "blacks" and "whites"? Which white group are you looking at to make these determinations? Which groups of "blacks"? Or are you making generalised comments and assertions without providing any proof or definition to the terms you have decided to employ in this thread that go by colour alone?

    This is a common mistake often made by racists and when challenged to provide support for their definitions, they clam up, become defensive and aren't able to support anything.

    Glad to have amused you. But if you are incapable of understanding that your brain will grow as your body grow and that your growth will affect your brain size, then the joke really is on you. Your brain size is dependent on many things, from nutrition to foetal development in your mother's uterus, to other genetic and environmental factors. In short, not everyone's brain will be the same size and brain size is not indicative of one's skin colour. One's brain size is dependent on one's body mass. "Race" as you are trying to argue, as little to do with it.

    Or do you think that you still have the same sized brain that you had when you popped out of your mother? Your brain will grow as your body grows. Environmental factors can affect this, and this is pretty much determined at the point of conception and affected by one's environment.

    I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the encephalisation quotient is not important to this topic? You are the one who tried to argue that one's race determine's one's brain size, when you declared that the brains of "blacks", whoever you determine them to be, are smaller than "whites", whoever you determine to be and you have argued that this directly correlates to the IQ difference between the two. You have failed to factor many many variables that affect brain size, such as growth, gestation, genetics, sex, nutrition (maternal, gestational nutrition, nutrition throughout the person's life), drugs and medications (maternal, paternal and the child's).. To name a few. Instead, you made a broad generalisation that had little to no thought. You argued that brain size correlates to intelligence. To put it simply, males have larger brains than females. Why? Because men are generally larger than their female counterparts. If we were to take your claims seriously, it would suggest that males are more intelligent than females, when the reality is that IQ are fairly evenly matched between sexes.

    I would suggest that if you do not want to have your claims about things like brain size scrutinised (and mocked), that you do not try and then claim that it is irrelevant when your claims are clearly proven incorrect.

    Well, sorry to break this to you, but there are many things you have posted in this thread that needs to be explained and supported with scientific proof. As yet, you have failed to do this.
    EgalitarianJay likes this.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    I'm sorry, you posted data?


    A study in Hong Kong about lead poisoning which you then attributed to "blacks" by a connection known only to yourself? And which you then incorrectly attributed to IQ testing?

    Is this a joke?

    I had assumed that you had read the other thread.

    Environmental effects on intelligence is widely accepted as being a major factor. Even the other thread, which you linked in your OP, clearly showed this in the survey that was linked in the OP of the other thread. Are you now suggesting that environmental factors have no bearing on intelligence? Please support this contention.

    You mean studies like this one? http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8416

    Which looks at the different work and education ethics of American Asians as an explanation as to why they are doing so much better than everyone else?

    Or how about in Japan, which has a history of putting so much emphasis on education and high achievement, and yes, along Confucian values? http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/736/Japan-HISTORY-BACKGROUND.html

    Or China? http://www.chinaeducenter.com/en/chistory.php

    An excellent paper and break down of the education system in China and compares the Confucian education system to the West, by Don Starr, an academic who has studied it in detail: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...3MdJMVC3Qr5sRd9NOX_Umg&bvm=bv.120551593,d.dGo Which you need to download to read..

    Well considering you have been posting solidly this whole time, can you post it now please?

    Oh please do. But bear in mind that this site has tended to frown on threads like this. So the result of the report may not end up as you desire.

    Also, it has been 3 pages and you are yet to provide anything to support your claims. Considering everyone else has supported their arguments, and you have yet to do so.. Report me or don't report me, the end result for you will not be the best.

    As per the link you posted to a blog site called "Human Varieties" (the site itself, good grief man! This is the sort of rubbish you read?) which scanned what appears to be the pages of the thesis in question, most of which was so fuzzy, the words were barely discernible, did you actually read the thesis? Because she says nothing of "race" affecting intelligence. What she did find was that children adopted into families who place a greater emphasis on education has a huge influence on the IQ of children. She also noted that "black" and "white" children in America, who were adopted by families who have a good home education environment with a large emphasis on academic achievement also saw their scores rise in line with that of adopted Korean children. Not to mention the fact that she touches on racial stereotyping of the children by the parents themselves may have set up an expectation that they would do better, as well as the fact that the studies did not factor into how racism could try to encourage the children to do better because they may feel they have something to prove to their adopted parents.
    EgalitarianJay likes this.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So your claims about what you read in it, the entire content of your opening post, and this entire thread topic - it's all bullshit? You claim to have read that people were asserting things without evidence, but in fact you had never checked or even noticed their proffered references and evidence?

    Because I was using Phill's links as my evidence. Explicitly.
    It was, and remains, an obvious possible explanation for any pattern in the size of any given physical feature,

    which means that failure to control for it - just like failure to control for age would have, or sex, which are also mere possibilities until measured - invalidates any attempted racial inferences.

    But if you for some unknown reason require an actual reference for the hypothesis that in a given group of 58 human beings the larger ones might have larger heads, and the larger heads enclose a larger volume for their brains to be in, and the brains in a larger volume of available space be larger themselves,

    if this seems so unlikely to you that it need not even be considered by the study design, or controlled for in the analysis, but nevertheless you recognize its implications,

    why not just check it with a quick Google search? You are curious, aren't you, whether overlooking something as obvious as that might invalidate your inferences and make your claims look foolish in public? Here's a pretty little graph in red and blue, showing what appears to be a small but visible height correlation with brain size independent of sex: https://books.google.com/books?id=AkoACwAAQBAJ&pg=PA524&lpg=PA524&dq=larger brains taller human&source=bl&ots=vNWaWRpNJW&sig=ZUZErK7rDlXdxZpKg3EZquMV0RA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9vt3V7a3MAhUIbz4KHcQXDhoQ6AEIYTAJ#v=onepage&q=larger brains taller human&f=false
    (The author appears to have confused height with "size", btw, but we let that slide).

    That's within a population, mind - the circumstance in which the correlation is apparently (by that guy) thought to be less.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
    Bells and EgalitarianJay like this.
  12. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    The claim to report you was obviously facetious. I have no delusion this forum is remotely unbiased or impartial.

    Your arguments are so shoddy and half-baked it would take a week to unpack.

    I am not bothering with your requirements to prove Koreans, Japanese and Chinese are genetically distinct people from whites (Europeans) or black Americans (west sub-saharan African).

    Perhaps you don't know what supporting one's argument actually mean?. It took iceaura three pages to provide evidence for his claim on the relationship between brain size and height.

    Your defense of non-biological explanations for high Korean IQ from the study were incoherent as expected. Koreans scored higher on testing than white than black children. The reasons provided by the author were half thought out guesses that racism or stereotype somehow managed to promote high Korean IQ compared to the control!

    Your links from Japan and China are not evidence you can cite. They do not take a random sample of Chinese and Japanese students out of their traditional educational environment into a Western educational environment and compare the results. Nor do they place white children into a Chinese educational environment.

    The point on lead poisoning was to show that Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong have far higher lead poisoning levels than any white nation but also higher IQ than any white nation.

    Every member has so far fled from an explanation to this fact. Since you can't follow a conversation I doubt I will hear a coherent response from you as well.

    Btw, since iceaura has ducked out from wanting to explain the results of the brain volume study showing blacks having larger orbitocortex but smaller overall brain volume perhaps you would manage to scrape together some explanation as to how blacks have larger orbitocortex volume, and how supposed environmental variables do not uniformly affect black brain volume, but actually result in one subregion being larger in blacks than whites.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Let us suppose that there turns out to be some correlation between race and IQ, if we somehow manage to control all the other variables. For example, suppose we find out that the average "white" IQ score is 5 points below the average "black" IQ score.

    What then follows? Why would this be important?
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Tick tock.. You need to start supporting your claims.

    Attacking others is not a good way to go about it.

    Why not? If you are going to make claims about "race", then you have to be able to support this claim with scientific evidence. You claim race exists. It is up to you to support this with scientific evidence.

    This isn't your private blog. If you cannot be bothered to support your claims and arguments with scientific evidence, then this thread will go the way of the dodo.

    Evidence was provided. You just weren't able to comprehend it.

    And on this site and in this sub-forum, you are required to post scientific evidence to support your argument. Your say so means diddly squat here, I'm afraid.

    I was going off the half arsed pdf file you provided.. Did you not even read your own links?


    That is what she actually stated in that paper. Perhaps you should get beyond the first page and stop skipping to the conclusion and actually take time to read the whole thing.

    The links on the education systems in Japan and China were in response to your scoffing about the Confucian education system in those countries. One of those papers also provides a detailed explanation and history of the education system in China with a comparison to Western style education..

    Perhaps you should go back and read what you say and the direct responses to your comments. You know, so you stop wasting everyone's time.

    Your argument about exposure to lead in Hong Kong in the OP had nothing to do with the IQ of "blacks".

    Which leads me to question what exactly you wish to discuss here?

    Since you are wholly incapable of understanding what you are linking and since you are making connections to things that do not exist and since you are still, even after repeated requests from myself and other members, to define what you mean by "race", "blacks", "whites", and to support your claims with scientific evidence, I have to ask, what is the whole point of this thread?

    You have proven that you barely grasp even a minute understanding of biology, to the point where you tried to argue that brain to body size ratio does not exist.. Not to mention you tried to connect lead exposure to people in Hong Kong to the IQ of blacks and don't even get me started on your claims that blacks are somehow immune to environmental variables (that one had us rolling in the aisles with laughter), or the fact that you believe that all Chinese people, Japanese and Koreans are genetically distinct people.. Despite proof of the genetic distances that exist in China itself..

    Have you considered a more simple non-scientific forum? Because what you are posting here wouldn't even get you a "C" in grade school because even in grade school, you would be expected to do some research and provide some evidence to back up your claims and at the very least, you would be expected to be able to define and support the labels you use.. You have yet to do any of this.

    So do better. Stop wasting everyone's time. Stop trolling and demanding everyone provide evidence when you cannot seem to be bothered to do the same.

    Or this thread and you will be no more on this site.

    No they haven't.

    Everyone here is expecting you to support your argument and provide clear definitions with scientific evidence to the terms you have employed in this thread.

    Your version of winning this debate is tantamount to you 'winning the internetz'.. In short, you just look foolish and somehow slow and dim.

    And there is only so much that we will pander to your inability to understand what you are posting, and your inability to be able to explain and support your arguments. So tick tock, tick tock..

    How about you start supporting your claims before you make any demands.

    You only have a few hours left to do so.

    Provide scientific evidence that race exists and that one's race affects one's intelligence. Define and support your claims about "blacks", "whites" and explain, with scientific evidence, that they are somehow different races. In other words, stop trolling. From this site's rules:

    Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:
    • Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
    • Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
    • Never attempting to justify their position.
    • Demanding evidence from others while offering none in return.
    You fit each of those points. And if you continue to do this, we won't tolerate you here. And we also do not tolerate or allow racial stereotyping and racist arguments here. So you had best get to supporting your arguments or I will apply the rules to you as they were intended to be applied. This is your last chance.
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    So what is your point? Is it that because it took 3 pages you can ignore it? Or are you pointing out that he can provide evidence when you cannot?
  16. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Please elaborate why one would need to define the groups discussed in anymore quantitative and qualitative definition than one would European Jews in a discussion of genetic diseases afflicting European Jews at greater frequencies than other groups?

    Your demands are spurious. Feel free why the discussion on groups and IQ is treated differently than a discussion on groups and genetic disease.
  17. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Please elaborate why one would need to define the groups discussed in anymore quantitative and qualitative definition than one would European Jews in a discussion of genetic diseases afflicting European Jews at greater frequencies than other groups?

    Your demands are spurious. Feel free why the discussion on groups and IQ is treated differently than a discussion on groups and genetic disease.
  18. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    The whole article is a rebuttal to the conclusion of Lewis et al. (2011) that Gould's conclusion that Morton's cranial measurements were a product of his racial bias was invalid. Weisberg acknowledges some errors in Gould's analysis of Morton's data but said that his overall conclusion that Morton's research had a racial bias was correct.

    As far as Morton's data showing a hierarchy with Caucasoids > Negroids is concerned Weisberg points out that the mean difference between the racial groups analyzed is smaller than the difference between the subpopulations within the racial groups themselves and that there is less difference in mean cranial capacity between the racial groups than between the sexes.

    Weisberg addresses 5 criticisms made by Gould:

    Morton mismeasured crania to conform to his racial biases.

    2. Morton manipulated his inclusion of subsamples to depress the grand means.

    3. Sexual dimorphism was an additional source of bias in Morton's measurements.

    4. Native Americans were the largest Crania in the collection.

    5. Morton's errors conform to his bias.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I should point out that Lieberman's account of Morton's measurement error in his article was a mere anecdote and not central to his overall arguments against Rushton's research and the claim of racial hierarchies in brain size. Even Lewis et al. (2011) who you use to vindicate Morton agree that cranial capacity or brain volume do not determine intelligence and that while cranial variation does exist it doesn't conform to racial hierarchies in size.

    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  19. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    It is customary in debate to define your terms and especially in a scientific debate to define categories you are using. If your position is that the racial categories you are using are empirically valid then you need to provide evidence. Personally I don't want to see you banned because you will claim you were treated unfairly, rather I'd like to see you beaten legitimately in debate and flee as you constantly claim others are doing but these are their rules. I think what Bells is asking you to do is define the terms in your own words and cite a scientific source supporting your argument. If your views have any support in the scientific community why would you not be able to do this?
  20. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    I am providing my evidence supporting my claim of a hierarchy in IQ of ethno-racial groups.

    What part of the studies do you not understand?

    The reality is I don't need to scientifically define the groups being discussed anymore than I would need to define European Jew and the prevalence of genetic diseases afflicting European Jews. Bells is creating hurdles not required in other discussions and flees when pressed to substantiate his arguments. He and the rest of the members have not addressed an assortment of countervailing evidence in the form of 5 studies I've presented.

    I'm actually at a loss by your inability to read and follow arguments.

    I never said brain and body size did not correlate. I said I wasn't going to assume correlation without evidence. That's how science works. It took the other poster 3 pages to provide a graph on height and brain volume which shows low correlation between the two variables. I was personally aware of the correlation since I have had discussions on black and white American body height in the past. The point is I'm expecting members to support their arguments against my own with evidence, and that includes basic fact finding.

    I also never said blacks are immune to environmental variables. It takes someone truly illiterate or dimwitted to be unable to follow the discussion of what the study I provided shows and its implications for blacks having larger orbitocortexes than whites.

    The point on lead contamination and your continuing inability to follow the line of logic is beyond believable. I have posted three studies from Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan showing higher lead contamination in those populations than any white majority nation yet the former having higher IQ than any latter. The inclusion of blacks was an extrapolation. Again, it's mind boggling you are this illiterate, dull or uneducated to understand plain language.

    Your two links about China and Japan are still not evidence. I gave an example of what constitutes evidence. It is mind boggling to understand how you are a moderator as you clearly do not possess the sharpness of mind required for your role.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Maybe I am confusing you with someone else. Are you and rayznack1 the same person?
  22. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    I created that account with Hotmail and was unable to complete registration and therefore never posted.
  23. Schneibster Registered Member

    I think the entire conversation is footless from the beginning because there is no genetic justification for separating humans into "races" based on skin color.

    As far as heavy metal exposure (primarily lead, in the US), it is obvious that people living in old badly-maintained housing are more likely to live in circumstances that expose them to more lead. And the bulk of such people are sorted into such housing based on skin color. In other words, it isn't just heavy metal exposure; it's specifically lead exposure; and the degree of such exposure is dependent upon socio-economic status; and socio-economic status is lower for people with dark skins than people with light skins; and this is primarily due to social factors, and furthermore is a vicious cycle in which dark people get more exposure and their status is lowered, and their status is lowered and they get more exposure.

    Lead poisoning is becoming less common as old housing is replaced by new, and we can see the effects in the violence statistics in the US.

    Under these conditions it is also footless to compare "blacks" with "Chinese," since the socio-economics of the situation are different. And as was pointed out very early in this thread, you have not accounted for this. Furthermore, I would take issue with your contention that Chinese are "smarter." It's a bigger group, and therefore it will have bigger outliers, which is simple statistics. Moving right along, I think your characterization of Chinese as "smarter" depends far more upon Chinese Americans than on Chinese in China.

    With all these defects, I think your thesis fails quite badly.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page