Race and IQ differences

I made no such claim. Your ascription of such a claim to me is a basic error in reasoning.

I pointed to one or two of the multiple basic flaws in an argument you were attempting, in particular that the study you were posting did not support it. The evidence for that claim was provided by you, in the link to the study.

This is the problem: you don't actually know what you yourself are arguing, or why, and one major reason (not the only one) is that you are taking for granted - assuming - the existence of relevant biologically based classification schemes for the human species that match your particular US Western sociological races.

You can't assume that, and make sense. It's a consequent, not a premise.

One wouldn't. So any time you have an equivalent quantitative and qualitative definition of such a human "group" and the specific disorder, physical manifestation, or stretch of genetic code, you are interested in, including (for example) the comparative frequency of its occurrence, post it.

As with the "European Jews" (not the group you intend, btw - you are referring not to all Jewish people in or formerly in Europe, but to an ethnic subgroup), you will be dealing with a sociological group. Something like a family, or a tribe, or a town. Not a biological race.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not classifying the groups in question based on skin color.

Several Northeast Asian societies have far higher lead poisoning rates than any White society but lower IQ and violent crime (homicide) rates.

Northeast Asians have larger brain volume than whites than blacks.

Koreans adopted and raised by white families have higher IQ than whites than blacks.

Asian school children in the US had smaller body size (height) but larger head circumference than whites than blacks.

The trend is unmistakable and follows whites, Northeast Asians and blacks around the world.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic185351.files/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Says "Race and IQ differences" in the title, and the first "race" you mention is Blacks:

I didn't find the rest of either your reply post or your OP much better. I think your idea of "Blacks" as a "race" is just as wrong as the rest of 'em.

I'm not really here to argue with someone who holds the opinions you obviously hold. I said my piece. See ya.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Graves pointed out that Rushton manipulated the data in this study to conform to his racial theories.

 

We've seen Graves fabricate as well - eg., claiming Charles Murray ducked a debate.

I don't have the raw data, but notice Graves does not deny Asian children having the smallest body size and largest head circumference.

 

So really this is a semantics argument. I've painted with too broad a brush, but there's no rebuttal to my lines of reasoning or evidence other than the study which measured white and black brain volume did not adjust for body size even though the correlation between brain and body size is low and the black-white height gap is negligible.

That's despite the fact no one who holds the position black brain volume = white brain volume can explain why the orbitocortex is larger in blacks than whites while the rest of the brain is larger in whites than blacks?

Pretty much...crickets.

 

No other criterion is visible in your posts.

1) So? 2) You have presented no evidence for that, anyway. Your main link to significantly higher levels in "Northeast Asians" was to a study from the 80s of some Han (which you insist - apparently on skin color criteria - are "Northeast Asians") living on an island south of mainland China, and the BLL "average" there (15 ug/Dl) was comparable to that of white people in larger American cities from the 1980s. Otherwise your posted a study that included this in its abstract:

and one that tried to compare modern Koreans with modern Americans in a snapshot of current BLL, ignoring not only history but the wide variance among "Americans".

So?

What are "Asian children in the US"? Did the study control for anything, even the basics - maternal lead exposure, breastfeeding, etc?

Call them "yellows" - you might as well be consistent while you are not classifying by skin color, right? That way you can justify throwing in the Han and leaving out the Malaysians, Indonesians, and others in the the cluster Phill posted.

And that way you might be able to at least own, since you cannot avoid, the implications of citing a link that uses "The Bell Curve" as "evidence" of something:

Along the way, you are going to have to deal with the issue of whether Jewish Americans - with their 113 IQs - are "White", and who exactly is a Latino - is a Cuban a Latino? How about a Guatemalan? Oaxacan?

I'm making popcorn for that one.

1) No one holds that position.
2) Is it larger? You don't know. All you have is what somebody turned up in 25 people somebody labeled "black" for skin color reasons, who happen to be handy to a particular lab. They were not controlled for anything except age and gender.
3) You have seen at least four possible explanations that fit your supposed "evidence" better than anything else you have - yet you claim to have seen none. "Crickets", you called it.

And the responsibility for describing - and contradicting - possible explanations is yours, in the first place. You are the person who wants to settle on this one you happen to like for some reason.

 

Nope. I just didn't bother with the rest. It's not my practice to waste time on people who make claims that are so easily rebutted by their own words.

If you want to pretend to present evidence and have me actually bother to read it don't lie in your first sentence.

Twice in a row.

It indicates lack of rigor unmistakably.