Race and IQ differences

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,042
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2016
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    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.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    57
    Graves pointed out that Rushton manipulated the data in this study to conform to his racial theories.

     
    Schneibster likes this.
  8. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    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.
     
  9. rayznack2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    29
    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.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,042
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2016
  11. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    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.
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,052
    Because you are claiming racial groups exist. You need to provide that 'race' exists. You throw around terms like "blacks" and "whites", without any scientific evidence that these are racial groups.

    This isn't a hard concept. Everyone else understands this but you, it seems.

    No one participating in discussions about genetic diseases are claiming that those who are genetically inclined to suffer from those diseases are a different race.

    You do understand the difference, yes?

    The very fact that the disease exists in "other groups" is indicative that it isn't a racial connection. To wit, you just contradicted your own argument.

    Then you need to provide evidence that racial groups exist and you need to define them explicitly. Instead, you are arguing this on the basis of colour.

    And that has been the crux of your argument here. You are trying to prove racial superiority on the basis of IQ without being able to support any of your claims that race even exists.

    You have not provided any studies that support your argument. At all.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    Firstly, yes you are required to define the groups being discussed and you need to be able to support your argument that these groups are racial groups. In other words, before you even begin to debate this issue, you need to determine that race exists. You are yet to do that.

    The hurdles you think I have thrown in front of you are not hurdles. They are requirements that you be able to argue your point from a scientific basis. To do this, you need to explain yourself and provide scientific support for your arguments. It isn't on the rest of us to do so. These are your claims. Not ours. So you are required to support your extraordinary claims that race exists and that IQ is affected by 'race', with actual scientific evidence. I have substantiated my arguments. It's not my problem if you cannot understand the scientific terms used or the articles, papers and studies posted in this thread. You haven't provided any evidence for us to counter. And that is the issue. You keep demanding we provide evidence, which we do, and you then cannot understand what has been posted and we are literally going around and around in circles.

    And I am at a loss as to how you are still to define any of your arguments with actual scientific support.

    And evidence was provided and you completely misunderstood it. I do not particularly care what you are personally aware of. All I care about is that you be able to support your claims and arguments with actual science.

    You are in absolutely no position to expect anything from anyone when you have utterly failed to substantiate any of your claims or arguments with any scientific evidence. The best you could come up with was an article posted on a blog site that discusses race and IQ, which was barely legible because it was so fuzzy, and which completely did not support your claims.

    Here is what you said:

    So do you want to try that one again?

    You posted a study from Hong Kong, which you then used to compare to "blacks", without defining who you meant by "blacks" for one.. Not to mention how you could extrapolate from a study in Hong Kong, to then connect to the IQ of "blacks"..

    How many pages has this been going on now and you are still to actually define or support any of your arguments...?

    You can try and claim that others are illiterate as much as you want. That will not distract from the fact that you have completely failed to substantiate your argument in this thread. You have completely disregarded science, made claims about "blacks" and "whites" without even being able to comprehend the variables that affect intelligence. Instead, you have relied solely on colour, because you cannot even define that race exists..

    So you don't think the papers I provided are evidence? That's laughable considering all you were able to provide was a link to a white supremacist blog that had taken photos of pages of a study and posted them online and which do not even support what you think you are trying to argue.

    And that's the thing, you cannot actually argue these points, just as you cannot support your arguments here, because you seem completely incapable of actually understanding what it is you are arguing.

    This is your thread. You started this. It is on you to support your claims. Understand now?

    You are trying to argue hierarchy of race based on IQ, without being able to support any of your argument, let alone be able to define what you mean by race. Instead, you have relied solely on colour.

    I gave you 12 hours. You have had much more than that to support your claims. And you have openly declared that you will not do so.

    Therefore, thread closed.

    The basis of your argument has been the same as Phill's. So much so that you have followed him down the exact same road of refusing to actually provide anything to support your claims and to define your terms. To wit, we aren't interested in entertaining white supremacists on this site. So under the advisement of a senior colleague, this is goodbye.. Permanently.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page