What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?

You obviously aren't familiar with the subject of IQ averages.

- - - Updated - - -

How did you get banned from the Phora?

- - - Updated - - -

I asked for a direct source, not an indirect quotation. You're restating your initial claim with different wording.

 

You repeatedly bring up Rushton and project him at me, then defend your calling me a Rushton disciple. Please make up your mind on this.

You have dropped the subject of your assertion that IQ differences between blacks and whites are proven caused by the environment and have been unable to substantiate and defend this unscientific, fallacious assertion. Nisbett has been exposed by his counterparts in psychology as having poor methods and unsubstantiated conclusions to which Nisbett has been unable to defend or respond to, yet you keep citing him as a valid source. At the same time you also cite Suzuki after he himself admitted to having no expertise in the field thus by his own admission can't make an argument on it. You also cited Graves who made inaccurate statements about psychological consensus regarding intelligence in general and you are unable to defend and substantiate your use of him either, except that with all these men you keep making vague statements of their validity regardless of your inability to defend them. You cite these two men outside of their field of expertise specifically without cause. You have pasted emails from Graves to me regarding his views on psychology which are unsubstantiated which I proved as such with a freshman-level psych textbook. Your argumentation has been one of changing the angle of attack and evading the burden of proof for your claims as opposed to making a solid, coherent, and consistent approach. Upon being exposed for using poor research that has been exposed as poor, coupled with repeatedly quoting people making comments outside their field of expertise, you continue to assert your environmentalist hypothesis is not only valid, but is "fact" that I and others here just need to accept. What you have been doing in no small part is quote mining in favor of your viewpoints and when your approach is scrutinized and dissected, you are unable to defend your sources which in turn compromises every single claim you are making regarding the "proven" environmental cause of the black/white IQ gap which is in short, white people.

Nearly all of my posts that have been deleted have been to you. That speaks for itself.

Let me know when you are ready to defend your environmentalist blame-whitey hypothesis which you have spent nearly all of this thread asserting - until I exploded the last bit of it by shattering Graves by pointing out his stepping outside of his training and making ridiculous statements about matters of psychology. Since then you've tried to project the Rushton view onto me and have demanded that I address and defend it while now you are saying you never accused me of being a Rushton adherent.

If you aren't accusing me of being a Rushton adherent, why did you drop the previous topic of your false environmental blame-whitey hypothesis and then demand I defend some conclusion from Rushton? What are you doing?

 

Empress,

The person arguing in bad faith is you. You won't even answer simple questions. I have tried to illicit a cogent response from you on the topic to get away from the endless screeds of mass quote style debating but you refuse to answer them even though they are on-topic and could potentially advance discussion. Because you refuse to answer these questions the debate with you goes no where. I don't care if you think Nisbett has been debunked. I don't care if you don't believe I have taken psychology classes in college. I asked you simple questions and you refused to answer them which means you don't want an honest discussion.

I sent interracial porn to a racist poster who was neg rep bombing me with racist insults.

 

Furthermore --- SUZUKI IS A ZOOLOGIST. He has no place in this discussion whatsoever. Why are you saying a zoologist has a place in this argument and is a valid source?

How does ZOOLOGY play a role in this discussion, sir?

Zoology /zoʊˈɒlədʒi/, or animal biology, is the branch of biology that relates to the animal kingdom, including the structure, embryology, evolution, classification, habits, and distribution of all animals, both living and extinct.

 

I'm sorry but I don't play games with people who make untenable and blatantly racist environmental hypothesis claims and then change the subject after having his sources and philosophy destroyed, demanding that I go along with this new invented topic. Address the argument regarding the claims you made nearly 100% of this thread - without changing the subject - or I'm not wasting my time with your tangential gambits.

Your lack of knowledge in even basic psych is clear for you did not see the problems in Graves' emails.

Have a nice day. Please come up with better sources than an emotional zoologist.

PS Sending interracial porn just tells me you celebrate blacks who disrespect their own by having sex with whites instead.

 

You're ranting again....

I'm going to simplify this for you.

1. You are advancing the argument that the Black-White IQ gap has a genetic cause, Correct? I have simply asked you for your scientific basis for making the claim. My question has nothing to do with Rushton other than the fact that he is the primary source for the hereditarian racialist position which you are defending. You've also defended Rushton so how are you not a Rushton supporter?

2. Graves and Suzuki are not arguing outside of their field of expertise. They are an evolutionary biologist and geneticist respectively. Rushton et al. are making genetic and evolutionary arguments. Graves and Suzuki have addressed those arguments as authorities on those subjects (genetics and evolution).

Consider these arguments for a moment:

What is the focal point of Graves argument here? Is it psychometric test construction? No. It's Rushton's evolutionary theory. Joseph Graves is an expert on Life History Evolution. He critiqued Rushton's Life History Theory and explained how it is wrong. He's not challenging Rushton on his expertise as a Psychologist only his evolutionary arguments. That is what you fail to understand when it comes to this debate. You can't just dismiss Graves because he is not a Psychologist. This isn't a purely psychological topic. The topic addresses the research of multiple disciplines including evolutionary biology and genetics.

See also Suzuki's argument:

[video=youtube;zF9hOY6OzoQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF9hOY6OzoQ[/video]

(43:38-45-15) Suzuki: Now remember, neither Rushton nor Jensen is a geneticist. After Jensen published his work in 1969 The Genetics Society of America, the leading Genetics organization in the world, overwhelmingly approved a GSA statement that such work as Jensen's cannot prove a genetic basis for IQ difference in races. World class population geneticists, two of the leading population geneticists in the world, Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Standford and Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford and Richard Lewontin of Harvard have written books on this subject!

In October 1970 of Scientific American, Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza published the definitive popular work entitled Intelligence and Race in direct response to Jensen's work. Their opening sentence is, "To what extent might behavioral differences between social classes and between races be genetically determined?" 11 pages later, and that's a long article in Scientific American, they conclude, "The question of a possible genetic basis for the Race/IQ difference will be almost impossible to answer satisfactorily before the environmental differences between U.S. Blacks and Whites have been substantially reduced. There is no good case for encouraging the support of studies of this kind on either theoretical or practical grounds."

(48:42-49-47) Rushton: I'm very disappointed in Dr. Suzuki's presentation. Dr. Suzuki says my ideas on race are too esoteric and he shows however little more than moral outrage. He says that people like me should be rooted out and if I heard correctly he actually called for me to be fired. Well...that is not a Scientific Argument. I don't know that there is very much of substance in what I he said that I can respond to. He went on about Arthur Jensen and IQ and Genetics and completely ignored all the work on two-egg twinning and the 60 other variables that I mentioned including the ranking of the three races.


(56:30-56:55) Suzuki: My position was very clear. I did not choose to discuss the points he raised because I tried to point out very clearly that Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the genetic relationship or the correlation of the genetic basis that allows comparison between races is simply not possible. And I did not hear you rebut that in any way. And that is the definitive work!

So baring all of that in mind there's clearly no logic in dismissing either of these scholars who are making statements within their field of expertise. This subject centers around the question of whether there is a genetic basis to racial differences in intelligence and the scholars in question are certainly qualified to speak on the matter.

 

People ignorantly associtate brain size with intellegence. Whales have the largest brains, but aren't the smartest. The behavior seen by humans, dolphins, and others, has to do with a high body mass ratio cerebellum and frontal lobe, the "thinking part of the brain". I think, and evidence supports this, whites are smarter, on average than blacks, and asians, on average than whites. IQ average scores, in some parts of Asia, are about 115, while in some African segments of certain countires, the IQ is 70-80 on average, mostly pygmies. Don't believe me, check out this book. But hey, blacks are more athletic, and that's a fact, on average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

 

This statement just shows that you are a racist. Consensual sex between adults is not disrespecting anyone. Pornography is a legal medium and while most boards disallow it I feel morally justified in subjecting a despicable racist to such imagery. Interracial porn is a powerful weapon against White Supremacists.

 

So you are saying you are smarter than every black person in America.

 

Jay's copy pastes were debunked in this thread.
http://www.mootsf.com/index.php?/topic/7650-rushtons-60-variables-in-race-evolution-and-behavior/

 

LMAO! I recommend people actually read that thread to see what really happened. I certainly wasn't debunked.

 

Of course you were. You don't have the honesty to admit it.

 

Actually the red herring is believing that IQ tests accurately measure "cognitive/intelligence" in all individuals because, according to the APA, that is false. As the APA points out there are numerous factors that affect IQ scores that are unrelated to the "cognitive/intelligence quotient" they are designed to measure. For the IQ tests to be completely "accurate" everyone taking the test would be required to have identical backgrounds in all respects including nutrition, social background, education, environment, etc., and the APA explicitly states that this is not the case.

IQ tests have value in a general sense according to the APA but don't have value in a specific sense when it comes to measuring the cognitive/intelligence quotients as there are far too many variables that effect the scores.

The APA also explicitly states that IQ tests don't measure Human Intelligence that addresses numerous forms of intelligence that we don't and can't currently measure.

It is the racist that misrepresents what IQ tests are and they completely ignore the caveats related to IQ testing that the APA establishes. IQ tests do can NOT measure Human Intelligence. By analogy measuring the brakes on a car cannot be used to measure the overall performance of the car. In fact just measuring the brakes doesn't even tell you how quickly the car will come to a stop from a designated speed. The mass of the car as well as the size of the tires are equally important as the size of the brakes when it comes to stopping.

This is why this use of statistical information is referred to as pseudo-science racism because it takes statistical information that ignores the caveats and attempts to draw conclusions that only stupid people will accept. The pseudo-scientific conclusion being propagated by racist hate groups like Stormfront preys upon low intelligence individuals that are incapable of understanding that it's pure racist propaganda.

I'm going to close this discussion with simple directions for other members that would choose to be well informed. They can go to the APA website and read for themselves what the APA has to say about human intelligence because they will learn that this racist tripe really is pseudo-science that the APA warns against. They can look up the facts related to IQ tests, the problems with them, the fact that general assumptions relating to individuals cannot be drawn from them, and that they don't measure HUMAN INTELLIGENCE at all.

There's an old saying.

"Don't try to teach a pig to sing, It's a waste of your time and annoys the pig."

I can't teach a racist to not be a racist and so I will leave this up to those that aren't racists to do their own investigations on human intelligence. When they do they will learn there isn't a difference in intelligence between the races because there is only one race according to science and it is the Human Race.

 

I've already provided that in this thread with a direct citation from the APA. I'm not going to repeatedly post the exact same information. I'm sure you can either go back and find the post where I provided that information or go to the APA website where they discuss the limitations of IQ testing as well as the fact that IQ tests do not measure overall human intelligence (which implies that IQ cannot be cited as establishing human intelligence).

Not a single "racist" on this thread has posted a single test result based upon testing overall human intelligence. They can't do that because there are no existing tests that test Human Intelligence. They can't even establish that there are subspecies of human beings where a difference in intelligence could be measured. According to science there is only one species/subspieces of human beings and that is "homosapiens-sapiens" that can be measure. We are all the same species/subspecies according to the biologists.

Race itself is a social construct created by the Racist and not by Science.

 

You are lying and have referenced one junior member of the APA stating such. All the other members disagree with her. Would you like me to reference the president of the APA saying the opposite?

- - - Updated - - -

Race is based on the simple and indispitable fact that some people share more genes than others due to shared ancestry. That isn't a "social construct", no matter how many times you call that name.

 

Can you explain why race is even important to the sole surviving species in the Homo genus?

 

Because there is within species variation which has effects in the real world. Like it can help answer the question 'what happens when you replace all of the Whites in a city with Negroes'.

 

I've never lost a debate to you. You can believe I was debunked all you want but that isn't the truth. I'll let people decide for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words racist pseudoscience helps promote racist propaganda.

 

Have you figured out that the forms of intelligence an IQ test measures shows that Whites and Blacks are unequal and, therefore, are not equally intelligent regardless of how many gaps in intelligence exist in IQ testing?

 

Indeed. I went through the first page and saw him embarrass himself with denials on maturation rate differences.

He should be mostly ignored since he does nothing more than copy/paste what others write.

I might as well respond to his pastes of Graves and Lieberman with responses from Rushton.

Since he doesn't seem to have the ability to write his own ideas, he'd be left with one lined denials that Rushton refuted/addressed his critics.

 

The truth is that you racists don't know how to address the relevant quotes that I provided from scholars and so you pretend that I'm just a copy/paste debater even though I provide plenty of commentary and arguments of my own.

 

Thanks for letting me know you've addressed Black/White brain volume differences, East Asian and Black adoption studies, regression toward the mean, early childhood racial IQ differences, and g-loaded intelligence testing in your own words.

 

All you do is parrot Rushton. You aren't capable of taking a critical look at counter arguments from a multitude of scholars who have refuted Rushton.

I provided several scientific sources that refute Rushton and explained their research in my own words. You made the most pathetic arguments and tried to discredit sources for the most bogus reasons rather than having a debate over the actual content of what they were saying. It should be obvious to anyone that you are not a honest debater and don't argue in good faith.

 

This is hypocrisy.

 

It may depend on the actual persons involved.