What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?

I agree, except, in reality, people act with racial affiliations.

 

The first part does not exist on this thread. Perhaps a mod deleted it? But as a person that has taken a number of classes in college psych, what you're saying is not what they print in the textbooks.

The second part of your post is not established as fact, but is a debated issue. The neo-Marxist camp cite everything as social constructs as a means of invalidating them. You're taking the opinion of some and spinning it as an established consensus fact.

 

I don't think I've seen that.

 

NO I will not see Suzuki. He is a zoologist and admits psychology is outside of his field. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, on the one hand claiming you cite people with training in the field and turning around and citing someone with NO training in that field. Get some legitimate sources. I am not reading this tripe.

- - - Updated - - -

Because when black men boink white women and ignore black women in droves, no disrespect is intended or considered in the motivations of the black men. Nuh huh.

Please, put down the label gun and learn how to appropriately use capitalization in your sentences.

 

No, you haven't. You copy/paste streams of text and offer fragment sentences or one liners at best.

Others and I have shown where Lieberman's research was wrong. You live in your delusional world where ignoring facts and arguments are substitute for debate, then pathetically crown yourself winner. I guess you're more interested winning some argument that you can drop off reality as you don't have the necessary skill sets to address our statistics, logic and facts.

Get back to me when you have a coherent response, in your own words, regarding any of the above examples that is more than hypothesis wrapped - Nisbett style - as theory backed by solid research.

 

Nisbett. Good choice. Then there's that angry zoologist guy and the biologist who thinks he knows dick about psychology.

Attack Rushton, fine. Just do it honestly. You are not.

Put the Zoologist and the Biologist away. We are not discussing zebra mating habits nor the cellular respiration of prokaryotes. They are not a legitimate source in attacking a PhD in psychology on the topic of psychology.

 

I find it odd that you are willing to invest the time in typing all of this with reams of claims you say the APA makes... Yet you can't be bothered with providing the direct link which you said exists which you claim is on this thread which I can't find.

 

I find it odd that you and two other conservatives/white nationalists have spent weeks desperately trying to prove blacks have lower intelligence compared to whites, and yet to this very day have yet to prove anything.

Funny how that works out though, eh? Maybe sticking to talking about interracial porn would suit you better.

 

Tell us who was wrong on brain volume differences between Whites and Blacks, or, at another, claiming White and Black 3-year old children have the same IQ, to be dis-proven with an actual study finding differences in early child inter-racial IQ?

 

I don't know what you're talking about. That there are unequal IQ averages among the world's populations isn't up to debate among scholars, so that you think I or anyone would try to "debate" this anywhere is rather odd. It's established fact by consensus - so much so it's in mainstream freshman college textbooks.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the topic a bit, eh?

Your odd cheap shots mean absolutely nothing.

 

Again one can take a multidisciplinary approach to addressing this topic. Psychology is not the only field that one can draw sources from.

I have cited Biological Anthropologists, Geneticists, Evolutionary Biologists, Psychologists and Archeologists all of which are qualified to speak on the subject of race and intelligence within their respective fields. Rushton himself tried to take a multidisciplinary approach speaking outside his field of expertise and he has been critiqued by a multitude of scholars in those various fields.

 

It's none of your business who anyone else decides to boink. Most Black men who date White women also date Black women. We don't discriminate. The ones that exclusively date White women and ignore Black women are in the minority.

 

You didn't show how Lieberman's research is wrong you just harped on and on about how he was a fraud because he cited Gould. You didn't respond to his actual arguments. I have won my debate with you and the other racists. I've exposed your research as pseudoscience. Rushton tried to seek a genetic basis to racist stereotypes and he has been exposed as have you. You were so biased that you refused to read my first post in this thread and now you want to excuse me of having no coherent response to any of your arguments? What a joke.

 

You cite them inappropriately. You cite Graves' claims on psychology which are not accurate. You cite a zoologist which admits he knows dick about the field of psychology but rants anyway based on emotional outrage which he barely contains on stage.

That is not "multidisciplinary." That is bogus use of sources.

 

I'm wondering what debate you have won against whom when you have failed to defend your own sources and your own misuse of your own sources? I'm still waiting on a defense of Nisbett, and perhaps another email from Graves about psychology which he knows very little about and thus shouldn't be commenting. How about some of your own personal knowledge from your old textbooks from classes you said you took?

 

So when blacks complain about blacks with whites you call them "evil," "supremacists," and "racists" and demand they "mind their business"?

Blacks DO discriminate. That's why the NOI is so popular and Farrakhan hangs out with the establishment black political groups. Blacks complain about race mixing more than whites do, and they're also the ones that go off like Bull Connor when an outsider moves into their community.

Do you live in a bubble or do you think we do?

 

You mean I didn't show Lieberman was wrong claiming brain volume differences between Whites and Blacks exist, or you just can't read?

I see you're maintaining your reputation for being a clown. I mean, self-declared debate champ.

Feel free providing some coherent response - not cloaked in hypothesis - addressing 3-year old Black and White IQ differences, regression toward the mean, Black and East Asian adoption studies and g-loaded intelligence differentials, eg. backward digit span tests, etc.

 

I cited Graves on evolutionary biology and Suzuki on genetics. Try again.

You're generalizing. Yes I believe Blacks who support racial separatism are being racist. I'm not among them. I'm an Egalitarian. But they are no where near the majority and the Nation of Islam is not as popular as you think. Besides the Nation of Islam has changed its message to be in favor of self-determination for Blacks and denounced past racism. They've toned down the separatist rhetoric and that's why many Blacks don't consider them, rightly or wrongly, to be a hate group. I personally am against any form of racism including Black racism. However I recognize when White racists complain about Black racism in order to distract from their own racism as you are doing right now.

I've already had my debate with you on this subject and addressed many of your specific claims of evidence supporting your genetic hypothesis for racial differences in IQ. You're the one who has acted like a clown throughout this whole exchange and several posters have told you you're doing nothing but peddling pseudoscience. Still you persist.

I maintain my position.

The hereditarian racialist position is based on fallacious reasoning because:

1. Within Group Heritability provides no implications for Between Group Heritability.

2. Environmental inequality between races means the hereditarian hypothesis is not testable (you can't control for racism).

3. Population Genetic studies indicate that human populations do not partition into biological races and the genetic variance between geographic populations cannot account for genetic differences in intelligence.


Additionally I cite the following evidences provided by Nisbett supporting an environmental model for the Black-White IQ gap:

1. Racial admixture studies show no correlation between degree of White ancestry and high IQ in the Black population.

2. Black IQ has been converging on White IQ in recent years.

3. Black IQ is alterable by intervention programs.

4. Several Adoption studies lend no support to the hereditarian hypothesis.


Regarding race and brain size Lieberman refuted Rushton's claim of racial hierarchies in brain size by making the following points:

1. Rushton uses “race” despite decades of findings that invalidate it.

2. Rushton’s use of aggregation is invalid.

3. Rushton’s cranioracial variation is contradicted by evolutionary anthropology.

4. Rushton’s collection of brain measurements fails to utilize control variables identified by Tobias.

5. Rushton does not relate environment, nutrition, cranial size, and IQ.

6. Rushton claims to “explain” a vast array of human behavior.

All of this evidence was either ignored or misinterpreted by you and other racists throughout this exchange using the most fallacious reasoning to dismiss my points. The hereditarian argument has been refuted point by point and racialists have been exposed as promoters of racist propaganda in support of a racist ideology.

Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights. - Rory Coker, Ph.D.

 

This isn't true and you're well aware of it. My pointing this out is why you dropped first Suzuki and then eventually Graves in your discussion with me on your claim that white people cause blacks lag in IQ. Your discussion with me has centered around IQ average differences and what cause them, NOT Rushton's work. Last I heard of Graves is that you're - what - waiting for an email response as to why he stepped outside of his boundaries on the topic of psychology without the training to do so?

So have you heard back from him on that yet? How about Nisbett? Did he ever cobble together a response to JJ Lee after he demolished Nisbett's shoddy work back in 2009? Progress, I hope?

Yet you just claimed that only white people do this, and now you're conceding that blacks do it quite openly without the same level of condemnation coming from you. (Where are the screeching claims of EVIL?) The NOI never changed it's message. That's your lack of familiarity with NOI teachings. How can the NOI "denounce past racism" when they still teach against race mixing and for black nationalism, since you believe both of these are racist teachings? Hint: They still don't allow whites into the NOI.

You obviously are not at all familiar with Louis Farrakhan. He undid all of the changes that Elijah's son made in '75.

Why do you keep using this man and claiming his conclusions are true without an ability to defend his exposed poor methodology, dishonest use of data, and ideological spin? I can't call you anything but a willful liar this point. You're straight-faced enough to do it on the SAME THREAD in which Nisbett and his conclusions were already summarily destroyed.

Thus what I said was correct. You simply have dropped Nisbett to anyone who knows better than to accept him and has an awareness of the poor quality of his work. You simply take him copy/paste over to someone else that lacks the same familiarity with Nisbett and drop his false conclusions on others who are more likely to unwittingly accept his false claims.

As I said, you prove nothing scientifically doing this. This is clearly about your trying to silence dissent on forums from people that you have personal beef with and nothing else.

How does posting poor quality research and unfounded conclusions from people like Nisbett prove a single thing???

You, sir, are running con.

 

You're overstating the impact of environment on IQ. Further, you aren't addressing the increased heritability of IQ as a person ages, somewhere in the range of 70-75% once adulthood is reached. This also correlates with GPA, SAT scores, and later in life socioeconomic status. If IQ tests were as irrelevant as you claimed, they wouldn't be using them and nobody would be willing to do research in them.

IQ is a general measure of cognitive ability. The scientific method has proven it a valid means of measurement, and identical twin adoption studies only further solidify this accepted consensus fact. This is Psychology 101.

Furthermore, the political left fully accept the legitimacy and overall accuracy of IQ studies when they are trying to get someone with a low IQ off of death row.

 

I did not drop my support for Suzuki or Graves and I am not emailing Graves over your nonsense. Stop making stuff up.

I already told you that Nisbett dismissed Lee's arguments as pathetic.

Excuse me? When did I claim that only White people were racist?

There you go again trying to twist things. I just told you that I'm against all forms of racism including Black racism. Anyone can be racist. Black people can be racist. I do regard the Black people who are racist to be evil as well so stop making assumption about the level of condemnation I give Black racism.

Show me a recent video where the Nation of Islam teaches against race-mixing.

I am very familiar with him. In fact I heard him speak live in person at the Millions More Movement. There was none of the past racist rhetoric in his speech. Nothing about race-mixing or criticizing Jews for Zionism or anything anti-White. All he spoke about is Black people helping out their community. The last time I heard him speak was on BET where he was asked specific questions about racism and he denounced it. Now if you have any videos let's say in the last 5 years where Farrakhan says anything explicitly racist go ahead and share.

You can rant about Nisbett being debunked all you want but let's see you debunk the specific claims I mentioned. Go ahead.

 

What's your proof for this claim?

Liar. There have been several admixture studies showing IQ correlating with White admixture. The Minnesota Transracial adoption study had biracial children with an IQ split half-way between the Black and White IQ. Nisbett is a fraud.

So frauds can't think critically and hold off conclusions until the Black IQ actually reaches the White IQ?

This lie was even debunked by a Rushton article in this thread. Black IQ inflated by intervention programs regresses in adulthood.

Could this supposed point be any weaker or more vague? Several adoptions studies, as opposed to how many others?

What is the hereditarian hypothesis that these adoptions studies do not support, as opposed to every other?

Lieberman refuted himself claiming Blacks and Whites do not have different brain volumes.

You've dishonestly fled my question whether Blacks and Whites have equal brain volume.

Can you actually explain any of this in your own words?

Proof, liar.

You haven't shown environment affects cranial size, or even if any environmental factors have been at play.

 

Is this the same fraud calling other arguments 'pathetic' who omitted East Asian adoption studies and adult IQ regression from his book?

 

Okay, I've got to bite.

What the heck is White admixture?

That sounds like something a cook or a chemist would do.

 

Incorrect. High WGH implies but does not prove BGH. High WGH combined with a consistent BG pattern strongly indicates BGH. A plant may be short because it's in poor soil. A plant being short everywhere is genetically short.

Incorrect. You can control for racism by observing a consistent pattern (do whoever experiences this 'racism' coming from whoever experience the same 'racism' all over the world thoughout time? How does that work? Explain what this 'racism' is and who is doing it.) or by correlating genetic ancestry and apparent ancestry to IQ at the same time. Also skin color correlations to IQ hold between families but not within them, suggesting skin color is a proxy for ancestry, and discrimination is not a factor in IQ differences. But it's easier to scream 'rayyyccccisssmmmm' than address any of that I suppose. Just blame YT for everything.

Incorrect. Are people in a race genetically more similar or not? Where is your data on IQ genes being uniform? Why are you lying?

Incorrect.

Evidence? Do blacks have IQs near 100 now? And in Africa?

Which ones? Do the differences persist?

Which ones? Do several adoption studies which are more methodologically sound not lend any support, and in fact contradict it?

False. It's just genetic similarity which is a trivially sound. Are individuals not genetically more or less similar? What fallacious nonsense are you basing this on?

False. Aggregation is normal science. Adding more data will converge on the true figure. This is reproducability. This is basic science.

False. How is it?

Blacks have small brains regardless of any control variables.

Really? Did you read all of his work? If I referenced him doing so would you admit that you are a liar?

Sure he does.

Chutzpah.