EgalitarianJay

There's no fallacy on my end. If you don't believe that we evolved in to separate races then that is your position. As for the rest I really don't have time to argue over whether it makes sense to question people who claim they are not racist and I have addressed the arguments used to support the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence. So I simply disagree with you. My thread has been productive. I got the type of discussion I wanted and I have no problem without questioning whether some posters are racist when they claim they are not. In fact I think it is very important to identify racism and ideological bias when you see it because some people can be easily persuaded in to thinking that these people are not racist and are just promoting objective reasoned science when the truth is that most of them are racist.

No one has to prove anything. We are not on trial here. We are having a discussion. But like I said if they are going to press the issue and insist that they are not racist I will call them out on it and test them. There is nothing wrong with that.

No, I am not because I have never argued that because you are racist you are automatically wrong. I have simply said that in most cases people who argue that there are racial differences in intelligence are biased and so are their sources. They do not have to prove that they are not racist but I don't have to accept their claim either and can give them an opportunity to prove their claim if they press the issue.

I don't see a problem with the words that I used. They do not reflect negatively on my temperament and in context clearly show the absurdity and dishonesty of my opponent. I think the discussion would certainly be productive if we focused on the evidence for or against racial differences in intelligence and that was the purpose of me creating this thread. However the subject of certain posters' motives and the objectivity of their sources was already being questioned by others before I gave my opinion. I don't believe racists should be let off the hook when it comes to misusing science to suit their ideological agenda. Do you have any idea how common it is for these people to claim that they are not racist only to make blatantly racist comments? I do not believe that stating there is bias in scholarship and people with ulterior motives for supporting this idea should be off limits in this discussion. Exposing the ideological bias of your opponent is relevant when you recognize that they are not having a legitimate scientific discussion nor an honest conversation. If you agree with Zapatos then I think both of your are terribly misguided. Zapatos wants to treat this discussion like a criminal court case where supporters of racial differences in intelligence are like a defendant and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is illogical. If you are going to claim you are not racist and do not have an agenda we should be able to discuss that and I have given posters every opportunity to defend that position some people are suggesting that this should not be done. How else are you going to test the validity of the claim? As for whether or not you specifically are a racist I am not familiar with you as a poster and have not witnessed you making any obviously racist comments. If you are taking a neutral position in whether or not there are racial differences in intelligence until you have seen the evidence then I have no reason to accuse you of being racist though I can easily test your motivations by asking simple questions. I know certain posters in this thread from other message boards. Their writing style gives them away and they are clearly racist.

Where is this imaginary army of posters coming after me? If you look at the poll the posters here overwhelmingly rejected the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence and only a few people are posting. You and Over 9000 have tried to revive this thread for what purpose I do not know but considering your history as a racist poster on this board and elsewhere I find it hilarious that you would suggest that you yourself are not a racist.

I never claimed that every single person who claims there are racial differences in intelligence is racist and I don't need to prove that. The evidence that many of them are racist is all of the racism that you see on the internet so I strongly suspect that every person I encounter on the internet who makes the claim is a racist. In fact I ran an experiment on a racist message board where I made a poll and asked people how many of them claim to believe in racial differences in intelligence but do not consider themselves to be racist. I defined what racism meant and gave them an opportunity to make their case that they are not racist. I told them to answer a questionnaire testing whether they were racist and said I would check their post history for consistency. Every single one of them failed. In my experience people saying that they believe in racial differences in intelligence but are not racist are generally liars. I accept that there may be exceptions but if there are they need to prove that.

This is not a court a law. In a debate the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So if you are claiming that you are not racist you need to prove it. My evidence that people who claim that there are racial differences in intelligence is primarily being promoted by racists are the plethora of racist websites and racist comments being made by advocates of this belief in addition to the funding most of this type of research receives (research the history of the Pioneer Fund) and the association that most of the scholars promoting this research have. So if you want to claim you are the exception to the rule you have an opportunity to prove it.

I have plenty of evidence that most people who make arguments about race and intelligence are racist. If anyone is insisting that they are not racist and that they are being judged unfairly the burden of proof is on them to show that this is the case.

How did you come to develop an interest in this subject? Share your story. When did you develop the interest? What information on the internet did you read? What books if any did you read? What are your overall opinions on race-relations? These are the types of questions you should answer if you want any one to accept the idea that you are not racist and have a genuine interest in human differences without an ideological bias. I have told my story many times and can tell it again if requested to do so.

I am specifically talking about the people who put the time and energy in to making the argument not saying that everyone who beliefs the argument absolutely must be racist.

I stand by those statements and we discussed that article on another message board where it was exposed that the authors deliberately targeted researchers who were sympathetic to their views to make it seem like intelligence researchers agreed with them. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/survey-of-expert-opinion-on-intelligence-causes-of-international-differences-in-cognitive-ability.155804/ Read post #17 by Bells.

I didn't make that argument and even acknowledged that perhaps some people who believe in innate racial differences in mental characteristics are not racist. However I do argue that most people who put the time and energy in to making that argument are racist and make the argument because it suits their racist ideological agenda. I strongly believe this and further believe it is intellectually dishonest to deny this. The evidence supporting my position is very strong when you consider the history of Scientific Racism, the funding of this type of research and the character of the people making these type of arguments. Is it an unfair generalization to say that most people I have encountered making this argument are either White Nationalists or part of the HBD crowd which is clearly composed of racists? That's just an objective observation. Also you should consider my background on the subject. I had never encountered this argument in real life until I went on the internet to purposefully learn what racists actually believe. If racists aren't the ones pushing this argument then why is it that in real life I have never heard the argument even to this day I have never heard it uttered that some races are less intelligent. In the last 15 years on national TV I only heard it mentioned a few times and most prominently when James Watson made his controversial statements. I only became aware of these arguments when I went on websites and message boards run by White Supremacists. You should also know that I used to be a moderator and even an Admin on an anti-racist message board where I discussed this topic regularly and talked to anti-racists and a few racists privately about their views. Some of the anti-racists became persuaded by racist arguments including arguments about race and intelligence (especially that one) and a few of them even switched sides and became overt racists. The ones that stayed anti-racist actually expressed guilt about believing these arguments but believed them nonetheless so I know full well that you can believe in race/IQ arguments and not be racist but in my experience the vast majority of people who believe these arguments do so because they have a racist agenda. There is simply no reason not to believe this. Can you give me one? I have a lot of experience debating racists. I know how to get them to expose there racism. It is very easy to do you just ask them questions or make certain comments that illicit a racist reaction. There can be no doubt that the majority of people who promote the view that races differ in intelligence are White and most have racist views. One interesting fact to consider which supports my point is that you don't see many Asian Supremacists promoting this research. Why not? Where is the Asian equivalent of Stormfront? There are of course Asian racists as there are racists in all groups but race-realism especially attracts White people with racist views. The reason is because racism is ingrained in Western culture and many White people who are racist have a superiority complex. There racism has evolved over the years from full blown White Supremacy (e.g. Whites are better at everything and should dominate other races) to White Nationalism and Race-Realism (e.g. Whites aren't the best at everything. Races are different in fundamental ways and Whites might not be the smartest but they are smarter than Blacks who are more athletic and Whites need to separate from other races because they are not compatible with Western Civilization). This latter argument is still racist it is just evolved out of classical White Supremacy. So people can keep pretending in this discussion that they are not racist or most people who have their views are not racist but I know the truth and the evidence supporting my view is solid.

I am being calm and I have clearly given Bering Strait the chance to defend his arguments. Now he is blatantly misrepresenting my comments. Bering Strait, why don't you address my arguments instead of trying to dissect and distort what I am saying in my posts? Anyone who can read knows that what you are saying isn't true. If you are going to compare your intelligence to Graves I recommend that you identify yourself and share your academic achievements instead of making outrageous boasts. I am not trying to deify Graves. You seem to be becoming unhinged with every post. I recommend that you settle down and use some common sense in your future posts.

1. I have never argued that a population can not have physical traits that have adaptive importance. Skin color for example is an adaptation that serves a purpose (resistance to UV radiation in darker groups and helps to synthesize vitamin D in lighter groups) but has no social importance and is therefore seen as a superficial difference. Athletic differences while meaningful in sports also have no social importance. Mental differences that impact traits such as intelligence and personality have a lot of social importance as they are relevant to behavior and ability which could impact everything from nation wealth to crime rates. So the fundamental question is why do so-called race-realists fixate on mental differences between races? The reason is obvious. They (you) have a racist ideological agenda for promoting this idea. There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy on my end. I have acknowledged that there are some differences between populations that have adaptive significance and I am not giving the idea of Blacks having an advantage in athleticism a pass. What I have said is that there is no scientific reason to assume that there are innate mental differences between races and plenty of evidence indicating that environmental differences explain racial differences in IQ. You are being dishonest if you claim to not recognize how appealing the idea of there being mental differences between races is to racist ideologues. 2. I countered your Watson quote with quotes from Graves showing that his argument is not as logical as you make it out to be. Rather than address the quote you simply whine about me using sources that I have used elsewhere which is irrelevant and a distraction from the point. 3. I have made it a hobby to post on message boards about this topic to combat racism. You seem to have the false perception that I am advancing my own form of racism by "defending a single race" as equal while simultaneously accepting that they are superior in other ways. Let me make this clear, I am not a racist. You are. You are attacking a strawman with all of this talk about me accepting Blacks as more athletic (which I never argued by the way) but equal in intellectual ability. What I have clearly said here and on other message boards is that there are differences and commonalities but more commonalities than differences. Why is it so hard for you to understand that just like many other biological characteristics different human populations might have the same genetic potential for mental characteristics while also having slight differences in traits that have no social importance? I have accepted the plausibility that mental differences might exist between human populations or races and that this is just a product of natural selection and adaptation like the other traits that differ between humans. But I have looked at the scientific evidence on BOTH sides of the debate and come to the conclusion that there is no scientific reason to assume this and plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary. You won't take an honest look at the other side. You are trying to shame me in to avoiding the citation of sources you don't like and attacking strawman then trying to make me out to be a hypocrite. In your next reply I would like you to actually address the sources I posted as they were clearly relevant to your argument. I would also like you to explain how you are not a racist if you are making that claim. And why exactly are you calling Joseph Graves "Uncle" and "Goofy?" Explain yourself.

This is the level of debate we're dealing with here folks. Rather than address my arguments like a sensible poster "Bering Strait" instead rants and whines about my use of sources that he doesn't like and makes blatantly racist comments which only support my point, which is that most people who make these arguments are motivated by racist ideological bias rather than the scientific pursuit of truth. They are in fact misusing science to support their racist ideological agenda. The quotes I used do in fact clearly address Watson and your brain size comments and the video addresses all of the issues of whether races exist in humans and whether evolution can be invoked to explain mental differences between human populations or races. I answered your questions and the reason I am posting the same material I have posted elsewhere is because these issues have already been addressed multiple times. There is no reason to post new information when you are making the same old tired arguments. The issue here is the credibility of the source and the validity of the argument. Watson is being propped up because he agrees with racists and did some breakthrough work in genetics decades ago yet has no credibility to speak on the subject. My source does.

The brain is not different between human populations and the skull differences have nothing to do with intelligence or behavior. Racists are always quoting Watson as if he were a credible source on the matter when he has done no original research on the subject and declined interviews to defend his position. Instead why not listen to an evolutionary biologist who has studied the subject in depth and explained why there are no racial differences in intelligence? THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENT ON COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell-shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanistically why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livshits, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982). However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995). Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several "racial" groups have dark skin, including non-European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human "racial" groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with "racial" category. To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world. SOURCE: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294 EgalitarianJay: Do you have any studies that directly address Rushton's claims of brain size differences between races? Joseph Graves: The evolutionary arguments are more important than any physical measurements because they address why and how any physical difference could exist. If Rushton cannot explain the mechanism that is responsible for any reputed difference, then his argument collapses like a house of cards. This is why his 1994 book was entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. Its goal was to explain using evolutionary theory (the only scientific means to explain human variation) why racial differences in intelligence exist. As I point out in my work, evolutionary science does not support this conclusion. As for supposed physical differences in head (or brain size). First, there has been no systematic measurement of cranial sizes for sufficient numbers of populations in humans. This is important because Africa and Asia are huge continents with many populations/ethnic groups. No physical measurement taken from 1 or a few populations could be expected to represent all Africans or Asians. Second, the relationship between "intelligence" and brain size/body ratio holds broadly over species level, but not within a species. So we can infer that Velicoraptor was more intelligent than T. Rex, but we cannot infer that any specific raptor was more intelligent than another due to differences in that ratio. In the same way we cannot infer that a larger brain gives more cognitive power in humans. Frederich Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, had an incredibly small head and brain. Autopsy of his brain did reveal that his cerebral cortex had an incredibly high number of folds. But even if we could determine that there was a difference in cerebral cortex folding between Africans and Asians, we could not determine that that difference was due to genetic differences. The brain's development (and hence that of the intellect) is profoundly influenced by environmental and developmental factors. Genetically identical groups of rats deprived of environmental stimuli were measured as less intelligent and had less cerebral folding than rats given environmental stimuli. In the modern world, there is no equivalence of social and physical environments between Africans/African Americans and Europeans/Euro- and Asian Americans. Therefore any intelligence difference one might measure (say in mean SAT scores, AFQT Tests etc.) cannot be shown to have anything to do with genetic differences between groups. There are far easier explanations for these differences, including social discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition (which are all differentially visited upon African Americans). The heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies. I made all these points to Rushton directly in our 1997 debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. To say the least he really had no cogent response. Dr. Joseph L. Graves, Jr. Associate Dean for Research Professor of Biological Sciences Joint School of Nanosciences & Nanoengineering Suite 2200, Rm 104 North Carolina A&T State University UNC Greensboro 2901 E. Lee St. Greensboro, NC 27401 Saying that there are no races or no mental differences between human populations is not a denial of evolution. Within a species you should expect there to be more commonalities than differences and only major differences between biological systems that determine traits like intelligence when the populations within a species have become significantly genetically divergent. In humans this is not the case and our evolutionary history indicates that we became anatomically and behaviorally modern before geographic separation which only resulted in a few differences that were of adaptive significance. As far as obsession goes well my username is of course easier to search through google than yours but I'd wager that you spend more time on this subject than I do as do racists in general. Most of them are advancing an ideological agenda in which the belief in innate mental differences between races is extremely important.

I suppose it is possible to believe in racial differences in intelligence and not be racist however I am suspicious of anyone who presses the issue and then claims they are not racist. Most of these people are motivated by racist ideology. That is why they spend so much time on the subject. They want to believe that these differences exist.

Anyone who tells you that they are not racist when they try to claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence is just being dishonest. Of course they are racist. Why would you want to believe such a thing unless you had a racist agenda? Why put so much energy in to it? You might think the claim is true but you are clearly motivated by racist ideology when you spend time trying to prove your claim is true.

The question is whether or not races differ in their innate intelligence not whether intelligence has racial differences within it. I personally do not believe that races differ in their innate intelligence or even that human populations diverged in to biological races to begin with but this is a legitimate question that while controversial has been discussed by the scientific community.

I don't agree that my question is unscientific. You can have an opinion on a scientific topic and I don't believe that we should discourage debate on this subject regardless of anyone's agenda.

How is it unscientific?

Hello. In case you want to read a thread where we had a good discussion about the origins of modern humanity and whether they originated in Africa check out this thread from Political Forum. http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/374443-geographical-origins-modern-humans.html I don't think the origins of humans in Africa means that humans didn't evolve in to different races or don't differ in mental characteristics. For instance J. Philippe Rushton accepted the Out of Africa Model of Human Migration and included it as part of his narrative for how humans came to evolve and become more intelligent in different regions. This is a good video to watch about that discussion. The evidence from skeletal remains and DNA points quite clearly to an African origin and the genetic diversity of modern humans indicates that non-African genetic diversity is a subset of African diversity with African populations being more genetically diverse due to being older (an older population has more time to develop more genetic mutations resulting in more diversity). Neanderthal admixture doesn't seem to be important. Modern humans in Africa also interbred with archaic humans they just didn't interbreed with Neanderthal because Neanderthal evolved in Europe and Asia after their ancestors left Africa. The argument against racial differences in intelligence and the existence of biological races is that we descend from a single evolutionary lineage with minimal genetic divergence and that all human populations share the same mental characteristics as part of their common evolutionary history with no genetic changes resulting in mental differences and no scientific basis to think otherwise. Now regarding IQ and g I wouldn't say that IQ is unimportant because it can be used as a useful tool for measuring a person's mental ability. IQ isn't everything but it is predictive power. You can measure a child's IQ and predict that some kids will be smarter than others when they reach adulthood which has implications for academic and professional success. As for g which stands for general intelligence it is a statistical construct in psychometrics used to evaluate how cognitively demanding (g-loaded) certain tests are. IQ measures g and intelligence is highly heritable but that doesn't mean that intelligence differs between populations for genetic reasons. Environmental explanations are just as plausible and given the scientific evidence appears to be the most parsimonious explanation.

That's nothing more than a just-so story and no if so-called races show major variation between populations then there is no consistent pattern. For example if Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians are the same race then you can't say there is a consistent pattern of East Asian > Europeans if Southeast Asians have even lower IQs than a lot of European countries. The only way you can rationalize this is if you claim that Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians aren't really the same race and differ in IQ because of racial differences. If you do this I would have to ask you what the scientific basis for your racial classification scheme is. I have made many arguments against the consistent pattern claim. As far as Native Americans are concerned you need to explain how having a low density populations would affect their IQs. If the Cold Winter evolutionary theory is correct then they would have lived under the same selection regime as the ancestors of Northeast Asians and have evolved a similar level of intelligence. How is the evolution of intelligence and brain size affected by having a low density population? In reality it is actually the racialist theory that is motivated by an emotional desire to advance an ideological agenda in order to pursue a political goal. White Nationalists for example absolutely need there to be racial differences in mental traits in order to justify their racist ideology. The idea that Egalitarians such as me need there to be racial equality in mental characteristics in order to justify Egalitarianism is morally absurd. Even if your racist views of human nature were correct I would still be an Egalitarian because I believe in equality regardless of differences. For instance I believe that the mentally handicapped and disabled should be treated fairly even though I believe their mental affliction is genetically determined to a substantial degree. If your racial theories turned out to be true I would not advocate racial separatism, sterilization, genocide or think less of myself for not belonging to the smartest or most well-behaved race. The position that all human populations share the same general variance in mental characteristics such as intelligence and personality because of a shared evolutionary history that resulted in genes for these traits being represented equally in each population is scientifically sound. Your theory is based on pseudoscience. You are right to express skepticism at the idea that Richard Lynn is somehow the foremost expert on "Race & IQ" which isn't a scientific discipline. Richard Lynn has done more work on documenting national IQ averages than any scholar that I know of however he is far from the foremost authority on this subject and his theories are regarded as fringe and discredited in the scientific community as is Scientific Racism in general. For example the American Psychological Association published a statement denouncing theories of racial differences in intelligence while acknowledging that there were things we don't know about intelligence and the relationship between the variance in IQ between demographic groups and nations that are said to represent racial distributions in intelligence. That statement was published in 1996. A more recent article in 2012 published by Richard Nisbett and his co-authors further concluded that racial differences in IQ do not have a genetic basis. The American Anthropological Association denounced the concept of race altogether and stated that Scientific Racism did not represent Anthropology. There have been many scholars in the fields of biology, genetics, anthropology and psychology that oppose the work of Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, Gottfredson and others who have advanced the idea that human races differ considerably in mental characteristics for genetic reasons and that there is a racial hierarchy in these mental characteristics. There is a reason why this research is not taught in academia. Racism is simply not scientific.

Hunter-gather populations typically lack the education and acculturation with Western society that other populations have which is needed to succeed on an IQ test. The argument that these populations are stupid because they lack civilization is fallacious since all populations used to be hunter-gathers at one point and there is no consistent pattern of one population remaining the most dominant in the world throughout history. Civilization represents the pinnacle of human ability but variation in cultural development is not reflective of the innate intelligence of a population.

There is no consistent pattern. You can only make that argument by selectively citing data such as Rushton completely omitting Native Americans from his racial matrix because their IQs are not consistent with his "cold winters made Europeans and Asians smarter" evolutionary hypothesis. Environmental differences caused by racial discrimination easily explain racial IQ gaps which close as environment improves for historically oppressed people.