taxonomy26

And ALL your posts contain NO On Topic Content. (UnLike All of mine) You're a Stupid 12 IQ Nonconversant TROLL, who hasn't responded to any of my posts. Your worst, being "Yes really", to a highly detailed answer. You're dumber than a stone. ` Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma. | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception I grew up indoctrinated by political correctness. Like a large part of citizens in Western countries I was brainwashed: Races do not exist, all are equal. Saying anything different, saying that there are racial differences, is racism, a crime. In school I heard disparaging remarks about Artur Jensen and other “unscientific” “dishonest” “cheating” scientists doing faulty research about race differences. The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray actually looked fairly convincing to me, but if even President Bill Clinton denounced it, there must be something wrong about it. There always was some complex theory to explain away the IQ differences: *different culture*parental expectation *mother’s malnourishment *IQ measurements are racially and culturally biased My opinion changed when I read about trans-racial adoption studies. That was the last drop that really disproved all these desperate attempts to explain away racial differences in intelligence. “The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed-Race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.” ....Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.” In plain English: adopted Asian babies grew up to be very bright, adopted black babies grew up to have low intelligence. One more desperate argument that was posed to save the “racial equality” dogma: [........] That did it for me. It destroyed my ingrained indoctrinated beliefs that all races must be equal. It opened up my mind to the possibility that there could be racial differences. Before we go on, may I stress a few more points *I have no axe to grind against blacks. I am not interested in proving that blacks are stupid or inferior. I am not a white supremacist *I have an axe to grind against dogmatism, blindness, stupidity. I have an axe to grind against the catholic church for repressing Galileo’s truth about the moving and revolving earth. And I have an axe to grind about political correctness repressing the truth, repressing research. *This site is about human stupidity versus truth and consciousness *Rushton, though much maligned, is not some crazy cook but one of the most prestigious research scientists to date: Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who. Some of Rushtons scientific publications can be found on his University page: The University of Western Ontario

Even, ie, James Watson (Watson&Crick) DNA Discoverer/Nobel Winner, was Smeared/Shouted down for telling the Truth, Not refuted. James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jam...-truth_296.php [....] It's difficult to name many more important living figures in 20th century biology than James Watson. He ushered in the current age of molecular biology with his achievements in 1953, he built up one of the world's greatest biological research facilities from damn near scratch, and he is a former head of the Human Genome Project. Given such an august curriculum vitae, you would think that this man perhaps understands just a few things about genetics. But given only the condescending media coverage, you'd think this eminent geneticist was somehow "out of his depth" on this one. In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that: ... [Watson] is "inherently Gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our Social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the Same as ours - whereas ALL the testing says Not really", and I know that this "Hot Potato" is going to be difficult to address. These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book 'Avoid Boring People': ... there is No firm reason to anticipate that the Intellectual capacities of peoples geographically Separated in their Evolution should prove to have evolved Identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will Not be enough to make it so.` Although Watson's book had already been out for a month with these more euphemistic, but still obvious, comments on race and intelligence, no one expressed any outrage. In fact the reviews were reverential and universally positive. The explicit reference to intelligence and people of African heritage in his interview was clearly a violation of a much more formidable taboo. Still I am not aware of there being much noise about it until Oct. 17th when the 'Independent' caused an immediate stir by calling attention to the remarks: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent There's no point in rehashing the rapid sequence of events in detail: several of Watson's sold-out speaking engagements were cancelled, many critical articles appeared in the British press, trailed by the American press a few days later, hundreds of blogs were fuming with negative commentary, including ones by the editors of Scientific American and Wired Magazine, a number of associations issued statements condemning his words, and soon he was suspended from his chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor. Watson cancelled his already ruined book tour and flew home to tend to the Destruction. It was too late; the Eminent biologist retired in Disgrace on Oct. 26th. One thing, though, was Conspicuously missing from this whole irritating denouement: ANY semblance of Factual Refutation. There is good reason for this: Everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely Correct! [.....] And that's the way it will remain for about another 5 years or so until more of the genome is understood, empty PC aholes Shouting down the best data and minds available. But it's unfolding in unassailable form, so prepare. -

WTF are you talking about? You are confusing the standard for Species with subspecies. Of Course 'Blacks' and whites' can interbreed. Gray Wolves have 37 subspecies/Races (incl domestic dogs), and they can all interbreed. WTF! Probably 15 of those 37 live in North America and Have occasionally interbred. There's Manitoba Wolves, Vancouver wolves, etc, etc. You're very confused about the difference between Species and subspecies/Race. No wonder your opinions about IQ and everything else are so Off. Color is Not Race/subspecies. Most amateurs like you think Race is an American Black/White/Cop thing. BTW, American 'Blacks' are Not a race, but a recent admixture of sub-Saharan and Euros. (thus/logically have 85 IQs, midway between sub-Saharan 70 and Euro 100) But the two Genetically Furthest apart Races are sub-Saharans and Australian Aboriginals: Both people of color, but very/most distant Genetically. (and would be apparent in NatGeo's results). Race is NOT a Black/white thing. Really, you're too Ignorant to debate, and besides confusing specie/subspecie, use Race colloquially, NOT scientifically as I do. The rest of them are even worse. iNow is total illiterate. Bye! `

Duh Yeah. All subspecies/Races of all plants and animals descended from a single species/tribe/stock. We also all descended from a single Primate.. and a one-cell organism. Yeah? And I already posted NatGeo's Genographic Project which uses 11 Base populations/RACES, and can tell you what PERCENT of EACH you are. Is there anything else? and iSee the Dishonest Klown 'iNow' 'responded' to my detailed post with "yes really" and NO substantial rebuttal/answer, and by 'short-quoting'/abridging the meat of my elaborate post. Garbage. This place is Garbage where 12 IQ Trolls like iNow should not even be permitted to post. Y'all take care now, NO one even came close, and you were all Wrong 10-fer-10. `

Your post is full of Euphemisms and excuses to avoid the word 'race'. From the real expert 'Jay'. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/ Chimps have 4 subspecies/races. Gorillas have two Species, with several subspecies in each. Most have Less morphological diffrence, and about the same genetic distance as our ostensible one-race. Your whole refutation attempt is based on the fact that we can divide the old '3 races' into more. Well Yes we can! That doesn't not refute the concept. We could use 3, 30, or probably a few hundred. It depends on where you want to draw the line on what ARE Biological differences, and differences, that if seen in Other species, Would constitute separate race/subspecies. ie, Send your Blood into Natgeo's Genographic Project, and they'll tell you what Percent of each 'Indigenous people'/RACE you are (11). ` the mechanics/coding/spacing of this board is Horrendous/UNUSABLE Each Paragraph has to be re-coded for quote/indent etc, Garbage. I'm outa here shortly Love to continue but this is Garbage- on a 'science' board no less. No wonder you had 10/all 'no votes. '

Really? And Horribly disappointing vote results except for my single dissent. First.. the 'Social construct' Nonsense. NOVA | Does Race Exist? with two Differing opinions. I post the latter from someone who necessarily/Practically/Forensically deals with race. George Gill, the Hands-on proponent: Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."[......] Bones don't lie First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They can Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!" My answer is that we can often function within systems that we do not believe in. "The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true." Deeper than the skin [.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me. Seeing both sides Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side. ... Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have Shaped human Races with regard not only to Skin color and Hair form but also the Underlying Bony structures of the Nose, Cheekbones, etc.." On political correctness Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence. How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?" Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism? [.......] Trying to add independent New reply, but they all are add-on edits, or include a quote of this post.