Mikemikev

I write from memory. If I don't provide a link, unlucky. Perhaps you would prefer the zero information people like you provide. Why am I a target when my opponent provides exactly nothing? POV mod bias?

So you should work on your search ability. I came here to discuss with experts not spoon feed morons. You seriously can't put together a search based on the context, since you are so interested? Are we supposed to believe this or are you trying to cause trouble for me?

Abusing moderator status to attack someone with a POV you don't like, and threatening to ban them, is one of the worst kinds of intellectually dishonest tactic. Your objections are completely without merit, and I've shown more intellectual rigor than most of my "race does not exist" opponents, including yourself. I'm just waiting for those with anything of value, such as Arete and CharonY, rather than abusive POV mods and trolls.

I'm now 100% certain that you are deliberately trolling this thread. Shame on you, and shame on the mods for attacking me.

By the same logic "thing" is a more useful concept. I fail to see how this adds anything to the discussion other than time wasting nonsense.

Which unsubstantiated claims did I make which were challenged? Why are you so obsessed with "LINKS" when anyone can look up my references in a second? Its just some arbitrary excuse to have a go at me because you don't like my "races are not the same" POV. Lets be honest for a moment shall we? Its like you complaining about me asking someone to stay on topic after they questioned my psychology: biased and lame moderation.

You think you get to slander me when my opponent is clearly being intellectually dishonest, then tell me I can't respond? I see you've colluded with the other mod. What intellectual cowards.

Specifically what are you talking about? You mean What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True? Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware? Its fine to name a paper n'est pas? Is this a rule here or just some excuse to bully me because you don't like my POV? How else could I establish the existence of "racism" theory other than referencing people who mention it? Isn't that of more value than the total ignorance, feigned or otherwise, of my discussion partner?

A consistent pattern means the same races show roughly the same IQ wherever they are, it doesn't mean major races are homogeneous within. Nobody thinks this and it is a strawman. Native Americans are a low density race which probably evolved less over the last 20000 years. That's more plausible than your "no change" or "same evolution" hypothesis, which is more to do with emotions and politics than data.

Your assertion is a complete non sequitur and makes no sense.

Whether they distinguish at that grain of resolution doesn't make them indistinguishable. Imagine this conversation. "This subspecies of cat has shared ancestry inferred by genetic similarity" "Can we classify them by fur color or ear size?" "No, that's some other classification, not a very predictive one" "So you are saying fur color and ear size are not heritable?" Would you think that person was worth responding to?

Why would I need to explain some made up nonsense?

I defined race by ancestry or genetic similarity. So supposed "indistinguishable" populations won't be distinguished. But that's just something you made up rather than a fact based on evidence, right? Similarly the population "lactose tolerant" isn't a race because race is a population defined by ancestry or genetic similarity. Also the population "lactose tolerant" (we jut call them lactose tolerant) is far less predictive than race, but still perfectly valid. If you want to define race as "any population" that's ok. But that isn't the historical or my use. Race is from radix meaning root or common ancestry. Your "population" is just traditional race by another name. If you just want to redefine words for no reason go ahead. Who's trying to confuse people? I think Marxist pseudoscience babble and deliberate muddying and confusion, pretending not to understand and making up nonsense is what's provocative. You provide no support for your assertions, which are false.

Actually randomly changing words for the same thing is generally frowned upon. Especially using a superset euphemism. It's like calling a secret military aircraft "the vehicle" to hide what you're doing. Yes, scientists still study race. But they call them "populations". That makes it "not racist" so it's ok.

Sure I know. I'm sorry.

There is no evidence these explain the global IQ pattern. Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the "racism" explanation of race differences? Its pretty much the only one. How else would equal people be consistently depressed on IQ. Try reading "what if the hereditarian hypothesis is true"? Will you be ok typing that into google, or should I link to google?

On the contrary. Race is the common and historical term, and its still very much in use. Attacking and muddying the concept would be part of a Marxist agenda. I only mention this because you brought it up. But I'm not sure whether referring to "my agenda" is allowed. Please confirm with a mod before continuing this line. Doubtless I'll be sanctioned for responding to personal/political attacks.

So what? There is more genetic diversity within chimps and humans than between them (Long 2010). I think we share most of our diversity with dogs. That doesn't rule out consistent let alone average differences on traits. The consistent pattern is evidence for racial differences in intelligence. Its actually you that has no evidence for a cultural (read oppression) based explanation.

Specifically how was population defined for this study. Also he didn't define population. He dumped a couple of largely irrelevant links, then asked me to add "quantitative criteria" to my definition. When I asked why he was unable to explain. I notice you've added the second part which I missed after I turned the thread page. Genetic distance was one of my definitions, and how I inferred ancestry. How are you contradicting me? It doesn't make any difference whether you call the same concept race or population. Other than to confuse the man in the street and avoid being called "racist" for mentioning race.

How are you defining populations here? Can you reference your claim. Also maybe show it's different in other species.

I'm not interested in your interpretation of Tishkoff because I don't trust it. Put the data here. Somehow I'm guessing that when Kenyans and South Africans cluster tightly while low population density mixed Ethiopians scatter towards Caucasoid Egyptians, that other Africans will make no difference. Of course I am not saying you would ever write lies.

Lol. How about backing up your assertions with quotes or data.

Oh really. The South African Bantu and the Kenyan Bantu cluster very closely. What are these other populations that "fill in the gaps" (according to you)?

Nonsense.

Its from Doug MacDonald.