Mikemikev

Ok, so that's a different thread and in the context of complaining about other posters bringing political actions, namely only those done by Whites, in order to change scientific terminology. I was pointing out that Whites have been oppressed too, with the main point that it was all irrelevant. The root of my troubles is my thread being closed for no good reason.

Really? So if someone came here and discussed a science question on topic you would moderate them for off site political views?

The word genocide appears nowhere in the thread. I have made no political points and discussed the scientific question in the OP. What are you talking about?

I know that any discussion of racial differences will be called "racist". I think this demonstrates that the word can often be nothing more than meaningless name calling of no relevance. Agreed. Ok, we agree the speculation of my agenda is of no relevance. I have apologised for calling people morons after they called me a troll and started discussing my personal psychology, after failing to grasp high school taxonomy. I won't do it again.

That's classic ad hominem. What agenda could I have? If I did have "an agenda", what difference would it make to the scientific question? Unless I expand beyond the OP question and start making political points, speculation about alleged agendas is totally irrelevant. What was uncareful about my treatment of the issue here? I agree, and apologise for responding in kind a little to the personal abuse of the members here.

I notice the moderator hypervalent iodine has closed this thread with this comment: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95338-race-and-intelligence/?p=922230 There are two points here. That the moderator has deemed responses irrefutable before I could respond, and that the premise of the OP is "ridiculous". The moderator may consider the premise that IQ varies consistently by race to be ridiculous. Unfortunately the entire field of academic psychology does not. There is no debate about this. The only debate is about the cause of the differences. Why would papers discussing this be regularly published in top psychology journals if the premise was ridiculous? Please ask if you need a mountain of references, from the most recent and the rest. We have a clear POV abuse by the mod here. Secondly were the responses so rational? After I switched off my computer after dealing with a stream of high school biology fail and ad hominem (good call only chastising me mod) we had this post: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95338-race-and-intelligence/?p=922106 This was something more debatable. Of course it is entirely paraphrased from Nisbett. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf Harvard's James J Lee has responded to this. A pertinent highlight: http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf Perhaps the mod would have refused this response as ridiculous? There are various other issues with the post. We also had the new poster Spartan, who opened by calling me a troll. This user is an anti race activist who follows me around the net slandering me. He wrote the lying articles about me. After calling me a troll he makes this point. Is this rational? The fact that there is variation within races makes no sense? Nobody claimed otherwise. This is like being confused that arctic foxes and bears are the same color, and saying polar bears are not related to black bears. There is huge variation and overlap on traits within and between racial groups. Races are grouped by ancestry, not IQ. What is this contradicting? How is this a rational response? The question was what explained the average difference, not an assertion that races were homogeneous on any trait. Strawman. Darwin did exactly that, and I can quote him. One of us is a liar. In short, reopen the thread.

Tang 2005

Your boring and pointless personal attacks have been reported. Feel free to redact them.

Like "everyone is the same"?

You are making an ad hominem argument. This is because you are incapable of addressing the question.

You write some nonsense about us all sharing the same ancestry, add your fantasy belief we are all the same intellectually, hypocritically and falsely claim I have no evidence, then launch into the usual attempted ad hominem. Why not engage on the points I raised, such as consistent IQ differences? What is your explanation?

Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies. I apologise, I seem to have come across a forum of absolute morons. Carry on as you were.

No I'm just becoming more precise to lower myself to your level of ignorance. How dare you accuse me of not discussing seriously when you cannot understand the difference between relative shared ancestry and any shared ancestry, which all organisms have. Ancestry has been inferred by non metric skull traits a la Blumenbach, visual inspection by all of us, and genetic similarity. Genetic similarity is the best method, but they tend to agree pretty well. Known personal history and self identified race matches genetic race very well.

How dare you say this? I do not have to tolerate condescension from an ignoramus. I am happy to ignore your nonsense. Watch your step. It doesn't "begin or end". Organisms are more or less related. The taxonomy scales to any level. Ancestry can be inferred from genetic or phenetic similarity. Both methods agree well.

Ah I see what's confusing you. Organisms are grouped by degree of shared ancestry, not whether they ever shared any ancestry at all. PS. You fail high school biology. Posters in the thread can look at this reference. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zbrmn39/revision

It's defined by shared ancestry. This is how biological taxonomy is defined. What confuses you about it? Race is just a short word meaning "a group which shares ancestry versus other groups at the infrasubspecific level".

Why is everyone whining about historical injustices, and only those done by Whites? After all, Whites are being genocided right now. Could there be some connection? Some kind of media and academia conspiracy? Why should anyone care if somebody labels something "offensive"? Personally I have no idea why any of these words would be more offensive than the others, ie. not at all. Are people not allowed to say things anytme you say "offensive"?

Can you quote me claiming the genetic role in intelligence is based on melanin content in the skin? Or is that some cheap strawman nonsense you made up?

I'm certain you can copy paste a lot of quotes where people doubt the validity of IQ. Your above quote appears to just dismiss it, without actually engaging on its points of validity, such as predictive validity and stability. Can you put together an argument against IQ, without copy pasting cherry picked people who agree with your pre ordained conclusion? Try reading the APA paper, and respond to that.

I did, post 3. Re Minnesota MTRAS IQs reverted to population in adulthood. A source above (a newspaper) claims IQ is flawed because it doesn't capture all ability. Nobody claimed it did.

So why can't you reference an association of academic psychologists saying IQ is invalid? (Hint: because they don't) Try this: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf

Ancestry defines my question. So you are simply avoiding my question. No problem, sit it out. All organisms share ancestry at some level. Classification is based on more or less shared ancestry, not some false binary shared or not shared. Are you claiming people cannot share ancestry relative to other people now? Am I somehow not related to my brother more than you because we are all from Africa (allegedly)? What nonsense. Are you also going to have us believe people of all races don't show racial preferences in reality, and that knowing the genetic abilities of each group is useful information? Racial classification is far more predictive and polically relevant than your more arbitrary question. You can also define race by genetic similarity if you want. It works out pretty much the same as ancestry. Your sources are laughable. Would you like to reference a panel of academic psychologists? Try the APA for example.

No because race is defined as having shared ancestry, as found in biological taxonomy. Basketball players are defined as basketball players. You are just redefining my definition of race. Why? "We could define your terms differently, ha, what then?". That isn't an argument. And incidentally, yes you could look at the intelligence of basketball players.

I see. So presumably you have some data showing no correlation between race and intelligence? Or is your "science" based on parroting the politically correct position du jour? Could you summarize the main points? I get bored in debates where people link to a paper saying "this refutes you". Am I expected to construct your argument for you? What in the paper refutes Rushton and Jensen? I have summarized their argument above.

My source defines race by ancestry, as did Darwin. How do you define taxonomy? Presumably you accept taxonomy in non humans? Is that not based on ancestry? Phenetic or genetic similarity? Please tell me you accept classification of non humans? How do we classify? Why can't we apply the same concept to humans? Nope. Transracially adopted children show the same pattern. Especially interesting is the higher East Asian IQ remains after adoption by Whites. And IQ is supported as a good measure of intelligence by mainstream psychology. Why do you think otherwise?