Over 9000

Fascinating points!

Hey! Godwin will be proud. Bonus points for painting yourself as "scientific" at the same time. So let's get this straight. "You found my graph on a Nazi website". OK I admit it. I love Hitler. Can we return to the science now?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said: "It can do. It's just semantics really." Why would you lecture somebody about a term not being "ubiquitous" when they just pointed out several different senses of the term? Just seems like a self-absorbed waste of time. Nice one bringing up Lewontin's fallacy again. Did you miss that I posted subspecies Fst in other species regularly goes under 0.5? That the inventor of F statistics said 0.05 Fst or under was significant? Did you forget? Shall I link to the post again? Hybrids again? Your ad nauseam race denial fallacies grow tiresome. Yes. Those are also referred to as races. More semantics. IQ is highly polygenic. So is height. Is height heritable? Listing single gene traits is totally irrelevant. Please don't waste everybody's time doing it again. Turkheimer 2003 didn't replicate. It's an outlier study commonly cherry picked. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6271 Obviously sometimes traits have low heritability. Do you have some kind of problem with heritability estimates per se? Are you aware of the arguments suggesting high BG heritability of IQ in humans? Trans-racial trans-national adoption? Consistent global IQ patterns? What multitude of imaginary environmental variables do you propose all combine in different ways in different places to produce the same IQ pattern? Not one single environmental variable has been identified. Yet some combination of variables are responsible for the global pattern? What are they? A consistent genetic difference is far more parsimonius. It satisfies Occam's razor. One doesn't need to "find the genes" to establish heritability. Especially for a highly polygenic trait. We haven't for height. Is that 100% environmental? No, sounds ridiculous right? Saying this, GWAS has found IQ genes. They have been associated with variation in Whites, and then the same genes, all of them, were favorably expressed in East Asians, and unfavorably expressed in Blacks. What are the chances of that? The default hypothesis in this case would be genetics. Not the imaginary cocktail of environmental variables you conjure from nowhere. We infer ancestry phenotypically or genomically. Blumenbach used non-metric skull traits. Genetic clustering is an almost perfect indication of shared ancestry. Simple visual inspection is accurate enough to make some scientific inference. Studies usually use self-report (SIRE), which matches ancestral cluster well. It's good enough to make general findings between major races. Admixture studies can resolve this issue. That is, correlating to genomic ancestry/apparent ancestry simultaeneously. The "discrimination" model versus the "ancestral genetics" model can be tested. Since appearance and brain genes recombine at least partially separately. See eg http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5974 Genomically inferred ancestry is the "gold standard", and will quickly resolve this question. Unsurprisingly it's not funded, although it could easily be done. "So if the Chinese are a race" No, they aren't. The Japanese are incidentally. It's also possible you just don't understand what's being discussed and are impressed by the "big science words" and the "good guys" who show "everybody's equal". Just a possibility!

That's accurate. His point was that all of the nitpicking about the race concept doesn't change the fact that there is a global pattern of indigenous IQ, which you fail to/avoid addressing by nitpicking concepts. He wasn't "using skin colour to classify humanity into groups" (your strawman), he was saying that even if we did a pattern exists which needs to be explained. And after race has been defined by ancestry, you go back to this comment and misrepresent it to make your opposition look bad. Yeah, I get it. You have an emotional response to this kind of discussion. I suggest you just go do something else. You're not really posting much science here, just how upset you are. One area I can think of practical utility would be immigration poilicy.

Stopped reading there. What does it say for your position when you have to repeat the same childish lies?

You wouldn't come out with this nonsense if we subdivided herring gulls. Nobody is talking about "geographic populations" eg "people in London". We're talking about "ancestry related populations" and using the word race for that. Good call dismissing ancestry inference from genetic relatedness, ie phylogenetics, as "magical". What are you complaining about now? Not getting 100% perfect inference? All of your posts are essentially just negative waffle. "in your head it somehow makes perfect sense...magically you will have clear and distinct clusters of populations..Those with even passing familiarity with the concept...a vague notion of ancestry...arbitrary resolution...presumptuous" Why not just write "u r ignorant"? The human race concept is somehow "not good enough". You provide no data, no comparison to other species, nothing. It can do. It's just semantics really. Subspecies really means below species. In the narrow sense it's the level immediately below species. In the broad sense it's any level below, such as race, which is a subdivision of the subspecies sapiens sapiens.

You're totally wrong. Ancestry based taxa predict a lot. They don't tell us "nothing". You know, I'm really sick of these dopey race denial red herrings. We define race by ancestry. HBD scholars define race by ancestry. I'm unsure why you think you can impugn somebody else's definitions. Feel free to stop complaining about it, because I'm sick of the thread derailment. You don't like it fine. Stop posting.

I referenced Darwin's definition and asked where this was contradicted in the biology literature. Do you not bother to read the thread? Please read the thread before making ignorant and false accusations. Thanks.

What does asking you to stop posting garbage have to do with the topic? Nothing. But if you stop posting garbage the thread will be more on topic.

How many times do I have to point out subspecies aren't isolated by definition? 9000? More?

What does it have to do with the thread topic?

So what?

So by having lots of low IQ people we are stronger because the "diversity" may be possibly useful in some alternate reality? Tell me something. Would you want your kid to have a low IQ for more diversity?

Hey yeah. That's one way the analogy breaks down. Colors are much less validly operational.

Operationalising a variable is scientific. It isn't "lying" to do that. Here check it out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization Demanding infinite precision in every variable is actually unscientific. Agreed.

We could actually be discussing interesting things in this thread like this http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf or this http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5974 But no. Just this Of course you could model it as a continuous variable. If you had the genome data for each of your subjects in your study. That usually isn't the case. So studies tend to use major race categories (Black, White, East Asian). And they do use them. Do you expect everybody to be able to pinpoint their position in genetic space? You don't seem to want to admit that the obvious first level operationalisation of that plot is Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid. You are simply avoiding my question. "How would you operationalise this." "I wouldn't".

Because we don't usually have the resources to genotype everybody that walks into a psychology study? You didn't answer my question. If you had to operationalise the genome plot, how would you do it?

Why?

I've no idea. She looks kind of Med with some possible Negroid ancestry. Has she had any plastic surgery? I think one would need a CT scan or at least a closer examination to call it. Her skull would be informative. I take it you're not reading the thread. I guess you missed this. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html concluding chapter and this. Can you explain to me exactly when in biology the subspecies concept went from Darwin's conception of allowing for hybrids, to your conception of not? Is it some race-denial strawman you're parroting (ad nauseam) from somewhere? Is this supposed to be funny? Here I can write the next 100 posts on this thread about heritable IQ differences. Just copy paste it in to save time. Great thread!

Any reason at all?

I'm not sure why you want to do that. I guess it would be ok unless you packed it tightly where it might shatter the glass at some point of quantity/packing. If you want to try this A) Don't do it with your eyeball pressed against the glass B) Do try it behind a safety screen using a fuse

I'm not trolling. I genuinely don't see what objection you have to a relationship between two variables? Putting the variables in quote marks doesn't invalidate them.

Fascinating. You understand that if you have two variables, that when you look at one, it may not have the same value for the other at different points? Here, we can demonstrate this graphically. Here's how the concept of "month" has "temperature differences". You didn't. Thanks for the popular magazine opinion links. So that's argument by assertion unless I'm mistaken? Did they partition out White/East Asian Americans? National East Asians or racial East Asians? I can't tell since it's a magazine article rather than a study. If they didn't it's not even trying to look at racial differences.

You asked and I quote "What degree of genomic similarity determines the taxon level an organism will be assigned to?" implying that there was a fixed value rather than a relative determination. And then, if you knew it was relative, why did you ask the question? That's a pity.

IQ is scientific because it predicts ability in various important fields and outcomes, and is a largely stable measure in adulthood.