Unfair closure of race and intelligence thread

[Mikemikev]

I notice the moderator hypervalent iodine has closed this thread with this comment:

 

Moderator Note

I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this.

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:

 

African Americans trace their origin to a relatively recent admixture of two populations that had previously evolved in isola- tion. Thus, African Americans can expect to inherit about 20% of their genomes from European ancestors. Nisbett points out that the hypothesis of a lower genotypic mean IQ for Sub-Saharan Afri- cans naturally predicts that degree of European admixture should be positively associated with IQ.

 

Nisbett claims that the available ‘‘direct” evidence on this point supports total environmental causation of the black–white IQ difference. Despite the great weight that he attaches to them, Nisbett’s sources on this point are in fact quite indecisive. He cites a study failing to find elevated European ancestry in a sam- ple of gifted black children (Witty & Jenkins, 1936). Although this study does pose rather strong evidence for an environmental hypothesis, Nisbett does not mention a critical limitation: the investigators ascertained degree of white ancestry by parental self-report. He goes on to cite two studies failing to find an asso- ciation between ancestry-informative blood-group markers and IQ without mentioning that the handicaps of small sample size and unreliable ancestry estimation rendered these two studies virtually powerless to reject any hypothesis within the interval of contention (Loehlin, Vandenberg, & Osborne, 1973; Scarr, Paks- tis, Katz, & Barker, 1978).

 

Modern genetic methodology allows estimates of ancestry admixture to draw on thousands of DNA polymorphisms rather than a mere handful of markers constrained to be associated with readily measurable phenotypic variation (Price et al., 2008). As a result we can now make such estimates with extraordinary preci sion. Fig. 3 displays what differential psychologists might call the ‘‘loadings” of several genotyped individuals on the principal com- ponents (PCs) of the genotype-by-individual matrix. We can read- ily see that the first two PCs perfectly separate East Asians, Europeans, and West Africans. The admixed American blacks are arrayed along a nearly straight line between the African and Euro- pean clusters. The scattering toward the East Asian cluster most likely represents additional admixture with Native Americans. If Nisbett is truly confident that degree of European ancestry shows no association whatsoever with IQ, he should call for studies employing superior ancestry estimates of the kind displayed in Fig. 3. Note that the increased reliability of ancestry estimation does not obviate the need for a large sample. Even under an ex- treme hereditarian hypothesis assigning mean genotypic IQs of 80 and 100 respectively to the African and European ancestors of African Americans, we can only expect an increase of .2 IQ points for every percentage increase in European ancestry. The consider- able IQ variation among African Americans makes an effect of this size difficult to detect in small samples.

 

The ultimate test of the hereditarian hypothesis is of course the identification of the genetic variants affecting IQ and a tally of their frequencies in the two populations. Because of their likely small ef- fects, we may have to identify dozens of such variants before we are able to make any confident inferences regarding the overall geno- typic means of different populations. Although this task is currently within our technological means, it seems practically out of reach in the very short term. Ancestry estimation is much less costly than gene-trait association research and thus offers the advantage of an immediate increment toward the resolution of this issue.

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.

 

I can't seem to post pictures (probably because i'm new), but the reason why racialism makes no sense with IQ is because if you take a look at any continent or large grouping of countries: you find they have considerably different average IQ scores

 

For example: Serbia, Albania and several other countries in south-east Europe have average IQ scores of 80-85. Scandinavia countries however are 100+, why should they be grouped together? Why should countries be grouped with others when there is up to a 20 point difference in IQ? This is why Rushton and Lynn's racial classification is pseudo-science: they group all European countries together as a "White race" when the peoples in this arbitrary racial group are heterogeneous, not homogenous - so it makes no sense to cluster them together.

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.

 

Also: Darwin and Blumenbach never defined race as just "ancestry". Mikemikev has a tendency to lie.

Darwin did exactly that, and I can quote him. One of us is a liar.

 

In short, reopen the thread.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[ajb]

There is some question about your thread being purposely loaded and has some agenda. Of course any discussion of race has to be done carefully.

 

Anyway, one thing you must remember is to remain calm and not attack any of the members. If you think that someone has unfairly attacked you then please use the report button. If you think that any member has broken the rules or otherwise gone against the spirit of this forum report it to a moderator, again using the report button is the best way to do this.

[Mikemikev]

There is some question about your thread being purposely loaded and has some agenda. Of course any discussion of race has to be done carefully.

 

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?

 

Anyway, one thing you must remember is to remain calm and not attack any of the members. If you think that someone has unfairly attacked you then please use the report button. If you think that any member has broken the rules or otherwise gone against the spirit of this forum report it to a moderator, again using the report button is the best way to do this.

 

I agree, and apologise for responding in kind a little to the personal abuse of the members here.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[ajb]

What agenda could I have?

Any discussion of race risks being seen as racist. That is now just a fact and it is clear that other members took this point of view.

 

 

I agree, and apologise for responding in kind a little to the personal abuse of the members here.

The best thing to do is to report things. Otherwise the thread will quickly de-rail and get closed... as the thread in question did.

 

Also you must try your best to answer questions and points raised. A simple 'I don't know' or 'I need to think about this' is okay.

 

Again the main thing is to remain civil.

[swansont]

 

That's classic ad hominem.

 

No, it is not. Ad hominem is the substitution of a personal attack for a substantive response to an argument. Saying that there is some question about whether you have an agenda is neither. The question was raised — it's a fact. It was not raised in response to any argument you made (it was discussed elsewhere), and it is not a personal attack to note that elements of style and phrases might indicate an agenda; that concerns your writing, not you.

 

Similarly for a previous accusation of ad hominem. It was a challenge to your post, not an attack on you. However, calling people morons and saying they are incapable of addressing the question are personal attacks.

[Mikemikev]

Any discussion of race risks being seen as racist. That is now just a fact and it is clear that other members took this point of view.

 

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.

 

The best thing to do is to report things. Otherwise the thread will quickly de-rail and get closed... as the thread in question did.

 

Also you must try your best to answer questions and points raised. A simple 'I don't know' or 'I need to think about this' is okay.

 

Again the main thing is to remain civil.

 

 

Agreed.

 

No, it is not. Ad hominem is the substitution of a personal attack for a substantive response to an argument. Saying that there is some question about whether you have an agenda is neither. The question was raised — it's a fact. It was not raised in response to any argument you made (it was discussed elsewhere), and it is not a personal attack to note that elements of style and phrases might indicate an agenda; that concerns your writing, not you.

 

Similarly for a previous accusation of ad hominem. It was a challenge to your post, not an attack on you. However, calling people morons and saying they are incapable of addressing the question are personal attacks.

 

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.

[swansont]

 

Ok, we agree the speculation of my agenda is of no relevance.

 

It has relevance as far as the staff is concerned. When you make a claim about white genocide and don't explain it, in a thread purportedly about science, that raises eyebrows.

[Mikemikev]

 

It has relevance as far as the staff is concerned. When you make a claim about white genocide and don't explain it, in a thread purportedly about science, that raises eyebrows.

 

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?

[ajb]

Ok, we agree the speculation of my agenda is of no relevance.

As Swansont says, this was discussed outside of that thread. However, I am confident that others not involved were thinking along the same lines (it had crossed my mind earler). This I think contributed to the thread quickly becoming a mess and getting closed. And the question is important for moderation.

 

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?

It appears here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94859-caucasian/

 

This maybe the root of your troubles.

Edited May 29, 2016 by ajb

[Mikemikev]

And the question is important for moderation.

 

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

[swansont]

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

I did not realize that there were two separate threads. As they are related topics, though, I don't see how your claims can be separated.

[ajb]

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

I am not actually part of the moderating team as such... I only offer them advice.

 

The point is if there is some hidden nasty agenda beind the questions then this should be brought to attention. It maybe impossible to separate clearly all aspects of science from politics, climate change is an example here, but then we like some transparancy as regards to objectivness.

 

The 'geonocide of whites' without further explanation is a red flag.

Edited May 29, 2016 by ajb

[Mikemikev]

As Swansont says, this was discussed outside of that thread. However, I am confident that others not involved were thinking along the same lines (it had crossed my mind earler). This I think contributed to the thread quickly becoming a mess and getting closed. And the question is important for moderation.

 

 

It appears here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94859-caucasian/

 

This maybe the root of your troubles.

 

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.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[swansont]

 

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

 

What would politics have to do with a science question?

[ajb]

Still, now you understand where the question of your motives comes from.

[Mikemikev]

 

What would politics have to do with a science question?

 

Exactly.

[swansont]

 

Exactly.

 

Right. So why would you bring up politics at all? Unless there was an agenda involved?

[Mikemikev]

Still, now you understand where the question of your motives comes from.

 

I still do not understand its relevance to this thread, which is about closing my other thread.

 

The stated reasons were "ridiculous" and "rational responses". Was there some other unstated point? OP opposes White genocide in another thread perhaps? Not good enough I fear.

[ajb]

What would politics have to do with a science question?

Should be nothing, but as we know this is not always so clear cut. Genuine questions are genuine questions.

[Mikemikev]

 

Right. So why would you bring up politics at all? Unless there was an agenda involved?

 

I have explained. To repeat, I brought up politics to explain politics was of no relevance to terminology in the Caucasian thread, after other posters brought up politics, namely bad things Whites did.

[ajb]

 

 

I still do not understand its relevance to this thread, which is about closing my other thread.

Threads get closed for breaking the rules.

 

 

The thread in question ended with exchange of insults. This was the reason for the closure, as far as I can tell.

[Mikemikev]

Threads get closed for breaking the rules.

 

 

The thread in question ended with exchange of insults. This was the reason for the closure, as far as I can tell.

 

"Moderator Note

I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this."

[ajb]

"Moderator Note

 

I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this."

If the discussion is not going anywhere the thread can be closed. There were responses and then the thread ended in insults. It looks to me that the thread was done and constructive discussion was over.

Edited May 29, 2016 by ajb

[Mikemikev]

If the discussion is not going anywhere the thread can be closed. There were responses and then the thread ended in insults. It looks to me that the thread was done and constructive discussion was over.

 

Well it wasn't. Mod is clearly biased ("ridiculous premise") and cut me off before I could respond. The mod himself said there were "rational responses" so your analysis doesn't even make sense.

 

So I had a busy Saturday. Do you normally allow under 24 hours for a response?

 

Let's be frank here.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[ajb]

Well it wasn't. Mod is clearly biased ("ridiculous premise") and cut me off before I could respond. The mod himself said there were "rational responses" so your analysis doesn't even make sense.

Then if you can make a sound argument to reopen the thread then PM the moderator who closed the thread and then other moderators will look at the thread. (They probably are looking at it now anyway)

 

 

You must remain civil, be careful about claims regarding specific groups of people, and do ones best to remain in accepted science. I don't want to discuss specifics of your thread here, that would be wrong.