These “studies” sound just as sound as the suggested design of taking one representative baby from each race and raising them together on an island.
I checked it already, suffice to say this “controversy” is at the level of creationists demanding that we should teach the controversy, in reality the vast majority of experts already know to not to take Pioneer Fund people like Lynn or Rushton seriously.
Scientifically, there’s no controversy. He and his research have been discredited and should be on the dust bin of history.
I wasn’t accusing him of being a troll, I just think that with his ugly belief system he probably lives someplace subterranean, and moist.
It seems amazing to me that someone could conduct a test, be presented with the obviously absurd conclusions inevitable from the results that even a child could see, and still think that the problem does not lie with the test. It would be like conduct a test on a field full of equines and finding them to be unicorns, and then acting dismayed when people don’t believe me that they can fly.
Literacy is a relatively recent development on society, and universal literacy even more so. Were all our ancestors on this same supposed level? Or does literacy magically raise your IQ? If so, then I think we’ve found a giant hole on the test.
Troglodyte, not troll.
Y’know it’s amazing how often Rushton gets cited in these threads and just how common they are.
Rushton also wrote a lot about the sexual inadequacies of white males and about how most white males had extremely small penines.
Why is it we never have any of the scientific racists* start threads wondering why white men have such small penises?
*. Not using the term as an insult just that the term “scientific racism” is such beliefs are denoted in academia.
Do you have a cite for this? What I recall is that Rushton did cite studies suggesting differences in penis size, and iirc (I may not) some sort of thing about high v low procreation levels or drives or something.
I haven’t read all of his main works, but to dismiss it as others do here as being “totally discredited” or whatever, is nonsense. Rushton was a decent, reasonably thorough, and careful researcher. His conclusions drew a great deal of ire, but I’d like to see some specific cites here for counter studies rather than simply promoting the idea he was discredited.
There are opinions on both sides of the fence as to whether or not populations differ in intellect and other skillsets because of environment or nature. There are almost no studies of which I am aware showing that SIRE groups (for example) are equivalent at anything, be it physiology, gene frequencies, standardized scoring given similar opportunity, or equivalent outcomes for practical successes such as sports.
Rushton’s fundamental conclusion, based on his research, was that these differences are genetic. To paint this conclusion as discredited or bullshit is simply to get sucked into rhetoric. While his conclusion may be distasteful, or unpopular, or even unkind, it has not been scientifically discredited.
In the end, science will win the day, so the rhetoric fights will recede. As others here are probably aware, I’m betting on genes as the most fundamental driver for the difference in the observed differences among SIRE populations given similar maximal nurturing opportunity.
I await a single study suggesting Rushton’s conclusion is scientifically wrong. Simply quoting opinions that his research sucks is not very persuasive. The way to disprove a quack is to do alternate studies that prove the opposite conclusion. Where are they?
Um…
When Psychology Today and others report that “it is on scientific grounds that his theories fall apart” it is really silly to claim that it was not discredited.
Tweet!
That’s enough. Both calling other posters trolls or directly insulting them is forbidden. Don’t do it - or anything close to it - again.
What part of don’t do this are we unclear on?
Warning issued.
Um, begging your pardon but I wasn’t calling anyone either a troglodyte *or *a troll, and I’d like that warning rolled back if you please.
I was referring to the fact that rogerbox’s “oblique” post, which you warned him about over “don’t call people trolls”, actually implied that the other poster was a troglodyte (i.e. a being that lives in moist caves) rather than a troll (a being that lives under bridges).
You know what? I will roll that back.
But I hope you realize that wading into a warning or mod note with ‘helpful’ information is extremely unwise and I advise you to avoid such in the future.
Yup. I also did realize my post was ambiguous in retrospect, so there you go.
Anyway, thanks ! Shutting up now.
Decent?
Well what is the minimum average IQ necessary for a society which can support the thinkers you described?
No it doesn’t. Participating in commerce can be as simple as slapping down two dollars for a slice of pizza and a bottle of Coke.
What language is it in?
What specifically would one notice?
What is your definition of “fairly ordinary”?
Whites and Asians have a genetic mutation (that affects the brain) believed to have arisen about 5000 BC. It appears to have spread relatively quickly thru Eurasia, followed by the formation of city-states and advanced culture. It’s possible that this is a dominant gene, explaining its rapid spread, and also why having a white parentage increases the I.Q. of African-Americans.
There is no evidence for this.
May we see the cite you got that claim from?