# Hi Ianzin **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 7, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721 "2006-04-07T14:37:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/61 "2006-04-09T21:19:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > We had one poster who was not (mostly) white who loved Rushton. He claimed to have been a Native American whose Asian ancestry proved that he was smarter than all the rest of us. Well, I said I’d never seen it, not that it had never happened. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/62 "2006-04-09T22:10:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, they are suggesting going from two sizes to include a larger size, not returning to three sizes where the current (insufficiently large) size was the biggest. In fact, they make no mention of ever having had three sizes in the past–a point that I would think would figure prominently in any controversy. A moment ago you stated it was “absurd” that the WHO might change its size specifications. Do you even remember that? > [@](#): > > That Rushton is dishonest has been demonstrated, although I admit that I cannot provide an online citation at this time This coming from somebody who was caught in a bald-faced lie just a few posts ago. You stated to be linking to the “actual” bidding document, when you were not. You linked to a document that was created years after Rushton’s book came out. > [@](#): > > That Rushton is racist is clear from any reading of his work. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/63 "2006-04-09T22:22:55Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > A moment ago you stated it was “absurd” that the WHO might change its size specifications. Do you even remember that? No, I did not. I said: > [@tomndebb](#): > > The idea that the WHO / UNFPA has actually changed its size requirements between 1991 and 2001 is absurd and I doubt that you could provide any real evidence that that has happened. The point was not that they would never consider changing sizes. The point was that they _had not_ changed sizes without mentioning it. (I will not pretend that the point was absolutely clear, but an undocumented change is absurd.) As to lying? Not so much as your initial posts, so it seems to be something you can live with. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/64 "2006-04-09T22:32:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No, I did not. I said: The point was not that they would never consider changing sizes. The point was that they _had not_ changed sizes without mentioning it. Are you kidding me? You said NOTHING about mentioning it, documenting the change, or anything like that. You said it was absurd that they would change their size requirements. That’s what you said. You were wrong. > [@](#): > > I will not pretend that the point was absolutely clear lololol > [@](#): > > As to lying? Not so much as your initial posts Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/65 "2006-04-09T22:47:30Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > Cite? You keep using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/66 "2006-04-10T00:58:37Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > You keep using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means. In this case, I am asking somebody to show me where I supposedly lied. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/67 "2006-04-10T01:03:55Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > In this case, I am asking somebody to show me where I supposedly lied. Well, as it happens I don’t think you lied. I think you actually believe the garbage you’ve been spewing, possibly due to one of those sub-60 IQs that you seem to think could be the average of an entire country. However, in that case you should have asked somebody to show you where you supposedly lied, not asked for a citation. Asking for a citation is asking for a reference to a (presumably) authoritative source, not asking for a general demonstration of the truth of the point being made. You have confused the two throughout the three threads this discussion can be found in. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/68 "2006-04-10T01:10:41Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > you should have asked somebody to show you where you supposedly lied, not asked for a citation. Whatever. tomndebb, I am asking you to show me where I supposedly lied. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/69 "2006-04-10T01:30:15Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > Whatever. tomndebb, I am asking you to show me where I supposedly lied. Either you are aware that the Wiki citation to which you initially linked in two threads actually refutes the claims you made about it (making your claims lies) or you are too stupid to recognize the fact. It seems of little difference to me. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/70 "2006-04-10T02:00:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Either you are aware that the Wiki citation to which you initially linked in two threads actually refutes the claims you made about it (making your claims lies) or you are too stupid to recognize the fact. It seems of little difference to me. Which claims and which parts of the Wiki citation? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/71 "2006-04-10T02:46:38Z")
**lskinner** The problem with your cite of the wiki piece on IQ, is that within the citation there is overwhelming evidence that the authors cooked their numbers and the publication wasn’t peer reviewed; that’s always going to be a red-flag. The thing about the Dope is that for better or worst, lots of people here are pretty bright and like to look at cites closely. When you use a cite to make a point, while at the same time the cite itself questions the conclusions you ascribe to it; you have a problem. You can either defend the cite and explain why we should ignore the other parts of it; or you can do what you’ve been doing. What I find ironic, is that **Tomndeb** actually asked another poster to back off and give you a chance to support your position. Which you haven’t done. From your cite:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_IQ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ) > [@](#): > > Central to the book’s thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world’s nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies. > > For most of the 185 nations, no reliable studies are available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of surrounding nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Those estimates are not included in the calculations of income differences and do not appear in the table below. > > **Several cases merit specific attention. To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner. For People’s Republic of China, the authors used a figure of 109.4 for Shanghai and adjusted it down by an arbitrary 6 points because they believed the average across China’s rural areas was probably less than that in Shanghai. Another figure from a study done in Beijing was not adjusted downwards. Those two studies formed the resultant score for China (PRC).** > > To account for the Flynn effect (an increase in IQ scores over time), the authors sometimes adjusted the results of older studies upward by an arbitrary number of points. Because of these arbitrary adjustments and the fact that only limited data were available for most nations, the figures should be considered estimates and can reasonably be expected to vary by several points in either direction. That’s not good science and certainly not a cite to support your position that Africans, that **entire** nations in Africa have the IQ equal to the ‘mildly’ retarded; using this book as ‘proof’. Is there a book that says the IQ and Wealth are related? Yes. But that’s not what you’re being asked to provide. What you’re being asked to do, is show why we should ignore how they came up with those results, as well as the counter-argument to those results themselves. You of course don’t have to do that…but I think you’ll enjoy your experience more if you at least try. YMMV, of course. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/72 "2006-04-10T07:04:41Z")
Bwahahahahaha, **lskinner** You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, but even less well-known (except around here) is this: never get into a cite war with **tomndebb**! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Once, in 1960, Chuck Norris tried to round house kick **tomndebb** in the head for 20 minutes, **tnd** merely pointed out that the kick was neither round, or house-like, and Chuck disappeared in a puff of logic! CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/73 "2006-04-10T09:26:18Z")
**lskinner** , may I ask you a question? Why do the possibility that the two statements **ianzin** made may be false bother you so much? I’m a member of Mensa, and have been for the past several years. While Mensa is a self-selected group and thus not necessarily representative of people with high IQs as a whole, I can offer up some observations based on experience. Our membership includes everyone from high school dropouts to people with more than one doctorate. In terms of economic success, we also run the full gamut from people who are unemployed or minimally employed, to people who are highly successful. I’ve heard similar comments to **ianzin** ’s several time. Indeed, I was at a business meeting on Saturday and I brought **ianzin** ’s comments up and there was general agreement with them. **ianzin** ’s statements seem to have upset you a great deal, but I can’t fathom why. I gather you believe that’s not true, but that doesn’t jibe with my own experience or observation. Can you honestly say it does with yours? Respectfully, CJ ---
**Author:** ![Mellivora\_capensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mellivora\_capensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mellivora_capensis)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/74 "2006-04-10T11:41:26Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > …Chuck disappeared in a puff of logic! Cite? _\<\\>_ ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/75 "2006-04-10T11:53:31Z")
Here I am again… the **lskinner’s** favourite ‘ignorant fool’! I have the perfect antidote to this thread. Take a look at [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366703) and in particular [this very funny response](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7282263&postcount=2), and then imagine someone challenging **Roger Thornhill** to provide a cite to back up his assertion! That’s what the endless and pointless round of ‘cite’ challenges looks like to the rest of us. I notice in passing that, at the time of writing, **lskinner** has not deigned to respond to [what I wrote](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7278493&postcount=61) in the original thread which spawned this (very tedious) one. I guess that’ll be because I’m an ignorant fool. Yep. Name-calling is a pretty sure sign that someone has a superior intellect and a better argument. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/76 "2006-04-10T12:04:47Z")
> [@Mellivora capensis](#): > > Cite?.. [Cite!](http://www.xanga.com/Mekon474/453742864/item.html) CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/77 "2006-04-10T17:36:43Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > I notice in passing that, at the time of writing, **lskinner** has not deigned to respond to [what I wrote](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7278493&postcount=61) in the original thread which spawned this (very tedious) one. I guess that’ll be because I’m an ignorant fool. You’re an ignorant fool to the extent that you base your view on your own feelings and biases and ignore evidence to the contrary. Even tomndebb admitted that there is a “loose correlation between IQ scores and material or academic success in societies that are highly dependant on literacy” It’s one thing if your teachers all told you something and you accepted it without a lot of thought. But if you are presented with evidence that those people were wrong, it should cause you to question and possibly revise your beliefs. Which you may have done, I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/78 "2006-04-10T17:43:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Either you are aware that the Wiki citation to which you initially linked in two threads actually refutes the claims you made about it (making your claims lies) or you are too stupid to recognize the fact. It seems of little difference to me. Which claims and which parts of the Wiki citation? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/79 "2006-04-10T17:46:29Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > Even tomndebb admitted that there is a “loose correlation between IQ scores and material or academic success in societies that are highly dependant on literacy” You really don’t have a clue how minimal this highly qualified statement is, do you? It’s saying that in societies where taking tests is important, there’s a loose correlation between how well people do taking one type of test and how well they do taking another, vaguely similar type of test. This correlation has virtually nothing to do with innate intelligence. It certainly doesn’t demonstrate that how well other people, from societies where test-taking isn’t important, perform on tests has any significance, which is what would be required for you to have the possibility of the beginnings of a seed of truth buried somewhere inside the point you’ve been trying to make. My apologies for the tortured grammar in that sentence, but I’m too lazy to reformulate it. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/80 "2006-04-10T18:11:05Z")
Lskinner, let me ask you with respect to your opinions on the issue. It’s quite evident that there is a measurable correlation between measured IQ and academic success, and to a lesser but still significant extent, professional success, in more technically advanced nations. Having said this do you believe that significant, innate (ie genetically determined) differences in mental capacity and intellectual ability exist between black, white and asian populations (to the extent they can be differentiated) that are not a function of the economic and cultural environment, but are genetically determined? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721.md?page=5)