I want to point out that once again you have ducked the question as to what makes someone “white”.
If you are so sure of your claim why are you unwilling to define the terms your claim depends on?
Thanks for the link. It’s right there in the abstract!
You need to improve your reading comprehension BTW, this doesn’t show that there is a genetic basis for race, but that a very limited and controlled selection of self selected categories is semi reliable for placing the continent someone’s ancestry was from. But only when you reduce that set down to the absolute extremes and ignore the more complicated options.
Note that you ignored the rest of my post…
This is a PERFECT example of confirmation bias.
It is, but not in the way you mean.
I’m done humoring your reverse Gish Gallup. I’ll occasionally go back and cite that abstract, as needed, if it’s been a while.
I happened across an interesting 2007 Slate series from William Saletan titled “Created Equal”.
Google still acts like it’s on Slate’s site, but at some point they took it down. I suppose I could use archive.org to track down when exactly that happened, but instead I just went to an early hit to get a copy, which follows (I think it’s fair use to quote something in it entirety when it has been censored):
To be continued…
Part III:
No you are ignoring the problems with your argument, and you still don’t have the guts to define what “white” is.
Here is one that you should go back to, the study that started this entire podcast and thread.
Craniometry, IQ tests, School funding etc… is what he was talking about there.
You are hand waving my responses because your entire argument is a house of cards. But the only person who doesn’t realize that it has already fallen is you.
If you want to have any amount of credibility, why not just define what a white person is?
I am betting you refuse to do so because your half-bake claims would fall the second that you do. And you are misguided in believing that your argument still stands, even if that is only in your mind.
Okay, one more time just to make it absolutely clear: a white person, in the U.S., is someone whose genetic cluster membership almost perfectly corresponds with self-identification as white. There’s your definition. The end.
Yup, Rushton is a nasty person, just as is James Watson. That doesn’t invalidate their science. And it’s pretty obvious that Saletan’s followup was mandated by his bosses, who took down the rest of the article and probably threatened to fire him.
Rushton is an incredible quack. IIRC, he and fellow quack Lynn slandered entire African countries with low average IQ test scores based on a single test of a few dozen school children from a neighboring country. They are very bad scientists.
Rushton is a “quack” due to circular reasoning: he is one of the only researchers willing to tackle this toxic subject, clearly because of toxic motivations. But it appears he is even more careful to make his research unimpeachable (at least the report heavily cited by Saletan), such that it was admitted into a mainstream, peer-reviewed academic journal despite their obvious reservations.
No, he’s not careful. He’s a crap scientist. Maybe he slipped something through a real journal, but lots of crappy scientists have managed that. He’s also done a whole bunch of crap science and been called out for it.
Some examples:
Graves, J. L. (2002). “What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory”. Anthropological Theory. 2 (2): 131–154. doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627. ISSN 1463-4996.
Brace, C. Loring (March 1996). “Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas”. American Anthropologist. New Series. 98 (1): 176–7. doi:10.1525/aa.1996.98.1.02a00250. JSTOR 682972.
Francisco Gil-White, Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
Anderson, Judith L. (1991). “Rushton’s racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method”. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 32 (1): 51–62. doi:10.1037/h0078956. ISSN 1878-7304.
Douglas Wahlsten (2001) Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
Leslie, Charles (2002). New Horizons in Medical Anthropology. New York: Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 0-415-27793-0.
Kuznar, Lawrence (1997). Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. p. 104. ISBN 0-7619-9114-X.
Slacker, you wouldn’t hesitate to call an open young-Earth Creationist who studied biology a crap scientist. Being a creationist, especially a YEC, is inherently incompatible with the science of biology.
The same is true for white supremacism (of which Rushton is very obviously an adherent) and studying race and intelligence. And this is demonstrated by the extreme shoddiness of his science, which has been very widely revealed, with very few defenses.
You don’t have to defend white supremacists. That’s a choice you’re making, and it’s not one you need to be making. The science is crap.
You were the one that posted a link to the article that was later clarified.
There are lots of issues with their “science” which only offers indirect findings anyway.
Your argument still depends on their misleading and indirect findings while ignoring more direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap.
But here are a few rebuttals that were posted earlier that you obviously didn’t read.
I would be open to DIRECT evidence, and who knows maybe we will find it some day but it doesn’t exist like you claim. All of the information I have points to a far more complicated situation that has ever been offered by the politics of bigots.
These papers you cited depend on indirect evidence, because if you look hard enough and hack the data enough you can find patterns which will match your hypothesis.
This is the exact reason that we have the scientific method.
Andy, that analogy doesn’t fly. Show me a young-earth creationist paper published in a legit journal in the past 50 years and then we can talk.
Meanwhile, here’s the paper that “slipped through” (I laugh at this characterization, because I feel certain the APA was very keen to find any excuse not to publish, and couldn’t find any):
History has very clearly demonstrated that the scientific powers that be have been far better able to resist appeals to creationism and other supernatural claims than pseudoscientific white supremacist screeds (which are not supernatural, even as they remain entirely pseudoscientific). It’s not a surprise at all that, occasionally, a white supremacist quack slips something through a process dominated by white men (especially in Rushton’s time).
How about two? I can provide more if you wish.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519384800983
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519383904162
But you ignore the fact that we had segregation not too long ago.
And here is one that you will not like related to race, although it is dated. Warning PDF
African Ancestry of the White American Population
Maybe you don’t realize that papers are published to be reviewed? Not that there aren’t a lot of filters and barriers to get published but being published doesn’t imply that a study valid just because it passed one peer review barrior.
His “time”? 2005?
And earlier. The idea of trying to diversify the leadership and powers that be of various industries and institutions is relatively recent and only in its infancy even today in terms of being implemented.