# Once again, a pitting of our local pseudo-scientific racialists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 5, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184 "2013-01-05T19:21:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/321 "2013-01-10T19:29:39Z")
I agree with all of Belowjob2.0’s post but I wanted to quibble with this part: > [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > What you have to do is show some plausible reason why high IQ genes offered a reproductive advantage in Mediterranean Europe but not anywhere in Africa. This question would really come after the genes are found, if they were found in different relative abundances in different populations. If such a “plausible reason” was found now (before there’s any actual evidence for the genetic explanation), it would provide nothing as far as evidence goes. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/322 "2013-01-10T19:53:54Z")
I concur. I didn’t mean to give the impression that such genes have been found. They haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/323 "2013-01-10T20:30:51Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > The existence of high IQ black Americans and Africans is well documented. So, the “high IQ genes never made it to Africa” argument doesn’t work. Sure it does. For one thing, a hypothetical high iq gene would not be necessary to have a high iq. All it need to is give you a boost. For another, a hypothetical high iq gene might have made to Africa later than it got to Europe and not had time to become very common in the population. Let me ask you this: Is it your position that all alleles which boost IQ are roughly equal in frequency among races? > [@](#): > > The racialists like to talk about the cold European winters giving some sort of putative advantage to higher IQ genes. But no one’s more cold adapted than the Native Americans whose ancestors originated in Central Asia and Siberia and then crossed the Bering Straight. A High Plains winter is colder and more brutal than just about anywhere in Europe besides Russia. Why aren’t the native Americans, Mexicans, Central Americans et al dominating the world IQ ranks? Just speculating, but I would guess cold is only part of the story. As mentioned above, genes can in theory create their own selection pressure. > [@](#): > > Not only do the theories of the racialists lack proof, That’s not so, the evidence is overwhelming. > [@](#): > > they also lack a plausible theory to explain the proof they don’t have. I’m not sure what this means. The evidence is overwhelming. Let me ask you this: Can you come up with a plausible theory to explain why East Asian people tend to have shovel-shaped incisors? Can you come up with a plausible theory to explain why European people tend to have a lot more variation in eye color than other groups? Also, do you agree it’s plausible that genes which boost intelligence could create their own selection pressures in favor of higher intelligence? Also, do you agree it’s plausible that genes which boost intelligence might reduce fitness in other ways which are not obvious? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/324 "2013-01-10T21:07:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > That’s not so, the evidence is overwhelming. In case anyone gets the wrong idea, **brazil84** is completely wrong on this and pretty much everything. He doesn’t really understand how science works. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/325 "2013-01-10T22:49:48Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Let me ask you this: Is it your position that all alleles which boost IQ are roughly equal in frequency among races? What alleles are those, pray tell? ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/326 "2013-01-10T22:59:59Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > What alleles are those, pray tell? Good luck getting an answer. As I recall, you are also on **B84** ’s “ban” list, aka the “people who could run logical circles around me” list. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/327 "2013-01-10T23:57:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. It’s been suggested that historically whites who mated with blacks might have had lower IQs than random whites. Historically, in the American South at least, those whites likeliest to mate with blacks were those elite and rich enough to own some, antebellum, or keep some around as house-servants, postbellum. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/328 "2013-01-11T00:04:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Bottom line remains that in order to construct something based on “I can’t think of any reason for …” you need to have a really really good understanding of what potential reasons there might be. And if you don’t, you’ve got nothing. I’m glad you have no reason to believe there are selective pressures that would cause intelligence to vary in the patterns we see. It’s the point I was making. You don’t have the genes, you don’t have the selection, and you only have a difference based on a convoluted group difference steeped in past and present racism. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The fact that you might have more data than someone else who is not trying to use this line of reasoning is completely irrelevant. I fully concur that data and reasoning do not matter to the racist argument. And you ought to use this line of reasoning because you’re using it whether you like it or not. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > And it’s worth noting two other points: No, it’s probably not. It’d be better if you learned to ask questions about things you know nothing about instead of coming up with your bullshit. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. You’ve undermined your own argument to an extent, in pointing out (WRT to another aspect, where it was advantageous for you) that there’s a cost involved in developing a higher level of intelligence. What this implies is that in order for your argument to work, you not only need to be confident that there are no reasons for selection for intelligence to vary by environment, but you also need to be confident that there are no reasons for the traits which represent the cost of that intelligence to vary either. Which is a much bigger stretch, especially if you can’t be sure precisely how that cost would manifest itself altogether. I think our intelligence is primarily sexually selected. That is a reasonable hypothesis with supporting data that addresses every last one of your criteria. So bite me. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IOW, suppose the price to be paid for higher intelligence is less of an ability to have Advantageous Trait X (ATX). Then even if there was absolutely no difference in selection for intelligence among different populations, if there was some difference in selection for ATX, that itself would be enough of a reason for intelligence too to vary by population. And especially when you consider that exactly what ATX might be is itself speculative, let alone what environmental pressures might exist in regards to it, then your argument is even weaker than it would otherwise be. Don’t forget how important it is not just to survive, but to get laid. The males and females we compete with and want to mate with are part of our environment too. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. You always need to bear in mind in these discussions that we are talking about very very small differences in population. In ordinary circumstances, tiny differences of this sort would be ignored as insignficant. E.g. if there was a size difference between two species that was of the magnitude of what’s being suggested here, no one would waste any time speculating about it or applying principles of natural selection to try to explain the difference. What’s different here is that we’re talking about people, who are the subjects of much greater interest and scrutiny, and within people we’re talking about intelligence which is itself an extremely pivotal and sensitive subject. For these reasons, there is a focus on small differences that would otherwise be ignored. Cohen’s d for the IQ difference is moderate to large. That’s a big deal in behavioral sciences. It indicates a variety of problems with our culture and the fundamental fairness in our society. It should be taken seriously not only as a specific problem but as a symptom of inequality in our nation. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > For this reason, to expect to find significant differences in environmental selection pressure, of the type which would produce the type of differences that one might typically find in species whose differences are being studied, is a mistake. Wrong conclusion, nice try, go back to the drawing board. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. It’s been suggested that historically whites who mated with blacks might have had lower IQs than random whites. Holy shit. You do offer this as evidence and do not offer anything that might support your argument as evidence. Just give up. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/329 "2013-01-11T02:55:36Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Good luck getting an answer. As I recall, you are also on **B84** ’s “ban” list, aka the “people who could run logical circles around me” list. So to get on the list with the cool kids, I have to interact with these people? Og, it’s just not worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/330 "2013-01-11T15:42:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Historically, in the American South at least, those whites likeliest to mate with blacks were those elite and rich enough to own some, antebellum, or keep some around as house-servants, postbellum. Not sure why you’re pointing this out, as I’ve already noted this possiblity earlier, as have others. > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I’m glad you have no reason to believe there are selective pressures that would cause intelligence to vary in the patterns we see. It’s the point I was making. You don’t have the genes, you don’t have the selection, and you only have a difference based on a convoluted group difference steeped in past and present racism. > > I fully concur that data and reasoning do not matter to the racist argument. And you ought to use this line of reasoning because you’re using it whether you like it or not. You’re avoiding the issue. Understandable, because you want to avoid confronting flaws in your logic. But not commendable. I have not tried to prove anything from an “I have no reason to believe” type argument. You, on the other hand, have. And that’s why the inadequacy of your knowledge and understanding is significant. > [@](#): > > I think our intelligence is primarily sexually selected. That is a reasonable hypothesis with supporting data that addresses every last one of your criteria. So bite me. Same deal here. I don’t care what you think. Go think things for yourself. Tell them to your friends in bars. But if you’re incapable of supporting your position on a MB without resorting to empty declarations of what you think, you are not adding anything. Not that you’ve addressed the issue even if what you think is correct. Even if intelligence is “primarily sexually selected” that doesn’t mean there are not also other pressures. > [@](#): > > Don’t forget how important it is not just to survive, but to get laid. The males and females we compete with and want to mate with are part of our environment too. But survival counts too. Again, the point is that you’ve pointed out that there is a price to be paid for high intelligence. How do you know that this price is not in the form of something that might vary by environment? Are you capable of forthrightly addressing this question? > [@](#): > > Cohen’s d for the IQ difference is moderate to large. That’s a big deal in behavioral sciences. It indicates a variety of problems with our culture and the fundamental fairness in our society. It should be taken seriously not only as a specific problem but as a symptom of inequality in our nation. You are being obtuse, possibly deliberately. Everyone agrees that there is some non-genetic component of IQ. The question is whether there is also a genetic component. You can’t prove that there is no genetic component from the fact that genetics can’t account for all the observed difference. > [@](#): > > Holy shit. You do offer this as evidence and do not offer anything that might support your argument as evidence. Just give up. I did not offer it as evidence. I observed that it had been suggested. I then said I had not much of a clue as to whether it was valid. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/331 "2013-01-11T17:23:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Everyone agrees that there is some non-genetic component of IQ. The question is whether there is also a genetic component. Nobody is arguing there isn’t a genetic component to IQ. I take it as a given there is a genetic component to inter-individual variation in every human behavior, although this should always be tested. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You can’t prove that there is no genetic component from the fact that genetics can’t account for all the observed difference. I am unaware of a study demonstrating a genetic component to behavioral differences exhibited between ethnic groups. I have no reason why I should extend the heuristic I use for inter-individual variation to ethnic groups, and racialists have failed miserably to find evidence to support such a logical leap for the case of IQ. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I did not offer it as evidence. I observed that it had been suggested. I then said I had not much of a clue as to whether it was valid. I typically do not offer crap unless I can provide the cite for it, have read it, trust the results, and feel like I can present its logic. I guess we just differ that way. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/332 "2013-01-11T17:32:28Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Nobody is arguing there isn’t a genetic component to IQ. Sorry, that should have read “Everyone agrees that there is some non-genetic component to group differences in IQ”. > [@](#): > > I am unaware of a study demonstrating a genetic component to behavioral differences exhibited between ethnic groups. I have no reason why I should extend the heuristic I use for inter-individual variation to ethnic groups, and racialists have failed miserably to find evidence to support such a logical leap for the case of IQ. Again, an argument from ignorance. > [@](#): > > I typically do not offer crap unless I can provide the cite for it, have read it, trust the results, and feel like I can present its logic. Strange thing is that even after all that all you’re offering is still crap. To be sure, it does seem like you’re pretty educated on genetics and such. But your problem WRT this issue is that you’re starting from your conclusion and working backwards. And what you get from that methodology is the type of pathetic performance and behavior such as you’ve displayed here. In addition, you might benefit from familiarizing yourself with the concept of “this might be true …” ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/333 "2013-01-11T17:55:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I did not offer it as evidence. I observed that it had been suggested. I then said I had not much of a clue as to whether it was valid. How does that differ from “Just Asking Questions”? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/334 "2013-01-11T18:09:48Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > How does that differ from “Just Asking Questions”? I assume you’re suggesting that I was being disingenuous. The overall context of my remarks was that I had already described that study as reasonable (post #286) and as a “worthy cite” is my subsequent post (#289). I was qualifying that by noting some potential objections. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/335 "2013-01-11T23:57:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Again, an argument from ignorance I know, I should be more open-minded, yet I feel perfectly comfortable placing this idea in the same category as the vaccine-autism connection, Israeli intelligence behind 9/11, Obama’s birth certificate, and the chupacabra. Actually maybe not the chupacabra because at least that is generally harmless. I feel perfectly comfortable thinking this way since what direct evidence there is does not support the notion of a genetic component (neverminding the massive amount of suggestive evidence), since the black-white test score difference is essentially a description without any definitive support for a genetic argument, and since the test score difference is shrinking over time. I think I can feel comfortable saying it’s unlikely to be the case that there is some genetic component to this IQ difference unless its an environmental effect on some aspect of gene expression, which is certainly not what the racialists are thinking about. It’s not like I’d deny the existence of any such evidence or reject it if presented to me. It’s just that the evidence ‘for’ isn’t really for and completely unimpressive, while the evidence against the notion is really ‘against’ and impressive. If that’s an argument from ignorance then I question whether such a thing really is a logical error. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/336 "2013-01-12T00:56:56Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I’m skeptical of these claims. Can you provide a cite? > > Also, why is it that being “far more polygenetic” would make a trait less susceptible to variation from group to group? This is the problem, brazil84. Instead of listening and debating, you argue and demand posters answer a long litany of questions. Once one set is answered, you have another, and another, and another. If a poster refuses, you get indignant, giving what can only be described as an adult-version of the silent treatment. While it’s a clever ploy to get your opposition to throw their hands in the air and give up, it gets exhausting and makes other posters less likely to interact with you on the issue (even if you have a good point). I also don’t think you comprehend how hurtful your views are, especially to impressionable black youth that could read this stuff and internalize your hatred. So yeah, I think you’re a racist, but to be fair to you, I am thankful you’re “out with it” instead of trying to hide it. Then again, I don’t think you - and the peanut gallery- looks at blacks as human beings anyway. We’re just mindless animals and automatons without feeling and bereft of any humanity To answer your question, intelligence would have to be polygenetic because (1) different regions of the brain have different subpopulations of neurons that express specific genes (2) intelligence is the sum of all of discrete brain regions in the neocortex working together. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/337 "2013-01-12T04:05:58Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > . . . To answer your question, intelligence would have to be polygenetic because (1) different regions of the brain have different subpopulations of neurons that express specific genes (2) intelligence is the sum of all of discrete brain regions in the neocortex working together. . . . And polygeneticity (?) (I am NO bioscientist!) deters wide variances between groups, because even a little mixing “leavens the lump.” To put it in horrifyingly racial terms, if a black man marries a white woman, we do not see them averaging one white child, one black child, and two brown children out of every four children. Instead, by and large, we see lots of brown children. This is because “dark skin” isn’t controlled by one gene, but by lots of them, and they have a kind of additive effect. With intelligence, it’s even worse, because there is no evidence that the effect is additive, as it is with melanin production. (And, yeah, I’m gonna say it again: I may likely be wrong here. I’m trying to help. It’s goddamn rare that a bioscience issue comes up where I actually can offer anything at all!) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/338 "2013-01-12T07:41:01Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > This is the problem, brazil84. > > Instead of listening and debating, you argue and demand posters answer a long litany of questions. Once one set is answered, you have another, and another, and another. If a poster refuses, you get indignant, giving what can only be described as an adult-version of the silent treatment. That’s a mischaracterization of my debating style. What I do is scrutinize peoples’ claims. Which is especially important in a discussion like this because people on your side of the debate have a tendency to use ambiguous statements to cloak their position. You yourself use this tactic, for example when you asserted that all humans have the same genes. This is an ambiguous statement, since it is true in the sense that all humans have the same genes for blood type, eye color, etc. – i.e. that have some allele for that gene even if it’s not necessarily the same allele. But it is also false in the sense that it implies humans have the same alleles for each gene. So of course I reasonably asked you questions in an effort to pin down which possibility you actually meant. > [@](#): > > While it’s a clever ploy to get your opposition to throw their hands in the air and give up, it gets exhausting It’s not a ploy, and it’s exhausting only in the sense that it consumes a good deal of mental energy to dance around, rhetorically speaking. But that’s your problem not mine. As to the questions you quoted, they are entirely reasonable. If I am skeptical of somebody else’s claim, it’s entirely reasonable to ask for a cite to back it up. If there is a gap in somebody’s argument, it’s entirely reasonable for me ask that that gap be filled in. That’s what debate is all about. > [@](#): > > and makes other posters less likely to interact with you on the issue (even if you have a good point). So what? > [@](#): > > I also don’t think you comprehend how hurtful your views are, especially to impressionable black youth that could read this stuff and internalize your hatred. That’s not relevant to the truth of my views. There’s no guarantee that the truth is not hurtful. Besides which, the surveys I have seen indicate that blacks have higher self esteem than non-blacks and rate their own intelligence more highly than non-blacks do. > [@](#): > > So yeah, I think you’re a racist, Well it depends how you define “racist,” but if it makes you happy to feel I’m a racist – I don’t care. > [@](#): > > To answer your question, intelligence would have to be polygenetic because (1) different regions of the brain have different subpopulations of neurons that express specific genes (2) intelligence is the sum of all of discrete brain regions in the neocortex working together. Lol, that’s not an answer to the question I asked. I completely accept that intelligence is “polygenetic” and have never said otherwise. When you pretend that the question on the table is different from what it actually is, to me it means that you are either an idiot, a liar, or both. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/339 "2013-01-12T13:54:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > That’s a mischaracterization of my debating style. Actually his was perhaps the most spot-on assessment of your “debating” style I’ve seen, and he even managed to do it without resorting to base insults. You odious little dickless cockroach. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/340 "2013-01-12T16:13:12Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Actually his was perhaps the most spot-on assessment of your “debating” style I’ve seen, and he even managed to do it without resorting to base insults. I concur. > [@](#): > > You odious little dickless cockroach. Although insults have their attractions too. I’d ask for a cite for the statement that someone claimed “humans have all the same genes” but he’s not talking to me and anyway his repeated assertions that we all think everyone is genetically equal have grown wearying. Ridicule remains the best response to the ridiculous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=18)