You’re right the degree of statistical certainty are orders of magnitude apart.
Yeah, I think thats where the uncertainty creeps in, but the dismissive attitude of people on this board towards the notion that
this apparent genetic IQ is entirely illusory until a gentic marker can be identified undermines credibility of their position.
So there is correlation between greenhouse gasses and higher temperatures and there is evidence that we cause greenhouse gasses and so we must be causing global warming? You don’t see any holes in that logic that a peristent skeptic could exploit?
And yet so many on this board dismiss this “plausible hypothesis” out of the gate and call anyone who believe this hypothesis a “racist”
Good point. Do you have a cite to that study that shows the perfectly flat gradient you talk about?
You’ll notice that the targets of this thread are certain that blacks (on average) are genetically mentally inferior.
If that was all there was to it, sure- but there’s a lot more to it. I’m not going to get into it in this thread, but there’s tons of evidence for human action being at least partially responsible for changing global climate, and there’s zero evidence for the genetic explanation for the test-score gap.
As I said, the targets of this thread are certain of this hypothesis, and refuse to acknowledge that they actually have no evidence for it.
The big problem is that they are mostly fake skeptics. Most of the basic evidence was found and tested back in the 50’s, and verified several times with new technology, the holes that many fake skeptics are trying to push were debated and explored a long time ago and the consensus changed when the evidence piled up that the increase of man made CO2 is not good.
In many cases I can see the similarities with the issue at hand, we can see that many that believed that treating the atmosphere as a sewer were wrong, there are consequences.
Unfortunately not even the funding of contrarian researchers is effective to find good evidence to affirm that we should continue to pollute with no worries, similarly genetics and biology came decades ago with the then surprising evidence that DNA showed that the differences among humans were not as impressive as many that wanted to still keep groups of people down were.
It was with that evidence that most biologists and geneticists do not give much importance to possible genetic differences in intelligence, and I have seen estimates from serious scientists on how much a percentage it could be from a genetic component, suffice to say, the conclusion is that the percentage is in the **unlikely **area as a climate change scientist would tell you.
And so, the ones that lost the support of science for their prejudices are looking far and low for evidence to get the scientists that count to change their minds and to get back to support them in large numbers like in “the good old days”.
Not likely to happen on both fields. And the brasil nut is an idiot asshole on both. (As if there could not be yet another reason why you should **not **bother to continue to indirectly support his sorry ass in this thread)
There are at least a few variable that you cannot control for in the statistical analysis. Its hard for ME to believe that those statistical variables account for such a large gap and noone has presented more plausible explanations for the IQ gap than an innate difference in IQ.
My problem with these sort of conclusions is that in DC it really only serves a couple of purposes. One is to explain away the incredibly high incarceration rate among blacks, the other is to undermine affirmative action (after all if there is a genetic IQ gap, then maybe its not racism that is causing the socioeconomic gap.
Let me start by saying, I don’t think very much about Brazilnut.
Just to be clear, you are not saying that IQ is not heritable, you are merely saying that there is not a measurable difference in the heritable portion of IQ between races. Right?
Good, I was starting to think you were afraid of him banning you. Of course, you should not forget that this is a roast of him, so you are not helping much.
I reviewed the notes I had, and unfortunately (for some) it is worse, the take home is that the between the “About as likely as not” (33 to 66% provability) and “Unlikely” (< 33% probability) number I mentioned is regarding heritability, the difference between races? Guys like Cabali Sforza report that there is almost no difference. We are talking then “extremely unlikely” territory (<5% to 0%) when using the probability level meanings used by the IPCC
Researcher Frank Sweet has suggested that the best explanation for the test-score gap is a combination of three things- lesser parenting skills, lower teacher expectations, and “oppositional culture” peer pressure. There is no actual evidence for the genetic explanation, and it doesn’t even fit all the facts- like no gap between black and white 1st generation immigrant children, or no gap between home-schooled children (according to Sweet).
Just a bump to report that the weasel basil84 was indeed lying on those who he has “banned” or claims to ignore In the other GD thread he indeed does reply to **Gagundathar *and previously he did replied to me by using a reply that Chief Pedant made to me, as I posted already evidence to support my points brasil84 just demonstrates to all what an inconsistent idiot he is.
I actually did report that early, the debating by proxy after claiming before that he was ignoring me and others, but I advised later to management that he had not done so, turns out that the coffee had not kicked in and I was wrong, he actually did reply to me using the Chief as a proxy.
Are you losing it mentally?
For some reason I don’t remember your posts being as disjointed, full of misspellings, run-ons, and garbled syntax as they seem to be recently. But I may be losing it myself , and perhaps I have you confused with a more coherent poster.
I prefer to be someone that is confused grammatically than someone that continues to feed the wrong wolf.
I have acknowledged many times before that my grammar is a crime against nature, but my excuse is that it is my second language and I get into more trouble when I get a cold or a fever, what is your excuse of willfully misrepresenting scientific information to others? And to rely on debating tactics that only a creationist or a climate change denier would be proud of?
Considering that the latest researchers cited by him had more trouble finding a gap with Latinos, I don’t think so.
And when one takes into account how they come later with even more evidence to make any genetic influenced differences among races moot, I only need to point that out to show all and for the 100th time how cracked and useless this Pedantic fellow has become.
I apologize. I had you confused with a different poster.
I wish to make it clear that I am interested in debating points. I don’t care if your grammar is lousy, and I do not take such errors as evidence that the underlying point is incorrect.
I was having trouble parsing out some of your posts in GD, which is the only place I’m interested in debating.
I usually leave the Pit to those who like to name-call, but who are apparently unable to hold a debate.
, and perhaps I have you confused with a more coherent poster.
