There’s at least one big difference- one is accepted by the scientific community, one is not.
The achievement gap exists. You have failed, miserably, at providing evidence that your explanation is the best one for it. Your use of “race” with regards to genetics doesn’t make sense (how can two “black” populations be the same race when one is closer to Eurasians, genetically, then to the other “black” population?) and you have no genetic data.
Will you EVER answer the question of how much schooling you have?
Prediction: will dodge or ignore.
Right, ignore. Why would you expect us to credit your opinion on any of this when you are clearly not educated in the basics necessary to even begin to ponder these questions with any hope of insight?:dubious:
As a political scientist would tell you it does remain a problem for anyone that doubles down and never criticizes the company they keep.
Besides where I’m coming from is not just by “guilt by association” I already investigated that they already followed anti-scientific ideals before joining together, at its root what they do have in common is the old fashioned anti-intellectualism of American conservatism.
As someone that has also studied logic what you are doing here is just an attempt at using a good tool as a toy to ignore the evidence that was there before any association took place.
Anyone on the internet can claim any identity, and any number of achievements. I am obviously well informed, articulate, and courteous. That is all that matters.
Just out of curiosity. How much education do you have? If you have a lot, why is it so difficult for you to explain the durability of racial differences?
Once again I ask: where is the evidence of intrinsic racial equality?
Evidence of intrinsic racial inequality is everywhere.
Nope, as you mention, in the internet anyone can claim anything, but the fact remains that experts in the matter do not agree with your conclusions, and it matches with the opinion of the experts that are here, BTW their expertise is deduced for their past posts and recognized sources of information, you only have McExperts, Blogessors to support you and misinterpreted experts that do not agree with your conclusions.
Once again, if there is overwhelming evidence for your conclusions it should be easy to point out at active experts that approve of your solutions, in reality the evidence so far only sows the same old same old non experts that do not demonstrate what you are claiming.
Straw man, and used repeatedly by you, this demonstrates that indeed you are only abusing that logic site, you are just using as a toy because you only apply it to others and not yourself.
(emphasis mine)
This is the part where somebody spits their coffee all over the camera, isn’t it ?
A straw man argument is where one distorts the argument of one’s opponent.
I am only asking a simple question: where is the evidence of intrinsic racial equality? Evidence could consist of declines in black crime and illegitimacy immediately following the civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, and the declaration of the War on Poverty. Evidence could also consist of proof that No Child Left behind is succeeding.
If my conclusions are mistaken one should be able to point out how they are mistaken without claiming an impressive academic background, which would be easy to claim and difficult to prove.
Why is it that racial differences in average intelligence, crime, and illegitimacy are so durable? I keep asking that question, and not getting an answer.
Ah, Dodge. a twofer.
I already answered that question, waaay upthread. I already stipulated I’d give you the benefit of the doubt. Have some integrity, answer the question. You are NOT obviously well informed, that’s what I’m trying to ascertain. :smack:
Since none of those questions have any bearing on IQ or genetics, why are they relevant?
You’ve gotten plenty of potential answers and ignored or rejected them.
For example, you haven’t explained why we can safely ignore social/economic factors in such analyses and go straight to genetics (not even just biology but full-on genetics, which is an incredibly common mistake when considering even biological factors).
You’ve also been given examples, which you’ve ignored, in the UK and Germany, if not the US, where “black” children don’t show measurable test score differences from white children.
You’ve also been shown where your own cites disagree with you, yet claim those are due to “political correctness” or some other excuse.
It’s a little late to claim you’re not getting answers. You’ve gotten answers literally hundreds of times now but choose to ignore and/or reject them.
Or have you forgotten that all the responses you’ve gotten so far are on display for everybody to see?
Speaking purely from a scientific standpoint, this is one of the most fundamental flaws in your approach. You are attempting to prove an hypothesis - namely, that racial differences in IQ are genetically based. If you were a real scientist, you would know that that means the burden of proof is on YOU. When setting up a project, a scientist proposes a hypothesis. The alternative, or null hypothesis, is the default conclusion to which you return if your efforts to prove your hypothesis fail. You then do your experiment and do statistical analysis to see if you have acquired enough evidence to allow you to reject the null hypothesis and accept your proposed hypothesis.
In your situation, the null hypothesis is the flip side of the coin: “racial differences in IQ are not genetically based.” Now, there are rules about this. The null hypothesis is ALWAYS the one that maintains the status quo. This is deliberate, as it means that we do not accept any new idea unless and until sufficient evidence has been obtained to prove (within a reasonable amount of doubt) that it is true.
You are attempting to do things in the reverse. You have proposed a hypothesis and then declared that if we cannot prove it wrong, then by default, it must be true. This is completely incorrect, as you are essentially attempting to establish truth by default rather than evidence. A real scientist will, on his own, think of as many obstacles and objections to his ideas himself, and design his experiments to overcome them. We challenge our own research as hard as we possibly can before presenting it to anyone else, because if we don’t, someone else surely will. If I wrote a paper saying that “cohesin holds homologous chromosomes together. Prove to me that it doesn’t!”, I would rightly be laughed out of the field.
So, again. YOU are attempting to convince US, not the other way around. YOU are attempting to show that the status quo, the conventional wisdom, and the general view of your peers is incorrect. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU need to provide the evidence. YOU need to answer criticisms. YOU need to be rigorous. Not us. The conservative approach is to reject your proposals unless and until you have provided enough evidence to show conclusively that it is true, and that no other explanation can possibly be valid. This has nothing to do with the offensiveness of your ideas. It’s simply good science, and the same approach is applied to every single scientist out there.
Not to mention that he rather selectively uses the “McExperts”.
Rushton is a brilliant scientist when he claims that blacks are stupid, but when Rushton uses the same studies and data to claim that whites have small penises Rushton is a quack.
Were he intellectually consistent, he’d be arguing that whites are mentally superior but anatomically inferior to blacks, but for some strange reason, half of Rushton’s findings make him insecure.
Care to define sexual irresponsibility? Last I heard, sexual strategies increasing the chances of having a greater number of offspring that procreate are sexually responsible.
You do realise this isn’t the result of any particular guile on the part of the Chinese proletariat, but in fact the lack of scruples of US capitalists? The US capitalist extracts greater surplus value by increasing worker hours and reducing worker wages, while contributing to China’s emissions quota.
I know the usage was informal, but Lewontin criticises some of the metaphors used in evolutionary biology here.
Harsh, considering.
I’m guessing when Rhaegar said “education level”, they meant that of two individuals of the same age, completing tertiary education would be a good predictor of a high IQ and failing to complete secondary education would be a good predictor of a low IQ, while they may not adequately represent g or innate intelligence due to extraneous variables.
It seems like a dispositional version of social learning theory. Individuals influence their environments, modifications in environment alter individual behaviour… Except that black individuals are predisposed to destroy their environments or something like that.
Besides, political affiliation and religion are far more heritable than intelligence. Why are we not aspiring to emulate Maoism? Why is one’s religion not more likely to be predisposed than one’s aptitude for religious tests?
It was worse than informal - it was deliberately sarcastic.
I’m so ashamed.
Here is an example of someone who has been trying for months to disprove the hereditarian (genetic) hypothesis. He has looked at every environmental explanation. At least in terms of the US results. I don’t know how he finds the time - it is a lengthy review. His conclusion:
(note this is only in relation to gaps in the US - he is still reviewing data from overseas). It’s quite technical - doubt many will read the whole thing.
Classic, a Task Force created by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association isn’t good enough evidence for you? Perhaps you could start telling us what psychometricians you are relying on?
When I see evidence that psychometry is not simply a way for a group of college professors to get grants, I will give it some thought. So far, all the evidence that I have seen is based on what I consider false reasoning that is, itself, simply begging the question. I do not doubt that we can invent tests that measure “IQ,” meaning we can devise a test to group people according to the way that they answer those tests, but I have seen nothing that indicates that taking a couple of examples of demonstrated intellignce and graphing them actually addresses the entire issue of more complex issue of intelligence. It is an alluring field of study–and one that can be lucrative–but its foundation is not established as reality.