Yes, based upon competing, and IMHO much better, research and conclusions by other experts in the field. Hornstein had a PhD in Psych. My credentials might be considered suprior to Murray’s, with his PhD being in Poly Sci. and a BA in History.
The conclusion I refer to is PARAPHRASED AS “blacks are somehow less intelligent than other races and this can best be assumed to be due to genetics”
What are your credentials, again?
you should probably consider that you are most proably a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I assume that you actually mean the opposite of this conclusion, i.e. that any gap in intelligence is NOT due to genetics?
And if so, where – if anywhere – in the linked article does it appear?
Also, do you agree that in the linked article, the authors observe a gap between blacks and whites which is not explained by the factors they cite? If you agree, do you think their observation is an anomaly? And if not, what do you think the reason is for that gap?
So you are qualified to decide which experts’ conclusions are superior? What exactly are your credentials?
Nothing beyond what I mentioned earlier. And what are yours, again?
Everyone should consider that possibility. In fact, I would guess that many of those who eagerly point out the Dunning-Kruger effect in others are actually suffering from that problem themself.
Great sophomoric Rubber-glue response. Idiot.
Lol, a brilliant rebuttal.
I am cognizant of your status. Please inform me of mine.
At least it was an answer you could understand. One of the few in this thread that we can say that about.
Further to this point, I note that earlier in the thread, you (meaning Truman Burbank and sorry if it was someone else) were very confident that I did not know who Spearman was. I offered to bet you $10,000 that I could document that I had taken advanced statistics courses and you backed off.
You also asserted that “simple observation would not cut it when it comes to higher sciences,” or something like that. But your claim did not stand up to scrutiny – it turned to be either tautological or dead wrong.
So you should consider the possibility that you are overconfident in your thinking. Way overconfident.
I take it you decline to answer the questions I asked you in Post #3067?
So you are qualified to decide which experts’ conclusions are superior? What exactly are your credentials?
Quote:
What are your credentials, again?
Nothing beyond what I mentioned earlier. And what are yours, again?
I’ve answered this at least twice, maybe three times. Enough dancing. For someone who demands answers to his questions, you sure are a hypocrit when it comes to the obverse.
What are your credentials? I believe you neglected to “mention earlier”. Either answer it clearly, or admit you have no intention to.
I’ve answered your questions. You’re just playing games. Keep eating that turd.
You also asserted that “simple observation would not cut it when it comes to higher sciences,” or something like that. But your claim did not stand up to scrutiny – it turned to be either tautological or dead wrong.
Is that how you prefer to remember that exchange? Well, hell, I guess your point is that credentials and advanced training in the sciences are entirely irrlevent in this conversation.
How fortunate for you…
First evident != develop during childhood. A genetic or otherwise biological condition (or illness) with primary effect on the brain may not be noticed until some point in childhood and yet be present prepartum. As it stands, one of the primary symptoms of autism is a lack of theory of mind, which isn’t observable until relatively late in childhood anyway.
Well, I’m not the one, while (apparently) lacking the relevent education and training, confidently asserting the **extremely minority position **and refusing to be educated by those who know much more than I about the subject in question.
That would be you and NDD, who demonstrated it so classically in his estimation of Jefferson’s IQ.
Precisely what was your justification for thinking that genetic predispositions would have a greater effect on older people than younger? The opposite is more plausible, since there’s less time for environment to have affected you when you’re young, and I don’t remember you showing us any citation to the contrary.
Actually, as I read further, you seem to be pulling the idea from nowhere. Try again.
“Empirical support” and political correctness are not synonyms. That’s still two citations you’ve given that contradict your position. Try again.
So the anti-racism Dopers are like Mormons… who, until late in the 20th Century, took the racial evil of blacks as a matter of faith. Try again, again.
I studied PoliSci (not at a doctoral level), and I have lots of respect for social science in general and political science in particular, but… wow, talk about a PhD that doesn’t qualify someone to talk about genetics. That’s just pathetic.
ETA: talk about an awesome thread. These two just keep getting their arguments kicked in, but they just won’t stay down.
Pigs can smile.
Well, the Black Knight is absolutely one of my favorite bits. With some Argument Clinic “it’s not just the automatic gainsaying of the other’s postion” thrown in for additional comedic effect.
And I wasn’t dissing Poly Sci, of course. Had I world enough, and time, I would have taken a lot of it. I spent most of my time in Psych and literature.
“Unlike the enforcers of political correctness on The Straight Dope…”
Dude, this the Dope. We’re not enforcing PC, we’re attempting to combat ignorance. And, in this thread, it’s taking a lot longer than we thought:)
This.
The main advocates for a genetic basis for the test score gap are, for the most part, not geneticists. They are also not neuroscientists. Many of them are specialists in mental testing.