"Many of them are specialists in mental testing. "
Really? I was not aware of this, or maybe don’t know what you mean. ‘Specialists in mental testing’, in my world, are generally PhDs or School Psychologists, and I wouldn’t see either speciality being strongly represented in this POV. Could you point me towards a few examples?
Correct, totally irrelevant. Except just a moment ago, when he wanted to intimidate you with the credentials of the authors of The Bell Curve, a book that told him what he wanted to hear.
So, to recap: your credentials - irrelevant.
Their credentials - make them a trusted authority.
b84’s credentials - again, irrelevant, but unnecessary because he’s figured out the truth on his own.
Credentials are funny things.
You sound incredulous.
I was familiar with Lynn, but not Gottfredson. Ignorance fought.
Same thing - we’re infringing his right to be ignorant.
We haven’t stopped him being ignorant at all!
Doesn’t matter. Blacks consistently met the objective standard set by whites previously. Their genetic makeup wouldn’t change significantly in a generation, so the attainment gap of the previous generation can be explained by environmental factors. If “intelligence” genes remained the same for blacks, 58.3% of illiteracy is accounted for solely by environment (historic black illiteracy - historic white illiteracy - current black illiteracy). Your reasoning, if applied at the time, would have prohibited public education for blacks, using the same data (20% vs. 79.9% illiteracy rates and presumably a difference not accounted for by socioeconomic status).
NDD - I notice you have posted in reply to several posts after my disproval of a point made earlier today by you.
Any reply? Or am I to infer that you are a cowardly fool? Or a foolish coward? Whatever.
This is, of course, SOP for him. Ignore what you can’t bluff past.
No you haven’t, and in fact you are weaseling.
First you (incorrectly) claimed that according to the article, controlling for environmental influences explained all of the observed differences in academic achievement between African Americans and whites.
When pressed for support, you limited your claim to “all the occasions where they had concurrent measurements of those factors”
Of course there’s nothing necessarily wrong with changing one’s position, but it’s dishonest for you to do so while pretending that your position hasn’t changed.
I do not engage with people who weasel or who refuse to answer questions which would let me clarify their position such as it is.
Goodbye, liar.
I demand answers for questions about peoples’ positions. If somebody made their credentials an issue in the discussion, for example by asserting that their position is stronger because of their credentials (or somebody else’s position is weaker because of his credentials) then it’s reasonable to question them on the subject.
I have never asserted that my credentials give my position extra credibility. However, to put this issue to rest, I will state that I have no more credentials besides the advanced statistics coursework I mentioned earlier, i.e. 4 or 5 advanced statistics classes.
Now please answer my questions:
-
Please link to the post where you lay out your own credentials. This is reasonable since you have demanded that I go beyond simply referring to my earlier posts in general and since you have made your credentials an issue in this discussion.
-
With respect to the conclusion you were referring to, where (if anywhere) in the linked article does it appear? Please quote it.
-
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?
-
Do you believe you are qualified to decide which experts’ conclusions are superior?
The point is that you are suffering from overconfidence.
I’m extremely skeptical of this claim. Please show proof that my position is in an “extreme minority.”
What’s your basis for claiming that my knowledge is inferior? Is it simply that my conclusion is one you disagree with?
If you are not familiar with Linda Gottfredson, then perhaps your knowledge in this area is not quite as extensive as you think.
What I have read on the internet about the subject.
For example:
ETA: my bolding.
http://ctglab.nl/papers/2010/Haworth_MP2010_h2IQ.pdf
I agree, it’s counter-intuitive. One hypothesis is that as children grow, they have more control over their own environment and smarter children tend to choose more stimulating environments.
Well now I have. And if you have citations which show otherwise, I’m happy to look at them.
I don’t have for every piece of crap you fling at the wall. I posted my credentials in this thread in posts #241 and 1733. You and NDD have remarked that the reason research doesn’t support your position is because scientists refrain from concluding ‘the real truth’ due to fears of political correctness, or some such hogwash, I consider within that observation is an aknowlegement that the published research vastly supports the ‘not genetic’ over the ‘obviously genetic’. You’ve been given reams of cites already. :smack:
“What’s your basis for claiming that my knowledge is inferior?” You’ve taken statistics, yet dismissed advanced degrees in Psych, and others in this thread with significant credentials in other relevent disciplines, such as genetics (and no, I’m not going to wade through the thread for the exact cites. You know you have, or you lie).
I have no idea what your point is here.
Thank you. It seems that your qualifications are inferior to those of some researchers who are (apparently) on the opposite side of the debate from you.
I have not made such a point. I would ask you not to strawman me, but this is the last post in which I will be responding to you anyway so it doesn’t really matter.
I asked you a few simple questions which would help clarify your position, and you ignored them.
I have no interest in engaging with such a person. Goodbye.
[takes a drink]
We hate to see you go, brazzy, but we love to watch you leave!
Jensen and Rushton could also count as “specialists in mental testing”. I don’t know of anyone under the age of 30 espousing a genetic view of intelligence though.
Oh noes! Does this mean I no longer get to play “You must respond to my series of questions forms from increasingly tortorously and selectively reconstructed bits of somebody else’s cite?”
And I was having such fun spending my time on that.
A drinking game? That could result in message board induced alcoholism under the circumstances…although admittedly that might make this thread less painful.