CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black

[Frankfooter]

Charles Murray defended the use of studies supported by the fund in his book The Bell Curve by saying: "Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford's antisemitism and today's Ford Foundation. The charges have been made, they have wide currency, and some people will always believe that The Bell Curve rests on data concocted by neo-Nazi eugenicists"

Yes, that's also why you can't find any work that supports Rushton that isn't supported by the racist Pioneer Fund.

For instance, this was the reaction to Rushton's later book.

Which reminds me, did you all get your copies of the Special Abridged Edition of J Philippe Rushton’s book, Race, Evolution & Behavior? The mass mailing was bankrolled by the Pioneer Fund, an organization outed in a famous essay in the New York Review of Books on Dec 1, 1994 by Charles Lane. With friends like Henry Harpending (Utah) and Ralph Holloway (Columbia), Rushton shows how just hard it is to tell bio-anthropological science from racist pseudo-science.

[Anthropology News, February 2000, p. 60]

 

[Smallcock]

When someone comes up with a non-consensus claim other researchers will do papers on the subject to investigate those claims to see if their own work should be reconsidered. That's really how science works.

Book reviews are not at all the same thing, you need to find scientists whose own research has backed up Rushton's work and aren't funded by the Pioneer Fund.
I understand that this is a near impossible task, since the science doesn't support Rushton's claims, that's why I asked you to do it.

If you can't do it, that's the point.

As far as Rushton's "work" is concerned there are two types. There is 1) his own research - studies conducted by Rushton 2) assembled data from other researchers for his commentary and his book.

Which of Rushton's "works" are you referring to? If you're referring to any specific study he conducted, post them here. If you're referring to Rushton's comments about other studies, I'm not sure there is any way to answer your question since it's not actually his "work" but the work of others.

 

[Frankfooter]

As far as Rushton's "work" is concerned there are two types. There is 1) his own research - studies conducted by Rushton 2) assembled data from other researchers for his commentary and his book.

Which of Rushton's "works" are you referring to? If you're referring to any specific study he conducted, post them here. If you're referring to Rushton's comments about other studies, I'm not sure there is any way to answer your question since it's not actually his "work" but the work of others.

We are referring to Rushton's work.
1) His coloured interpretation of the data and fudging of numbers from others work
2) His thesis, which is not supported by the data

 

[Smallcock]

Yes, that's also why you can't find any work that supports Rushton that isn't supported by the racist Pioneer Fund.

For instance, this was the reaction to Rushton's later book.

So your beef is with the funding of Rushton's work? I'll look into that for you, if you'd like. I don't know how much funding he got from The Pioneer Fun versus the universities he worked for, or even if the universities would provide grants for unpopular areas of research. If the research is sound, I don't think it matters who paid for it. The more the better.

 

[Smallcock]

We are referring to Rushton's work.
1) His coloured interpretation of the data and fudging of numbers from others work
2) His thesis, which is not supported by the data

You need to be more specific. Answer my previous questions on exactly what works you're referring to and I'll get you answers.

 

[Frankfooter]

So your beef is with the funding of Rushton's work? I'll look into that for you, if you'd like. I don't know how much funding he got from The Pioneer Fun versus the universities he worked for, or even if the universities would provide grants for unpopular areas of research. If the research is sound, I don't think it matters who paid for it. The more the better.

Rushton also had a university job, but yes, he did get funded by the Pioneer Fund.
Its more of a concern for you if you look at his defenders, since there are almost no papers supporting his work that aren't sourced to the Pioneer Fund.

 

[Smallcock]

Rushton also had a university job, but yes, he did get funded by the Pioneer Fund.
Its more of a concern for you if you look at his defenders, since there are almost no papers supporting his work that aren't sourced to the Pioneer Fund.

Let's look at brain size, since you say that's what his entire premise is based on (which couldn't be more inaccurate). The measurements in these studies were done using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs) for greater accuracy.

"These studies produced correlations ranging from .24 to .40, meaning that a person with a brain size 1 standard deviation above average would, on average, be predicted to have an IQ score .24-.40 standard deviations above average. (Or, put yet another way, brain size explains between 24% and 40% of differences in IQ."
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained article.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341500250X

"Several studies have shown a genetic correlation between IQ and brain size. This means that the same genes which explain variation in IQ also explain variation in brain size. The simplest explanation for this finding is that some genes influence IQ by influencing brain size.":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11818967
https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...p between brain size and intelligence&f=false
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2015225a.html

The idea that we evolved through several species and our brains got larger each time:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661305000823

Smarter siblings in families tend to have larger brains:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/


As for genetic basis for intelligence and the difficulty of studying it refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimaging_intelligence_testing

It is becoming more accepted that a neurobiological basis for intelligence exists (at least for reasoning and problem-solving). The success of these intelligence studies present ethical issues. A large concern for the general population is the issue of race and intelligence. While little variation has been found between racial groups, the public perception of intelligence studies has been negatively impacted by concerns of racism. It is important to consider the consequences of studies that investigate intelligence differences in population-groups (racial or ethnic) and if it is ethical to conduct these studies. A study suggesting that one group is biologically more intelligent than another may cause tension. This has made neuroscientists reluctant to investigate individual or group differences in intelligence, as they may be perceived as racist.[15]

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15152197

 

[Frankfooter]

You need to be more specific. Answer my previous questions on exactly what works you're referring to and I'll get you answers.

Ok, you could start with his theory that big heads = big brains = big smarts.
He fudged numbers to come up with this theory.

Thirty (dirty) years of fudging data
Lots of issues with this book.
You could start with his sources, quite a few which showed up in Mankind Quarterly, which was pro-apartheid, colonialist. Oh, and that's funded by the Pioneer Fund, funny eh?
If you check the bibliography for 30 years, you'll find a number of those Mankind Quarterly papers and authors listed there.
Same for the Bell Curve, which was based on Rushton's work and Mankind Quarterly.

many of The Bell Curve’s most important assertions which establish causal links between IQ and social behavior, and IQ and race, are derived partially or totally from the Mankind Quarterly—Pioneer Fund scholarly circle. The University of California’s Arthur Jensen, cited twenty-three times in The Bell Curve’s bibliography, is the book’s principal authority on the intellectual inferiority of blacks. He has received $1.1 million from the Pioneer Fund.17 To buttress Jensen’s argument, Murray and Herrnstein draw on a book edited by University of Georgia psychologist R. Travis Osborne (the book, co-edited by former Mankind Quarterly editorial advisory board member Frank McGurk, is also cited by Murray and Herrnstein as an authority on the link between low IQ and criminality: pp. 277, 339). Osborne, the recipient of $387,000 from Pioneer, once testified as an expert witness for plaintiffs in a federal suit to overturn the Brown v. Board of Education decision.18

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/

From that same article is a good criticism of one of the sources used repeatedly in the Bell Curve.

Lynn is an associate editor of Mankind Quarterly, and has received $325,000 from the Pioneer Fund.20 One of his articles expressed support for the view that “the poor and the ill” are “weak specimens whose proliferation needs to be discouraged in the interests of the improvement of the genetic quality of the group, and ultimately of group survival.”21 He has also written that the genetic mental superiority of the Jews may be a happy Darwinian byproduct of “intermittent persecutions which the more intelligent may have been able to foresee and escape.”22

Lynn’s work is cited twenty-four times in The Bell Curve’s bibliography.23 It is used to support three important claims: that East Asians have a higher average IQ than whites; that most immigrants come from groups with subpar IQs; and that the IQ score of blacks in Africa is “substantially below” the American black average. Each of these seemingly discrete claims has a key role in the formulation of The Bell Curve’s broader suggestions about the relationship among race, heredity, IQ, and social structure.

And here's a detailed criticism of one claim from Lynn.

how did Lynn arrive at his number? First, he assembled eleven studies of the intelligence of “pure African Negroids,” drawn from different tests of several different peoples and widely varying sample sizes in the years from 1929 to 1991. Then, he decided which was the “best”: a 1989 study from South Africa. In this test, he says, 1,093 sixteen-year-old black students (who had been in school for eight years and were therefore familiar with pencil-and-paper tests) scored a mean of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. Finally, Lynn rounded this result up to 70, and declared it a valid approximation of black IQ in the continent of Africa as a whole.27

This methodology alone invites skepticism. But Lynn also seems to have misconstrued the study. Its author, Dr. Ken Owen, told me his test was “not at all” an indication that intelligence is inherited. He blamed the low performance of blacks on environmental factors such as poorer schooling for blacks under apartheid and their difficulty with English. Owen said his results “certainly cannot” be taken as an indication of intelligence among blacks in Africa as a whole.28

Lynn further defends his choice of 70 as a “reasonable” mean for Africa on the grounds that 70 was the median of the average IQ scores reported in the eleven studies he had found. This statistical artifact aside, his list of studies is dubious. It includes what he calls “the first good study of the intelligence of pure African Negroids”: an experiment in 1929 in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the US Army Beta Test, and got a mean score of 65.29

The test was administered by M.L. Fick, whom Kendall, Verster, and Mollendorf call an “extreme protagonist” of the view that blacks are inherently inferior to whites.30 The Beta test, which was developed for illiterate recruits in the US military, shows blatant cultural bias. One question presents a picture of people playing tennis without a net; respondents are supposed to sketch in the net to get full credit. In 1930, just a year after the Beta test was given in South Africa, C.C. Brigham, who had been its leading proponent in the US, finally admitted that the test was invalid for non-Americans. Lynn does not mention this fact.31

The problem is that Rushton's house of cards is all based on similar shit, a whole quarterly full of crap racists fudging the numbers to back their racism. They do that over and over again and then Rushton reads their work and then Hernstein and Murray take Rushton's shoddy claim and add more shoddy claims.

None of them stand up to the light of day, they all have similar issues.

For instance Rushton's crime data.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjccj35&div=7&id=&page=

One of his claims about penis size turns out to have even come from Penthouse forum.

 

[Smallcock]

Ok, you could start with his theory that big heads = big brains = big smarts.
He fudged numbers to come up with this theory.

Look at the studies provided above. There is no fudging. The data supports the hypothesis of a relationship between brain size and intelligence.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/

From that same article is a good criticism of one of the sources used repeatedly in the Bell Curve.


And here's a detailed criticism of one claim from Lynn.

All of that criticism amounts to "Rushton and Lynn are bad guys who get funded by Nazis". It's the science that needs to be the focus.

The problem is that Rushton's house of cards is all based on similar shit, a whole quarterly full of crap racists fudging the numbers to back their racism. They do that over and over again and then Rushton reads their work and then Hernstein and Murray take Rushton's shoddy claim and add more shoddy claims.

None of them stand up to the light of day, they all have similar issues.

The problem you will find is that the numbers are not fudged and stand up to scrutiny and that's why the data is suppressed and not mainstream. The results of the science in these areas of research diverged from popular opinion many years ago, but the general public is unaware. If the science is permitted to go further, it is bound to make more unsettling or non-politically correct discoveries.

For instance Rushton's crime data.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjccj35&div=7&id=&page=

One of his claims about penis size turns out to have even come from Penthouse forum.

Without having to read "Rushton's crime data" what does it say? There is obviously a huge environmental component to crime, so a lot of research would have to be done to disentangle different stats for different groups. As it stands, crime such as homicides in the US vary greatly depending on racial group.

I really don't care about Rushton or his penis size claims or hearing about all his faults. Let's focus on the body of research rather than cherry-pick details to dismiss all 100 years of work and paint it in a negative light.

 

[Frankfooter]

I really don't care about Rushton or his penis size claims or hearing about all his faults. Let's focus on the body of research rather than cherry-pick details to dismiss all 100 years of work and paint it in a negative light.

His penthouse penis size study is as relevant as his claims that Africans weren't as smart based on shoddy claims about brain size.
Its a house of cards, if you look at any one of his claims in detail you find these really serious issues.

Abstract
A critique is presented of that portion of Rushton's theory on the role of race in heritable behavior that deals with race, brain size, and intelligence. The critique is based on an examination of all of the evidence that Rushton cited, as well as additional evidence. We find that the methods employed and data obtained by the cited studies are seriously flawed. Additional studies not cited by Rushton suggest a different ordering of brain size than that concluded by him. Strained logic, a failure to take into account alternative explanations, and contrary data seriously limit Rushton's effort. We conclude that there is no credible evidence to support Rushton's claimed relation between race, brain size, and intelligence.

Go ahead, pick one of his claims and we'll look at it.

 

[Smallcock]

Frank, I haven't the time nor patience to school you any further.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank, I haven't the time nor patience to school you any further.

I didn't know too much of Rushton or his work before this thread, but the more I find the more ridiculous it is.
Rushton thought that white folks had bigger brains 'cuz white women have bigger vaginas.
He thought his 'mongoloid' group had big brains but small penises so didn't do well for society while his 'African' group had small brains and big penises so didn't do well but that white folks were the goldilocks, just right situation.

But that fact that he put Penthouse in his bibliography really sums up his research.

Rushton’s theory has also been criticised for naïveté about sexual matters (Weizmann, et al., 1990). He assumed that larger genital size means less sexual restraint, more frequent intercourse and therefore more frequent procreation. These assumptions are unjustified as humans regularly engage in non-procreative sexual activity. Furthermore, sexual mores within a society can change within a generation from prudishness to permissiveness and back again. Rushton’s theory assumes that sexual interests are genetically based, yet genes cannot substantially change within a generation. Rushton and Bogaert (1987) argued that blacks are more sexually precocious and less sexually restrained than whites, based on Kinsey’s out-dated and non-representative data. However, they ignore information from the same source that contradicted their theory, such as that blacks were more prudish than whites about nudity, and that blacks were less likely to have a prostitute as a first sexual partner. Kinsey also found that whites engage in more non-coital sexual behaviour, such as oral-genital contact, than Blacks. Rushton interprets this as indicating that Whites are less reproductively oriented (hence more K-selected) even though this contradicts his argument that K-strategies are associated with greater sexual restraint an presumably less sexual activity in general (Weizmann, et al., 1990).


Rushton assumes that because K-strategies are less reproductively oriented, members of the K-selected races should have fewer children. However, fertility is sensitive to environmental and social conditions (Weizmann, et al., 1990). In colonial times, North America experienced historically high rates of fertility, yet in modern times fertility in North America has declined to the low rates seen in modern European countries. Furthermore, Chinese peoples have historically had very high rates of fertility, in spite of being highly K-selected according to Rushton.

Lynn attempts to justify his belief that there are differences between races in penis length on the basis that European and Asian males have lower levels of testosterone than Africans and that the “reduction of testosterone had the effect of reducing penis length, for which evidence is given by Widodsky and Greene (1940).” Widodsky and Greene (1940) is actually a study of the effects of sex hormones on the penises of rats. This is hardly convincing evidence that there are racial differences in testosterone levels or that a reduction in penis length ever occurred in human history.

Lynn's claims about differences in penis length between races build on earlier claims by Rushton and Bogaert (1987). The Rushton and Boagert paper is striking for its use of non-scholarly sources (Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1991). These include a book of semi-pornographic “tall tales” by an anonymous nineteenth century French surgeon that makes wildly inconsistent claims about genital sizes in people of different races. Lynn also refers to this book without mentioning any problems with this as a source of information. Another odd data source cited by Rushton and Bogaert is an article authored by a certain “P. Nobile” published in Forum: International Journal of Human Relations. This publication is better known to the public as “The Penthouse Forum”, a popular men’s magazine.

The data sources that Lynn uses in his recent paper are hardly much better. One of them is a book by Donald Templer (another self-professed race realist[1]) called Is Size Important? Templer is not a urologist but a psychologist so why he would claim to be an authority on this subject is unclear.[2] Lynn’s other source is the world penis size website. These are both self-published sources that have not been independently verified. A blogger named Ethnic Muse has carefully examined this site’s references and found that a number of articles listed on the site either do not exist under the name given or do not discuss penis size at all. There are also numerous discrepancies between the values provided by the website and the actual values given by the references.[3] Therefore, the information on this website cannot be trusted and no conclusions should be drawn from it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size

OMG, this guy is such a total clown.
You really believe this stuff?

And if you need to climb back under your rock after this discussion, be my guest.

 

[mandrill]

Ok, you could start with his theory that big heads = big brains = big smarts.
He fudged numbers to come up with this theory.

Thirty (dirty) years of fudging data
Lots of issues with this book.
You could start with his sources, quite a few which showed up in Mankind Quarterly, which was pro-apartheid, colonialist. Oh, and that's funded by the Pioneer Fund, funny eh?
If you check the bibliography for 30 years, you'll find a number of those Mankind Quarterly papers and authors listed there.
Same for the Bell Curve, which was based on Rushton's work and Mankind Quarterly.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/

From that same article is a good criticism of one of the sources used repeatedly in the Bell Curve.


And here's a detailed criticism of one claim from Lynn.


The problem is that Rushton's house of cards is all based on similar shit, a whole quarterly full of crap racists fudging the numbers to back their racism. They do that over and over again and then Rushton reads their work and then Hernstein and Murray take Rushton's shoddy claim and add more shoddy claims.

None of them stand up to the light of day, they all have similar issues.

For instance Rushton's crime data.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjccj35&div=7&id=&page=

One of his claims about penis size turns out to have even come from Penthouse forum.

Well said, Frank. I appreciate you putting in this work. Rushton is clearly a racist fraud.

The fact that he used research performed in apartheid era South Africa is particularly telling. In 1989, it would have been impossible for any studies that did NOT find Blacks to be inferior to have been published in SA, which was in the last stages of attempting to repress the ANC in a large-scale racial civil war.

 

[Smallcock]

Well said, Frank. I appreciate you putting in this work. Rushton is clearly a racist fraud.

The fact that he used research performed in apartheid era South Africa is particularly telling. In 1989, it would have been impossible for any studies that did NOT find Blacks to be inferior to have been published in SA, which was in the last stages of attempting to repress the ANC in a large-scale racial civil war.

Nobody cares about Rushton. This thread has nothing to do with Rushton. Frank is just flailing loudly trying to drown out the thread with irrelevant links and giant blocks of irrelevant quotes, about a guy named Rushton who is dead and irrelevant.

The focus is on the science that nobody disputes - that there is Black-White-Asian gap. The only dispute is the reason for the gap, and all the research points to genetics.

Still waiting on you or Frank to post myriads of studies showing the gap in the reverse order. Should be easy enough to find TONS of them over the past few decades.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nobody cares about Rushton. This thread has nothing to do with Rushton. Frank is just flailing loudly trying to drown out the thread with irrelevant links and giant blocks of irrelevant quotes, about a guy named Rushton who is dead and irrelevant.

The focus is on the science that nobody disputes - that there is Black-White-Asian gap. The only dispute is the reason for the gap, and all the research points to genetics.

Still waiting on you or Frank to post myriads of studies showing the gap in the reverse order. Should be easy enough to find TONS of them over the past few decades.

Every bit of 'science' you've used comes from Rushton. Without his work, which refers to Mankind Quarterly and the Pioneer Fund, you've got nothing.
Have you got anything else?
Or are you going to back down from your claim that the science backs you?

 

[Smallcock]

Every bit of 'science' you've used comes from Rushton. Without his work, which refers to Mankind Quarterly and the Pioneer Fund, you've got nothing.
Have you got anything else?
Or are you going to back down from your claim that the science backs you?

No, every bit of science I've used comes from 100s of studies and programs undertaken by hundreds of researchers and administered to tens of millions of people over the past 100 years.

On a related note, why haven't you responded to the brain size studies I posted? For some reason that was the most important topic for you yesterday. Whenever I shut you down, you move to another topic. It's child's play.

You're quite clearly out of your depth on all of this.

 

[Smallcock]

i agree, arguing that brain size is related to intellect in any species or only in one species is incredibly silly.

let's look at brain size, since you say that's what his entire premise is based on (which couldn't be more inaccurate). The measurements in these studies were done using magnetic resonance imaging (mris) for greater accuracy.

"these studies produced correlations ranging from .24 to .40, meaning that a person with a brain size 1 standard deviation above average would, on average, be predicted to have an iq score .24-.40 standard deviations above average. (or, put yet another way, brain size explains between 24% and 40% of differences in iq."
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/big-brained article.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2668913/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s014976341500250x

"several studies have shown a genetic correlation between iq and brain size. This means that the same genes which explain variation in iq also explain variation in brain size. The simplest explanation for this finding is that some genes influence iq by influencing brain size.":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11818967
https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...p between brain size and intelligence&f=false
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2015225a.html

the idea that we evolved through several species and our brains got larger each time:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1364661305000823

smarter siblings in families tend to have larger brains:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2668913/


as for genetic basis for intelligence and the difficulty of studying it refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neuroimaging_intelligence_testing

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15152197

lol....

 

[mandrill]

Nobody cares about Rushton. This thread has nothing to do with Rushton. Frank is just flailing loudly trying to drown out the thread with irrelevant links and giant blocks of irrelevant quotes, about a guy named Rushton who is dead and irrelevant.

The focus is on the science that nobody disputes - that there is Black-White-Asian gap. The only dispute is the reason for the gap, and all the research points to genetics.

Still waiting on you or Frank to post myriads of studies showing the gap in the reverse order. Should be easy enough to find TONS of them over the past few decades.

Since you're the person pushing a bizarre, racist theory, shouldn't YOU be the person proving the point?

Conventional academia describes the gap as environment-generated. That would seem to be convincing.

If there was any validity to Rushton's theories then they would have made some headway in his academic peer group. Even horrendously shocking theories - like Darwin, Marx, Freud, Einstein - quickly attracted academic support and did this despite the fact that they upset almost all existing contemporary academic theory. Rushton is supported only by other racist cranks, financed by the racist, wacko Pioneer Foundation. His ideas are complete crap.

 

[Smallcock]

Since you're the person pushing a bizarre, racist theory, shouldn't YOU be the person proving the point?

Conventional academia describes the gap as environment-generated. That would seem to be convincing.

If there was any validity to Rushton's theories then they would have made some headway in his academic peer group. Even horrendously shocking theories - like Darwin, Marx, Freud, Einstein - quickly attracted academic support and did this despite the fact that they upset almost all existing contemporary academic theory. Rushton is supported only by other racist cranks, financed by the racist, wacko Pioneer Foundation. His ideas are complete crap.

Oh, oagre, conventional academia says no such thing and it's people like you that have made further inquiry or statements about it impossible (for now):

"It is becoming more accepted that a neurobiological basis for intelligence exists (at least for reasoning and problem-solving). The success of these intelligence studies present ethical issues. A large concern for the general population is the issue of race and intelligence. While little variation has been found between racial groups, the public perception of intelligence studies has been negatively impacted by concerns of racism. It is important to consider the consequences of studies that investigate intelligence differences in population-groups (racial or ethnic) and if it is ethical to conduct these studies. A study suggesting that one group is biologically more intelligent than another may cause tension. This has made neuroscientists reluctant to investigate individual or group differences in intelligence, as they may be perceived as racist.[15]" - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1405

Your argument is like saying "Why haven't we cloned humans yet? The science must be wrong". Meanwhile, the only thing holding it back are the ethical and social issues around it. Anyway, you're smart enough to know this is true of "race and intelligence" studies but you're not prepared to concede publicly. If you do, someone like Frank might call you names like "racist". None of these "theories" have anything to do with Rushton - so it's not clear why you and Frank are obsessed with him. Hopefully you will grow a pair in the future rather than bow in cowardice.

The IQ gap is not a "bizarre racist theory". I don't know how you got that from this entire discussion. Ruston has nothing to do with the development of IQ testing and the observation of a racial gap in IQ. The IQ gap is mainstream scientific knowledge.

 

[Frankfooter]

Oh, oagre, conventional academia says no such thing and it's people like you that have made further inquiry or statements about it impossible (for now):

"It is becoming more accepted that a neurobiological basis for intelligence exists (at least for reasoning and problem-solving). The success of these intelligence studies present ethical issues. A large concern for the general population is the issue of race and intelligence. While little variation has been found between racial groups.

Sure, its not PC, but if the science supports there will be papers backing it that don't come from the Pioneer Fund.
So where are they?

Even this paper you posted says you are wrong and that there is little difference between groups.