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

[oldjones]

Now that you concede the test results over the past century don't work in your favour you default to the argument that there are no races. Back to square one, congrats.

So, where is the definition of race? Where can we find the defining characteristics of these races you claim to be genetically distinct? You have never provided any, nor have you cited any reputable sources for them, but as you point out, that's where it all begins.

I gave up asking long ago, but since you brought up the baselessness of your position yourself, it's worth another try: Where are those races of yours defined?

Or do you always skip square one?

 

[Frankfooter]

Now that you concede the test results over the past century don't work in your favour you default to the argument that there are no races. Back to square one, congrats.

There never has been a study that links IQ to race, and there isn't even a biological or genetic definition of race to begin with.
IQ tests are influenced by socioeconomic, cultural and a host of other issues, like institutional racism in the US.

The studies you link to fall into one of two areas:
1) Studies with dubious work, largely funded by the Pioneer Fund
2) Studies that show that other then stating its not genetics, its very hard to pinpoint exact causes of different levels of IQ results in different populations.

None of which back your claims, which are all based on things like, 'white women have bigger vaginas and have babies with bigger heads, so they have bigger brains and are smarter'.

Your contention that there is a genetic basis for different IQ results is clearly false.

 

[Smallcock]

So, where is the definition of race? Where can we find the defining characteristics of these races you claim to be genetically distinct? You have never provided any, nor have you cited any reputable sources for them, but as you point out, that's where it all begins.

I gave up asking long ago, but since you brought up the baselessness of your position yourself, it's worth another try: Where are those races of yours defined?

Or do you always skip square one?

I've never said races were genetically distinct any more than dog breeds are genetically distinct.

 

[Smallcock]

There never has been a study that links IQ to race

Except all the studies going back to WW1

IQ tests are influenced by socioeconomic, cultural and a host of other issues, like institutional racism in the US.

Yes IQ is influenced by those things. But the racial IQ gap is not. This is according to the APA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns

The studies you link to fall into one of two areas:
1) Studies with dubious work, largely funded by the Pioneer Fund
2) Studies that show that other then stating its not genetics, its very hard to pinpoint exact causes of different levels of IQ results in different populations.

1) Not according to the APA and 52 signatories across multiple fields in the research.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns

Why did Jewish academics get funded by the Pioneer Fund if it's a Nazi organization?

2) None state it's not genetic. They only say there is circumstantial evidence that it's genetic. In other words, genetics is strongly implicated (because it will require geneticists and neurobiological scientists to discover the genetics at play - but ONLY if they're allowed to conduct tests without being called racist). The 100 years of IQ research has been done primarily by psychologists. The research area will have to converge with genetics and biology to pin down the genetic basis of intelligence.)

None of which back your claims, which are all based on things like, 'white women have bigger vaginas and have babies with bigger heads, so they have bigger brains and are smarter'.

I've never made that claim and I don't know where you go it.

Your contention that there is a genetic basis for different IQ results is clearly false.

According to your non-scientific echo chamber.

 

[oldjones]

I've never said races were genetically distinct any more than dog breeds are genetically distinct.

So what does define race? You never have stated that either.

At least dog-fanciers have a Kennel Club trying to set some standards for their hobby. Who keeps your hobbyhorse straight?

 

[Smallcock]

So what does define race? You never have stated that either.

At least dog-fanciers have a Kennel Club trying to set some standards for their hobby. Who keeps your hobbyhorse straight?

Largely by geographic origin and the corresponding genetic markers. e.g. Europe - White, Sub-Saharan Africa - Black, China/Japan/Korea - Asian, Mexican/Native - Amerindian

In other words, essentially the way most people define themselves, which also corresponds to the groups that the IQ tests were administered to.

Don't call them races, call them population groups, if that helps.

 

[oldjones]

Largely by geographic origin and the corresponding genetic markers. e.g. Europe - White, Sub-Saharan Africa - Black, China/Japan/Korea - Asian, Mexican/Native - Amerindian

In other words, essentially the way most people define themselves, which also corresponds to the groups that the IQ tests were administered to.

Don't call them races, call them population groups, if that helps.

Achieve precision by deliberately increasing vagueness? How very scientific. Your list of names is not any sort of definition, neither is a vague reference to something unspecified that 'corresponds' to the groups the tests were administered to. Who defined membership in which groups how? What tests? When? Where published? On the simplest level: What determines the genetic markers that "correspond" to which patch of geography? And on what basis, do unknown geography and invisible DNA determine anyone's personal 'race' as the world sees and judges? Or as they see and assess themselves?

The way most people define themselves is entirely inconsistent, often prejudiced, and entirely without scientific foundation. To say that's your definition amounts to saying you have none, and reduces your claim of scientific validity for race to saying it's really an unsupervised popularity contest or beauty pageant.

 

[Smallcock]

Achieve precision by deliberately increasing vagueness? How very scientific. Your list of names is not any sort of definition, neither is a vague reference to something unspecified that 'corresponds' to the groups the tests were administered to. Who defined membership in which groups how? What tests? When? Where published?

The way most people define themselves is entirely inconsistent, often prejudiced, and entirely without scientific foundation. To say that's your definition amounts to saying you have none, and reduces your claim of scientific validity to an unsupervised popularity contest.

I love the argument oldjones, but let's allow the scientists to do their research on those "vague" geographic populations.

It's like comparing the freshwater seal on Lake Baikal (the only freshwater seal on earth) to the saltwater seal found in the oceans of the world. Since they split and evolved for a time in different geographic regions, they may exhibit differences that are worth exploring. This is true of countless species, like the polar bear which evolved in the cold versus the black bear which evolved in warmer climates.

The fact that unexplained differences in testing have been observed among racial groups is profoundly interesting in and of itself. Why not dig deeper? Knowledge is power.

 

[oldjones]

I love the argument oldjones, but let's allow the scientists to do their research on those "vague" geographic populations.

It's like comparing the freshwater seal on Lake Baikal (the only freshwater seal on earth) to the saltwater seal found in the oceans of the world. Since they split and evolved for a time in different geographic regions, they may exhibit differences that are worth exploring. This is true of countless species, like the polar bear which evolved in the cold versus the black bear which evolved in warmer climates.

The fact that unexplained differences in testing has been observed among racial groups is profoundly interesting in and of itself. Why not dig deeper? Knowledge is power.

By all means, lets test. But let's not pre-determine results by starting with the unproven idea that there are 'races' and we're researching to establish their 'racial' differences.

And if you make the claim those 'racial' differences exist and have already been determined to result from whatever your geographic-genetics says is a 'race', then you'd better be prepared to explain the connection, and define it in real world terms. So far you've consistently ducked that.

If there were such connection, then experiments with randomly chosen individuals controlled for SES and such 'non-racial' influencers would consistently show that genetic/geographic 'race' markers correspond with measurable levels of other factors like the IQ we've been talking about, so one could look those scores and reliably and correctly assign the actual geneto-graphic 'race' to each subject in blind surveys. But we can't.

The differences you claim to have been established are still within the ordinary range of variations* between random individuals in a single 'race'. To say an IQ variation and African-ness (you owe us names for these races of yours) are causally connected, or even correlated is still no more true than to say darkies dance better 'cause of their natural rhythm'.

After all this argy-bargy 'race' is still just a way people talk, not science. You said it yourself, 'knowledge is power' so is pseudo science and whatever you can talk people into believing with no science at all. We constantly see this topic used in horrible ways. So where is the science that says this is what a race is, and on that basis, these are the races that divide the human race?

Put up, or shut up. In the name of humanity.
----------
BTW, are you familiar with the term P-tracking? I don't want another derailment, but when 'variation' has to be allowed for it's very easy to skew results, even with the best intentions and motives. As a subject 'race' tends not to be oversupplied with either.

 

[Smallcock]

By all means, lets test. But let's not pre-determine results by starting with the unproven idea that there are 'races' and we're researching to establish their 'racial' differences.

And if you make the claim those 'racial' differences exist and have already been determined to result from whatever your geographic-genetics says is a 'race', then you'd better be preparedto explain the connection, and define it in real world terms. So far you've consistently ducked that.

After all this argy-bargy 'race' is still just a way people talk, not science.

The definition may be crude but it's legitimate. Humans from different geographic regions of the world. That's it. We could call them populations rather than races. For example, I think the studies done with Eskimos has been interesting. Are they a different "race"? Just a population group.

 

[oldjones]

The definition may be crude but it's legitimate. Humans from different geographic regions of the world. That's it. We could call them populations rather than races. For example, I think the studies done with Eskimos has been interesting. Are they a different "race"? Just a population group.

Fine. End of discussion. Banish the term race.

But just BTW Eskimo is an outsider's term (used to lump the 'others' into a group for their own purposes) without any known accurate general definition. The indigenous peoples of the North don't use it — except for outsiders' ignorant convenience — and refer to themselves by numerous group and language names.

Crude is only legitimate if your intentions are agreed to be honest and honourable and those who you use it on accept it. Better you should ask. Goes back to the earliest days of the human race.

 

[Frankfooter]

Except all the studies going back to WW1

There are no legit studies.

1) Not according to the APA and 52 signatories across multiple fields in the research.
.

Here are the actual words of the APA task force you keep referring to.

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation

http://www.intelltheory.com/apa96.shtml

You keep lying about the findings of the APA.

 

[Smallcock]

Fine. End of discussion. Banish the term race.

But just BTW Eskimo is an outsider's term (used to lump the 'others' into a group for their own purposes) without any known accurate general definition. The indigenous peoples of the North don't use it — except for outsiders' ignorant convenience — and refer to themselves by numerous group and language names.

Crude is only legitimate if your intentions are agreed to be honest and honourable and those who you use it on accept it. Better you should ask. Goes back to the earliest days of the human race.

Various cultures and languages within a geographic region. They are all collectively called Eskimo, and no, it's not used out of ignorant convenience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo

 

[Smallcock]

There are no legit studies.

Here are the actual words of the APA task force you keep referring to.

http://www.intelltheory.com/apa96.shtml

You keep lying about the findings of the APA.

We've been thru this many times already. Your reading comprehension is lacking.

 

[basketcase]

Largely by geographic origin and the corresponding genetic markers....

Yet none of your studies correlated IQ to genetic markers. Seems once again you are trying to put a veneer of science on your claims.

Even that letter states that the 'race' of American blacks was simply a self defined term and therefore meaningless.

 

[Frankfooter]

We've been thru this many times already. Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Note that the APA quote that comes from the study you keep referring to says exactly the opposite of what you claim it says.
Read it again, slowly, let your lips move with the words if need be and try to get it this time.

The APA on 'race' and IQ.
There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation

And note that we are both quoting different paragraphs and you refuse to accept this paragraph as legit.
p97
http://differentialclub.wdfiles.com...surement/Intelligence-Knowns-and-unknowns.pdf

 

[Frankfooter]

Various cultures and languages within a geographic region. They are all collectively called Eskimo, and no, it's not used out of ignorant convenience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo

Your use of the word 'Eskimo' is ignorant, regardless of what wiki says.

 

[Smallcock]

Note that the APA quote that comes from the study you keep referring to says exactly the opposite of what you claim it says.
Read it again, slowly, let your lips move with the words if need be and try to get it this time.

The APA on 'race' and IQ.
There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation

You ought to include more of the quote for context.

"Several culturally based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."

Your own explanation has no support. The APA simply says there is no explanation to account for the observed differences. This means all possibilities are open, including genetic.

 

[Smallcock]

Your use of the word 'Eskimo' is ignorant, regardless of what wiki says.

You're resorting to childish gibberish.

 

[Frankfooter]

You ought to include more of the quote for context.

"Several culturally based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."

Your own explanation has no support. The APA simply says there is no explanation to account for the observed differences. This means all possibilities are open, including genetic.

No it doesn't, because they said this:
There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation