Geographic origin of the major continents does correspond to genetic markers.
The self-identified "race" is accurate for the purposes of the research, just as it is for all the other mountains of data gathered by the US government of it's citizens.
CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
The self-identified "race" is accurate for the purposes of the research, just as it is for all the other mountains of data gathered by the US government of it's citizens.
'No such support' means no direct or adequate support (which can only come from research into genetics and neuralbiology which are both beyond the scope of psychology and the APA).
By definition, "no adequate support for the explanation of the differences" means that adequate support of any kind could be forthcoming, including environmental and genetic.
Your reading comprehension is inadequate for this discussion.
That is the most hilarious post I've read from you.
Do you seriously believe that crap 'definition' you made up?
No support = no evidence
No support = no study backing the claim
No support = means even with Rushton and Pioneer Fund trying really, really hard, they couldn't find any genetic link.
There is no support for your claims.
You are left backing nothing.
"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. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."
If no one knows the cause, all possibilities remain open. How are you unable to understand this? Also learn to read between the lines. It's called inference. Scientists and institutions walk on PC eggshells on this topic for fear of being labelled.
What's hilarious is your claim that the Jewish scientists that got funding from the Pioneer Fund are Nazis.
That's idiotic and the most faulty logic I've read on this board.
Its like me saying 'I don't know who killed JFK but it couldn't have been basketcase'.
And then you say, 'ah, you don't know who killed JFK so it could have been basketcase'.
It's not the same as that because:
1. There is no fear of claiming basketcase is the killer; you will not be labelled for doing so
2. Saying no such support for basketcase being the killer could mean the police need to investigate further to find support to build their case
3. Basketcase is not nearly as complex as genetics, and the role of genetics in intelligence research is in its infancy
4. The APA is a psychology association so they cannot make direct claims about genetics since it's outside of their field of research
5. The APA's statement is a mirror image of but more nuanced version of the statement signed by 52 signatories in the field of research which states there is circumstantial evidence
1. Irrelevant
2. Stupid.
3. They can still rule out influences, such as 'race' on IQ
4. They can summarize genetic findings
5. Circumstantial evidence does not make a case.
Here, its like you ask the question:
Hey APA, smallcock is looking for an excuse to be racist, do you guys support the claim that, even though there are no biological races, race predetermines IQ?
And then they say:
There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation
And now you come over and say, 'see, I told you the APA said different races have different IQ's, just like white women have large vaginas and asian guys have small dicks. Its a scientific fact'.
That pretty much sums up this thread.
So you say. The indigenous peoples of the North say otherwise, and complain about the term. And you who claim scientific objectivity, are once again falling back on subjective prejudice, and sadly, showing us its use against people.
Where is your objective, scientific, accepted and useful definition of Eskimo? In your head it would seem.
Historical outcomes are based on so many different factors it is too hard to say what would happen if X was changed.
Besides blacks can come from so many different countries and regions that to make a generalization is stupid.
But there are people who find this entertaining which is why some authors have made a career out of speculative historical fiction (there's a term for it that's escaping me right now)
Besides blacks can come from so many different countries and regions that to make a generalization is stupid.
But there are people who find this entertaining which is why some authors have made a career out of speculative historical fiction (there's a term for it that's escaping me right now)
Do you realise that your last sentence actually disproves the point you are 'trying' to make in the same sentence,...???
No, it is not "too hard" to do science. The rest of your post is just more irrelevant PC claptrap.
Sorta like excluding the survey respondents or experimental subjects whose answers don't support your preconceived hypothesis. More accurately, your prejudice, and it is exactly that, no 'sorta' about it.
Of course, if you were talking about an objectively defined population group, you'd just cite that definition and point out that any particular name for it is easily adjusted to suit, but yours is the one commonly and currently preferred in anthropology — the study of population groups — because it best fits the definition for the following reasons.
But you are talking from PJ culture — the culture of PreJudice — not science.
We've been through this already. Categorization is part of science. It is not illegitimate nor prejudiced... unless you think the US government stats are prejudiced, or Canada's stats up until 1989 (Canada stopped recording such data so nobody knows what's going on anymore).
None of your studies correlated to genetic markers. It would be an easy study to perform but it hasn't been done. Populations and individuals move so basing a genetic study on where a family lived a couple generations ago is ridiculous.
And no, self-identified race is completely unscientific, especially when you are pretending to discuss genetic markers as a definition of race.
You raise points, some that are valid and others not. In any case this is precisely why research should be allowed to continue.
