CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
On the contrary, when the APA needs to parse words like that, it means there are topics deemed off limits to scientific inquiry.
Here we go again.
The APA says there is no evidence to link 'race' with IQ.
You go and say 'see, the APA says their is evidence linking race with IQ'.
You really are a dolt.
If no environmental causes are known, what's left?
You're a chameleon but there is no cover for your camouflage here.
The only thing ruled out is genetic cause.
Which means its socioeconomic or cultural, they just need to nail down the specifics.
After 100 years of research, the inability to find socioeconomic or cultural explanations is problematic. I certainly hope such explanations are found, because it would mean the issue could be directly remedied, but as it stands, genetic/biological explanations appear to be the culprit. In any case, allow the research to go forward...
You'd think it would be easy to raise a group of humans with no outside social or economic influences to use as a control group.
'cuz until you can do that, narrowing down the exact influences of socioeconomic and cultural influences is near impossible.
Genetics are easy to rule out, since you can test genetics.
Parsing out environmental factors has already been done to a large degree. Controlling for socioeconomics and culture has been done many times.
I agree that genetics will be able to better inform us. Once scientists understand which genes impact intelligence and how they impact it we will be able to say with absolute confidence that genetics is the direct cause of group IQ differences. This will be more helpful than relying solely on the immense preponderance of circumstantial evidence that says so.
Frank, controlling for socioeconomics is very easy. Kids are matched up for household income levels. Additionally, adoption studies account for both socioeconomic discrepancies as well as many cultural ones. Lastly, studies done in nations across the world account for cultural discrepancies.
It seems you're trying to re-invent the wheel. It's already here. If you have new ideas for other tests that may uncover currently unknown factors, you'd be wise to contact researchers.
Its clear you don't understand the problems with your statement.
Are the kids sent to live with identical parents just with different amounts of money?
Or are there other possible differences that could influence them, such as cultural, or domestic?
If this were the case, you'd see the reverse outcome all over the place. But wherever you go, you find the same results. High Asian and Jewish performance, followed by White, then by Native/Black.
This supersedes culture since the same observation can be made across many cultures.
Before schooling you in this thread you didn't even know what the IQ Gap was lol. Anyone even remotely familiar with intelligence testing knows about it. You're shooting in the dark and repeatedly making spurious comments on things you don't understand.
You laughed at brain size as correlating with intelligence until I showed you that it's well established science.
As far as you seem to know IQ testing begins and ends with a guy named Rushton, which is absurd. In WW1 1.75 million draftees were tested and the military continues to use IQ testing. IQ tests were administered to police forces to screen applicants. It's used to identify gifted kids. It's used in derivative form in SATs every year for tens of millions of students.
Get off the Rushton = bad, therefore IQ tests = bad, train of thought. It's illogical and stupid. IQ testing existing before and continues after him, and produces the same results.
You hope to obfuscate scientific facts by constantly injecting Rushton into all of your ill-informed arguments. It won't work because this is the internet.
You're a bore and a moron, with a low IQ.
Only in papers funded by Rushton and/or the Pioneer Fund.
Go back to pages 12-14 and you'll see that every scientist you referred to is funded by this Pioneer Fund.
You do know what Rushton had to say about small penis's, don't you?
No, scientists unrelated to Rushton and the Pioneer Fund acknowledge the racial IQ gap. In fact it's a hallmark of psychology. You wouldn't know this because you likely didn't attend university or take psychology courses. It's laid out in every university psych 101 course. This is not new nor is it a secret unless you're a layman trying to pretend to know anything about the science.
I'm just giving you a heads up on what to expect once you finish high school. You're in grade 12 now?
You express remarkable certainty for someone that knows nothing about the science.
That's because we debated this for 18 pages and you constantly tried to ignore the APA statement:
There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation
And to give it to him, the big-hearted Small magnanimously revived this thread that had mercifully gone dormant for almost three weeks.
Pity he still couldn't manage to be any more persuasive or convincing. Or actually cite any of those authorities he claims, like the curricula of any of those numerous Psych 101 courses that he says teach that IQ gaps are racial characteristics. But then, he wasn't really trying to make a case, or he would have done so way back.
Shall we hang around to see him claim he already did — but without saying when or where? Or d'ya s'pose he trusts his 'proof' to actually speak for itself?
There is "no support for" is different from there is "no such support" for a genetic interpretation. This means that there is no direct support like there is for environmental. There is only circumstantial evidence. In other words the differences are likely genetically based.
Likewise, I've already explained to you umpteenth times that the statement is from a psychology organization, not a geneticist or biology organization, which routinely implicate a genetic and biological basis for intelligence. Due to people like you - who like to paint all scientists as racists/Rushtons when they try to do research in intelligence testing - this field of science remains in its infancy.
You have a superficial pop culture understanding of the science and you refuse to acknowledge what's obvious because it's socially unacceptable to you.
