If you need to parse words like that then you must know your argument failed.There is "no such support" doesn't mean there "no support". ...
If you need to parse words like that then you must know your argument failed.There is "no such support" doesn't mean there "no support". ...
On the contrary, when the APA needs to parse words like that, it means there are topics deemed off limits to scientific inquiry.If you need to parse words like that then you must know your argument failed.
Here we go again.There is "no such support" doesn't mean there "no support". The APA chose their words carefully.
If the racial IQ gap didn't exist, and if it were not consistent across socioeconomics, environments, and cultures, this discussion wouldn't be happening.
If no environmental causes are known, what's left?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.
The only thing ruled out is genetic cause.If no environmental causes are known, what's left?
You're a chameleon but there is no cover for your camouflage here.
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...The only thing ruled out is genetic cause.
Which means its socioeconomic or cultural, they just need to nail down the specifics.
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.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...
Parsing out environmental factors has already been done to a large degree. Controlling for socioeconomics and culture has been done many times.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.
No.Parsing out environmental factors has already been done to a large degree. Controlling for socioeconomics and culture has been done many times.
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.No.
You are wrong.
Its clear you don't understand the problems with your statement.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.
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.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?
Only in papers funded by Rushton and/or the Pioneer Fund.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.
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.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?
But its not genetic.No, scientists unrelated to Rushton and the Pioneer Fund acknowledge the racial IQ gap. In fact it's a hallmark of psychology.
You express remarkable certainty for someone that knows nothing about the science.But its not genetic.
That's because we debated this for 18 pages and you constantly tried to ignore the APA statement:You express remarkable certainty for someone that knows nothing about the science.
And to give it to him, the big-hearted Small magnanimously revived this thread that had mercifully gone dormant for almost three weeks.Frankie is the new fuji, he has to have the last word in every thread
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.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