What happened to Fuji?Frankie is the new fuji, he has to have the last word in every thread
What happened to Fuji?Frankie is the new fuji, he has to have the last word in every thread
Nah, he's unbanned.he is banned
Pouting.Nah, he's unbanned.
I'm not sure why he hasnt returned. Maybe he gave up??
What did he get banned for? And who else got banned?he is banned
You're in the business of social justice advocacy rather than truth search (which is what science is all about). It's ok if that works for you, but nobody else is buying it.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?
OMG!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.
fuji got banned for being fuji,... and took bugplug down with him..What did he get banned for? And who else got banned?
I feel out of touch.
Do you ever grow tired of commenting on topics you know nothing about? You take one sentence out of context that you think supports your point, as well as ignore entire fields of research, and then lay claim to victory lol.OMG!
Are you a total idiot?
Do you think you can really take a statement that says 'there is no support for saying IQ is genetic' and then try to claim it says 'yes, really there's so much evidence its amazing'.
And remember, this was the organization that you provided to back up your claims, only when we looked we found you were totally lying about what they said.
Sigh, this is from page 17 in this thread, the post that finally shut you for a while.Do you ever grow tired of commenting on topics you know nothing about? You take one sentence out of context that you think supports your point, as well as ignore entire fields of research, and then lay claim to victory lol.
This thread is like roadkill. I've made a complete mess out of you.
What science is about is objective evidence. Your say-so about what is or isn't in many introductory Psych courses does not qualify. If you want to drag their course content into the discussion here, it's for you to look up and quote. When you do, keep an eye open for that commonly accepted scientific definition of 'race' we're still waiting for.You're in the business of social justice advocacy rather than truth search (which is what science is all about). It's ok if that works for you, but nobody else is buying it.
Feel free to email any university directly to obtain their first year psychology outline or simply ask them if they cover the racial IQ gap. It's akin to training to be a mechanic without the teacher reviewing how to change a tire. Other rudimentary topics covered every first year psych course are the Flynn Effect, Pavlov's Dog, and so on. It's all very standard stuff.
No, we went through all your arguments and they all came back to Rushton.I've already addressed everything you've posted and repeating them won't add any more gravitas to your lost argument. You're not making any sense anymore and your love of Rushton is beyond comprehension.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GyIYr9LK...cLwCLcBGAs/s1600/1-cvM6Q-O_XO1YxTkW4tOCvA.png
No, the APA confirmed the racial IQ gap (it's been observed for 100 years to this very day - again this is psych 101), and they said that they don't know what causes it and that no evidence for environmental causes has been found. They say there is "less support for a genetic interpretation", not that there ISN'T evidence... as there is obviously circumstantial evidence. Most scientists will say that environment and genetics are implicated. This is no different from the position of Rushton or anyone else in the field. It's quite obvious that both environment and genetics play a role. One would have to be an idiot to think otherwise when there is no shred of evidence to suggest anything else. Your condemnations of "racism" in the works of prominent renowned Jewish researchers just because they get funding from a private non-university source (with a questionable genesis) which allows them to conduct work that they wouldn't otherwise be able to obtain funding for, is misguided, and just as misinformed as your lack of knowledge about brain size corresponding to intelligence.No, we went through all your arguments and they all came back to Rushton.
You claim there are 'hundreds and hundreds' of studies, but every one you provided and every scientist you named, were all linked to Rushton and/or the Pioneer Fund.
Rushton's claims were based on incredibly shoddy science based around his 'white women have big vaginas' head size theory.
The only legit science organization you brought forth, the APA, said your claims are bullshit.
Yet you try to argue the total opposite of what they say.
Basically, you're a racist willing to accept a scientific flat earth theory to claim that the 'science' is behind you.
You make the climate change deniers almost look good in comparison.
[url]http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
You've now jumped to a whole other discipline of anthropology rather than psychology. But that's okay. The statement is merely a PC way of avoiding or overlooking contradictions that have arisen from the IQ data, among other things. Everyone knows that races are not biologically distinct. Your link notes that "conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes" and clearly those 6% may be responsible for the differences we observe. The generic all-encompassing conclusion that you highlighted which states "present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances" allows the organization to obscure empirically measured differences using a lack of specificity. In other words, it's a politically motivated conclusion, not a scientific one. Ditto for ANY organization that claims that the differences cannot be in part due to genetics - only an irredeemable idiot can't see through the transparent charade. It's as much of a secret in science as Harvey Weinstein's conduct was in Hollywood - you see it but don't dare speak it.Yes, but they said there is no evidence its genetic.
The AAA has a clear statement on the modern view that there are no races, we are all just humans.
http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
What your secondary source actually says is that in the judgement of the APA's task force:
My emphasis.As the measured differences in average intelligence between various ethnic groups reflect complex patterns, no overall generalization about them was appropriate.
Ok, here's the APA statement:You've now jumped to a whole other discipline of anthropology rather than psychology. But that's okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#APA_task_force_reportThere is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation