CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Sigh, this is from page 17 in this thread, the post that finally shut you for a while.
If you recall:
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.
And here you again yelling that you'll never change your white supremacist theories until your very last breath.
Great....
The thread is here for all those who would really want to find out why you think Rushton's claims that white women have bigger vaginas so therefore white folk are smarter are legit, and also why you think that the Pioneer Fund is legit source of science and finally, why you don't even accept the sources you provided.
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
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GyIYr9LK...cLwCLcBGAs/s1600/1-cvM6Q-O_XO1YxTkW4tOCvA.png
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.
In response to your summation on the level of personal opinion — which is all you have offered since the beginning — you're neither advocating nor offering truth, just defending and perpetuating prejudice and bigotry.
BTW: Since you hadn't noticed; I was replying to Phil about your attachment to having the Last Word, in spite of your stubborn refusal to 'earn' it with the ordinary tools of debate. That clarified, and our positions re-stated yet again, there's no need for you to offer more.
Except evidence.
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.
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.
We've already been threw the overton window (the current social limits of which allow you to call me names like "racist" without any merit), and scientists in the field who say it's hard to further research for fear of being accused of racism - precisely because of laypeople like you. Science isn't racist simply because you consider the results to be socially unpalatable yet it is this political correctness that is stifling and influencing researchers like Scarr who admitted in 1998 that "My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one". As we've seen in the Lindsay Shepherd episode, there are views that can and cannot be held in higher academic institutions, for political reasons, and this applies to scientists and their research. Every academic, academic representative, scientist, and scientific organization risks being de-funded and pilloried if they don't come to the right conclusions irrespective of the actual scientific data. Obtuse, naive, illiterate, or agenda-driven folks like you refuse to acknowledge this fact. You keep referring to Rushton, who is non-entity in this research, to obsfuscate the fact that the racial IQ gap exists and has since IQ tests were first administered to the present day, and every study from the Adoption Studies to studies done in other countries ("data by nine global regions, surveying 620 published studies from around the world, with a total of 813,778 tested individuals"), to military & police force tests, to headstart programs, to academic achievement, to SAT scores has confirmed it. All in all, the results are from hundreds (if not thousands) of studies and tens of millions of people. You'll need more than a grade 4 attempt at logic to win the argument.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
What your secondary source actually says is that in the judgement of the APA's task force:
My emphasis.
Ok, here's the APA statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#APA_task_force_report
That's cut and dried.
The AAA statement goes further in saying that there is no support for claiming that there are 'races' of humans either.
Rushton's whole big vagina/big head theory is based on shoddy science, there are no races, and his claims of IQ differences based on 'race' are pure crap.
Frankfooter, you are so tedious the way you drone on and on. Any person who is more than a casual observer of human nature should realize there are differences in intelligence among various ethnic groups.
Consider this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates
"As of 2017, Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 892 individuals, of whom 201 or 22.5% were Jews, although the total Jewish population comprises less than 0.2% of the world's population. This means the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11250% above average."
How does culture/environment explain this? These people came from all sorts of different backgrounds: recent Americans; Europeans who experienced severe antisemitism, or had to flee Nazi Germany; a few were actual Holocaust survivors.
Most impressive is the number of laureates for physics. To even understand, let alone glean new insights into things like relativity, quantum physics, sub-atomic particles takes formidable brain power.
Consider this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates
"As of 2017, Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 892 individuals, of whom 201 or 22.5% were Jews, although the total Jewish population comprises less than 0.2% of the world's population. This means the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11250% above average."
How does culture/environment explain this? These people came from all sorts of different backgrounds: recent Americans; Europeans who experienced severe antisemitism, or had to flee Nazi Germany; a few were actual Holocaust survivors.
Most impressive is the number of laureates for physics. To even understand, let alone glean new insights into things like relativity, quantum physics, sub-atomic particles takes formidable brain power.
