Turkey will stop teaching evolution

[yusuf b lawal]

people really believe in evolution some bullshit about evolving from monkeys was it; wake up we link back to adam and eve

 

[Narushima]

@BOLD: LMAO, you're such a poser. This isn't an anime guy. Do you actually think you sound cool?

You're projecting my leftist friend, it is you who is always giving yourself the opportunity to act cool by engaging me.

ou're using IQ to justify determining intelligence.

You must be registered for see links

"The problem with IQ tests is not simply the question of cultural bias (which is the only issue with these tests that Richwine addresses — and dismisses — in Politico.) It is also that one’s entire life history up to the point that one takes the test can sharpen or blunt the overall intellectual potential that is only partly defined by one’s innate genetic map. Richwine’s faith in the objectivity of IQ tests as a measure of innate capacity fails to take into account the disproportionality of opportunity for learning and intellectual stimulation between privileged and historically oppressed groups, and the effect that this has on IQ scores. It also neglects the psychological damage inflicted on lives lived within a racial caste system.

Richwine believes that good science is being undermined by ignorant and politically correct views about race in the press and among the public. His examples of solid sober objective scientists who were pilloried in the know-nothing media would be hilarious if they weren’t so chilling. First up: Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman and their 1987 book The IQ Controversy. Richwine claims that Snyderman and Rothman documented a broad consensus among scientists that racial disparities in IQ test performance were due to innate genetic differences; but if you look at their methodology, two things are pretty clear: the scientists were simply choosing the response option that best fits the evidence (which is that both genetics and life experience play a role in intelligence); and that the questions were, consciously or unconsciously, crafted in such a way as to yield a reply that would fit a racialist theory.

Next, Richwine actually goes to those heroes of modern racialism, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, and their pseudoscientific 1994 book The Bell Curve. If you looked no further, you wouldn’t know that much of the research cited in that book was primarily supported by The Pioneer Fund, a reportedly neo-Nazi organization devoted to eugenics, whose founder, Wickliff Draper, was an advocate for sending American blacks back to Africa. You wouldn’t know that Charles Murray is revered only on the far-right fringe of social science; to many other scholars, he’s a crackpot who’s been blaming the poor, and egalitarian social policies towards the poor, for American social decline for decades. He also claims to have discovered a system for ranking innate creativity that is completely free of personal preference or cultural bias (a system that, according to him, proves that Beethoven was “objectively” more accomplished than Mozart; using this infallible system he found — surprise! — that virtually everything of importance in world history was accomplished by white European males). You wouldn’t know that the “science” of The Bell Curve has been thoroughly debunked by real biologists and social scientists, most notably here and here and here and here, but in many other venues and publications as well."


Books that debunk Bell-Curve thoroughly:

Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve

You must be registered for see links

-Bernie Devlin is Adjunct Professor in the Department of Statistics at Carnegie-Mellon University. He serves on the DNA Advisory Board to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Director regarding standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories, and the National Forensic Review Panel for the National Institute of Justice regarding the performance of proficiency tests.

Stephen E. Fienberg is Maurice Falk Professor of Statistics and Social Science at Carnegie-Mellon University and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Statistical Association.

Daniel P. Resnick is Professor of History at Carnegie-Mellon University. His research deals with the relationship of historical thinking and experience to public policy development.

Kathryn Roeder is Associate Professor of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon University. She has a strong research interest in applied problems including statistical genetics, DNA forensic inference and criminology.

"Herrnstein and Murray use the fact that for a small portion (n=1408) of the NLSY sample, IQ scores at earlier ages are available from school records, along with a score on the AFQT test and a measure of educational attainment in 1980, the time at which the AFQT was taken. They are thus able to estimate a model of the form in Figure 10.1 for a subsample of the NLSY. This approach is very simple. It might be desirable to have a more detailed model that could capture the dynamic evolution with age of IQ and education attainment."


"Technical Corrections

We found it difficult to replicate Herrnstein and Murray's results. There were two problems. First, Herrnstein and Murray did not include age at which the first test was taken as a control variable in their analysis, contrary to the statement in page 590. Murray (personal communication) stated that it was unnecessary to control for age at first test because both the initial and AFQT test scores were age standardized. We return to this issue later and explain in detail why we disagree with Murray. Here we simply investigate the effects of including age at first test model.

The second problem we identified is that Herrnstein and Murray had improperly handled missing data in their original analysis. This was independently discovered by Murray."


The Black-White Test Score Gap

Christopher Jencks
Christopher Jencks is the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, the author of The Homeless (Harvard, 1994) and Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the Underclass (Harperperennial, 1993), and the coeditor of The Urban Underclass (Brookings, 1991).
Meredith Phillips
Meredith Phillips is assistant professor of policy studies at UCLA's School of Public Policy and Social Research.

Finally, they call for large-scale experiments to determine the effects of schools’ racial mix, class size, ability grouping, and other policies. In addition to the editors, the contributors include Claude Steele, Ronald Ferguson, William G. Bowen, Philip Cook, and William Julius Wilson.

"Psychologists can only measure people's developed for intelligent behavior, not their innate potential. As often happens in the social sciences, psychologists tend to assume that what they can measure defines the word they use to describe it. This convention works well enough when psychologists talk to one another, but it creates endless misunderstandings when they try to communicate it to the rest of the world, where intelligence can still mean either innate or developed intelligence. Such misunderstandings are especially common (and dangerous) when they involve racial comparisons. The following logic summarizes the way many nonpsychologists think about race and intelligence.

-if intelligence means innate ability to learn
-and if blacks and whites have the same innate ability to learn,
-and if blacks score below whites on tests that claim to measure intelligence,
-then intelligence tests must be biased against blacks.

This logic makes it clear not only why blacks think that intelligence test are culturally biased, but also why they object to endless repetition of the fact that they score below whites on such tests.

The case of Larry P. v Riles provides a dramatic illustration of the problems that can arise when psychologists who equate intelligence with developed ability confront nonpsychogolists who equate intelligence with innate ability. In 1971 a group of black plaintiffs sued the San Francisco Unified School District in a federal court, arguing that IQ scores should not be used as a criterion for assigning black students to special classes for the "educably mentally retarded" (EMR). Judge Robert Perkham issued a preliminary injunction barring the use of IQ tests for this purpose in 1972, and he extended it to cover all California schools in 1974. Five year later, after a lengthy trial, he made the injunction permanent. Perkham's injunction was based on his findings that intelligence tests are culturally biased against blacks. He seems to have concluded that if a test both claimed to measure intelligence and was used to label children, it ought to measure innate rather than developed ability. He also believed that blacks and whites had the same innate ability. He therefore inferred that intelligence tests must be biased against blacks."

Again

You must be registered for see links

“It was drafted by professor of psychology Linda Gottfredson, sent to 131 researchers,[1] and signed by 52 university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields, including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence…”

I have 131 researchers from 52 universities on intelligence endorsing the following statement:

You must be registered for see links

“2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.”

But what do you give me? Mr Jesse Larner, a journalist who seems to have no relevant background at all. As Raymond Cattell, that giant of IQ testing who was smeared by Mr Larner’s kindred into rejecting one of his fields prestigious prizes despite being one of the most cited psychologists of the century, put it:

You must be registered for see links

“The average newspaper editor feels himself at liberty to contradict an authority in any field whatsoever. In a few minutes he will write a leading article refuting a book representing the work of a lifetime. But he is equal to even more than that. He will venture to put thousands of our democratic rulers — our electorate — hopelessly astray in any subject which he fancies himself at the moment to be an authority.”

I’ll stick to the 131 intelligence researchers and their consensus statement as well as the 228 intelligence researchers that partook in Dr James Thompson’s online survey about the origin of the racial differences in intelligence, you stick to your journalist.

While the ‘responders’ to the bell-curve continue their sophistry against a decades old book which they misrepresent anyway – it would be easy for me to cite Murray and his defenders response to that but instead I’ll show you how science works and teach you a little thing or two about it again: we have moved on from mere IQ scoring and debates of statistics to genomic studies

Published in 2016, “The Genetics of Success: How Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Associated With Educational Attainment Relate to Life-Course Development”:

You must be registered for see links

"A previous genome-wide association study (GWAS) of more than 100,000 individuals identified molecular-genetic predictors of educational attainment. We undertook in-depth life-course investigation of the polygenic score derived from this GWAS using the four-decade Dunedin Study (N = 918). There were five main findings. First, polygenic scores predicted adult economic outcomes even after accounting for educational attainments. Second, genes and environments were correlated: Children with higher polygenic scores were born into better-off homes. Third, children’s polygenic scores predicted their adult outcomes even when analyses accounted for their social-class origins; social-mobility analysis showed that children with higher polygenic scores were more upwardly mobile than children with lower scores. Fourth, polygenic scores predicted behavior across the life course, from early acquisition of speech and reading skills through geographic mobility and mate choice and on to financial planning for retirement. Fifth, polygenic-score associations were mediated by psychological characteristics, including intelligence, self-control, and interpersonal skill. Effect sizes were small. Factors connecting DNA sequence with life outcomes may provide targets for interventions to promote population-wide positive development.”

So while the ‘responders’ desperately grasp at technical statistical details, the real scientists in the field are now genotyping people, giving them IQ tests and then finding a positive correlation between the polygenic score derived from GWAS, IQ tests AND real world behaviours including social mobility even when social-class is controlled for.

The sophists who claim that IQ tests are ‘culturally biased’ are, of course, correct.

IQ tests do not measure how well you can recite the Quran, nor do IQ tests measure how well you can ‘gangsta rap.’ In some cultures you are as ‘intelligent’ as you can read the Quran or as ‘intelligent’ as you can beat your rival in gangsta rap.

IQ tests, however, do measure the capacity for abstract reasoning – the faculty underlying the ability to do well in mathematics and science as well as more derivative endeavours like medicine, law and engineering.

It is up to you to decide which of those two forms of cultural expression is more meaningful to you but the issue of the thread is biology, a subject in the performance of which IQ tests are well correlated.

The Mismeasure of Man


Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Geology at Harvard University. He published over twenty books, received the National Book and National Book Critics Circle Awards, and a MacArthur Fellowship.

You must be registered for see links

Bell Curve is nothing but rightest propaganda.

You must be registered for see links

The notion that IQ tests are completely useless never prevailed in liberal academia to nearly the extent that Herrnstein and Murray say. A more accurate rendering of the liberal position would be that rather than a single "general intelligence," there are a handful of crucial--and separate--mental abilities; that none of these abilities is important enough to obviate the role of family background and education; and that native ability (and economic success independent of native ability) can be enhanced by improving education, training, and public health. The Bell Curve refers in passing to some of these points, but on the whole it sets up a cartoon-left position as its (easy) target. Meanwhile, the psychometricians who dominate the footnotes of The Bell Curve are John Hunter, Arthur Jensen, Malcolm Ree, and Frank Schmidt. These men are well known within the field as representing its right wing, not a mainstream consensus.



"But the larger premise--that intelligent people used to be scattered throughout the class structure, and are now concentrated at the top--is almost impossible to prove, simply because the mass administration of mental tests is such a recent phenomenon. High scorers on mental tests do "bunch up" (as Herrnstein and Murray put it) in elite-university student bodies. But this is tautological: Any group selected on the basis of scores on mental tests will be composed disproportionately of people who score high on mental tests. Proving The Bell Curve's thesis would require proving that success increasingly correlates with IQ in areas of life where mental tests are not the explicit gatekeepers. To see how The Bell Curve tries and fails to get around these inherent problems, see and.
Having conditioned its audience to view IQ as all-important, The Bell Curve then manipulates statistics in a way that makes IQ look bigger, and everything else smaller, in determining Americans' life-chances.
The basic tool of statistical social science in general, and of The Bell Curve in particular, is regression analysis, a technique used to assign weights to various factors (called "independent variables") in determining a final outcome (called the "dependent variable"). The original statistical work in The Bell Curve consists of regression analyses on a database called the National Longitudinal Study of Youth. The authors claim to demonstrate that high IQ is more predictive of economic success than any other factor, and that low IQ is more predictive of poverty and social breakdown. Virtually all the early commentators on The Bell Curve were unable to assess the merits of the regression analysis. "I am not a scientist. I know nothing about psychometrics," wrote Leon Wieseltier (who was otherwise quite critical) in a typical disclaimer.

But by now the statistics have been gone over by professionals, who have come up with different results. The key points of their critique of The Bell Curve are as follows:
What Herrnstein and Murray used to measure IQ is actually a measure of education as well as intelligence. All the people tracked in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth took the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, which Herrnstein and Murray treat as a good measure of intelligence. Because the material covered in the test includes subjects like trigonometry, many academic critics of The Bell Curve have objected to its use as a measure only of IQ and not at all of academic achievement. Herrnstein and Murray concede in the footnotes that scores tend to rise with the subjects' education--but they seriously underestimate the magnitude of this rise, as shows. And they resist the obvious inference that the test scores are measuring something other than intelligence."






HAHAHA I never said genetics had nothing to do with intelligence, I said the color of your skin had nothing to do with intelligence.

Nothing in this section has anything to do with what I've said. Learn to read brate.

Stay ignant.






More about the book "Mismeasure of Man":

You must be registered for see links

"The idea that intellect had something to do with cranial capacity was – and to some people, still is – an attractive one, and generations of researchers tried to find new ways to measure brain size and shape, and match it with apparent intellectual performance. These experiments tended to prove that white people were cleverer than black people because they were bigger-brained.

In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould revealed that they could only prove this by massaging the results, cooking the data, and eliminating the unwelcome findings. One researcher found that German brains, on average, weighed 100 grams more than French brains. He was, of course, German. Measurements also produced inconsistencies: some Caucasian geniuses had very big brains, other intellectual giants had a quite modest cranial capacity.

So the anthropologists, anatomists and pioneer psychologists started looking for other things. They tried to grade the intellectual status of men, apes and women; of Nordic, Slavic and Mediterranean races; of long-headed and broad-headed peoples; they graded them according to the average distance between penis and navel, on the closeness of their eyes, on the lowness of their foreheads.

Then they began looking for ways to quantify the intellectual performance of different national and ethnic groups: and came up with bizarre results, which ought to have eliminated discrimination purely on the grounds of colour or race but somehow did not. In the early 20th century HH Goddard tried out his intelligence tests on new migrants and found, says Gould, that "83% of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians and 87% of the Russians were feeble-minded."


Robert Yerkes, another scientist still honoured among US researchers, tested military recruits and produced data that seemed to show that the mental age of the average white American was "about 13 years". Yerkes' tests suggested that the group whose intellects were below this average of 13 years included "37% of whites and 89% of negroes". This extra-low mental age did not disqualify black people from the Army because, said Yerkes, all officers seemed to agree "that the negro is a cheerful willing soldier, naturally subservient".

And so the whole, sorry, miserable story continues. These transparently silly and shameful "findings" were used to justify racial segregation in the American south, and to limit black youngsters' access to higher education. These limits, constraints and segregation laws continued well into the second half of the 20th century – well into Gould's lifetime, and mine.

This book should make any sensible person wary of attaching too much value to IQ tests (there's some glorious stuff on the quixotic allotment of IQ ratings) and should make anybody very suspicious of statements about "group IQ" or the presumption that some races are innately more clever than others. If we all got it so shockingly wrong 150 and 100 years ago, and even 50 years ago, then why would we have got it right now?

[video=youtube;8wcSSLo9TIs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wcSSLo9TIs&ab_channel=betapicts[/video]








Ahem, sit the f*ck down poser boy.


Good day.

Lightbringer I laughed out loud. Honestly it’s as if you are caricaturing the leftist response to this debate. First since you leftists like to position the well and guilt by association so well – always linking IQ tests to the holocaust and sterilization and all those bigbad racist organizations and what not, a dish of your own:

You must be registered for see links

“All this that I have said, was a common pattern throughout Gould's "work". And all this that I have said, is no news to professional biologists. Here's John Maynard Smith:

"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

So real eminent folk like Maynard Smith (the man behind evolutionary game theory and several other mathematical formalisms in biology) saw Gould as nothing more than a tool to be used against creationists and who contributed nothing to Biology except verbosity.

“Did Gould deliberately lie? If not, he executed one of the most epic feats of self-deception in the history of marketing. The eminent John Tooby speaks:

"Although Gould characterizes his critics as "anonymous" and "a tiny coterie," nearly every major evolutionary biologist of our era has weighed in in a vain attempt to correct the tangle of confusions that the higher profile Gould has inundated the intellectual world with. The point is not that Gould is the object of some criticism -- so properly are we all -- it is that his reputation as a credible and balanced authority about evolutionary biology is non-existent among those who are in a professional position to know...

These [major evolutionary biologists] include Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Bill Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Brian Charlesworth, Jerry Coyne, Robert Trivers, John Alcock, Randy Thornhill, and many others."

Simply put Gould never understood evolution. You see, he was one of those lawyer-at-heart guys with a high verbal IQ – hence the long winded books and essays he wrote – but who ultimately had a mediocre non-verbal IQ (this is what’s really important for mathematics and science which are forms of pattern recognition and construction).

While Gould had the style of a lawyer and journalist writer, real scientists like George Williams, Bill Hamilton, Trivers and Smith were all mathematicians and biologist put together. Unlike your hero Gould who did nothing but write long-arse essays (lmao and you accuse me of rhetoric LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL) that amounted to nothing, the real biologists that I just mentioned made mathematical contributions to biology and all made biology as a discipline more rigorous by giving it mathematical basis.

It's kind of like the difference between me and you lightbringer – like Gould you’re a guy who’s only good at verbal ability whereas myself, though I can do verbal ability, have always been a mathematician at heart.

Anyways let’s get on to the meat of the matter, the mismeasures of Gould – you see not only did Gould, who by the way was also a Marxist whose “science” (I strongly emphasize the quotes) was influenced by Marxism, not understand evolution and was never taken seriously by real evolutionary biologists, he also never understood statistics or psychometrics. Again not surprising given Gould’s low mathematical talent but high verbal talent mental style. I could cite several statisticians and psychometricians who have written on Goulds inability to understand those things but I’ll give you this beauty instead: Gould was a fraud.

You must be registered for see links

The article is written by none other than Robert Trivers one of the most eminent living mathematical biologists of our time (the man responsible for reciprocal altruism theory among many other first rate contributions to biology for which he was recently awarded the most distinguished prize in biology aside from the Medicine Nobel):

“Many of us theoretical biologists who knew Stephen Jay Gould personally thought he was something of an intellectual fraud because he had a talent for coining terms that promised more than they could deliver, while claiming exactly the opposite. One example should suffice—the notion of “punctuated equilibria”—which simply asserted that rates of (morphological) evolution were not constant, but varied over time, often with periods of long stasis interspersed with periods of rapid change. All of this was well known from the time of Darwin. The classic example were bats. They apparently evolved very quickly from small non-flying mammals (perhaps less than 20 million years) but then stayed relatively unchanged once they reached the bat phenotype we are all familiar with today (about 50 million years ago). Nothing very surprising here, intermediate forms were apt to be neither very good classic mammals, nor good flying ones either, so natural selection pushed them rapidly through the relevant evolutionary space.

But Steve wanted to turn this into something grander, a justification for replacing natural selection (favoring individual reproductive success) with something called species selection. Since one could easily imagine that there was rapid turnover of species during periods of intense selection and morphological change, one might expect species selection to be more intense, while during the rest of the equilibrium stabilizing selection would rule throughout. But rate of species turnover has nothing to do with the traits within species—only with the relative frequency of species showing these traits. As would prove usual, Steve missed the larger interesting science by embracing a self-serving fantasy. Species selection today is a small but interesting topic in evolutionary theory, not some grand principle emerging from paleontological patterns.

Recently something brand new has emerged about Steve that is astonishing. In his own empirical work attacking others for biased data analysis in the service of political ideology—it is he who is guilty of bias in service of political ideology (Jason Lewis and colleagues 2011). What is worse—and more shocking—is that Steve’s errors are very extensive and the bias very serious. A careful reanalysis shows that his target is unblemished while his own attack is biased in all the ways Gould attributes to his victim. His most celebrated book starts with a takedown of Samuel George Morton (The Mismeasure of Man [1981]). Morton was a scientist in the early 19th Century who devoted himself to measuring the human cranium, especially the volume of the inside, a rough estimate of the size of the enclosed brain. He did so meticulously by pouring first seeds and then ball bearings into skulls until they were full and then pouring them out and measuring them. He was a pure empiricist. He knew brain size was an important variable but very little about the details (indeed, we do not know much more today). He thought his data would bear on whether we were one species or several, but in any case he was busy creating a vast trove of true and useful facts.

I love these people—they work for the future and gather data whose logic later generations will make real. Precisely because they have no axes to grind or hypotheses to prove, their data are apt to be more reliable than the first wave after a new theory. I have benefitted from them in my own life, most memorably when I was shown a large and accurate literature on ratios of investment in 20 ant species, gathered long before anyone appreciated why these facts might be of some interest.

In any case, Morton grouped his data by population according to best estimates of gross relatedness, Amerindians with Amerindians, Africans with Africans, Nordic Europeans with Nordic, and so on. It is here, Gould alleged, that all sorts of errors were made that supported preconceived notions that among the stupider (and therefore smaller cranial capacity) peoples would be Amerindians and Africans. For example, Gould claimed that Morton made more subgroups among Nordic people than tropical ones, thus permitting more of them to be above norm, but in fact, the opposite is true. Morton reported more Amerindian subsamples than European and routinely pointed out when particular Amerindian subsamples were as high or higher than the European mean, facts that Gould claimed Morton hid.

In other cases, Gould eliminates all samples with less than four individuals in order to reduce the number of sub-samples with only one ***—a statistically meaningless goal but one that happened to be biased in his favor and permitted him to make additional errors by arbitrarily eliminating some skulls while including others. If you are comparing group means, you may not wish to use means of less than four, but if you are adding up sub-samples to produce a larger sample, there is no reason not to aggregate all data. Morton is made to look careless and incorrect when it is really Steve who is arbitrarily biasing things in his own favor.

There is an additional contrast between Morton and Gould worth noting. To conjure up Morton’s mistakes, Gould lovingly describes the action of unconscious bias at work: “Morton, measuring by seed, picks up a threateningly large black skull, fills it lightly and gives a few desultory shakes. Next, he takes a distressingly small Caucasian skull, shakes hard, and pushes mightily at the foramen magnum with his thumb. It is easily done, without conscious motivation; expectation is a powerful guide to action.” Indeed it is, but careful re-measures show that Morton never made this particular mistake—only three skulls were mis-measured as being larger than they were and these were all either Amerindian or African.
The same can not be said of Gould. He came across distressingly objective data of Morton, and by introducing biased procedures (no sample size below four) he was able to get appropriately biased results. And by misrepresenting the frequency of Nordic vs Amerindian subpopulations, he was able to create an illusion of bias where none existed, by mere emphatic assertion (no one bothered to check).

Where are the unconscious processes at work here? Is Steve flying upside-down on auto-pilot, unconsciously looking for the actions (substitute Nordic for Tropical, delete all samples smaller than four) that will invite the results he wants (while hiding his bias)? Is the conscious organism really completely in the dark while all of this is going on? Hard to imagine—but at the end the organism appears to be in full self-deception mode—a blow-hard fraudulently imputing fraud, with righteous indignation, coupled with magnanimous forgiveness for the frailties of self-deception in others.
In response to the criticism of Lewis et al, the keeper of Gould's Tomb—his longtime editor at Natural History, Richard Milner—had some choice comments in defense of Gould (William 2012). Gould acted with "complete conviction and integrity" (that is, with full self-deception). "He was a tireless crusader against racism in any form" (In what way is misrepresenting the true facts about population differences—and then hiding this misrepresentation—a contribution to anti-racism?) And then, fully in flight, he says that any bias was "on the side of the angels". Who of us is in any position to say what is on the side of the angels? We barely know what is in our own self-interest.

A general point is that it is often very hard to draw the line between conscious and unconscious deception—or to define the precise mixture of the two. In The Folly of Fools (p 288) I discuss linguistic analysis by Hancock and colleagues (2010) suggesting that the architects of the U.S. 2003 war on Iraq were speaking deceptively when they warned that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11 and Iraq possessed WMDs. I naively suggest that this analysis shows conscious deception but I no longer agree with myself—unconscious deception could cause the same symptoms—reduced use of the word “I”, less qualifiers, and so on.

Lewis, J.E. et al. 2011. The mismeasure of science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on skulls and bias. PLoS Biol 9(6): e1001071. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071.
William, S. 2012. The Mismeasure of Stephen Jay Gould. Discover (Jan/Feb), pp 66-67.
Hancock, J. et al. 2010. Language, lies and politics: a linguistic analysis of the justifications for the Iraq war. Manuscript: Cornell University.”

In short Gould’s book “The Mismeasures of Man” was a fraud probably deliberately motivated by his Marxist political loyalties. It has been advertised well by the leftist media but as people like Trivers – who himself is a leftist by the way, but unlike Gould he is an honest man – Gould wrote a lot but had little understanding of what he was writing about and even deliberately committed fraud.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

people really believe in evolution some bullshit about evolving from monkeys was it; wake up we link back to adam and eve

people really believe in the bible some bullshit about being created from dust was it; wake up our species evolved from a common ancestor of us and primates.

 

[Sagebee]

Correct me if I'm wrong but from an atheistic point of view, isn't it likely that race plays at least a tiny role in intelligence? Since, intelligence is genetics.

I think what your saying is anyone who subscribes to atheism has to have a materistic view so everything a person is genetics

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I think what your saying is anyone who subscribes to atheism has to have a materistic view so everything a person is genetics

No, but I mean assuming evolution is the case, why is there a rule that dictates the impossibility of us having different cognitive abilities? I'm Afghan so I don't think believing in this would help me in anyway, to be clear. I just believe the likelihood of identical IQ across ethnicity is low given we acknowledge that there is at least a physical difference more than just melanin (athleticism, height, immunity to certain things). Whenever we see geniuses such as Einstein we never attribute their ability to hard work but to winning the genetic lottery so if we can recognize patterns in race with IQ it's not the end of the world.

I believe that if Narushima is correct, ultimately it doesn't matter. He concedes that Arabs have had great contributions to math. He also said that algebra and quantum physics are a whole different case, but the percentage of people actually contributing to that is so low anyways. It's clear all races have the potential to live a normal life by western standards and be productive members of society. So what if the rare genius or the one making progress happens to be Jewish, European, or East Asian more often than not?

But I do believe he is downplaying environmental factors as well, such as culture, geopolitics, climate, etc. and we should allow all people to reach their full potential despite whether that potential may be revolutionary. This is where I disagree with Narushima. Just because people are not likely to be at the very top does not mean we should allow their right to learn to be hindered.

I think you have to have a lot of rigorous studies and actually be able to understand things like genetics for us to really debate about the topic. I also think the knowledge required is above Narushima and Lightbringer. It is true that this topic is very polarizing and there may be strong biases coming from the religious, and left, who would not like this to be true (for very understandable reasons.) But those two are both smart so I don't know why either of them feel the need to make personal attacks.

 

[Sagebee]

No, but I mean assuming evolution is the case, why is there a rule that dictates the impossibility of us having different cognitive abilities? I'm Afghan so I don't think believing in this would help me in anyway, to be clear. I just believe the likelihood of identical IQ across ethnicity is low given we acknowledge that there is at least a physical difference more than just melanin (athleticism, height, immunity to certain things). Whenever we see geniuses such as Einstein we never attribute their ability to hard work but to winning the genetic lottery so if we can recognize patterns in race with IQ it's not the end of the world.

I believe that if Narushima is correct, ultimately it doesn't matter. He concedes that Arabs have had great contributions to math. He also said that algebra and quantum physics are a whole different case, but the percentage of people actually contributing to that is so low anyways. It's clear all races have the potential to live a normal life by western standards and be productive members of society. So what if the rare genius or the one making progress happens to be Jewish, European, or East Asian more often than not?

But I do believe he is downplaying environmental factors as well, such as culture, geopolitics, climate, etc. and we should allow all people to reach their full potential despite whether that potential may be revolutionary. This is where I disagree with Narushima. Just because people are not likely to be at the very top does not mean we should allow their right to learn to be hindered.

I think you have to have a lot of rigorous studies and actually be able to understand things like genetics for us to really debate about the topic. I also think the knowledge required is above Narushima and Lightbringer. It is true that this topic is very polarizing and there may be strong biases coming from the religious, and left, who would not like this to be true (for very understandable reasons.) But those two are both smart so I don't know why either of them feel the need to make personal attacks.

With anything I'll listen to see if there's factual merits to think so. The way I see it is the way people process information is different and it's possible some people can process information innately but that doesn't define intellect we say someone's a genius by what they accomplish how much they know and how they process information is a portion of what contributes to their intellect. It's like some people have natural physical prowess that doesn't mean that alone will make them the best player in sports team.

It's shown in pop culture people with autism sometimes could be genius savants in like field of mathematics and art saying things like they perceive the world in numbers or abstract colors so our genetics could contribute to our innate cognitive skills that doesn't necessarily mean you will be better and smarter.

And let's say certain races are more cognitively gifted in fields of arts and creativity and others in analytics things like iq tests won't show you if your gifted in these things because of genetics or other factors that contributed to your intellect.

I agree it's a complex issue and potentially controversial one and for what ever side aisile your on in the debate on nature vs nurture i think both contribute and I also think everyone's not born cognitively the same it's like as boys and girls we process the world differently but intellect is the end result of process of education and your innate cognitive skills don't make your intellectual potential you do.

 

[Lightbringer]

You're projecting my leftist friend, it is you who is always giving yourself the opportunity to act cool by engaging me.





Again

You must be registered for see links

“It was drafted by professor of psychology Linda Gottfredson, sent to 131 researchers,[1] and signed by 52 university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields, including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence…”

I have 131 researchers from 52 universities on intelligence endorsing the following statement:

You must be registered for see links

“2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.”

But what do you give me? Mr Jesse Larner, a journalist who seems to have no relevant background at all. As Raymond Cattell, that giant of IQ testing who was smeared by Mr Larner’s kindred into rejecting one of his fields prestigious prizes despite being one of the most cited psychologists of the century, put it:

You must be registered for see links

“The average newspaper editor feels himself at liberty to contradict an authority in any field whatsoever. In a few minutes he will write a leading article refuting a book representing the work of a lifetime. But he is equal to even more than that. He will venture to put thousands of our democratic rulers — our electorate — hopelessly astray in any subject which he fancies himself at the moment to be an authority.”

I’ll stick to the 131 intelligence researchers and their consensus statement as well as the 228 intelligence researchers that partook in Dr James Thompson’s online survey about the origin of the racial differences in intelligence, you stick to your journalist.

While the ‘responders’ to the bell-curve continue their sophistry against a decades old book which they misrepresent anyway – it would be easy for me to cite Murray and his defenders response to that but instead I’ll show you how science works and teach you a little thing or two about it again: we have moved on from mere IQ scoring and debates of statistics to genomic studies

Published in 2016, “The Genetics of Success: How Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Associated With Educational Attainment Relate to Life-Course Development”:

You must be registered for see links

"A previous genome-wide association study (GWAS) of more than 100,000 individuals identified molecular-genetic predictors of educational attainment. We undertook in-depth life-course investigation of the polygenic score derived from this GWAS using the four-decade Dunedin Study (N = 918). There were five main findings. First, polygenic scores predicted adult economic outcomes even after accounting for educational attainments. Second, genes and environments were correlated: Children with higher polygenic scores were born into better-off homes. Third, children’s polygenic scores predicted their adult outcomes even when analyses accounted for their social-class origins; social-mobility analysis showed that children with higher polygenic scores were more upwardly mobile than children with lower scores. Fourth, polygenic scores predicted behavior across the life course, from early acquisition of speech and reading skills through geographic mobility and mate choice and on to financial planning for retirement. Fifth, polygenic-score associations were mediated by psychological characteristics, including intelligence, self-control, and interpersonal skill. Effect sizes were small. Factors connecting DNA sequence with life outcomes may provide targets for interventions to promote population-wide positive development.”

So while the ‘responders’ desperately grasp at technical statistical details, the real scientists in the field are now genotyping people, giving them IQ tests and then finding a positive correlation between the polygenic score derived from GWAS, IQ tests AND real world behaviours including social mobility even when social-class is controlled for.

The sophists who claim that IQ tests are ‘culturally biased’ are, of course, correct.

IQ tests do not measure how well you can recite the Quran, nor do IQ tests measure how well you can ‘gangsta rap.’ In some cultures you are as ‘intelligent’ as you can read the Quran or as ‘intelligent’ as you can beat your rival in gangsta rap.

IQ tests, however, do measure the capacity for abstract reasoning – the faculty underlying the ability to do well in mathematics and science as well as more derivative endeavours like medicine, law and engineering.

It is up to you to decide which of those two forms of cultural expression is more meaningful to you but the issue of the thread is biology, a subject in the performance of which IQ tests are well correlated.




Lightbringer I laughed out loud. Honestly it’s as if you are caricaturing the leftist response to this debate. First since you leftists like to position the well and guilt by association so well – always linking IQ tests to the holocaust and sterilization and all those bigbad racist organizations and what not, a dish of your own:

You must be registered for see links

“All this that I have said, was a common pattern throughout Gould's "work". And all this that I have said, is no news to professional biologists. Here's John Maynard Smith:

"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

So real eminent folk like Maynard Smith (the man behind evolutionary game theory and several other mathematical formalisms in biology) saw Gould as nothing more than a tool to be used against creationists and who contributed nothing to Biology except verbosity.

“Did Gould deliberately lie? If not, he executed one of the most epic feats of self-deception in the history of marketing. The eminent John Tooby speaks:

"Although Gould characterizes his critics as "anonymous" and "a tiny coterie," nearly every major evolutionary biologist of our era has weighed in in a vain attempt to correct the tangle of confusions that the higher profile Gould has inundated the intellectual world with. The point is not that Gould is the object of some criticism -- so properly are we all -- it is that his reputation as a credible and balanced authority about evolutionary biology is non-existent among those who are in a professional position to know...

These [major evolutionary biologists] include Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Bill Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Brian Charlesworth, Jerry Coyne, Robert Trivers, John Alcock, Randy Thornhill, and many others."

Simply put Gould never understood evolution. You see, he was one of those lawyer-at-heart guys with a high verbal IQ – hence the long winded books and essays he wrote – but who ultimately had a mediocre non-verbal IQ (this is what’s really important for mathematics and science which are forms of pattern recognition and construction).

While Gould had the style of a lawyer and journalist writer, real scientists like George Williams, Bill Hamilton, Trivers and Smith were all mathematicians and biologist put together. Unlike your hero Gould who did nothing but write long-arse essays (lmao and you accuse me of rhetoric LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL) that amounted to nothing, the real biologists that I just mentioned made mathematical contributions to biology and all made biology as a discipline more rigorous by giving it mathematical basis.

It's kind of like the difference between me and you lightbringer – like Gould you’re a guy who’s only good at verbal ability whereas myself, though I can do verbal ability, have always been a mathematician at heart.

Anyways let’s get on to the meat of the matter, the mismeasures of Gould – you see not only did Gould, who by the way was also a Marxist whose “science” (I strongly emphasize the quotes) was influenced by Marxism, not understand evolution and was never taken seriously by real evolutionary biologists, he also never understood statistics or psychometrics. Again not surprising given Gould’s low mathematical talent but high verbal talent mental style. I could cite several statisticians and psychometricians who have written on Goulds inability to understand those things but I’ll give you this beauty instead: Gould was a fraud.

You must be registered for see links

The article is written by none other than Robert Trivers one of the most eminent living mathematical biologists of our time (the man responsible for reciprocal altruism theory among many other first rate contributions to biology for which he was recently awarded the most distinguished prize in biology aside from the Medicine Nobel):

“Many of us theoretical biologists who knew Stephen Jay Gould personally thought he was something of an intellectual fraud because he had a talent for coining terms that promised more than they could deliver, while claiming exactly the opposite. One example should suffice—the notion of “punctuated equilibria”—which simply asserted that rates of (morphological) evolution were not constant, but varied over time, often with periods of long stasis interspersed with periods of rapid change. All of this was well known from the time of Darwin. The classic example were bats. They apparently evolved very quickly from small non-flying mammals (perhaps less than 20 million years) but then stayed relatively unchanged once they reached the bat phenotype we are all familiar with today (about 50 million years ago). Nothing very surprising here, intermediate forms were apt to be neither very good classic mammals, nor good flying ones either, so natural selection pushed them rapidly through the relevant evolutionary space.

But Steve wanted to turn this into something grander, a justification for replacing natural selection (favoring individual reproductive success) with something called species selection. Since one could easily imagine that there was rapid turnover of species during periods of intense selection and morphological change, one might expect species selection to be more intense, while during the rest of the equilibrium stabilizing selection would rule throughout. But rate of species turnover has nothing to do with the traits within species—only with the relative frequency of species showing these traits. As would prove usual, Steve missed the larger interesting science by embracing a self-serving fantasy. Species selection today is a small but interesting topic in evolutionary theory, not some grand principle emerging from paleontological patterns.

Recently something brand new has emerged about Steve that is astonishing. In his own empirical work attacking others for biased data analysis in the service of political ideology—it is he who is guilty of bias in service of political ideology (Jason Lewis and colleagues 2011). What is worse—and more shocking—is that Steve’s errors are very extensive and the bias very serious. A careful reanalysis shows that his target is unblemished while his own attack is biased in all the ways Gould attributes to his victim. His most celebrated book starts with a takedown of Samuel George Morton (The Mismeasure of Man [1981]). Morton was a scientist in the early 19th Century who devoted himself to measuring the human cranium, especially the volume of the inside, a rough estimate of the size of the enclosed brain. He did so meticulously by pouring first seeds and then ball bearings into skulls until they were full and then pouring them out and measuring them. He was a pure empiricist. He knew brain size was an important variable but very little about the details (indeed, we do not know much more today). He thought his data would bear on whether we were one species or several, but in any case he was busy creating a vast trove of true and useful facts.

I love these people—they work for the future and gather data whose logic later generations will make real. Precisely because they have no axes to grind or hypotheses to prove, their data are apt to be more reliable than the first wave after a new theory. I have benefitted from them in my own life, most memorably when I was shown a large and accurate literature on ratios of investment in 20 ant species, gathered long before anyone appreciated why these facts might be of some interest.

In any case, Morton grouped his data by population according to best estimates of gross relatedness, Amerindians with Amerindians, Africans with Africans, Nordic Europeans with Nordic, and so on. It is here, Gould alleged, that all sorts of errors were made that supported preconceived notions that among the stupider (and therefore smaller cranial capacity) peoples would be Amerindians and Africans. For example, Gould claimed that Morton made more subgroups among Nordic people than tropical ones, thus permitting more of them to be above norm, but in fact, the opposite is true. Morton reported more Amerindian subsamples than European and routinely pointed out when particular Amerindian subsamples were as high or higher than the European mean, facts that Gould claimed Morton hid.

In other cases, Gould eliminates all samples with less than four individuals in order to reduce the number of sub-samples with only one ***—a statistically meaningless goal but one that happened to be biased in his favor and permitted him to make additional errors by arbitrarily eliminating some skulls while including others. If you are comparing group means, you may not wish to use means of less than four, but if you are adding up sub-samples to produce a larger sample, there is no reason not to aggregate all data. Morton is made to look careless and incorrect when it is really Steve who is arbitrarily biasing things in his own favor.

There is an additional contrast between Morton and Gould worth noting. To conjure up Morton’s mistakes, Gould lovingly describes the action of unconscious bias at work: “Morton, measuring by seed, picks up a threateningly large black skull, fills it lightly and gives a few desultory shakes. Next, he takes a distressingly small Caucasian skull, shakes hard, and pushes mightily at the foramen magnum with his thumb. It is easily done, without conscious motivation; expectation is a powerful guide to action.” Indeed it is, but careful re-measures show that Morton never made this particular mistake—only three skulls were mis-measured as being larger than they were and these were all either Amerindian or African.
The same can not be said of Gould. He came across distressingly objective data of Morton, and by introducing biased procedures (no sample size below four) he was able to get appropriately biased results. And by misrepresenting the frequency of Nordic vs Amerindian subpopulations, he was able to create an illusion of bias where none existed, by mere emphatic assertion (no one bothered to check).

Where are the unconscious processes at work here? Is Steve flying upside-down on auto-pilot, unconsciously looking for the actions (substitute Nordic for Tropical, delete all samples smaller than four) that will invite the results he wants (while hiding his bias)? Is the conscious organism really completely in the dark while all of this is going on? Hard to imagine—but at the end the organism appears to be in full self-deception mode—a blow-hard fraudulently imputing fraud, with righteous indignation, coupled with magnanimous forgiveness for the frailties of self-deception in others.
In response to the criticism of Lewis et al, the keeper of Gould's Tomb—his longtime editor at Natural History, Richard Milner—had some choice comments in defense of Gould (William 2012). Gould acted with "complete conviction and integrity" (that is, with full self-deception). "He was a tireless crusader against racism in any form" (In what way is misrepresenting the true facts about population differences—and then hiding this misrepresentation—a contribution to anti-racism?) And then, fully in flight, he says that any bias was "on the side of the angels". Who of us is in any position to say what is on the side of the angels? We barely know what is in our own self-interest.

A general point is that it is often very hard to draw the line between conscious and unconscious deception—or to define the precise mixture of the two. In The Folly of Fools (p 288) I discuss linguistic analysis by Hancock and colleagues (2010) suggesting that the architects of the U.S. 2003 war on Iraq were speaking deceptively when they warned that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11 and Iraq possessed WMDs. I naively suggest that this analysis shows conscious deception but I no longer agree with myself—unconscious deception could cause the same symptoms—reduced use of the word “I”, less qualifiers, and so on.

Lewis, J.E. et al. 2011. The mismeasure of science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on skulls and bias. PLoS Biol 9(6): e1001071. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071.
William, S. 2012. The Mismeasure of Stephen Jay Gould. Discover (Jan/Feb), pp 66-67.
Hancock, J. et al. 2010. Language, lies and politics: a linguistic analysis of the justifications for the Iraq war. Manuscript: Cornell University.”

In short Gould’s book “The Mismeasures of Man” was a fraud probably deliberately motivated by his Marxist political loyalties. It has been advertised well by the leftist media but as people like Trivers – who himself is a leftist by the way, but unlike Gould he is an honest man – Gould wrote a lot but had little understanding of what he was writing about and even deliberately committed fraud.

Projecting? I'm not the one who goes out of his way to sound like Socrates in the 21st century.

Nothing of what you listed is even credible including the article written by Robert Trivers as in his own words, he considers Gould an "old enemy" and criticized him on multiple works fueled by a biased vendetta. Not only that, but from what I am aware of, Trivers doesn't support the idea of the Bell Curve anyways.

The most eminent living biologists of our time, as you put it, even agrees with me. He wrote articles about how IQ testing was biased against blacks. Ironically he was also a member of Black Panthers and a leftist. Funny isn't it? You said it yourself, he is an honest man and one of the most eminent living biologists of our time. Yet he evens says that you're wrong.

You must be registered for see links

You've even listed wikipedia as your source, which you didn't even read. Are you in 5th grade? How about you use peer-reviewed data like I did. But you can't, because what you're saying is no longer relevant in the greater scientific community of today. I'll even use the same wikipedia link that you provided to discredit your point of it being accepted as "mainstream science." In the link you provided it clearly stated that:

"In an article describing the background of the statement, Linda Gottfredson explains how she was prompted to write it by what she considered to be "outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence" promoted by many critics of The Bell Curve in the controversy that followed the publication of the book. She contacted David Brooks at the Wall Street Journal, who was willing to publish a short statement signed by experts describing what is considered mainstream in the study of intelligence. Gottfredson drafted the statement, had it vetted by several leading researchers, and finally solicited signatures for it from experts in several disciplines, including anthropology, behavior genetics, mental retardation, neuropsychology, sociology, and various specialties in psychology. The experts invited to sign the statement were given no opportunity to revise it, nor was anyone told who else had been invited or who had already given his or her signature.[1]

The invitation to sign was sent to 131 researchers, of whom 100 responded by the deadline. The signature form asked whether the respondent would sign the statement, and if not, why not. 48 did not agree to sign, with 11 explicitly disagreeing that it represented the mainstream (or at least disagreeing with some of the claims in it), another 11 saying they did not know whether it did, 16 more writing various other reasons, including the fear of jeopardizing their position or project, and 10 of whom gave no explanation for their refusal. 52 respondents agreed with and signed the statement.[1]"



Let's also note that a former President of the APA had this to say about the people who signed the statement. It seems that many of the people who signed it had no credentials and had ties to a white nationalist and pro-eugenic organization which they were sponsored by.

"Donald T. Campbell, a prominent psychologist and philosopher who was part of the latter group, has said that of the 52 scientists who did agree to sign Gottfredson’s statement, only 10 were actual experts in the field of intelligence measurement. Not only were the majority of the 52 signatories not experts in IQ measurement, but some had no relevant qualifications at all. Garret Hardin, for example, was an ecologist and anti-immigration activist, while Vincent Sarich was an anthropologist who gained notoriety for making racist and homophobic claims in his undergraduate courses (he later admitted to The New York Times that these assertions were not based on established scientific facts).

The only thing linking many of Gottfredson’s co-signers to the field of IQ research at all was a commitment to the idea of innate racial differences in intelligence. While only 10 of these scientists were actual experts in the field, at least 20 were recipients of money from the Pioneer Fund, including one director of the Fund, R. Travis Osborne, and two future presidents, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn. The Pioneer Fund was founded in 1937 to promote “race betterment.” Although the fund claims that this was intended to refer to the human race rather than the white race, this is belied by the fact that its original charter stated its goal as the eugenic improvement of those ”deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution." Since its founding, the Pioneer Fund has gone on to become the largest (and last) major funder of eugenic research and propaganda in post-war America, as well as the leading supporter of research purporting to demonstrate the inherent biological inferiority of black people. Gottfredson herself has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fund, and has been a vocal defender of it and its grantees."

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

The APA (American Psychological Association), the largest psychological organization in the U.S. even responded to the public statement in "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" by releasing their own report, titled "Intelligence: Known and Unknowns", which completely counters the entire statement and proves that it's not mainstream in any sense whatsoever.

They say:

"There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential. It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity; there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we know very little about them: how they develop, what factors influence that development, how they are related to more traditional measures. "

"It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis."

"Because ethnic differences in intelligence reflect complex patterns, no overall generalization about them is appropriate. The mean IQ scores of Chinese and Japanese Americans, for example, differ little from those of Whites though their spatial ability scores tend to be somewhat higher. The outstanding record of these groups in terms of school achievement and occupational status evidently reflects cultural factors. The mean intelligence test scores of Hispanic Americans are somewhat lower than those of Whites, in part because Hispanics are often less familiar with English."

You must be registered for see links

Let's also talk about the other source you've listed that tried to discredit Gould: (

You must be registered for see links

)

The author of the blog article, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is:

- He is self-educated with no academic degrees.

- He lacks peer-reviewed publications, or any publications whatsoever outside of his own websites and fanfiction.net.

- He is derisive of mainstream science, accusing it of collective bias and blindness.

- He has been pushing fringe ideas that are treated, at best, with skepticism by mainstream
science, including attempts to prove a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics while, by definition, no particular interpretation can be singled out empirically as correct.

- He has formed a bit of a doomsday cult around himself, which holds the AI apocalypse to be near and treats cryonics and donating to SIAI as the path for salvation for the chosen. This bit may be unintentional, though, in a Life of Brian kind of way.

Yeah, real credible. And you used him as a source to discredit a widely renowned scientists? I'm the one who should be laughing here. Frankly, I'm just embarrassed for you.


You can literally find anything in the internet, and all you did was list non-credible resources to support your argument. I've already debunked your assertions on the Bell Curve. If you want me to list more scientific studies which disprove the Bell Curve, I can easily do that, there are thousands of those. But it'd be a waste of time since you would neither read nor accept that you're wrong.

I mean you listed a f*cking white nationalist site as a source for your desperate attempt at being right. LMAO.

Your own source's (

You must be registered for see links

) mission statement.

"The Occidental Observer will present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West. Such a mission statement is sure to be dismissed as extremism of the worst sort in today’s intellectual climate—perhaps even as a sign of psychiatric disorder. Yet there is a compelling need for such a site. A great many other identifiable groups in the multicultural West have a strong sense of identity and interest, but overt expressions of white identity and white interests (or European-American identity and interests) are rarely found among the peoples who founded these societies and who continue to make up the majority."


Your novel-length comment almost solely focused Gould, only one of the sources I've listed in my comment. Your argument, if that's what you want to call it, was utterly pointless and told me nothing. Literally all you did was copy and paste someone else's words that you don't even understand.


Remember when I said that your entire post-history was nothing short of Orwellian? Learn what that means.

You make wall texts of fancy words to make yourself look smart and discourage people to read it. It's a common debate tactic. Your wall of text could be summarized in a paragraph, but you instead make it 3 pages long so people don't read its entirety and don't respond to it.

But the truth is, your wall of text is just hollow words with fake data.

We can keep going at this back in forth if you like, but you're just listing the first thing you see on the interment that agrees with your point of view.

And as I already pointed in the previous comment, you're so desperate to prove me wrong that you didn't even read my original argument thoroughly and went to source links that had nothing to do with what I said.

You're a joke.

 

[LoZelda101]

Disgusting. I'm okay with allowing religion in place of evolution as it's primary but you shouldn't stop teaching it..

 

[Funky Tiger]

nevar forket

You must be registered for see images

 

[Multiply]

Ultimately it doesn’t matter to the scientific enterprise what irrelevant nations that have little ability for science in general decide to teach their own citizens.

Evolution is an abstract concept and God has not endowed all people equal powers of abstract reasoning. To understand natural selection, an evolutionary algorithm, probably requires the cognitive ability an average European or East Asian possesses.

To understand the mathematical basis of evolution, population genetics, requires ability requisite to completing a rigorous undergraduate mathematics curriculum - in the UK population genetics is a 3rd year course on a maths degree even in the top universities (it’s a rather dense subject) which means that your average biologist doesn’t have the talent required to understand it, either. This is ability at about 2 standard deviations of the European mean, i.e. the top 2% or so of Europeans and East Asians.

The people who push the frontiers of biology forward today are a much, much rarer breed of talent, still.

A few decades ago Harvard Psychologist Anne Roe conducted a psychometric study of the eminent scientists of her day, included in her study were such biologists as Sewall Wright one of the fathers of population genetics, and found that on average those guys were 4 standard deviations above the European mean on cognitive ability – that is they were in the top 0.01% in terms of IQ.

I will link Michigan State University Professor of Physics Steve Hsu’s blog discussion of this study:

You must be registered for see links

So what is the implication of all this?

You see, because of the way intelligence is distributed (the Gaussian distribution), even small differences in averages between groups ramifies into enormous differences at the tails. For example, if one group has a 10 point advantage in mean over another, it will in fact have a 6-fold advantage in amount of people with IQ 140+ the population sizes being kept the same, and this ratio of advantage increases the further out in the tail of the distribution we go.

As the question of “which nation or people is most likely to contribute to biology” is really a question of “which nation has the most people with IQ 160+” it therefore follows that cognitive ability and not population size (or even ideology to some extent but that is a discussion for another time) is what will be the critical factor.

In our time there is a convenient proxy question for this very question we asked above: “which countries do best in the International Biology Olympiad” for the talent required to win a medal on that competition is about 4 standard deviations above the European mean (there is a mathematical way to estimate this based on what proportion of students make it to their national teams every year but I’ll spare you those details).

The International Biology Olympiad site conveniently releases statistics on its performance every year:

You must be registered for see links

As you can see, except the occasional Iranian, there are no Muslims winning medals at the International Biology Olympiad even though most Muslim countries compete in it. There are more Chinese students from Singapore who have won medals in this competition than the entire Sunni Muslim world put together, Turkey included (although I ignore the exceptional case of the north Central Asians like the Kazakhs who are racially mostly East-Asian).

Why is this?

Keeping in mind our previous discussion of the nature of the bell-curve, the fact that East-Asians have an average IQ of 105 compared to the Muslim average of in the high 80s should make the answer evident.

At the end of the day, the Muslim world does not have the mental-ability talent to do much for modern biology.

So it’s pointless worrying over whether they teach science or not as long as they keep their retarded educational policies out of the places that do matter for biology – namely the west and East-Asia (and India to some extent, too).

You sir, are a certified nut job.

Edit:
After my previous comment about you being a nut job, I went back and decided to read what you wrote. You're not a nut job. You're just an idiot. :kk:

 

[Misо]

You have a proof that nothing really exist?

Your beloved Science has proof.

 

[YowYan]

N

What do you expect from a country ruled by the radical Muslim Brotherhood except heading straight back to the middle ages ?

Turkey has a pretty obvious divided culture though.

In some neighbourhoods it looks like you're walking Through New York. Those modern Citizens feel judged by conservative hardcore muslims from other small communities. And the ruling class isn't helping either

 

[ChicagoJhawk]

Welp there goes that population's intelligence

 

[3rd Raikage]

-then intelligence tests must be biased against blacks.

Why are you using arguments that have been debunked in the 1990's?

However, a 1996 report by the American Psychological Association states that controlled studies show that differences in mean IQ scores were not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans

You must be registered for see links

Also if you admit that blacks and whites in the U.S have different genetics then you admit that the colour of the skin indeed has something to do with intelligence:

"The study also revealed that the majority (55%) of surveyed experts believed that genetic factors also help to explain the socioeconomic differences in IQ."

You must be registered for see links

All the rest of your post is just typical sjw rambling where you want to find a reason for the premise you have assumed from the start without a single shred of proof.

 

[Multiply]

Why are you using arguments that have been debunked in the 1990's?

However, a 1996 report by the American Psychological Association states that controlled studies show that differences in mean IQ scores were not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans

You must be registered for see links

Also if you admit that blacks and whites in the U.S have different genetics then you admit that the colour of the skin indeed has something to do with intelligence:

"The study also revealed that the majority (55%) of surveyed experts believed that genetic factors also help to explain the socioeconomic differences in IQ."

You must be registered for see links

All the rest of your post is just typical sjw rambling where you want to find a reason for the premise you have assumed from the start without a single shred of proof.

Wait so is any of this absolute fact? Or is it all just theory? If it's not fact, then you are spewing the exact same amount of bullshit with incomplete or skewed 'evidence'. All you're doing is rambling where you want to find a reason for the premise you have assumed from the start without a single shred of viable proof. Oh the irony.

 

[Lyke]

Ty and Turkey/Germany FTW

You must be registered for see images

​

 

[Belserion]

people really believe in evolution some bullshit about evolving from monkeys was it; wake up we link back to adam and eve

Oh nice. You are technically my Brother then.

 

[Lightbringer]

Why are you using arguments that have been debunked in the 1990's?

However, a 1996 report by the American Psychological Association states that controlled studies show that differences in mean IQ scores were not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans

You must be registered for see links

You literally misquoted me. Wow, you are desperate. That section where you misquoted me from was talking about the view of IQ tests from the perspective of black people.

@BOLD: APA did not say this in the citation included. This makes it an invalid statement.

IQ tests change over time, and if you actually took the time to read my comments and my sources, then you would know that they explicitly stated that they used to be biased, going as far as having a court case against them in the 1970's which then had a state-wide decree. It's called history, which makes it fact.

You must be registered for see links

Larry P. v. RILES (1979)

"This court finds in favor of plaintiffs, the class of black children who have been or in the future will be wrongly placed or maintained
[495 F.Supp. 933]
in special classes for the educable mentally retarded, on plaintiffs' statutory and state and federal constitutional claims. In violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, defendants have utilized standardized intelligence tests that are racially and culturally biased, have a discriminatory impact against black children, and have not been validated for the purpose of essentially permanent placements of black children into educationally dead-end, isolated, and stigmatizing classes for the so-called educable mentally retarded. Further, these federal laws have been violated by defendants' general use of placement mechanisms that, taken together, have not been validated and result in a large over-representation of black children in the special E.M.R. classes."

I've also cited the same exact quote from the APA, so again, maybe you should read what I actually said throughout my comments before you make a fool out of yourself?"

Also if you admit that blacks and whites in the U.S have different genetics then you admit that the colour of the skin indeed has something to do with intelligence:

"The study also revealed that the majority (55%) of surveyed experts believed that genetic factors also help to explain the socioeconomic differences in IQ."

You must be registered for see links

Uh no, that's a strawman. Just because there is a genetic component to intelligence, does not mean that skin color is a factor in their intelligence. Literally every human has genetic differences even within the same ethnicity. It's basic science.

Also it's funny that you again did not read what I had to say because the APA, your own source, says your wrong.

You must be registered for see links

"There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential. It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity; there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we know very little about them: how they develop, what factors influence that development, how they are related to more traditional measures. "

"It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis."

"Because ethnic differences in intelligence reflect complex patterns, no overall generalization about them is appropriate. The mean IQ scores of Chinese and Japanese Americans, for example, differ little from those of Whites though their spatial ability scores tend to be somewhat higher. The outstanding record of these groups in terms of school achievement and occupational status evidently reflects cultural factors. The mean intelligence test scores of Hispanic Americans are somewhat lower than those of Whites, in part because Hispanics are often less familiar with English."

All the rest of your post is just typical sjw rambling where you want to find a reason for the premise you have assumed from the start without a single shred of proof.

All of the rest of your post is just ignorance and desperation.

Calling it SJW ramblings is an excuse for you being too lazy to read and the inability to come up with a competent argument.

I've cited scientific and historical sources, including the APA and Court cases, that support my argument.

So take a deep breath and shunshin your way back to a safe space like a good little shinobi.

 

[Multiply]

IQ tests change over time, and if you actually took the time to read my sources, then you would know that they explicitly stated that they used to be biased, going as far as having a court case against them in the 1970's which then had a state-wide decree. It's called history, which makes it fact.

You must be registered for see links

Larry P. v. RILES (1979)

"This court finds in favor of plaintiffs, the class of black children who have been or in the future will be wrongly placed or maintained
[495 F.Supp. 933]
in special classes for the educable mentally retarded, on plaintiffs' statutory and state and federal constitutional claims. In violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, defendants have utilized standardized intelligence tests that are racially and culturally biased, have a discriminatory impact against black children, and have not been validated for the purpose of essentially permanent placements of black children into educationally dead-end, isolated, and stigmatizing classes for the so-called educable mentally retarded. Further, these federal laws have been violated by defendants' general use of placement mechanisms that, taken together, have not been validated and result in a large over-representation of black children in the special E.M.R. classes."

I've also cited the same exact quote from the APA, so again, maybe you should read what I actually said throughout my comments before you make a fool out of yourself?"




Uh no, that's a strawman. Just because there is a genetic component to intelligence, does not mean that skin color is a factor in their intelligence. Literally every human has genetic differences even within the same ethnicity.

Also it's funny that you again did not read what I have to say because the APA, your own source, says your wrong.

You must be registered for see links

"There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential. It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity; there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we know very little about them: how they develop, what factors influence that development, how they are related to more traditional measures. "

"It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis."

"Because ethnic differences in intelligence reflect complex patterns, no overall generalization about them is appropriate. The mean IQ scores of Chinese and Japanese Americans, for example, differ little from those of Whites though their spatial ability scores tend to be somewhat higher. The outstanding record of these groups in terms of school achievement and occupational status evidently reflects cultural factors. The mean intelligence test scores of Hispanic Americans are somewhat lower than those of Whites, in part because Hispanics are often less familiar with English."





All of the rest of your post is just ignorance and desperation.

Calling it SJW is an excuse for you being too lazy to read and the inability to come up with a competent argument.

I've cited scientific and historical sources, including the APA and Court cases, that support my argument.

So take a deep breathe and get back to your safe space.

You must be registered for see images

Damn...

 

[Sagebee]

Wait so is any of this absolute fact? Or is it all just theory? If it's not fact, then you are spewing the exact same amount of bullshit with incomplete or skewed 'evidence'. All you're doing is rambling where you want to find a reason for the premise you have assumed from the start without a single shred of viable proof. Oh the irony.

His links says no link between race and intelligence hasn't been found in genes

And this issue of nature and nurture is hotly contested issue with no objective basis to stare eithers impact