Discussion:
Vandals pull down Columbus statue in Richmond, throw it in lake
Add Reply
Johnny
2020-06-10 12:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
By Brie Stimson
Published 3 hours ago

Protesters in Richmond, Va., Tuesday night reportedly pulled down a
statue of Christopher Columbus, spray-painted it, set it on fire and
threw it in a lake.

The vandalism followed a peaceful protest for indigenous people,
according to WWBT-TV.

The statue was torn down using ropes around 9 p.m. in William Byrd Park
and later thrown in nearby Fountain Lake.

The same method was used by protesters to take down a statue of
Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham a few miles away in Monroe
Park on Saturday.

WWBT said on Tuesday night some of the vandals even attacked one of
their photographers, grabbing him, threatening him with boards and
telling him to leave.

The statue’s base was also spray-painted and someone left a cardboard
sign on top of it which read “Columbus represents genocide.”

https://www.foxnews.com/us/vandals-pull-down-richmond-christopher-columbus-statue-throw-it-in-lake-following-protest
John Wesley Harding
2020-06-10 13:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Protesters in Richmond, Va., Tuesday night reportedly pulled down a
statue of Christopher Columbus, spray-painted it, set it on fire and
threw it in a lake.
Good news!
--
‘Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?’

THE SERIOUS ANSWER: Here’s what the majority of anti-Trump voters
honestly feel about Trump supporters en masse:

That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on
scamming poor people, you thought "Fine."
(https://www.usatoday.com/…/trump-university-sett…/502387002/)
That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff
his creditors, you said, "Okay."
(https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hotel-paid-millions-in-…)
That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual
abuse, you said, "No problem."
(https://abcnews.go.com/…/list-trumps-accusers-allega…/story…)
That when he made up stories about seeing Muslim-Americans in the
thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said,
"Not an issue."
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/donald-trumps-outrageous-…/)
That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and
you wouldn't care, you exclaimed, "He sure knows me."
(https://www.usatoday.com/…/president-donald-tru…/4073405002/)
That when you heard him relating a story of an elderly guest of his
country club, an 80-year old man, who fell off a stage and hit his head,
to Trump replied: “‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away. I
couldn’t—you know, he was right in front of me, and I turned away. I
didn’t want to touch him. He was bleeding all over the place. And I felt
terrible, because it was a beautiful white marble floor, and now it had
changed color. Became very red.” You said, "That's cool!"
(https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-howard-stern-story)
That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest
thing you ever saw.
(https://www.nbcnews.com/…/donald-trump-criticized-after-he-…)
That when you heard him brag that he doesn't read books, you said,
"Well, who has time?"
(https://www.theatlantic.com/…/americas-first-post-t…/549794/)
That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men
convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and he angrily said that they
should still be in prison, you said, "That makes sense."
(https://www.usatoday.com/…/what-trump-has-said-…/1501321001/)
That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and
that he would hire attorneys, you thought, "Yes!"
(https://www.latimes.com/…/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-201…)
That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man's coat before
throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, "What a great guy!"
(https://www.independent.co.uk/…/donald-trump-orders-protest…)
That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists
with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis,
and you have said, "Thumbs up!"
(https://www.theatlantic.com/…/why-cant-trump-just-c…/567320/)
That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without
insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral
win, you said, "That's the way I want my President to be."
(https://www.huffpost.com/…/trump-insult-foreign-countries-l…)
That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government
in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the
industries they're supposed to be regulating and you have said, "What a
genius!" (https://www.politico.com/…/138-trump-policy-changes-2017-00…)
That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part
by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging
the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have
said, "That's smart!"
(https://www.usnews.com/…/how-is-donald-trump-profiting-from…)
That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico
because it was in the middle of water and you have said, "That makes
sense." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/the-very-big-ocean-betwee…/)
That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to
New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, "falling in love" with the
dictator of North Korea, and you have said, "That's statesmanship!"
(https://www.cnn.com/…/donald-trump-dictators-kim…/index.html)
That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages,
managed to lose track of 1500 kids, has opened a tent city incarceration
camp in the desert in Texas - he explains that they’re just “animals” -
and you say, “Well, OK then.”
(https://www.nbcnews.com/…/more-5-400-children-split-border-…)
That you have witnessed all the thousand and one other manifestations of
corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and
contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up
grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody
who says otherwise.
(https://www.americanprogress.org/…/confronting-cost-trumps…/)

What you don't get, Trump supporters, is that our succumbing to
frustration and shaking our heads, thinking of you as stupid, may very
well be wrong and unhelpful, but it's also...hear me...charitable.

Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and
most of them are less flattering.
El Castor
2020-06-10 19:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
By Brie Stimson
Published 3 hours ago
Protesters in Richmond, Va., Tuesday night reportedly pulled down a
statue of Christopher Columbus, spray-painted it, set it on fire and
threw it in a lake.
The vandalism followed a peaceful protest for indigenous people,
according to WWBT-TV.
The statue was torn down using ropes around 9 p.m. in William Byrd Park
and later thrown in nearby Fountain Lake.
The same method was used by protesters to take down a statue of
Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham a few miles away in Monroe
Park on Saturday.
WWBT said on Tuesday night some of the vandals even attacked one of
their photographers, grabbing him, threatening him with boards and
telling him to leave.
The statue’s base was also spray-painted and someone left a cardboard
sign on top of it which read “Columbus represents genocide.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/vandals-pull-down-richmond-christopher-columbus-statue-throw-it-in-lake-following-protest
How long before George Washington and Thomas Jefferson become fair
game -- or maybe they are already? There are currently an estimated 9
million slaves in Africa -- more than 180,000 in Kenya! Yee Gods!!
Could some of Obama's relatives be slave masters? Tear down his
statues IMMEDIATELY!!!!
Johnny
2020-06-10 21:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:36:59 -0700
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
By Brie Stimson
Published 3 hours ago
Protesters in Richmond, Va., Tuesday night reportedly pulled down a
statue of Christopher Columbus, spray-painted it, set it on fire and
threw it in a lake.
The vandalism followed a peaceful protest for indigenous people,
according to WWBT-TV.
The statue was torn down using ropes around 9 p.m. in William Byrd
Park and later thrown in nearby Fountain Lake.
The same method was used by protesters to take down a statue of
Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham a few miles away in
Monroe Park on Saturday.
WWBT said on Tuesday night some of the vandals even attacked one of
their photographers, grabbing him, threatening him with boards and
telling him to leave.
The statue’s base was also spray-painted and someone left a cardboard
sign on top of it which read “Columbus represents genocide.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/vandals-pull-down-richmond-christopher-columbus-statue-throw-it-in-lake-following-protest
How long before George Washington and Thomas Jefferson become fair
game -- or maybe they are already? There are currently an estimated 9
million slaves in Africa -- more than 180,000 in Kenya! Yee Gods!!
Could some of Obama's relatives be slave masters? Tear down his
statues IMMEDIATELY!!!!
People like this are never going to be satisfied. Everything in this
country that reminds them of slavery and the founding of the United
States could be destroyed, and they would still want more.
El Castor
2020-06-10 23:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:36:59 -0700
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
By Brie Stimson
Published 3 hours ago
Protesters in Richmond, Va., Tuesday night reportedly pulled down a
statue of Christopher Columbus, spray-painted it, set it on fire and
threw it in a lake.
The vandalism followed a peaceful protest for indigenous people,
according to WWBT-TV.
The statue was torn down using ropes around 9 p.m. in William Byrd
Park and later thrown in nearby Fountain Lake.
The same method was used by protesters to take down a statue of
Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham a few miles away in
Monroe Park on Saturday.
WWBT said on Tuesday night some of the vandals even attacked one of
their photographers, grabbing him, threatening him with boards and
telling him to leave.
The statue’s base was also spray-painted and someone left a cardboard
sign on top of it which read “Columbus represents genocide.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/vandals-pull-down-richmond-christopher-columbus-statue-throw-it-in-lake-following-protest
How long before George Washington and Thomas Jefferson become fair
game -- or maybe they are already? There are currently an estimated 9
million slaves in Africa -- more than 180,000 in Kenya! Yee Gods!!
Could some of Obama's relatives be slave masters? Tear down his
statues IMMEDIATELY!!!!
People like this are never going to be satisfied. Everything in this
country that reminds them of slavery and the founding of the United
States could be destroyed, and they would still want more.
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
Statues can be torn down, windows broken, and cops fired, but it's not
going to change, at least not in our lifetimes.

"The number of homicides in Baltimore continues to outpace even last
year’s record-breaking rate, numbers released by the city’s police
department Wednesday show. As of Wednesday morning, there have been
134 homicides in the city in 2020, six more than at the same time in
2019." ... In total, 348 homicides occurred in Baltimore in 2019,
breaking the record for killings per capita in the city and marking
the fifth consecutive year with at least 300 murders within its
borders."
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/06/03/baltimore-2020-homicide-rate-latest/
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-10 23:48:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/10/2020 4:00 PM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}
Post by El Castor
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
A reminder from a person who once believed as you do:

"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So
maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in
part, by genetics. [...] Sullivan and Harris cite research that
indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80 percent heritable.
It can seem natural to extend these estimates to comparisons between
racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But it’s a mistake
because these studies are done within, not between, populations."

And the harm caused by these claims, unsupported by science, that IQ
differences between the races are genetic:

"Would they contribute to prejudice? Would they be used to blame
communities for their own poverty? Would I be provoking thought, or
would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and
economic causes of inequality?"

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
El Castor
2020-06-11 07:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:48:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So
maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in
part, by genetics. [...] Sullivan and Harris cite research that
indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80 percent heritable.
It can seem natural to extend these estimates to comparisons between
racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But it’s a mistake
because these studies are done within, not between, populations."
And the harm caused by these claims, unsupported by science, that IQ
"Would they contribute to prejudice? Would they be used to blame
communities for their own poverty? Would I be provoking thought, or
would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and
economic causes of inequality?"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
Of course race and intelligence are genetically related. Granted that
genetics is not the sole determinant, but it is the most important.
Believe what your politics demands of you, but race is nothing more
than a genetic variation in the species -- in this case Homo Sapiens.
That variation produces heritable differences in skin color, genetic
disease, stature, athletic ability, and a myriad of other specific
traits, including intelligence. Of course many of these traits can be
influenced by environment, but in the end East Africans will dominate
mid and long distance running and Ashkenazi Jews walk away with 20% of
Nobel prizes. Those same African runners are plagued with Sickle Cell
Anemia and Jews with Tay-Sachs Disease. Obvious differences not based
on character flaws or diet -- Genetics.
The Right might like to blame Black poverty and crime on laziness and
weak character, while the Left chooses racism and White Privlege. Both
are wrong, but will never admit it. By the way, East Asians out
distance both Caucasians and Africans in the brain department.
Genetics. Reality can be inconvenient, but humanity should accept it
and go from there. The solution to racial differences will lie in
science, not broken windows.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-11 15:10:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:48:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So
maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in
part, by genetics. [...] Sullivan and Harris cite research that
indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80 percent heritable.
It can seem natural to extend these estimates to comparisons between
racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But it’s a mistake
because these studies are done within, not between, populations."
And the harm caused by these claims, unsupported by science, that IQ
"Would they contribute to prejudice? Would they be used to blame
communities for their own poverty? Would I be provoking thought, or
would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and
economic causes of inequality?"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
Of course race and intelligence are genetically related.
There is no evidence to support this conclusion. Again:

"research [...] indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80
percent heritable. It can seem natural to extend these estimates to
comparisons between racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But
it’s a mistake because these studies are done within, not between,
populations."
El Castor
2020-06-11 18:50:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:10:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:48:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So
maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in
part, by genetics. [...] Sullivan and Harris cite research that
indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80 percent heritable.
It can seem natural to extend these estimates to comparisons between
racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But it’s a mistake
because these studies are done within, not between, populations."
And the harm caused by these claims, unsupported by science, that IQ
"Would they contribute to prejudice? Would they be used to blame
communities for their own poverty? Would I be provoking thought, or
would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and
economic causes of inequality?"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
Of course race and intelligence are genetically related.
"research [...] indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80
percent heritable. It can seem natural to extend these estimates to
comparisons between racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But
it’s a mistake because these studies are done within, not between,
populations."
Your conclusions are unfortunately driven by politics, not science.
What science you can choose to point to is itself a product of
politics. My interest in the subject is based entirely on an effort to
understand the world in which I live. I have no pre-ordained
conclusions, nor would I want to. I am of Europpean Caucasian descent,
but science leads me to believe that the most intelligent among us are
not from my ancestry, but probably yours -- Jews of Eastern European
origin, then East Asians, next my own ancestry, followed by -- well
you know the story, even if you are unwilling to accept it. Politics
makes research in this area very difficult. It can, and has, ruined
careers, but the truth is there to be found. Here is an interesting
chart that attempts to categorize race based on several dozen factors
ranging from brain size to physical attributes, personality and social
tendencies. It's not a be all, end all answer, but it is well,
interesting.
Loading Image...
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-11 19:00:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:10:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:48:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So
maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in
part, by genetics. [...] Sullivan and Harris cite research that
indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80 percent heritable.
It can seem natural to extend these estimates to comparisons between
racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But it’s a mistake
because these studies are done within, not between, populations."
And the harm caused by these claims, unsupported by science, that IQ
"Would they contribute to prejudice? Would they be used to blame
communities for their own poverty? Would I be provoking thought, or
would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and
economic causes of inequality?"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
Of course race and intelligence are genetically related.
"research [...] indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80
percent heritable. It can seem natural to extend these estimates to
comparisons between racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But
it’s a mistake because these studies are done within, not between,
populations."
Your conclusions are unfortunately driven by politics, not science.
There is no science that supports your conclusion.
Post by El Castor
Here is an interesting
chart that attempts to categorize race based on several dozen factors
ranging from brain size to physical attributes, personality and social
tendencies. It's not a be all, end all answer, but it is well,
interesting.
https://www.human-intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Rushton-Race.png
That doesn;t support your conclusion.
El Castor
2020-06-11 23:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:10:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:48:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So
maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in
part, by genetics. [...] Sullivan and Harris cite research that
indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80 percent heritable.
It can seem natural to extend these estimates to comparisons between
racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But it’s a mistake
because these studies are done within, not between, populations."
And the harm caused by these claims, unsupported by science, that IQ
"Would they contribute to prejudice? Would they be used to blame
communities for their own poverty? Would I be provoking thought, or
would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and
economic causes of inequality?"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
Of course race and intelligence are genetically related.
"research [...] indicates IQ is, loosely speaking, 40 percent to 80
percent heritable. It can seem natural to extend these estimates to
comparisons between racial groups. That’s what I did a decade ago. But
it’s a mistake because these studies are done within, not between,
populations."
Your conclusions are unfortunately driven by politics, not science.
There is no science that supports your conclusion.
Post by El Castor
Here is an interesting
chart that attempts to categorize race based on several dozen factors
ranging from brain size to physical attributes, personality and social
tendencies. It's not a be all, end all answer, but it is well,
interesting.
https://www.human-intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Rushton-Race.png
That doesn;t support your conclusion.
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-12 00:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
El Castor
2020-06-12 03:21:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
#1 -- IQ is primarily genetic in origin.

"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes

A new series of studies have weighed in on the debate, and findings
have only strengthened the camp of IQ being genetic. Florida State
University recently published a study which employed the well regarded
database called the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
The study looked at the IQs of adopted children and their adoptive
parents. The study concludes that there was little evidence to suggest
that environmental factors and parenting had any level of impact on
the IQs of the adoptive children. To make matters worse, it even went
on to conclude that “maternal attachment” was negatively correlated to
the IQs of the adoptive children. From this piece of research, it is
clear that IQ is genetic.
https://www.iq-brain.com/iq-genetic-2/

"Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals
identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence"
"We identify 336 associated SNPs (METAL P < 5 × 10-8) in 18 genomic
loci, of which 15 are new. Around half of the SNPs are located inside
a gene, implicating 22 genes, of which 11 are new findings. Gene-based
analyses identified an additional 30 genes (MAGMA P < 2.73 × 10-6), of
which all but one had not been implicated previously. We show that the
identified genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue, and
pathway analysis indicates the involvement of genes regulating cell
development (MAGMA competitive P = 3.5 × 10-6). Despite the well-known
difference in twin-based heritability2 for intelligence in childhood
(0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation
(rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10-29). These findings
provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence."
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3869#Abs2

#2 IQ & Race

"White Privilege . . . or IQ?
We’re told the reason whites are more successful than minorities (in
historically white countries, no less!) is because of “white
privilege.” But actually, whites are not the most economically
successful race in America. Jews and Asians—two groups that have
experienced past hardships and discrimination—are the highest earners
in America, followed by whites, Hispanics, and blacks.
Race Median Income
Jewish $97,500
Asian $76,260
White $60,256
Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians $60,133
Hispanic $42,491
Black $35,398

As you can see below, IQ rates correlate fairly well with income.
America’s Jewish population, with the highest median income, also has
the highest IQ, followed by Asians, then whites, Hispanics, and
blacks.
Race IQ
Ashkenazi Jews (studies range from 104 to 115; the IQ of Sephardic
Jews is estimated to be the same as Northern Europeans) 110
East Asians (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore)
105
Europeans (Northern and Western Europe is 100; Eastern and
Southeastern Europe is 95) 97
American Indians (North and South America) 90
Hispanic-Americans 89
Southeast Asians (Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Borneo) 87
Pacific Islanders (Natives of New Zealand, Micronesia, Melanesia,
Polynesia, and Hawaii) 85
African-Americans 85
South Asians (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf
states, the Near East, and Turkey) 84
North Africans 84
Sub-Saharan Africans 70
Australian Aborigines 62"
http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/

I could go on, but I suspect it's useless. Your side of the aisle will
never accept the truth, and the Left has made research in the matter a
career jeopardizing event for academics.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-12 04:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.

So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?

Let me repeat from my cited article (with emphasis):

"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html

The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.

What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.

If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.

But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.

And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
El Castor
2020-06-12 07:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by the
deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an inferior
environment that is a product of White discrimination? Am I reading
you correctly?
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-12 14:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by the
deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an inferior
environment that is a product of White discrimination? Am I reading
you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
El Castor
2020-06-12 18:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by the
deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an inferior
environment that is a product of White discrimination? Am I reading
you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.

As for your source on the subject, William Saletan, he writes for
Slate,a Left Wing site, and he is no geneticist.

"Will Someone Please Tell Me Why William Saletan Gets Paid to Not Do
His Homework?"
https://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/05/no-there-is-no-reason-for-william-saletan-to-have-his-job-why-do-you-ask.html
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-12 18:33:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by the
deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an inferior
environment that is a product of White discrimination? Am I reading
you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
The way blacks are treated seems pretty shitty (whole countries in the
case of Africa) the world around.
Post by El Castor
As for your source on the subject, William Saletan, he writes for
Slate,a Left Wing site, and he is no geneticist.
Ad hominem alert.
Johnny
2020-06-12 19:09:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:33:33 -0700
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your
mind on that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races
is due to genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the
strength of the evidence. But, you have presented *NO*
evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a
new study finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in
determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that
you have presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences
*BETWEEN* races is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same
thing. [...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done
*WITHIN*, not *BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as
follows. Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as
subjects. Some siblings are identical twins and others are
adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for
each pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised
together by the same parents in the same conditions). That fixed
environment for each pair of siblings let's us determine the
role of genetics by comparing the difference in IQs between
identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as
adoptive siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small
role. But, if identical twins were much closer in IQ than
adoptive siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a dominant
role. And, the studies clearly show the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the
case where the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of
siblings. These studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what
would have happened had the environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs
been different. For example, what would have happened if one
sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice neighborhood and
the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden neighborhood. The
answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence
at all, that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is
due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by
the deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an
inferior environment that is a product of White discrimination?
Am I reading you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where
Asians have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we
do know that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest
everywhere, including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely
genetic (although likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so
much racial IQ continuity around the world.
The way blacks are treated seems pretty shitty (whole countries in
the case of Africa) the world around.
Post by El Castor
As for your source on the subject, William Saletan, he writes for
Slate,a Left Wing site, and he is no geneticist.
Ad hominem alert.
Maybe they are treated shitty because of the way they act. Burning and
looting.

Do you think that's going to make people respect them, and treat them
better?
El Castor
2020-06-13 02:31:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:33:33 -0700
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your
mind on that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races
is due to genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the
strength of the evidence. But, you have presented *NO*
evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a
new study finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in
determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that
you have presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences
*BETWEEN* races is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same
thing. [...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done
*WITHIN*, not *BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as
follows. Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as
subjects. Some siblings are identical twins and others are
adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for
each pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised
together by the same parents in the same conditions). That fixed
environment for each pair of siblings let's us determine the
role of genetics by comparing the difference in IQs between
identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as
adoptive siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small
role. But, if identical twins were much closer in IQ than
adoptive siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a dominant
role. And, the studies clearly show the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the
case where the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of
siblings. These studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what
would have happened had the environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs
been different. For example, what would have happened if one
sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice neighborhood and
the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden neighborhood. The
answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence
at all, that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is
due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by
the deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an
inferior environment that is a product of White discrimination?
Am I reading you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where
Asians have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we
do know that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest
everywhere, including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely
genetic (although likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so
much racial IQ continuity around the world.
The way blacks are treated seems pretty shitty (whole countries in
the case of Africa) the world around.
Post by El Castor
As for your source on the subject, William Saletan, he writes for
Slate,a Left Wing site, and he is no geneticist.
Ad hominem alert.
Maybe they are treated shitty because of the way they act. Burning and
looting.
Do you think that's going to make people respect them, and treat them
better?
How many police, some if them Black and Hispanic have been killed and
injured by the heroes of the Left? Fox just had the sister of a Black
Oakland police officer, murdered by rioters, on the program. George
Floyd, the Left's (and Josh's?) hero of the century, pushed his way
into a pregnant woman's home and held a gun to her stomach while his
friends robbed her. What a wonderful man -- Not!!!
El Castor
2020-06-12 20:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:33:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by the
deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an inferior
environment that is a product of White discrimination? Am I reading
you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
The way blacks are treated seems pretty shitty (whole countries in the
case of Africa) the world around.
Do you choose to live in a predominantly Black neighborhood? No? Why
is that? Crime rate? Or are you just being racist? My guess is crime.
Personally, given a choice, I would prefer not to live where bars on
the windows, and a gun beside the bed, are a necessity. Black people
are not inherently any more evil than anyone else, but with low IQ
comes crime, regardless of race. Racial differences are a product of a
lot of things that we Homo Sapiens have had no control over. Darwin
understood. Whether human or termite it all comes down to survival and
therefore the ability to pass along ones genes. Ancient Greece was a
pleasant place. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a globe and
orbited the sun. Ancient Greece had public clocks, understood the laws
of geometry, created temples and sculptures we still admire today,
constructed odometers to measure the distance between cities, and
built the Antikythera mechanism about 100 BC, an analog computer that
calculated the position of planets and predicted the date of eclipses.
Nearly 2,000 years later Livingstone visited the area around Lake
Victoria. He found three "kingdoms" with no written language, no
calendar, and not even the wheel. Ignorant? Well maybe by our
standards (while Livingstone was visiting, one of the kings had a
servant who annoyed him executed), but they were well suited to
survive in that part of Africa. Evolution is apolitical and just does
its thing.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
As for your source on the subject, William Saletan, he writes for
Slate,a Left Wing site, and he is no geneticist.
Ad hominem alert.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-12 22:24:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:33:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by the
deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an inferior
environment that is a product of White discrimination? Am I reading
you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
The way blacks are treated seems pretty shitty (whole countries in the
case of Africa) the world around.
Do you choose to live in a predominantly Black neighborhood? No? Why
is that? Crime rate?
No one chooses to live in a high crime neighborhood.
Post by El Castor
Or are you just being racist? My guess is crime.
Personally, given a choice, I would prefer not to live where bars on
the windows, and a gun beside the bed, are a necessity. Black people
are not inherently any more evil than anyone else, but with low IQ
comes crime, regardless of race. Racial differences are a product of a
lot of things that we Homo Sapiens have had no control over. Darwin
understood. Whether human or termite it all comes down to survival and
therefore the ability to pass along ones genes.
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
El Castor
2020-06-13 02:42:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:33:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:29:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:05:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:00:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change your mind on
that score.
If you present evidence that the IQ differences between races is due to
genetics, I may or may not be persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
But, you have presented *NO* evidence at all.
"IQ is in the genes
How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study
finds"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/iq-genes
I fully agree that genetics far outweighs parenting in determining IQ.
Post by El Castor
#2 IQ & Race
I fully agree that overall blacks have lower IQs than whites.
So, how is it that I am adamant (and completely correct) that you have
presented *NO* evidence at all that the IQ differences *BETWEEN* races
is due to genetics?
"You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the
genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing.
[...] it’s a mistake because these studies are done *WITHIN*, not
*BETWEEN*, populations."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case.
But, the conclusion that genetics dominates is limited to the case where
the environment is the same *WITHIN* each pair of siblings. These
studies do not tell us *ANYTHING* about what would have happened had the
environment *BETWEEN* sibling pairs been different. For example, what
would have happened if one sibling was raised in a rich family in a nice
neighborhood and the other in a poor family in a crime-ridden
neighborhood. The answer is we have no idea.
And thus, we have no idea, and you have presented *NO* evidence at all,
that the difference in IQ *BETWEEN* blacks and whites is due to genetics.
So, I assume your contention is that Black IQs are depressed by the
deprived environment that Black children are reared in, an inferior
environment that is a product of White discrimination? Am I reading
you correctly?
No. I don't know why overall IQs among blacks are lower than among whites.
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
The way blacks are treated seems pretty shitty (whole countries in the
case of Africa) the world around.
Do you choose to live in a predominantly Black neighborhood? No? Why
is that? Crime rate?
No one chooses to live in a high crime neighborhood.
Post by El Castor
Or are you just being racist? My guess is crime.
Personally, given a choice, I would prefer not to live where bars on
the windows, and a gun beside the bed, are a necessity. Black people
are not inherently any more evil than anyone else, but with low IQ
comes crime, regardless of race. Racial differences are a product of a
lot of things that we Homo Sapiens have had no control over. Darwin
understood. Whether human or termite it all comes down to survival and
therefore the ability to pass along ones genes.
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.

"IQ is genetic"
"The literature is increasingly clear that nature trumps nurture and
that the genetic transmission of IQ is real.
A new series of studies have weighed in on the debate, and findings
have only strengthened the camp of IQ being genetic."
https://www.iq-brain.com/iq-genetic-2/

"Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in
school"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school

"So much for the days of studying hard to be smart. There are a
growing number of studies presenting evidence that our IQ may actually
be largely genetic." "IQ in adults is almost as heritable as height."
https://whatisgenetic.com/2013/07/15/why-iq-is-genetic/
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-13 04:33:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence, or
are you intentionally being ignorant?
Post by El Castor
"IQ is genetic"
"The literature is increasingly clear that nature trumps nurture and
that the genetic transmission of IQ is real.
A new series of studies have weighed in on the debate, and findings
have only strengthened the camp of IQ being genetic."
https://www.iq-brain.com/iq-genetic-2/
"Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in
school"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
"So much for the days of studying hard to be smart. There are a
growing number of studies presenting evidence that our IQ may actually
be largely genetic." "IQ in adults is almost as heritable as height."
https://whatisgenetic.com/2013/07/15/why-iq-is-genetic/
El Castor
2020-06-13 08:09:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence, or
are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you. BTW -- How is it that
22% of Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews who comprise just
2/10ths of 1% of the world's population? Just dumb luck I suppose.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
"IQ is genetic"
"The literature is increasingly clear that nature trumps nurture and
that the genetic transmission of IQ is real.
A new series of studies have weighed in on the debate, and findings
have only strengthened the camp of IQ being genetic."
https://www.iq-brain.com/iq-genetic-2/
"Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in
school"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
"So much for the days of studying hard to be smart. There are a
growing number of studies presenting evidence that our IQ may actually
be largely genetic." "IQ in adults is almost as heritable as height."
https://whatisgenetic.com/2013/07/15/why-iq-is-genetic/
Johnny
2020-06-13 12:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 01:09:55 -0700
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused
by genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence,
or are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you. BTW -- How is it that
22% of Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews who comprise just
2/10ths of 1% of the world's population? Just dumb luck I suppose.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
"IQ is genetic"
"The literature is increasingly clear that nature trumps nurture
and that the genetic transmission of IQ is real.
A new series of studies have weighed in on the debate, and findings
have only strengthened the camp of IQ being genetic."
https://www.iq-brain.com/iq-genetic-2/
"Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do
in school"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
"So much for the days of studying hard to be smart. There are a
growing number of studies presenting evidence that our IQ may
actually be largely genetic." "IQ in adults is almost as heritable
as height."
https://whatisgenetic.com/2013/07/15/why-iq-is-genetic/
Facts don't matter to a liberal. Even if it's true blacks have a lower
IQ and commit more crimes, they blame it on systemic racism. All the
problems the black people have are the fault of white people.

The liberals ignore the burning and looting that have destroyed the
lives of people, including minorities.
El Castor
2020-06-13 17:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 01:09:55 -0700
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused
by genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence,
or are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you. BTW -- How is it that
22% of Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews who comprise just
2/10ths of 1% of the world's population? Just dumb luck I suppose.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
"IQ is genetic"
"The literature is increasingly clear that nature trumps nurture
and that the genetic transmission of IQ is real.
A new series of studies have weighed in on the debate, and findings
have only strengthened the camp of IQ being genetic."
https://www.iq-brain.com/iq-genetic-2/
"Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do
in school"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
"So much for the days of studying hard to be smart. There are a
growing number of studies presenting evidence that our IQ may
actually be largely genetic." "IQ in adults is almost as heritable
as height."
https://whatisgenetic.com/2013/07/15/why-iq-is-genetic/
Facts don't matter to a liberal. Even if it's true blacks have a lower
IQ and commit more crimes, they blame it on systemic racism. All the
problems the black people have are the fault of white people.
The liberals ignore the burning and looting that have destroyed the
lives of people, including minorities.
You noticed that too? (-8
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-13 14:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence, or
are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you.
You didn't answer my question. Let me repeat the detailed explanation, a
bit at a time:

The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.

What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.

If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.

Are we in agreement so far?
El Castor
2020-06-13 18:48:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:27:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence, or
are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you.
You didn't answer my question. Let me repeat the detailed explanation, a
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
Yes, IQ is primarily, but not 100%, genetic. But before you continue
to lead me down your garden path let me say your assumption about IQ
research is wrong and simply intended to reinforce your politically
motivated beliefs. The Slate piece was written by a non-scientist for
a left wing web site with what I suspect was a pre-ordained
conclusion. Real science does not work that way. The subject of IQ has
been approached using a wide variety of methods employed by legitimate
science and the results regarding race and genetic origin have been
confirmed time and again by a broad range of testing methods and
observation. You might prefer a world in which all members of humanity
were stamped from the same mold, and I agree that it might make this a
simpler place to live, but that is not the way it works, and there is
no point in pretending that it does.

The irony is that you are unwittingly the true racist. California will
have an issue on the next statewide ballot which will permit, and even
encourage, race based quotas in school admissions -- rather than the
current race blind merit system. I suspect that you will be an
enthusiastic supporter of race quotas (ie. racism), but please correct
me if I am wrong. Who will most strongly oppose this? The people that
will be the most harmed and discriminated against -- Asian Americans.
For many years San Francisco's Lowell High, a public school aimed at
high achievers headed for college, based its admissions on race quotas
rather than test scores and academic achievement -- so called
"affirmative action". A group of Asian parents sued and won. Lowell
became merit based. Today's student demography is 50.6% Asian, 1.8%
African American, and 18.1% White -- and I would guess that Jews are
strongly represented in the White segment. (-8
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrethlevels.aspx?agglevel=School&year=2019-20&cds=38684783833407

Lowell High, not Slate, is reality.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-13 19:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:27:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
Yes, IQ is primarily, but not 100%, genetic.
OK.
Post by El Castor
But before you continue
to lead me down your garden path let me say your assumption about IQ
research is wrong and simply intended to reinforce your politically
motivated beliefs. The Slate piece was written by a non-scientist for
a left wing web site with what I suspect was a pre-ordained
conclusion.
That's an ad hominem argument, and hence a fallacy.

Are you ready to proceed on the merits?
El Castor
2020-06-13 20:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:03:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:27:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
Yes, IQ is primarily, but not 100%, genetic.
OK.
Post by El Castor
But before you continue
to lead me down your garden path let me say your assumption about IQ
research is wrong and simply intended to reinforce your politically
motivated beliefs. The Slate piece was written by a non-scientist for
a left wing web site with what I suspect was a pre-ordained
conclusion.
That's an ad hominem argument, and hence a fallacy.
Are you ready to proceed on the merits?
We both know it would be a waste of time. We are debating your
politics, not science. I have already posted extensively on the
science of intelligence and been ignored. Nothing I say has even a
remote chance of persuading you to change your mind, so you tell me
why I should bother.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-13 21:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:03:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:27:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
Yes, IQ is primarily, but not 100%, genetic.
OK.
Post by El Castor
But before you continue
to lead me down your garden path let me say your assumption about IQ
research is wrong and simply intended to reinforce your politically
motivated beliefs. The Slate piece was written by a non-scientist for
a left wing web site with what I suspect was a pre-ordained
conclusion.
That's an ad hominem argument, and hence a fallacy.
Are you ready to proceed on the merits?
We both know it would be a waste of time. We are debating your
politics, not science. I have already posted extensively on the
science of intelligence and been ignored.
Not only have I not ignored your posts, I summarized them above as the
basis of where we agree.
El Castor
2020-06-14 06:23:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:45:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:03:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:27:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
Yes, IQ is primarily, but not 100%, genetic.
OK.
Post by El Castor
But before you continue
to lead me down your garden path let me say your assumption about IQ
research is wrong and simply intended to reinforce your politically
motivated beliefs. The Slate piece was written by a non-scientist for
a left wing web site with what I suspect was a pre-ordained
conclusion.
That's an ad hominem argument, and hence a fallacy.
Are you ready to proceed on the merits?
We both know it would be a waste of time. We are debating your
politics, not science. I have already posted extensively on the
science of intelligence and been ignored.
Not only have I not ignored your posts, I summarized them above as the
basis of where we agree.
Please let me summarize my own views, and you can tell me where I am
wrong.

1. In general, IQs of the US population as a whole can be categorized
from high to low as -- Ashkenazi Jew, East Asian, European Caucasian,
Central American Hispanic, African American.

2. Genetics being what it is, median US IQs are generally similar to
those ancestors who remained behind in Europe, Asia, and Africa. For
two reasons African American median IQs of 85 are considerably higher
than that of those who still reside in sub Saharan Africa -- superior
environment, and the introduction of European genes into the African
American Gene pool. However, African American median IQs still lag the
remaining US population by a very significant 14 -17 points. The
trailing edge of the African American bell curve dips into a retarded
zone and although the high side well exceeds 100, it does not extend
into the very highest areas occupied by rival races and ethnicities.

3. So what now? Low IQs are associated with increased criminal
behavior. A significant portion of the Black population does present a
genuine criminal problem, and that is an issue for police to deal
with. No doubt we do need more and stricter rules governing police
behavior, body cams, etc, but the police are not the problem --
criminals are the problem. The police need increased governance, but
they also need our support. By the same token our ancestors created
this problem when they engaged in slavery. The descendants of those
slaves may be better off in the US than they would be in some dank
jungle, but we still owe a debt to our fellow citizens. Paying Black
women to have children is not the answer, and has only made things
worse. Jobs and a restoration of the Black family should be the
primary goal. In the next 30 - 50 years I believe technology will
begin to solve the IQ issue, but in the meantime, jobs and father
figures are badly needed.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-14 19:30:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/13/2020 11:23 PM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}
Post by El Castor
Please let me summarize my own views, and you can tell me where I am
wrong.
1. In general, IQs of the US population as a whole can be categorized
from high to low as -- Ashkenazi Jew, East Asian, European Caucasian,
Central American Hispanic, African American.
2. Genetics being what it is, median US IQs are generally similar to
those ancestors who remained behind in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
You have not presented evidence that the reason IQs are different
between these groups of people is genetics.

Again, the evidence you presented only lets us conclude that the reason
identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have much closer
IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set of parents)
is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental factor) in
determining IQ is very small.

Are you ready to open your mind an understand why the evidence you
presented is limited to that conclusion?
El Castor
2020-06-14 20:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:30:19 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Please let me summarize my own views, and you can tell me where I am
wrong.
1. In general, IQs of the US population as a whole can be categorized
from high to low as -- Ashkenazi Jew, East Asian, European Caucasian,
Central American Hispanic, African American.
2. Genetics being what it is, median US IQs are generally similar to
those ancestors who remained behind in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
You have not presented evidence that the reason IQs are different
between these groups of people is genetics.
Again, the evidence you presented only lets us conclude that the reason
identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have much closer
IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set of parents)
is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental factor) in
determining IQ is very small.
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why the evidence you
presented is limited to that conclusion?
Sigh. Believe what you wish, but intelligence is obviously genetic and
inheritable. I present five wel documented studies. If you have any
questions please direct them to the authors of these studies -- all
highly credible scientists declared to be without a conflict of
interest.

"Results from twin, family and adoption studies are consistent with
general intelligence being highly heritable and genetically stable
throughout the life course."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23358156/

"Genome-wide Association Studies Establish That Human Intelligence Is
Highly Heritable and Polygenic"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21826061/

"Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits. Here,
we highlight five genetic findings that are special to intelligence
differences and that have important implications for its genetic
architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The heritability of
intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in
later adulthood."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25224258/

"A wealth of twin and family studies have provided compelling evidence
for a strong heritable component of both global and specific cognitive
abilities, and for the existence of "generalist genes" responsible for
a large portion of the variance in diverse cognitive abilities."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29376674/

"Ronald Wilson presented the first clear and compelling evidence that
the heritability of IQ increases with age. We propose to call the
phenomenon 'The Wilson Effect' and we document the effect
diagrammatically with key twin and adoption studies, including twins
reared apart, that have been carried out at various ages and in a
large number of different settings. The results show that the
heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years
of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23919982/
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-14 20:47:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/14/2020 1:25 PM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}
Post by El Castor
"Results from twin, family and adoption studies are consistent with
general intelligence being highly heritable and genetically stable
throughout the life course."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23358156/
"Genome-wide Association Studies Establish That Human Intelligence Is
Highly Heritable and Polygenic"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21826061/
"Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits. Here,
we highlight five genetic findings that are special to intelligence
differences and that have important implications for its genetic
architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The heritability of
intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in
later adulthood."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25224258/
"A wealth of twin and family studies have provided compelling evidence
for a strong heritable component of both global and specific cognitive
abilities, and for the existence of "generalist genes" responsible for
a large portion of the variance in diverse cognitive abilities."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29376674/
"Ronald Wilson presented the first clear and compelling evidence that
the heritability of IQ increases with age. We propose to call the
phenomenon 'The Wilson Effect' and we document the effect
diagrammatically with key twin and adoption studies, including twins
reared apart, that have been carried out at various ages and in a
large number of different settings. The results show that the
heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years
of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23919982/
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
and thus are consistent with what I claimed:

"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."

Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
El Castor
2020-06-14 21:50:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
"Results from twin, family and adoption studies are consistent with
general intelligence being highly heritable and genetically stable
throughout the life course."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23358156/
"Genome-wide Association Studies Establish That Human Intelligence Is
Highly Heritable and Polygenic"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21826061/
"Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits. Here,
we highlight five genetic findings that are special to intelligence
differences and that have important implications for its genetic
architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The heritability of
intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in
later adulthood."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25224258/
"A wealth of twin and family studies have provided compelling evidence
for a strong heritable component of both global and specific cognitive
abilities, and for the existence of "generalist genes" responsible for
a large portion of the variance in diverse cognitive abilities."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29376674/
"Ronald Wilson presented the first clear and compelling evidence that
the heritability of IQ increases with age. We propose to call the
phenomenon 'The Wilson Effect' and we document the effect
diagrammatically with key twin and adoption studies, including twins
reared apart, that have been carried out at various ages and in a
large number of different settings. The results show that the
heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years
of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23919982/
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that, as is skin color,
eye color, and countless other human and racial characteristics. Like
many human attributes, intelligence is not a product of a single
genetic sequence. Intelligence is likely a product of thousands of
elements impacting brain size and function. Some of the studies I
quoted have begun to identify individual elements of intelligence
genetics, but understanding the full picture may take many years, if
ever. At any rate, we do know that identifiable races and ethnicities
do have inheritable genetic differences that produce, among other
things, substantial differences in intelligence. That may not be the
way I would like to see the world work, but I accept reality and move
on.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-14 22:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."

Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
El Castor
2020-06-15 06:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not. What is the Ashkenazi secret? Gefilte fish? Matzo ball
soup? Stop hiding it from us!!

I'm sure I told you the story about the discovery of Korean
intelligence. But if not -- a Brit educator was posted to the British
embassy in Korea. He took with him a new thing, an intelligence test.
He thought he would see how much smarter the sons and daughters of the
British diplomats were than the Korean children of the Embassy
employees. I'm sure you can guess the shocking results. (-8

On a lighter note, I saw a good movie last night -- Knives Out, new
but free on Prime. A mystery involving a successful author and his
greedy family. The plot can drag in places, but is one that Agatha
Christie would envy. Possibly one of the best endings in movie
history. One scene had me practically falling on the floor. 97% Rotten
Tomatoes.
islander
2020-06-15 15:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not. What is the Ashkenazi secret? Gefilte fish? Matzo ball
soup? Stop hiding it from us!!
I'm sure I told you the story about the discovery of Korean
intelligence. But if not -- a Brit educator was posted to the British
embassy in Korea. He took with him a new thing, an intelligence test.
He thought he would see how much smarter the sons and daughters of the
British diplomats were than the Korean children of the Embassy
employees. I'm sure you can guess the shocking results. (-8
On a lighter note, I saw a good movie last night -- Knives Out, new
but free on Prime. A mystery involving a successful author and his
greedy family. The plot can drag in places, but is one that Agatha
Christie would envy. Possibly one of the best endings in movie
history. One scene had me practically falling on the floor. 97% Rotten
Tomatoes.
I agree with your opinion of Knives Out. My wife and I watched it and
enjoyed the twists and turns of the plot. I failed to understand the
relevance of the spot of blood on the care-giver's shoe. How did that
convince the investigator that she was innocent from the beginning?
El Castor
2020-06-15 18:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not. What is the Ashkenazi secret? Gefilte fish? Matzo ball
soup? Stop hiding it from us!!
I'm sure I told you the story about the discovery of Korean
intelligence. But if not -- a Brit educator was posted to the British
embassy in Korea. He took with him a new thing, an intelligence test.
He thought he would see how much smarter the sons and daughters of the
British diplomats were than the Korean children of the Embassy
employees. I'm sure you can guess the shocking results. (-8
On a lighter note, I saw a good movie last night -- Knives Out, new
but free on Prime. A mystery involving a successful author and his
greedy family. The plot can drag in places, but is one that Agatha
Christie would envy. Possibly one of the best endings in movie
history. One scene had me practically falling on the floor. 97% Rotten
Tomatoes.
I agree with your opinion of Knives Out. My wife and I watched it and
enjoyed the twists and turns of the plot. I failed to understand the
relevance of the spot of blood on the care-giver's shoe. How did that
convince the investigator that she was innocent from the beginning?
I believe it showed that she was present when he died, and knew how it
happened. I suppose if she had cut his throat there would have been
much more blood. The vomit towards the end was a great touch, as was
the coffee cup. (-8
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-15 15:31:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not.
So, the studies cannot tell us whether genetics trump being locked in a
basement for 10 years when it comes to IQ. Likewise, the studies cannot
tell us whether genetics trump the environment faced by blacks
(discrimination, shitty segregated neighborhoods) when it comes to IQ.
But, you insist the studies do just that.
El Castor
2020-06-15 19:23:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:31:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not.
So, the studies cannot tell us whether genetics trump being locked in a
basement for 10 years when it comes to IQ. Likewise, the studies cannot
tell us whether genetics trump the environment faced by blacks
(discrimination, shitty segregated neighborhoods) when it comes to IQ.
But, you insist the studies do just that.
Nice theory, but pregnant mothers are not locked in a basement for ten
years. Your theory can and should be the subject of a scientific
study, but that is not going to happen for a variety of reasons.

* It would acknowledge the undeniable fact of low African American
intelligence -- an embarrassment to the Left and a career killer for
the researchers promoting the study.

* If it did happen and failed to produce significant results it would
further publicize the genetic nature of low Black IQ, and discredit
the premise behind the study that a remedy existed.

The Left would prefer to just rant and rave and continue to rake in
Black votes. Bottom line, that 85 median IQ is a proven fact, is not
going to change, and it is at the root of Black crime and economic
failure. There is action we can take to aid our Black citizens. The
most obvious is to work to provide good jobs for the many who want to
work and have been displaced in the job market by mostly illegal
Hispanic immigration. Then there is the destruction of the Black
family at the hands of the Left. A Black illegitimacy that stood at
14% in 1940 is today approaching 75%. Black boys are being raised in
project housing without the example of an employed father figure,
other than the drug dealer down on the corner, and find themselves
drawn into a life of crime.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-15 19:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:31:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not.
So, the studies cannot tell us whether genetics trump being locked in a
basement for 10 years when it comes to IQ. Likewise, the studies cannot
tell us whether genetics trump the environment faced by blacks
(discrimination, shitty segregated neighborhoods) when it comes to IQ.
But, you insist the studies do just that.
Nice theory, but pregnant mothers are not locked in a basement for ten
years. Your theory can and should be the subject of a scientific
study, but that is not going to happen for a variety of reasons.
Of course. Which means we should draw *NO* conclusions about whether
being locked in a basement trumps genetics, or whether discrimination,
etc. against blacks trumps genetics because *THE SCIENCE DOES NOT ALLOW
US TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS*. The problem is you have drawn a conclusion
that discrimination does not trump genetics even though the science does
not allow you to do so.
El Castor
2020-06-16 00:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 12:37:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:31:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not.
So, the studies cannot tell us whether genetics trump being locked in a
basement for 10 years when it comes to IQ. Likewise, the studies cannot
tell us whether genetics trump the environment faced by blacks
(discrimination, shitty segregated neighborhoods) when it comes to IQ.
But, you insist the studies do just that.
Nice theory, but pregnant mothers are not locked in a basement for ten
years. Your theory can and should be the subject of a scientific
study, but that is not going to happen for a variety of reasons.
Of course. Which means we should draw *NO* conclusions about whether
being locked in a basement trumps genetics, or whether discrimination,
etc. against blacks trumps genetics because *THE SCIENCE DOES NOT ALLOW
US TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS*. The problem is you have drawn a conclusion
that discrimination does not trump genetics even though the science does
not allow you to do so.
Black poverty is in large part a result of the Left's pro immigration
and subsidized parenting policies. The Left should clean up its act.
Until then, and without more proof than your speculation I see no need
for yet another well intentioned but probably destructive welfare
program, unless and until the following are proven to be insufficient:

Supplemental Nutrion Assistance programs
Child Nutrition Programs
Food Distribution Programs
WIC - Women, Infants, and Children Programs
School Meals Programs
Hunger and Food Security Resources Programs
FNS Nutrition Programs
Etc.
https://www.nutrition.gov/topics/food-assistance-programs
And ...
13 Resources Offering Financial Help for Pregnant Mothers and
families:
Such as ...
Private resources including loans, debt relief, and disability
insurance
Healthcare and income benefits to claim while unemployed
Government paid leave and housing assistance plus grants
Programs offering free money, ultrasounds, and dental care
https://www.growingfamilybenefits.com/financial-assistance-while-pregnant/
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-16 02:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 12:37:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:31:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not.
So, the studies cannot tell us whether genetics trump being locked in a
basement for 10 years when it comes to IQ. Likewise, the studies cannot
tell us whether genetics trump the environment faced by blacks
(discrimination, shitty segregated neighborhoods) when it comes to IQ.
But, you insist the studies do just that.
Nice theory, but pregnant mothers are not locked in a basement for ten
years. Your theory can and should be the subject of a scientific
study, but that is not going to happen for a variety of reasons.
Of course. Which means we should draw *NO* conclusions about whether
being locked in a basement trumps genetics, or whether discrimination,
etc. against blacks trumps genetics because *THE SCIENCE DOES NOT ALLOW
US TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS*. The problem is you have drawn a conclusion
that discrimination does not trump genetics even though the science does
not allow you to do so.
Black poverty is in large part a result of the Left's pro immigration
and subsidized parenting policies. The Left should clean up its act.
Until then, and without more proof than your speculation I see no need
for yet another well intentioned but probably destructive welfare
I didn't call for a welfare program. I called for you to stop saying
that the difference between the races in IQ is genetic because science
does not support that claim.
El Castor
2020-06-16 06:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:31:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 12:37:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:31:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:47:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Indeed, every one of these studies is well documented and highly
credible. We are in agreement there. Also, these are studies of twins,
"the reason identical twins (raised together by one set of parents) have
much closer IQs than adoptive siblings (raised together by another set
of parents) is genetics. The role of the parents (an environmental
factor) in determining IQ is very small."
Are you ready to open your mind an understand why theses studies tell us
nothing about the role of genetics in IQ differences between the races?
I don't understand your problem? Science shows us that IQ is in fact a
genetic trait and a highly heritable one at that
I'm going to proceed as if you answered "yes."
Let's say instead of the studies that have been done, we took pairs of
identical twins, and allowed one in each pair to live a normal life, but
the other in each pair we lock in the basement for 10 years and barely
give them enough food to survive. Do you think genetics would still be
the dominant factor in IQ?
Probably not.
So, the studies cannot tell us whether genetics trump being locked in a
basement for 10 years when it comes to IQ. Likewise, the studies cannot
tell us whether genetics trump the environment faced by blacks
(discrimination, shitty segregated neighborhoods) when it comes to IQ.
But, you insist the studies do just that.
Nice theory, but pregnant mothers are not locked in a basement for ten
years. Your theory can and should be the subject of a scientific
study, but that is not going to happen for a variety of reasons.
Of course. Which means we should draw *NO* conclusions about whether
being locked in a basement trumps genetics, or whether discrimination,
etc. against blacks trumps genetics because *THE SCIENCE DOES NOT ALLOW
US TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS*. The problem is you have drawn a conclusion
that discrimination does not trump genetics even though the science does
not allow you to do so.
Black poverty is in large part a result of the Left's pro immigration
and subsidized parenting policies. The Left should clean up its act.
Until then, and without more proof than your speculation I see no need
for yet another well intentioned but probably destructive welfare
I didn't call for a welfare program. I called for you to stop saying
that the difference between the races in IQ is genetic because science
does not support that claim.
Science does support the claim. The big question is to what degree IQ
is due to genetics. Personally, my reading indicates 40% - 60%,
perhaps higher, but believe what you wish. At any rate the current
median African American IQ is 85, with half of the population below
that number. If you value your life and property I wouldn't advise
moving to an African American neighborhood. I suspect that in the next
50 years science will begin to deal with a wide range of genetic
issues, but not in our lifetimes. Too bad, but that is reality. Time
to accept it and move on.

I suggest we find something else to argue about. This is getting
tiresome. Here's something to brighten your day.

Politico
General Election: Trump vs. Biden
Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_president/
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-16 17:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:31:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I didn't call for a welfare program. I called for you to stop saying
that the difference between the races in IQ is genetic because science
does not support that claim.
Science does support the claim.
I have presented the science, but I cannot make you understand it.
El Castor
2020-06-16 18:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:25:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:31:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I didn't call for a welfare program. I called for you to stop saying
that the difference between the races in IQ is genetic because science
does not support that claim.
Science does support the claim.
I have presented the science, but I cannot make you understand it.
You can't make me do anything. Did you think you could? Your problem
with this issue is not science, but rather your left wing politics. Do
you hear me moaning and groaning about the unfairness and bigotry of
superior East Asian and Ashkenazi intelligence? Of course not! I have
no problem accepting that. It is what it is, and I'm grateful.
Ashkenazi intelligence has given us many important discoveries and 20%
of our Nobel prizes. Good! I whole heartedly regret slavery, but
frankly would you rather be a Black American living in California or a
citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-16 17:41:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/15/2020 11:21 PM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}
Post by El Castor
I suggest we find something else to argue about. This is getting
tiresome. Here's something to brighten your day.
Politico
General Election: Trump vs. Biden
Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_president/
I would feel a lot happier if this were November instead of June.
islander
2020-06-18 13:50:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I suggest we find something else to argue about. This is getting
tiresome. Here's something to brighten your day.
Politico
General Election: Trump vs. Biden
Economist/YouGov    Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_president/
I would feel a lot happier if this were November instead of June.
:)
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-18 15:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I suggest we find something else to argue about. This is getting
tiresome. Here's something to brighten your day.
Politico
General Election: Trump vs. Biden
Economist/YouGov    Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_president/
I would feel a lot happier if this were November instead of June.
:)
This just in from Nate Silver:

"Biden currently leads Trump by “only” 6.6 points in the current
tipping-point state, Minnesota, but this is narrower than Biden’s
9.2-point lead in the national polls."

That means Trump can win the election while losing the popular vote by
up to about 2.5 points (Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by 2 points).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-new-polling-averages-show-biden-leads-trump-by-9-points-nationally/
islander
2020-06-14 13:55:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence, or
are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you.
You didn't answer my question. Let me repeat the detailed explanation, a
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
As an aside...

If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb. They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is not
a major factor in determining IQ. My argument is supported by the many
studies that have shown that development of the fetus is handicapped by
poor nutrition, especially lack of essential nutrients, some kinds of
viral infection that traverse the placenta, exposure to pollution, and
poor or missing prenatal medical care. Even stress for the mother has
been shown to interfere with the development of the fetus. All these
factors are most important during the first trimester when the long
communication paths in the brain needed for IQ are being developed.
Johnny
2020-06-14 14:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 06:55:38 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are
caused by genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly
disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence
for your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not
evidence, or are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you.
You didn't answer my question. Let me repeat the detailed
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as
follows. Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as
subjects. Some siblings are identical twins and others are adopted
siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for
each pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together
by the same parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment
for each pair of siblings let's us determine the role of genetics
by comparing the difference in IQs between identical twins and
adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as
adoptive siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role.
But, if identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And,
the studies clearly show the latter is the case. IQ is primarily
genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
As an aside...
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb. They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is
not a major factor in determining IQ. My argument is supported by
the many studies that have shown that development of the fetus is
handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of essential
nutrients, some kinds of viral infection that traverse the placenta,
exposure to pollution, and poor or missing prenatal medical care.
Even stress for the mother has been shown to interfere with the
development of the fetus. All these factors are most important
during the first trimester when the long communication paths in the
brain needed for IQ are being developed.
You liberals will do anything to explain the difference in the IQ of
blacks, whites and Asians.

I'm sure the factors you listed applied a thousand years ago, to all
races.
El Castor
2020-06-14 19:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 06:55:38 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are
caused by genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly
disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence
for your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not
evidence, or are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you.
You didn't answer my question. Let me repeat the detailed
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as
follows. Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as
subjects. Some siblings are identical twins and others are adopted
siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for
each pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together
by the same parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment
for each pair of siblings let's us determine the role of genetics
by comparing the difference in IQs between identical twins and
adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as
adoptive siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role.
But, if identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And,
the studies clearly show the latter is the case. IQ is primarily
genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
As an aside...
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb. They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is
not a major factor in determining IQ. My argument is supported by
the many studies that have shown that development of the fetus is
handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of essential
nutrients, some kinds of viral infection that traverse the placenta,
exposure to pollution, and poor or missing prenatal medical care.
Even stress for the mother has been shown to interfere with the
development of the fetus. All these factors are most important
during the first trimester when the long communication paths in the
brain needed for IQ are being developed.
You liberals will do anything to explain the difference in the IQ of
blacks, whites and Asians.
I'm sure the factors you listed applied a thousand years ago, to all
races.
No one could contend that South Koreans of our generation had it easy,
and yet our car, TV, washing machine, and the screen I'm looking at --
all Korean. Average South Korean IQ 106

Heres a picture of Seoul South Korea circa 1950 ...
Loading Image...

And today ...
Loading Image...
El Castor
2020-06-14 18:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:33:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:24:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Your continued insistence that lower IQs among blacks are caused by
genetics, in the absence of any evidence, is truly disgusting.
Sorry if you find the truth disgusting. Your problem, not mine.
I have explained in detail why your links below are not evidence for
your claim. Are you unable to understand why they are not evidence, or
are you intentionally being ignorant?
Strange. I was just thinking the same about you.
You didn't answer my question. Let me repeat the detailed explanation, a
The studies that tell us IQ is determined by genetics work as follows.
Pairs of siblings across many families are chosen as subjects. Some
siblings are identical twins and others are adopted siblings.
What is critical about these studies is that the environment for each
pair of siblings is close to being the same (raised together by the same
parents in the same conditions). That fixed environment for each pair of
siblings let's us determine the role of genetics by comparing the
difference in IQs between identical twins and adoptive siblings.
If for example, identical twins differed in IQ just as much as adoptive
siblings, we would conclude genetics plays a small role. But, if
identical twins were much closer in IQ than adoptive siblings, we would
conclude genetics plays a dominant role. And, the studies clearly show
the latter is the case. IQ is primarily genetic.
Are we in agreement so far?
As an aside...
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb. They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is not
a major factor in determining IQ. My argument is supported by the many
studies that have shown that development of the fetus is handicapped by
poor nutrition, especially lack of essential nutrients, some kinds of
viral infection that traverse the placenta, exposure to pollution, and
poor or missing prenatal medical care. Even stress for the mother has
been shown to interfere with the development of the fetus. All these
factors are most important during the first trimester when the long
communication paths in the brain needed for IQ are being developed.
So prove it. Easily accomplished. Explain your theory to former
associates in academia Gather up ten prospective, and not very bright,
Black parents -- should be easy. Measure their IQs. Lavish them in
Jewish or Asian food and luxury, whatever that is, and measure the IQs
of their offspring. Should rival Einstein! If so, your fame would
exceed that of Charles Darwin! But please forgive me if I would prefer
not to hold my breath.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-14 19:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/14/2020 6:55 AM, islander wrote:

{snip}
Post by islander
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb.  They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is not
a major factor in determining IQ.  My argument is supported by the many
studies that have shown that development of the fetus is handicapped by
poor nutrition, especially lack of essential nutrients, some kinds of
viral infection that traverse the placenta, exposure to pollution, and
poor or missing prenatal medical care.  Even stress for the mother has
been shown to interfere with the development of the fetus.  All these
factors are most important during the first trimester when the long
communication paths in the brain needed for IQ are being developed.
Perhaps comparing identical twins (identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) to fraternal twins (not identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) would be sufficient to test your hypothesis?
islander
2020-06-14 21:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb.  They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is
not a major factor in determining IQ.  My argument is supported by the
many studies that have shown that development of the fetus is
handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of essential nutrients,
some kinds of viral infection that traverse the placenta, exposure to
pollution, and poor or missing prenatal medical care.  Even stress for
the mother has been shown to interfere with the development of the
fetus.  All these factors are most important during the first
trimester when the long communication paths in the brain needed for IQ
are being developed.
Perhaps comparing identical twins (identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) to fraternal twins (not identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) would be sufficient to test your hypothesis?
I doubt it. Fraternal twins, while not having identical genes, still
share gene sequences from both mother and father. Fraternal twins sired
by different fathers would produce 50% difference in genes, but since we
have not identified which genes are claimed to produce intelligence, I
doubt that the results would not be conclusive.

What is needed is careful testing of mothers during gestation to
identify possible causes and then systematic follow-up testing of their
children once IQ can be measured. This is possible, but would require
an expensive and long term research project. My best chance of making
progress with this hypothesis is to use the existing studies on low
birth weight infants and the ties to in-utero events and then follow up
with IQ testing once that is possible. More likely, but only if I can
find researchers working in the field who are willing to do the follow
up testing on the populations that they previously used. Not something
that I will be able to do since I'm too old to get the necessary
research grants. So, for now it is just a hypothesis and I have to
satisfy myself by gathering related research. Fortunately, I still have
access to journal publications.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-14 22:41:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb.  They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is
not a major factor in determining IQ.  My argument is supported by
the many studies that have shown that development of the fetus is
handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of essential
nutrients, some kinds of viral infection that traverse the placenta,
exposure to pollution, and poor or missing prenatal medical care.
Even stress for the mother has been shown to interfere with the
development of the fetus.  All these factors are most important
during the first trimester when the long communication paths in the
brain needed for IQ are being developed.
Perhaps comparing identical twins (identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) to fraternal twins (not identical genes, identical
prenatal environment) would be sufficient to test your hypothesis?
I doubt it.  Fraternal twins, while not having identical genes, still
share gene sequences from both mother and father.  Fraternal twins sired
by different fathers would produce 50% difference in genes, but since we
have not identified which genes are claimed to produce intelligence, I
doubt that the results would not be conclusive.
I think such a study would almost certainly help. On average, the
fraternal twins share 50% of their genes (yes, 50% when they have a
common mother and father -
https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/why-siblings-share-around-fifty-percent-their-dna).
That difference is plenty to tease out the impact of the prenatal
environment with a large enough sample size.
El Castor
2020-06-15 06:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb.  They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is
not a major factor in determining IQ.  My argument is supported by
the many studies that have shown that development of the fetus is
handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of essential
nutrients, some kinds of viral infection that traverse the placenta,
exposure to pollution, and poor or missing prenatal medical care.
Even stress for the mother has been shown to interfere with the
development of the fetus.  All these factors are most important
during the first trimester when the long communication paths in the
brain needed for IQ are being developed.
Perhaps comparing identical twins (identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) to fraternal twins (not identical genes, identical
prenatal environment) would be sufficient to test your hypothesis?
I doubt it.  Fraternal twins, while not having identical genes, still
share gene sequences from both mother and father.  Fraternal twins sired
by different fathers would produce 50% difference in genes, but since we
have not identified which genes are claimed to produce intelligence, I
doubt that the results would not be conclusive.
I think such a study would almost certainly help. On average, the
fraternal twins share 50% of their genes (yes, 50% when they have a
common mother and father -
https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/why-siblings-share-around-fifty-percent-their-dna).
That difference is plenty to tease out the impact of the prenatal
environment with a large enough sample size.
You people should quit making excuses and produce something. I'd
suggest starting testing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If
you can turn 78 median IQs into an Ashkenazi 107 - 115, you would have
my undivided attention.
islander
2020-06-15 14:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb.  They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is
not a major factor in determining IQ.  My argument is supported by
the many studies that have shown that development of the fetus is
handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of essential
nutrients, some kinds of viral infection that traverse the placenta,
exposure to pollution, and poor or missing prenatal medical care.
Even stress for the mother has been shown to interfere with the
development of the fetus.  All these factors are most important
during the first trimester when the long communication paths in the
brain needed for IQ are being developed.
Perhaps comparing identical twins (identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) to fraternal twins (not identical genes, identical
prenatal environment) would be sufficient to test your hypothesis?
I doubt it.  Fraternal twins, while not having identical genes, still
share gene sequences from both mother and father.  Fraternal twins sired
by different fathers would produce 50% difference in genes, but since we
have not identified which genes are claimed to produce intelligence, I
doubt that the results would not be conclusive.
I think such a study would almost certainly help. On average, the
fraternal twins share 50% of their genes (yes, 50% when they have a
common mother and father -
https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/why-siblings-share-around-fifty-percent-their-dna).
That difference is plenty to tease out the impact of the prenatal
environment with a large enough sample size.
You people should quit making excuses and produce something. I'd
suggest starting testing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If
you can turn 78 median IQs into an Ashkenazi 107 - 115, you would have
my undivided attention.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is probably a fertile population
for study. Poverty, violence, high fertility rate especially among
teenagers, and poor health care are all linked to low birth weight, a
primary indicator that the fetus has suffered the afflictions of the
mother. There is also an effort to distribute mosquito netting to help
prevent viral infections. I would argue that there is good reason that
their IQ is low.
El Castor
2020-06-15 19:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb.  They only serve to only show
that for identical twins the environment of the child after birth is
not a major factor in determining IQ.  My argument is supported by
the many studies that have shown that development of the fetus is
handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of essential
nutrients, some kinds of viral infection that traverse the placenta,
exposure to pollution, and poor or missing prenatal medical care.
Even stress for the mother has been shown to interfere with the
development of the fetus.  All these factors are most important
during the first trimester when the long communication paths in the
brain needed for IQ are being developed.
Perhaps comparing identical twins (identical genes, identical prenatal
environment) to fraternal twins (not identical genes, identical
prenatal environment) would be sufficient to test your hypothesis?
I doubt it.  Fraternal twins, while not having identical genes, still
share gene sequences from both mother and father.  Fraternal twins sired
by different fathers would produce 50% difference in genes, but since we
have not identified which genes are claimed to produce intelligence, I
doubt that the results would not be conclusive.
I think such a study would almost certainly help. On average, the
fraternal twins share 50% of their genes (yes, 50% when they have a
common mother and father -
https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/why-siblings-share-around-fifty-percent-their-dna).
That difference is plenty to tease out the impact of the prenatal
environment with a large enough sample size.
You people should quit making excuses and produce something. I'd
suggest starting testing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If
you can turn 78 median IQs into an Ashkenazi 107 - 115, you would have
my undivided attention.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is probably a fertile population
for study. Poverty, violence, high fertility rate especially among
teenagers, and poor health care are all linked to low birth weight, a
primary indicator that the fetus has suffered the afflictions of the
mother. There is also an effort to distribute mosquito netting to help
prevent viral infections. I would argue that there is good reason that
their IQ is low.
So use some of my tax dollars to finance a study. Sadly we both know
that is not going to happen. If it did, I believe there would be some
improvement, but not much -- perhaps into the 80's, but I would like
to be proven wrong.
islander
2020-06-15 15:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
If, as I have hypothesized, differences in IQ can be explained by
external factors suffered by the mother during gestation, then twin
studies fail to prove that IQ is genetically determined since twins
share the same environment in the womb.  They only serve to only
show that for identical twins the environment of the child after
birth is not a major factor in determining IQ.  My argument is
supported by the many studies that have shown that development of
the fetus is handicapped by poor nutrition, especially lack of
essential nutrients, some kinds of viral infection that traverse the
placenta, exposure to pollution, and poor or missing prenatal
medical care. Even stress for the mother has been shown to interfere
with the development of the fetus.  All these factors are most
important during the first trimester when the long communication
paths in the brain needed for IQ are being developed.
Perhaps comparing identical twins (identical genes, identical
prenatal environment) to fraternal twins (not identical genes,
identical prenatal environment) would be sufficient to test your
hypothesis?
I doubt it.  Fraternal twins, while not having identical genes, still
share gene sequences from both mother and father.  Fraternal twins
sired by different fathers would produce 50% difference in genes, but
since we have not identified which genes are claimed to produce
intelligence, I doubt that the results would not be conclusive.
I think such a study would almost certainly help. On average, the
fraternal twins share 50% of their genes (yes, 50% when they have a
common mother and father -
https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/why-siblings-share-around-fifty-percent-their-dna).
That difference is plenty to tease out the impact of the prenatal
environment with a large enough sample size.
As you may have concluded in my responses on this topic over the years,
I am not a big fan of twin studies. Sample sizes are small and your
proposal is to look for even smaller needles in the haystack. In
particular, you would need to find cases of fraternal twins sired by
different fathers (not the same father) to maximize the genetic
difference. Even narrower, you would need to find cases where the
mother experienced at least one of the contributing factors influencing
the health of the fetus during the first trimester and you would need to
test the child for IQ when that becomes possible. All very difficult.

Personally, I think that doing follow-up analysis of much larger sample
sizes that were looking for low birth weight and for which causal health
factors during pregnancy may be more productive.
islander
2020-06-13 00:34:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower than
for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing can be done
about it. This is why this belief is often used to discriminate against
the black race. This is not new and Hernstein and Murray added fuel to
the argument with their publication of *The Bell Curve* and other
subsequent publications. Unfortunately, their research was based on a
flawed methodology. They initially used intelligence related scores
used by military training schools and showed that the results were
correlated with race, blacks scoring on average 15 points lower, a
figure that you remind us of frequently.

There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to do a
little research beyond what you have accepted to be true. The
criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments, blaming
social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy. More
fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most fundamental error
in statistical research - correlation does not prove causality. It
might suggest causality, but one needs to look further to rule out other
possibilities.

I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several years now.
Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function of the wiring in the
human brain, specifically, the connectivity that links separate areas of
the brain. The more connectivity, the more easily a person can think
outside the box - seeing relationships between concepts that are not
obvious to everyone. Which figure is not like the other figures, for
example? What is not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite
another example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long connections
are formed early in gestation, typically in the first trimester.

This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important neural
connections. It turns out that there are a number of possible causes.
I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and viral infections here
before, but there are more. There are a lot of things that can go wrong
during pregnancy and fortunately there is a lot of research into the
more severe results.

For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in nutrition
leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional supplements,
mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins, especially B-9. Of
particular note is the effect on development of the sheaf that protects
axons and long nerves. The most severe result is spina bifida, but less
severe results are also possible. It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some medications.

Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to traverse
the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have certainly heard
about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes resulting in microcephaly or
incomplete brain development. It can also be spread through sex. It is
more prevalent in warmer climates. There are other viruses under
investigation as well which may interfere with brain development due to
the competition between the mother and the fetus for resources during
gestation, especially where high fever is involved. It will be
interesting to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19
during pregnancy have children with lower IQ.

Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and many other
chemicals associated with living close to factories or even highways is
believed to cause birth defects. This is why cessation of smoking,
drugs, and alcohol is recommended for pregnant women. It is also why
leaded gasoline is now prohibited in most western countries.

Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect possible
complications that affect not only the mother, but the unborn child.

I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living in
situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates. Black
populations are especially vulnerable.

You can probably also understand that the twin studies that attempt to
prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same environment in
the womb.

I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for example,
diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
El Castor
2020-06-13 05:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower than
for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing can be done
about it. This is why this belief is often used to discriminate against
the black race. This is not new and Hernstein and Murray added fuel to
the argument with their publication of *The Bell Curve* and other
subsequent publications. Unfortunately, their research was based on a
flawed methodology. They initially used intelligence related scores
used by military training schools and showed that the results were
correlated with race, blacks scoring on average 15 points lower, a
figure that you remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to do a
little research beyond what you have accepted to be true. The
criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments, blaming
social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy. More
fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most fundamental error
in statistical research - correlation does not prove causality. It
might suggest causality, but one needs to look further to rule out other
possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several years now.
Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function of the wiring in the
human brain, specifically, the connectivity that links separate areas of
the brain. The more connectivity, the more easily a person can think
outside the box - seeing relationships between concepts that are not
obvious to everyone. Which figure is not like the other figures, for
example? What is not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite
another example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long connections
are formed early in gestation, typically in the first trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important neural
connections. It turns out that there are a number of possible causes.
I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and viral infections here
before, but there are more. There are a lot of things that can go wrong
during pregnancy and fortunately there is a lot of research into the
more severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in nutrition
leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional supplements,
mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins, especially B-9. Of
particular note is the effect on development of the sheaf that protects
axons and long nerves. The most severe result is spina bifida, but less
severe results are also possible. It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to traverse
the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have certainly heard
about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes resulting in microcephaly or
incomplete brain development. It can also be spread through sex. It is
more prevalent in warmer climates. There are other viruses under
investigation as well which may interfere with brain development due to
the competition between the mother and the fetus for resources during
gestation, especially where high fever is involved. It will be
interesting to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19
during pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and many other
chemicals associated with living close to factories or even highways is
believed to cause birth defects. This is why cessation of smoking,
drugs, and alcohol is recommended for pregnant women. It is also why
leaded gasoline is now prohibited in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect possible
complications that affect not only the mother, but the unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living in
situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates. Black
populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that attempt to
prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same environment in
the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for example,
diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For instance in
African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most common.

We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father could
wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A study has
shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can do the same.
islander
2020-06-13 14:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower than
for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing can be done
about it. This is why this belief is often used to discriminate against
the black race. This is not new and Hernstein and Murray added fuel to
the argument with their publication of *The Bell Curve* and other
subsequent publications. Unfortunately, their research was based on a
flawed methodology. They initially used intelligence related scores
used by military training schools and showed that the results were
correlated with race, blacks scoring on average 15 points lower, a
figure that you remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to do a
little research beyond what you have accepted to be true. The
criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments, blaming
social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy. More
fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most fundamental error
in statistical research - correlation does not prove causality. It
might suggest causality, but one needs to look further to rule out other
possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several years now.
Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function of the wiring in the
human brain, specifically, the connectivity that links separate areas of
the brain. The more connectivity, the more easily a person can think
outside the box - seeing relationships between concepts that are not
obvious to everyone. Which figure is not like the other figures, for
example? What is not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite
another example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long connections
are formed early in gestation, typically in the first trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important neural
connections. It turns out that there are a number of possible causes.
I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and viral infections here
before, but there are more. There are a lot of things that can go wrong
during pregnancy and fortunately there is a lot of research into the
more severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in nutrition
leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional supplements,
mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins, especially B-9. Of
particular note is the effect on development of the sheaf that protects
axons and long nerves. The most severe result is spina bifida, but less
severe results are also possible. It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to traverse
the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have certainly heard
about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes resulting in microcephaly or
incomplete brain development. It can also be spread through sex. It is
more prevalent in warmer climates. There are other viruses under
investigation as well which may interfere with brain development due to
the competition between the mother and the fetus for resources during
gestation, especially where high fever is involved. It will be
interesting to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19
during pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and many other
chemicals associated with living close to factories or even highways is
believed to cause birth defects. This is why cessation of smoking,
drugs, and alcohol is recommended for pregnant women. It is also why
leaded gasoline is now prohibited in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect possible
complications that affect not only the mother, but the unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living in
situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates. Black
populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that attempt to
prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same environment in
the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for example,
diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For instance in
African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most common.
We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father could
wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A study has
shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can do the same.
And if you used ear wiggling as a measure to discriminate between
classes of people, you would be wrong in exactly the same way that you
are attempting to use athletic ability to support your argument that a
class of people (black) are inferior due to low IQ. When you use that
argument to support rightist policy on the fundamental rights of black
people, you are moving from discrimination to bigotry. I agree with
Josh that that is disgusting.
Johnny
2020-06-13 14:26:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:16:59 -0700
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where
Asians have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And
we do know that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest
everywhere, including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely
genetic (although likely not entirely) it is curious that we see
so much racial IQ continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower
than for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing can
be done about it. This is why this belief is often used to
discriminate against the black race. This is not new and
Hernstein and Murray added fuel to the argument with their
publication of *The Bell Curve* and other subsequent publications.
Unfortunately, their research was based on a flawed methodology.
They initially used intelligence related scores used by military
training schools and showed that the results were correlated with
race, blacks scoring on average 15 points lower, a figure that you
remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to do a
little research beyond what you have accepted to be true. The
criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments,
blaming social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy.
More fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most
fundamental error in statistical research - correlation does not
prove causality. It might suggest causality, but one needs to
look further to rule out other possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several years
now. Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function of the
wiring in the human brain, specifically, the connectivity that
links separate areas of the brain. The more connectivity, the
more easily a person can think outside the box - seeing
relationships between concepts that are not obvious to everyone.
Which figure is not like the other figures, for example? What is
not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite another
example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long
connections are formed early in gestation, typically in the first
trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important
neural connections. It turns out that there are a number of
possible causes. I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and viral
infections here before, but there are more. There are a lot of
things that can go wrong during pregnancy and fortunately there is
a lot of research into the more severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in
nutrition leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional
supplements, mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins,
especially B-9. Of particular note is the effect on development
of the sheaf that protects axons and long nerves. The most severe
result is spina bifida, but less severe results are also possible.
It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some
medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to
traverse the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have
certainly heard about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes
resulting in microcephaly or incomplete brain development. It can
also be spread through sex. It is more prevalent in warmer
climates. There are other viruses under investigation as well
which may interfere with brain development due to the competition
between the mother and the fetus for resources during gestation,
especially where high fever is involved. It will be interesting
to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19 during
pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and many
other chemicals associated with living close to factories or even
highways is believed to cause birth defects. This is why
cessation of smoking, drugs, and alcohol is recommended for
pregnant women. It is also why leaded gasoline is now prohibited
in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect
possible complications that affect not only the mother, but the
unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living in
situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates. Black
populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that
attempt to prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same
environment in the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for
example, diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For instance in
African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most common.
We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father
could wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A
study has shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can do
the same.
And if you used ear wiggling as a measure to discriminate between
classes of people, you would be wrong in exactly the same way that
you are attempting to use athletic ability to support your argument
that a class of people (black) are inferior due to low IQ. When you
use that argument to support rightist policy on the fundamental
rights of black people, you are moving from discrimination to
bigotry. I agree with Josh that that is disgusting.
What is disgusting the the liberal's acceptance of looting and burning.
It doesn't matter if 18 people have already died because of this
protest. You think the poor black people have right to do this.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-13 14:29:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:16:59 -0700
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where
Asians have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And
we do know that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest
everywhere, including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely
genetic (although likely not entirely) it is curious that we see
so much racial IQ continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower
than for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing can
be done about it. This is why this belief is often used to
discriminate against the black race. This is not new and
Hernstein and Murray added fuel to the argument with their
publication of *The Bell Curve* and other subsequent publications.
Unfortunately, their research was based on a flawed methodology.
They initially used intelligence related scores used by military
training schools and showed that the results were correlated with
race, blacks scoring on average 15 points lower, a figure that you
remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to do a
little research beyond what you have accepted to be true. The
criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments,
blaming social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy.
More fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most
fundamental error in statistical research - correlation does not
prove causality. It might suggest causality, but one needs to
look further to rule out other possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several years
now. Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function of the
wiring in the human brain, specifically, the connectivity that
links separate areas of the brain. The more connectivity, the
more easily a person can think outside the box - seeing
relationships between concepts that are not obvious to everyone.
Which figure is not like the other figures, for example? What is
not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite another
example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long
connections are formed early in gestation, typically in the first
trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important
neural connections. It turns out that there are a number of
possible causes. I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and viral
infections here before, but there are more. There are a lot of
things that can go wrong during pregnancy and fortunately there is
a lot of research into the more severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in
nutrition leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional
supplements, mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins,
especially B-9. Of particular note is the effect on development
of the sheaf that protects axons and long nerves. The most severe
result is spina bifida, but less severe results are also possible.
It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some
medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to
traverse the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have
certainly heard about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes
resulting in microcephaly or incomplete brain development. It can
also be spread through sex. It is more prevalent in warmer
climates. There are other viruses under investigation as well
which may interfere with brain development due to the competition
between the mother and the fetus for resources during gestation,
especially where high fever is involved. It will be interesting
to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19 during
pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and many
other chemicals associated with living close to factories or even
highways is believed to cause birth defects. This is why
cessation of smoking, drugs, and alcohol is recommended for
pregnant women. It is also why leaded gasoline is now prohibited
in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect
possible complications that affect not only the mother, but the
unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living in
situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates. Black
populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that
attempt to prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same
environment in the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for
example, diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For instance in
African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most common.
We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father
could wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A
study has shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can do
the same.
And if you used ear wiggling as a measure to discriminate between
classes of people, you would be wrong in exactly the same way that
you are attempting to use athletic ability to support your argument
that a class of people (black) are inferior due to low IQ. When you
use that argument to support rightist policy on the fundamental
rights of black people, you are moving from discrimination to
bigotry. I agree with Josh that that is disgusting.
What is disgusting the the liberal's acceptance of looting and burning.
It doesn't matter if 18 people have already died because of this
protest. You think the poor black people have right to do this.
Straw man alert.
Johnny
2020-06-13 14:36:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:29:06 -0700
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:16:59 -0700
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in
Europe than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans
have more non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in
Africa where black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the
other hand, are higher than White everywhere, including the
United States where Asians have been the subject of
discrimination in the past. And we do know that Ashkenazi Jew
IQs are consistently the highest everywhere, including Europe
and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although likely not
entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower
than for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing
can be done about it. This is why this belief is often used to
discriminate against the black race. This is not new and
Hernstein and Murray added fuel to the argument with their
publication of *The Bell Curve* and other subsequent
publications. Unfortunately, their research was based on a
flawed methodology. They initially used intelligence related
scores used by military training schools and showed that the
results were correlated with race, blacks scoring on average 15
points lower, a figure that you remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to
do a little research beyond what you have accepted to be true.
The criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments,
blaming social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy.
More fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most
fundamental error in statistical research - correlation does not
prove causality. It might suggest causality, but one needs to
look further to rule out other possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several
years now. Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function
of the wiring in the human brain, specifically, the connectivity
that links separate areas of the brain. The more connectivity,
the more easily a person can think outside the box - seeing
relationships between concepts that are not obvious to everyone.
Which figure is not like the other figures, for example? What is
not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite another
example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long
connections are formed early in gestation, typically in the first
trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important
neural connections. It turns out that there are a number of
possible causes. I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and
viral infections here before, but there are more. There are a
lot of things that can go wrong during pregnancy and fortunately
there is a lot of research into the more severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in
nutrition leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional
supplements, mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins,
especially B-9. Of particular note is the effect on development
of the sheaf that protects axons and long nerves. The most
severe result is spina bifida, but less severe results are also
possible. It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to
traverse the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have
certainly heard about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes
resulting in microcephaly or incomplete brain development. It
can also be spread through sex. It is more prevalent in warmer
climates. There are other viruses under investigation as well
which may interfere with brain development due to the competition
between the mother and the fetus for resources during gestation,
especially where high fever is involved. It will be interesting
to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19 during
pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and
many other chemicals associated with living close to factories
or even highways is believed to cause birth defects. This is why
cessation of smoking, drugs, and alcohol is recommended for
pregnant women. It is also why leaded gasoline is now prohibited
in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect
possible complications that affect not only the mother, but the
unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living
in situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates.
Black populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that
attempt to prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same
environment in the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for
example, diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For instance
in African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most common.
We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father
could wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A
study has shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can do
the same.
And if you used ear wiggling as a measure to discriminate between
classes of people, you would be wrong in exactly the same way that
you are attempting to use athletic ability to support your argument
that a class of people (black) are inferior due to low IQ. When
you use that argument to support rightist policy on the fundamental
rights of black people, you are moving from discrimination to
bigotry. I agree with Josh that that is disgusting.
What is disgusting the the liberal's acceptance of looting and
burning. It doesn't matter if 18 people have already died because
of this protest. You think the poor black people have right to do
this.
Straw man alert.
I don't care what you call it. It's true.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-06-13 14:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:29:06 -0700
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:16:59 -0700
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in
Europe than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans
have more non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in
Africa where black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the
other hand, are higher than White everywhere, including the
United States where Asians have been the subject of
discrimination in the past. And we do know that Ashkenazi Jew
IQs are consistently the highest everywhere, including Europe
and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although likely not
entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower
than for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing
can be done about it. This is why this belief is often used to
discriminate against the black race. This is not new and
Hernstein and Murray added fuel to the argument with their
publication of *The Bell Curve* and other subsequent
publications. Unfortunately, their research was based on a
flawed methodology. They initially used intelligence related
scores used by military training schools and showed that the
results were correlated with race, blacks scoring on average 15
points lower, a figure that you remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to
do a little research beyond what you have accepted to be true.
The criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments,
blaming social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy.
More fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most
fundamental error in statistical research - correlation does not
prove causality. It might suggest causality, but one needs to
look further to rule out other possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several
years now. Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function
of the wiring in the human brain, specifically, the connectivity
that links separate areas of the brain. The more connectivity,
the more easily a person can think outside the box - seeing
relationships between concepts that are not obvious to everyone.
Which figure is not like the other figures, for example? What is
not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite another
example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long
connections are formed early in gestation, typically in the first
trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important
neural connections. It turns out that there are a number of
possible causes. I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and
viral infections here before, but there are more. There are a
lot of things that can go wrong during pregnancy and fortunately
there is a lot of research into the more severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in
nutrition leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional
supplements, mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins,
especially B-9. Of particular note is the effect on development
of the sheaf that protects axons and long nerves. The most
severe result is spina bifida, but less severe results are also
possible. It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to
traverse the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have
certainly heard about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes
resulting in microcephaly or incomplete brain development. It
can also be spread through sex. It is more prevalent in warmer
climates. There are other viruses under investigation as well
which may interfere with brain development due to the competition
between the mother and the fetus for resources during gestation,
especially where high fever is involved. It will be interesting
to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19 during
pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and
many other chemicals associated with living close to factories
or even highways is believed to cause birth defects. This is why
cessation of smoking, drugs, and alcohol is recommended for
pregnant women. It is also why leaded gasoline is now prohibited
in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect
possible complications that affect not only the mother, but the
unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living
in situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates.
Black populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that
attempt to prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same
environment in the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for
example, diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For instance
in African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most common.
We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father
could wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A
study has shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can do
the same.
And if you used ear wiggling as a measure to discriminate between
classes of people, you would be wrong in exactly the same way that
you are attempting to use athletic ability to support your argument
that a class of people (black) are inferior due to low IQ. When
you use that argument to support rightist policy on the fundamental
rights of black people, you are moving from discrimination to
bigotry. I agree with Josh that that is disgusting.
What is disgusting the the liberal's acceptance of looting and
burning. It doesn't matter if 18 people have already died because
of this protest. You think the poor black people have right to do
this.
Straw man alert.
I don't care what you call it. It's true.
It's a "straw man" means it is not true. You need to get out of the Fox
News echo chamber.
Johnny
2020-06-13 15:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:44:13 -0700
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:29:06 -0700
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:16:59 -0700
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in
Europe than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans
have more non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest
in Africa where black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on
the other hand, are higher than White everywhere, including
the United States where Asians have been the subject of
discrimination in the past. And we do know that Ashkenazi Jew
IQs are consistently the highest everywhere, including Europe
and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although likely not
entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is
lower than for other races because if it is due to genetics,
nothing can be done about it. This is why this belief is
often used to discriminate against the black race. This is
not new and Hernstein and Murray added fuel to the argument
with their publication of *The Bell Curve* and other subsequent
publications. Unfortunately, their research was based on a
flawed methodology. They initially used intelligence related
scores used by military training schools and showed that the
results were correlated with race, blacks scoring on average 15
points lower, a figure that you remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to
do a little research beyond what you have accepted to be true.
The criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture
arguments, blaming social issues starting in childhood for the
discrepancy. More fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray
committed the most fundamental error in statistical research -
correlation does not prove causality. It might suggest
causality, but one needs to look further to rule out other
possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several
years now. Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function
of the wiring in the human brain, specifically, the
connectivity that links separate areas of the brain. The more
connectivity, the more easily a person can think outside the
box - seeing relationships between concepts that are not
obvious to everyone. Which figure is not like the other
figures, for example? What is not obvious about a
mathematical relationship, to cite another example? When are
these connections formed? Research over the past two decades
using MRI imaging indicates that these long connections are
formed early in gestation, typically in the first trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these
important neural connections. It turns out that there are a
number of possible causes. I've mentioned nutrition, medical
care, and viral infections here before, but there are more.
There are a lot of things that can go wrong during pregnancy
and fortunately there is a lot of research into the more
severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in
nutrition leading to wide spread recommendations for
nutritional supplements, mainly zinc, vitamin A and the
various B vitamins, especially B-9. Of particular note is the
effect on development of the sheaf that protects axons and
long nerves. The most severe result is spina bifida, but less
severe results are also possible. It is more likely in women
suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to
traverse the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have
certainly heard about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes
resulting in microcephaly or incomplete brain development. It
can also be spread through sex. It is more prevalent in warmer
climates. There are other viruses under investigation as well
which may interfere with brain development due to the
competition between the mother and the fetus for resources
during gestation, especially where high fever is involved. It
will be interesting to see if the children of women suffering
from COVID-19 during pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and
many other chemicals associated with living close to factories
or even highways is believed to cause birth defects. This is
why cessation of smoking, drugs, and alcohol is recommended for
pregnant women. It is also why leaded gasoline is now
prohibited in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect
possible complications that affect not only the mother, but the
unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living
in situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates.
Black populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that
attempt to prove genetic origin fail because twins share the
same environment in the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for
example, diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For
instance in African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most
common.
We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father
could wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A
study has shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can
do the same.
And if you used ear wiggling as a measure to discriminate between
classes of people, you would be wrong in exactly the same way
that you are attempting to use athletic ability to support your
argument that a class of people (black) are inferior due to low
IQ. When you use that argument to support rightist policy on
the fundamental rights of black people, you are moving from
discrimination to bigotry. I agree with Josh that that is
disgusting.
What is disgusting the the liberal's acceptance of looting and
burning. It doesn't matter if 18 people have already died because
of this protest. You think the poor black people have right to do
this.
Straw man alert.
I don't care what you call it. It's true.
It's a "straw man" means it is not true. You need to get out of the
Fox News echo chamber.
It's what I believe is true.
El Castor
2020-06-13 18:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Well we Do know that Black IQs are low everywhere, lower in Europe
than the US, perhaps because US Sub-Saharan Africans have more
non-African genes. Black IQs are by far the lowest in Africa where
black genetics are the purest. Asian IQs, on the other hand, are
higher than White everywhere, including the United States where Asians
have been the subject of discrimination in the past. And we do know
that Ashkenazi Jew IQs are consistently the highest everywhere,
including Europe and the US. If IQ was not largely genetic (although
likely not entirely) it is curious that we see so much racial IQ
continuity around the world.
It is convenient to believe that the IQ of black people is lower than
for other races because if it is due to genetics, nothing can be done
about it. This is why this belief is often used to discriminate against
the black race. This is not new and Hernstein and Murray added fuel to
the argument with their publication of *The Bell Curve* and other
subsequent publications. Unfortunately, their research was based on a
flawed methodology. They initially used intelligence related scores
used by military training schools and showed that the results were
correlated with race, blacks scoring on average 15 points lower, a
figure that you remind us of frequently.
There are numerous criticisms of their research if you care to do a
little research beyond what you have accepted to be true. The
criticisms mostly deal with the nature vs. nurture arguments, blaming
social issues starting in childhood for the discrepancy. More
fundamentally, Hernstein and Murray committed the most fundamental error
in statistical research - correlation does not prove causality. It
might suggest causality, but one needs to look further to rule out other
possibilities.
I've been looking into an alternative hypothesis for several years now.
Simply stated, intelligence is primarily a function of the wiring in the
human brain, specifically, the connectivity that links separate areas of
the brain. The more connectivity, the more easily a person can think
outside the box - seeing relationships between concepts that are not
obvious to everyone. Which figure is not like the other figures, for
example? What is not obvious about a mathematical relationship, to cite
another example? When are these connections formed? Research over the
past two decades using MRI imaging indicates that these long connections
are formed early in gestation, typically in the first trimester.
This prompts me to ask what might interfere with these important neural
connections. It turns out that there are a number of possible causes.
I've mentioned nutrition, medical care, and viral infections here
before, but there are more. There are a lot of things that can go wrong
during pregnancy and fortunately there is a lot of research into the
more severe results.
For example, 15 years ago there was a surge in interest in nutrition
leading to wide spread recommendations for nutritional supplements,
mainly zinc, vitamin A and the various B vitamins, especially B-9. Of
particular note is the effect on development of the sheaf that protects
axons and long nerves. The most severe result is spina bifida, but less
severe results are also possible. It is more likely in women suffering
from diabetes, obesity, increased body temperature and some medications.
Secondly, exposure to some viral infections have been shown to traverse
the placenta and infect the unborn child. You have certainly heard
about the Zita virus spread by mosquitoes resulting in microcephaly or
incomplete brain development. It can also be spread through sex. It is
more prevalent in warmer climates. There are other viruses under
investigation as well which may interfere with brain development due to
the competition between the mother and the fetus for resources during
gestation, especially where high fever is involved. It will be
interesting to see if the children of women suffering from COVID-19
during pregnancy have children with lower IQ.
Thirdly, exposure to pollutants including lead compounds, and many other
chemicals associated with living close to factories or even highways is
believed to cause birth defects. This is why cessation of smoking,
drugs, and alcohol is recommended for pregnant women. It is also why
leaded gasoline is now prohibited in most western countries.
Finally, medical care during pregnancy is essential to detect possible
complications that affect not only the mother, but the unborn child.
I think you can probably see that all of these are more serious
complications for people in poverty and worst for people living in
situations involving discrimination and/or warm climates. Black
populations are especially vulnerable.
You can probably also understand that the twin studies that attempt to
prove genetic origin fail because twins share the same environment in
the womb.
I'm not discounting the possibility of genetic causation, for example,
diabetes vulnerability may be genetic.
There are many disorders that are genetic in origin. For instance in
African Americans, Sickle Cell Anemia is the most common.
We are all products of our amazingly complex genetics. My father could
wiggle his right ear, but only the right, and so can I. A study has
shown that 74% of ear wigglers have a parent that can do the same.
And if you used ear wiggling as a measure to discriminate between
classes of people, you would be wrong in exactly the same way that you
are attempting to use athletic ability to support your argument that a
class of people (black) are inferior due to low IQ. When you use that
argument to support rightist policy on the fundamental rights of black
people, you are moving from discrimination to bigotry. I agree with
Josh that that is disgusting.
Please leave my ear out of this. I was just trying to lighten up the
conversation.
(David P.)
2020-06-11 00:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
By Brie Stimson
Published 3 hours ago
Protesters in Richmond, Va., Tuesday night reportedly pulled down a
statue of Christopher Columbus, spray-painted it, set it on fire and
threw it in a lake.
The vandalism followed a peaceful protest for indigenous people,
according to WWBT-TV.
The statue was torn down using ropes around 9 p.m. in William Byrd
Park and later thrown in nearby Fountain Lake.
The same method was used by protesters to take down a statue of
Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham a few miles away in
Monroe Park on Saturday.
WWBT said on Tuesday night some of the vandals even attacked one of
their photographers, grabbing him, threatening him with boards and
telling him to leave.
The statue’s base was also spray-painted and someone left a cardboard
sign on top of it which read “Columbus represents genocide.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/vandals-pull-down-richmond-christopher-columbus-statue-throw-it-in-lake-following-protest
How long before George Washington and Thomas Jefferson become fair
game -- or maybe they are already? There are currently an estimated 9
million slaves in Africa -- more than 180,000 in Kenya! Yee Gods!!
Could some of Obama's relatives be slave masters? Tear down his
statues IMMEDIATELY!!!!
People like this are never going to be satisfied. Everything in this
country that reminds them of slavery and the founding of the United
States could be destroyed, and they would still want more.
It all comes down to one grim fact, the inability rooted in their
genetics, of many African Americans to function in a modern society.
Statues can be torn down, windows broken, and cops fired, but it's not
going to change, at least not in our lifetimes.
"The number of homicides in Baltimore continues to outpace even last
year’s record-breaking rate, numbers released by the city’s police
department Wednesday show. As of Wednesday morning, there have been
134 homicides in the city in 2020, six more than at the same time in
2019." ... In total, 348 homicides occurred in Baltimore in 2019,
breaking the record for killings per capita in the city and marking
the fifth consecutive year with at least 300 murders within its
borders."
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/06/03/baltimore-2020-homicide-rate-latest/
Nothing will change until we end the War on Drugs!
(David P.)
2020-06-11 00:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
By Brie Stimson
Published 3 hours ago
Protesters in Richmond, Va., Tuesday night reportedly pulled down a
statue of Christopher Columbus, spray-painted it, set it on fire and
threw it in a lake.
The vandalism followed a peaceful protest for indigenous people,
according to WWBT-TV.
The statue was torn down using ropes around 9 p.m. in William Byrd
Park and later thrown in nearby Fountain Lake.
The same method was used by protesters to take down a statue of
Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham a few miles away in
Monroe Park on Saturday.
WWBT said on Tuesday night some of the vandals even attacked one of
their photographers, grabbing him, threatening him with boards and
telling him to leave.
The statue’s base was also spray-painted and someone left a cardboard
sign on top of it which read “Columbus represents genocide.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/vandals-pull-down-richmond-christopher-columbus-statue-throw-it-in-lake-following-protest
How long before George Washington and Thomas Jefferson become fair
game -- or maybe they are already? There are currently an estimated 9
million slaves in Africa -- more than 180,000 in Kenya! Yee Gods!!
Could some of Obama's relatives be slave masters? Tear down his
statues IMMEDIATELY!!!!
People like this are never going to be satisfied. Everything in this
country that reminds them of slavery and the founding of the United
States could be destroyed, and they would still want more.
It's a lot easier to tear down than to build up!
me
2020-06-13 17:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Are we observing the American version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution_Group
Loading...