• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Yoshi vs JordanN Debate Apocalypse Episode 1: "Stop calling Republicans Racists"

Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Theory based on anecdotal evidence:

Asians score higher because their parents drill into them the importance of education and doing well in school above all else. Which is why so many Asians (at least the ones I know in the States) are good with musical instruments like the piano and violin.

It's cultural.

Then again, many African migrants or second generation Africans in the US score higher than most African Americans because of the focus on education.
thats interesting to hear since a few pages ago, some people claim education isnt really a factor in IQ..... schooling isnt going to increase IQ pts.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
It doesn't matter who are discussing it with. You should use the best quality/ most reputable sources as you can. Otherwise why would JordanN or anyone else take you seriously when you openly admit to using unreputable sites to make a point?
Because I did not consider that point one of discussion, but merely clarification of my position. Why would I quote "5 reputable scientific studies" over just the question how I see the term race? If now someone was to challenge me on that and demanded proof it is reasonable, I would do the person the favour of looking up some sources, but as it stands, I did not (and still do not) feel this is time well-invested.
 
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Jordan is probably up by a score of 15 to 1 in the IQ chart wars.

Yoshi, it may seem like people are ganging up on ya. But to be fair wheres all your IQ research articles claiming Jordans charts are bogus.

And more importantly, need a summary from you with evidence Jordan is a racist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AfricanKing

kiiltz

Member
Apr 23, 2019
367
586
375
Which is why so many Asians (at least the ones I know in the States) are good with musical instruments like the piano and violin.

It's cultural.
Mandarin/Cantonese/Vietnamese linguistically have at least four different tones so any type of person proficient in those languages since infancy has essentially been groomed for musical study.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
Wikipedia is not a reputable source. This is taught in schools as early as elementary nowadays. Given the nature of how easily it is to change what is written given whichever political ideology/group is in power at the time.
It also ignores the fact that there are several fields of activist academia spewing out spurious research that is simply not true. Gender Studies being the obvious example, but any <insert> Studies really. I’ve no doubt that this race as a social construct idea came from African Studies. If the word “diaspora” is mentioned it’s a pretty safe bet.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Jordan is probably up by a score of 15 to 1 in the IQ chart wars.

Yoshi, it may seem like people are ganging up on ya. But to be fair wheres all your IQ research articles claiming Jordans charts are bogus.

And more importantly, need a summary from you with evidence Jordan is a racist.
None of my opponents even want to dispute there's a 15 point gap or 5 point gap between the races.

So they actually do admit that the gap exists, but they're trying to convince themselves that the gap is EXCLUSIVELY caused by environment.

I'll be honest and say I was at the same denial stage myself when I was first shown this information. But again, I did more research on this topic and found that there is no scientific reason to believe the gap is not being caused by genetic factors as well.

Once again, we have proof of Men and Women having different physical strength. No one argues all women are malnourished.

We have proof that Blacks do dominate in sports. No one argues they're not being given proper nutrition.

But now, when I show evidence over the past 100 years that gaps in intelligence have remained the same, ONLY THAT is caused by environment for some reason.

No, it doesn't add up. It is not racism. It's not feelings. That is just a fact of life. Human beings are not all the same. From the point of evolution, it is impossible for all animals on the earth to have evolved the same way.

Even if you argue it's environment, then I'm trying to explain that Europe, Africa, Asia and America all have different environments. So what's the difference in trying to claim it's not genetic, when we know for a fact that all continents on earth are different to begin with? Human beings were isolated for thousands of years on different parts of the earth, and so we now saw each race adapt to the needs of where they lived.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
Believe it or not, I do believe the IQ gap can actually be diagnosed.

It wouldn't even be hard. If you select for the highest IQ in a group and encourage them to reproduce more, then after a few generations, you would see their average go up.

This is how evolution worked for humans through out the world. Europeans lived in an environment that selected for intelligence. The humans who couldn't plan for the winters died off.
In Africa, no such pressure had existed.
Interesting theory. How do eskimos compare?
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,060
1,962
1,180
It absolutely is.

People have lived in Africa for thousands of years without ever stepping foot into Europe. You also have Europeans who lived in Europe for thousands of years without stepping into Asia. And people who lived in Asia that never met the Native Americans for thousands of years.

These are races. They have more in common with each other than they do with outside groups.
That is a social distinction, not a scientific one. What we want to know is the relationship between genes and intelligence, and go from that.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Interesting theory. How do eskimos compare?
Eskimos have their own advantage.
They did evolve bigger brains and eyesight due to their environment, but because they're surrounded by permafrost, they didn't have the same resources to build civilizations like Europeans or Asians did.

If you look at where the first human civilizations began, they were all in fertile areas where humans could farm. For Europeans, it was in Mesopotamia. For Native Americans, it was in Mexico.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
Because I did not consider that point one of discussion, but merely clarification of my position. Why would I quote "5 reputable scientific studies" over just the question how I see the term race? If now someone was to challenge me on that and demanded proof it is reasonable, I would do the person the favour of looking up some sources, but as it stands, I did not (and still do not) feel this is time well-invested.
You’re like that grubby little kid who got caught in a lie but instead of owning up to it and learning from it you just keep doubling down and spinning while assuming that you’re so much smarter than your audience that they can’t see through it. I’m getting real sick of your bullshit, Yoshi.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
You’re like that grubby little kid who got caught in a lie but instead of owning up to it and learning from it you just keep doubling down and spinning while assuming that you’re so much smarter than your audience that they can’t see through it. I’m getting real sick of your bullshit, Yoshi.
You might be able to find the ignore function at some point. I do not evne know what you suppose I was "caught" in. Do you think I am of the opinion Wikipedia is a scientific source? You know what I do for a living, together with that piece of information about quoting Wikipedia as a scientific source it will be easy to find me and punch me into the face.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
That is a social distinction, not a scientific one. What we want to know is the relationship between genes and intelligence, and go from that.
Native Americans require DNA tests before they admit people into their tribes. Do you think that's social?

In regards to the relationship of genes and intelligence, where do you want me to begin? There's always a new study coming out everyday of scientists finding genes responsible for intelligence.
 
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
None of my opponents even want to dispute there's a 15 point gap or 5 point gap between the races.

So they actually do admit that the gap exists, but they're trying to convince themselves that the gap is EXCLUSIVELY caused by environment.

I'll be honest and say I was at the same denial stage myself when I was first shown this information. But again, I did more research on this topic and found that there is no scientific reason to believe the gap is not being caused by genetic factors as well.

Once again, we have proof of Men and Women having different physical strength. No one argues all women are malnourished.

We have proof that Blacks do dominate in sports. No one argues they're not being given proper nutrition.

But now, when I show evidence over the past 100 years that gaps in intelligence have remained the same, ONLY THAT is caused by environment for some reason.

No, it doesn't add up. It is not racism. It's not feelings. That is just a fact of life. Human beings are not all the same. From the point of evolution, it is impossible for all animals on the earth to have evolved the same way.

Even if you argue it's environment, then I'm trying to explain that Europe, Africa, Asia and America all have different environments. So what's the difference in trying to claim it's not genetic, when we know for a fact that all continents on earth are different to begin with? Human beings were isolated for thousands of years on different parts of the earth, and so we now saw each race adapt to the needs of where they lived.
It's a losing battle Jordan. Although I hope this thread never ends. I've always been a business major, but have to say all these anthropology charts you find are interesting to look at. There's only so much staring at spreadsheets and SAP you can do in a day.

I don't think most of the people debating you are that that thick.

Deep down, they know in their hearts IQ differences can be both genetic and environmental. They just don't want to admit to any family tree gene stuff because as Yoshi brought up a page or two back about promoting IQ differences leads to people being upset at scores or something.

So it's more about "Ok guys, let's not slam into people's face some people get crappy IQ score". I think he even said something like...... "what good comes from it?" Ok, fair point. He's compassionate and doesn't want people being upset.

Then again, these kinds of scientific reports have been going on for ages for anyone to see on the net for 20 years.

When was the last time anyone (even hardcore skinhead nazis) went around promoting "Whites have higher IQs than Blacks according to studies". Even they don't bother bringing this shit up. So who cares if some groups score higher or lower due to various factors even if some are biological ones.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
It's a losing battle Jordan. Although I hope this thread never ends. I've always been a business major, but have to say all these anthropology charts you find are interesting to look at. There's only so much staring at spreadsheets and SAP you can do in a day.

I don't think most of the people debating you are that that thick.

Deep down, they know in their hearts IQ differences can be both genetic and environmental. They just don't want to admit to any family tree gene stuff because as Yoshi brought up a page or two back about promoting IQ differences leads to people being upset at scores or something.

So it's more about "Ok guys, let's not slam into people's face some people get crappy IQ score". I think he even said something like...... "what good comes from it?" Ok, fair point. He's compassionate and doesn't want people being upset.

Then again, these kinds of scientific reports have been going on for ages for anyone to see on the net for 20 years.

When was the last time anyone (even hardcore skinhead nazis) went around promoting "Whites have higher IQs than Blacks according to studies". Even they don't bother bringing this shit up. So who cares if some groups score higher or lower due to various factors even if some are biological ones.
The "good" that can come from it is cultural inoculation against unfair equity of outcome policies.
 

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
800
740
310
United States
You’re like that grubby little kid who got caught in a lie but instead of owning up to it and learning from it you just keep doubling down and spinning while assuming that you’re so much smarter than your audience that they can’t see through it. I’m getting real sick of your bullshit, Yoshi.
There's gotta be like a free lunch or something at the end of all this... right?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
But races somehow don't exist right? It's all a "construct".
Sounds like a compliment for a minority. Therefore, no whining or complaining by people.

Sometime down the line, post a link saying a minority does something better than a white person, but type in the post the white person does it better. Posting a big image gives all the info away.

I want to see who actually reads the links, and if their view on racist claims changes if it turns out the minority actually does it better making them look good.

By the way, even if this thread dies off.... Yoshi's posts seem to have slowed to a crawl.... please periodically keep post anthropology charts. Don't care if it shows whites better or worse at something. Just good reading.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
So they actually do admit that the gap exists, but they're trying to convince themselves that the gap is EXCLUSIVELY caused by environment.
No, the difference is that we're open to the possibly of the gap being all environmental, and that the data is out. In the end, blacks could have higher average genetic IQs than whites given the same non-genetic factors. Or in the end, whites could have the highest. Or Asians. We don't what the answer will be, and any mainstream scientist in this field admits as much. You outright reject these claims, and so reject mainstream science in favor of fringe science in service to your deeply conservative political lean. You keep waving around your "50-80%" statistic like it actually means anything in relation to the racial gap. That percentage is for heritability between parent and child. That percentage has nothing to do with differences between populations. It's absurd how confused you are on this. Example: Charles Murray thinks the current race gap is all genetic. Does this then mean he thinks the heritability of IQ is 100%? NO. Stop transferring heritability percentages into IQ gap percentages. It is not an interchangeable number.

I'll be honest and say I was at the same denial stage myself when I was first shown this information. But again, I did more research on this topic and found that there is no scientific reason to believe the gap is not being caused by genetic factors as well.
You sound like a fucking flat earther when you say shit like this. "I did more internet research and found out the truth!" Assuming there is a genetic gap, we have no idea how wide or small it will be between populations. Maybe it's 1 or 2 points, making it essentially negligible. Maybe it's more. There is no data that has been under enough controls to satisfy any level of certainty about the role of genetics or environment in the gap.

But now, when I show evidence over the past 100 years that gaps in intelligence have remained the same, ONLY THAT is caused by environment for some reason.
Note to all in this thread: this statement is total horseshit. I encourage you to read stuff by Flynn, or the previous debate I had with him, which addressed said horseshit. I mean, even Charles Murray admits the gap closed in the 20th century. Did he mean from 1900-1919, according to Jordan's "100 years" metric? No, he thinks it went all the way into the 70s. So let it be known: JordanN is significantly more extreme in his stance than Charles Murray, the main proponent of the genetic explanation. This should tell you all you need to know about Jordan's description of the data.

Additionally, Flynn documents IQ race gaps shrinking all the way into the 2000s. Here is a good summary of the Flynn/Murray debate and the general points they make. But let it be clear: the data is still out, and anyone claiming they "know" what the answer is, or that they "know" what the percentage is, is talking out of their ass.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
No, the difference is that we're open to the possibly of the gap being all environmental
Men being physically stronger than Women is not an environmental difference.
Black people dominating at sports is not an environmental difference.

You are just in complete denial of how evolution works. Evolution did not stop at the neck. You want to talk about environment, explain to me how every continent on earth is somehow the same and that humans somehow never changed when they moved away from it?

In the end, blacks could have higher average genetic IQs than whites given the same non-genetic factors. Or in the end, whites could have the highest. Or Asians.
You are talking about hypotheticals and non-existent research. I care about REAL data. Right now, nothing supports what you said.

You keep waving around your "50-80%" statistic like it actually means anything in relation to the racial gap.
No, what I said is 80% of intelligence remains inheritable. The 20% applies to all races.

Assuming there is a genetic gap, we have no idea how wide or small it will be between populations.
Whites score 100 points on average. Asians Score 105 points on average. Blacks score 85 points on average.
This is controlling for both environment and genetics. Remove genetics, and there is only a 20% difference between the gaps.



Note to all in this thread: this statement is total horseshit. I encourage you to read stuff by Flynn, or the previous debate I had with him, which addressed said horseshit. Flynn documents IQ race gaps shrinking all the way into the 2000s.
Wrong. Flynn never said any of the sort.

The results appear to me correct: the magnitude of white/ black IQ differences on Wechsler subtests at any given time is correlated with the g loadings of the subtests; the magnitude of IQ gains over time on subtests is not usually so correlated; the causes of the two phenomena are not the same. I have acknowledged this many times (Flynn, 2008, p. 79; 2012, p.136).
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
Men being physically stronger than Women is not an environmental difference.
Black people dominating at sports is not an environmental difference.

You are just in complete denial of how evolution works. Evolution did not stop at the neck. You want to talk about environment, explain to me how every continent on earth is somehow the same and that humans somehow never changed when they moved away from it?
Changing goal posts ✅


You are talking about hypotheticals and non-existent research. I care about REAL data. Right now, nothing supports what you said.
Admitting your claims are based on significantly incomplete data ✅

Whites score 100 points on average. Asians Score 105 points on average. Blacks score 85 points on average.
This is controlling for both environment and genetics. Remove genetics, and there is only a 20% difference between the gaps.
But then pretending your claims are based on complete data ✅

Once again trying to apply an irrelevant quote about the Flynn effect to an argument about the causes of the race gap ✅

Here is a summary of Flynn literally saying this, since you refuse to read sources that refute your notions:

Flynn believes that the data show that the black/white gap is closing—that the average IQ scores of black Americans are rising faster than those of whites. And he began his talk at AEI by describing a study done by a German psychometrician who tested the IQs of 170 white and 69 half-black children left behind in Germany by American GIs. The average score for the white kids was 97 and 96.5 for the half-black kids. Flynn pointed out that the black German kids would probably have had a harder time in German society, yet they scored almost identically to their white counterparts. If the Eyferth study is right, the differences in IQ cannot be attributed to genetics.

Nevertheless, Flynn noted, in the US the tendency is for the black/white IQ score gap to widen with age. According to Flynn, the average IQ for black four-year olds is 95.4, which drops to 89.4 at age 14 and widens further to 83.4 by age 24. Flynn dismissed the argument that pregnant black women were on average less health conscious than white women. Flynn said that when he looked at the data he could not find evidence that black women smoke or drink more than white women, though black women do tend gain a bit less weight while pregnant which might indicate under-nutrition. Flynn further observed that blacks generally do worse on vocabulary tests and he suggested that a cultural difference might explain it. The children of professionals hear about 2500 different words in a day whereas the children of welfare mothers hear about 600 different words every day. Finally, Flynn believes that the black adolescent subculture that devalues education is largely responsible for widening the IQ gap. "It is more probable than not that the black/white IQ gap results from environmental factors," he declared.

Flynn looks at test scores in the year they are administered without taking account of differences in age, e.g., how blacks and whites of every age who took in the test in 1985 compare. Flynn found that the black/white IQ score gap narrowed by 5.67 points between 1972 and 2002. Thus the IQ gap has fallen from 15 points to about 10 ten points. Flynn and Murray agree that the debate over how best to analyze the data is not settled.
Again, I encourage people to read the sources I quoted. You will see both Murray and Flynn directly refuting what Jordan is saying here, because he's talking out of his ass.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Changing goal posts
Nope.
Your reasoning for IQ gaps being 100% environmental has as much weight in claiming Men & Women only differ in strength because of the environments they grew up in. In other words, hog wash.

Admitting your claims are based on significantly incomplete data
Wrong.

But then pretending your claims are based on complete data
Because they are.

Once again trying to apply an irrelevant quote about the Flynn effect to an argument about the causes of the race gap
The causes are both genetic and environmental.

Again, I encourage people to read the sources I quoted. You will see both Murray and Flynn directly refuting what Jordan is saying here, because he's talking out of his ass.
You didn't read the article.

When his turn came, Charles Murray noted that the black/white IQ score gap did close somewhat during the 20th century, but that the data show that the narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s. "The remaining gap will be with us indefinitely," he concluded.
Murray also observed that the German study of children born to American GIs given such prominence because its findings conform to the beliefs and hopes of those who think that environmental influences are solely responsible for the black/white gap in average IQ scores. However, it is contrary to the vast majority of the literature on racial differences in IQ test scores.
Murray argued that general intelligence, so-called "g," a general factor that governs performance on all cognitive tasks, is highly heritable. He noted that g has a biological background in the brain. He cited differences in glucose metabolism, reaction times, and the volumes of specific grey matter in prefrontal cortices.
Both Flynn and Murray agree that a gap between average black and white scores on IQ tests remains,
Murray, on the other hand, does not believe that there is much evidence that government educational interventions beyond some reasonably adequate level can permanently boost IQ test scores.
Keep it coming, I'm still not done with you yet.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
11 pages.

11 pages straight. No one has been able to debunk or show how I'm "racist".

Let this demonstrate that facts will always win out in the end. I have even done the impossible, and gotten people to post articles for me that prove all my research is right.

There has never been such another feat recorded on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Forget about IQ scores.

Someone should measure Jordan's stamina. He can take on all comers all day and never wilt.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
Because they are.
Here we are, folks. Jordan pretending the data on race gap of IQ is conclusive and settled. Something not even Charles Murray would claim in his best mood. Something refuted directly by the first article I linked in this thread, written by a lifelong IQ-race scientist:

David Reich said:
If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong.
Jordan represents fringe quackery. He wants the data to be complete because he is ideologically invested in being right, and proving the blacks are forever more significantly genetically inferior when it comes to IQ measures. If his irrational certainty isn't evidence of racial bias, I'm not sure what is. In b4 "but asians could be smarter than whites!" Racist white people don't give a single fuck about Asians being smarter, but they sure do seem to care if blacks are dumber.

You didn't read the article. Keep it coming, I'm still not done with you yet.
No, you didn't read what I said, because you don't read closely. I said Murray refutes your absurd "IQ gap hasn't changed in 100 years" statement. You literally quoted him refuting just that in your above quote, as he believes it shrinked into the 70s, which is less than 50 years ago.

And even more absurd, this quote of Murray proceeds from you attempting to quote Flynn. Notice, folks, another complete goalpost switching. Your original quote was an attempt to refute that Flynn thinks the IQ shrinked into the 2000s. This is another example of not only Jordan being wrong, but Jordan lying about what he knows about the data. Here is a quote from the article I linked earlier:

Flynn looks at test scores in the year they are administered without taking account of differences in age, e.g., how blacks and whites of every age who took in the test in 1985 compare. Flynn found that the black/white IQ score gap narrowed by 5.67 points between 1972 and 2002. Thus the IQ gap has fallen from 15 points to about 10 ten points. Flynn and Murray agree that the debate over how best to analyze the data is not settled.
Jordan doesn't read articles against his viewpoint. He skips from point to point after being refuted, just like you witnessed. Avoid his bullshit on IQ. He's invested a lot into it and still ends up on the wrong side of scientific consensus on the matter. What could possibly be his motivation for knowingly and continually pushing misinformation, much of which directly traces to white supremacist sources?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Here we are, folks. Jordan pretending the data on race gap of IQ is conclusive and settled. Something not even Charles Murray would claim in his best mood. Something refuted directly by the first article I linked in this thread, written by a lifelong IQ-race scientist. Jordan represents fringe quakery. He wants the data to be complete because he is ideologically invested in being right, and proving the blacks are forever more significantly genetically inferior when it comes to IQ measures. If his irrational certainty isn't evidence of racial bias, I'm not sure what is. In b4 "but asians could be smarter than whites!" Racist white people don't give a single fuck about Asians being smarter, but they sure do seem to care if blacks are dumber.
Uh what?

It's been 11 pages of no one but me, @StreetsofBeige and @matt404au who even acknowledge that Asians score higher on IQ tests. Everyone else plugged their ears and called me racist because they only want to focus on the Black/White gap.

No, you didn't read what I said, because you don't read closely. I said Murray refutes your absurd "IQ gap hasn't changed in 100 years" statement. You literally quoted him refuting just that in your above quote, as he believes it shrinked into the 70s, which is less than 50 years ago.
I just re-read the article again, I am still correct.

Murray prefers to look at test scores by birth cohorts, e.g., how the scores of white and black 18-year olds stack up to one another. Those data show no closing of the gap on tests administered since the late 1970s. It remains at about 15 IQ points. Flynn looks at test scores in the year they are administered without taking account
The 15 point gap never changed.

In fact, if you read the beginning of the article, you should have picked up on this:

Nevertheless, Flynn noted, in the US the tendency is for the black/white IQ score gap to widen with age. According to Flynn, the average IQ for black four-year olds is 95.4, which drops to 89.4 at age 14 and widens further to 83.4 by age 24.
In other words, did the gap shrink by age? Absolutely. But did the gap shrink once blacks and whites reached adulthood? Nope.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
It's been 11 pages of no one but me, @StreetsofBeige and @matt404au who even acknowledge that Asians score higher on IQ tests. Everyone else plugged their ears and called me racist because they only want to focus on the Black/White gap.
Yes, I know you wield talk of Asian IQ like a shield against accusations of racism. I find it unconvincing. Streets and matt aren't nearly as invested, and aren't posting "science" poached directly from white supremacist sources, and aren't declaring the science settled. You are. Note: you can believe in a genetic IQ gap without posting Nazi skull size shit. But you didn't manage to do that, did you?

I just re-read the article again, I am still correct In fact, if you read the beginning of the article, you should have picked up on this: In other words, did the gap shrunk by age? Absolutely. But did the gap shrink once blacks and whites reached adulthood? Nope.
Dude your math skills are killing me. Let's do it by numbers.

1) You claimed the IQ race gap hasn't shrunk in 100 years.
2) That means there was no shrinking since 1919.
3) Murray says it shrunk all the way to 1970.
4) You were wrong by 51 years, according to your biggest ally, Murray.
5) This means you are not correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Yes, I know you wield talk of Asian IQ like a shield against accusations of racism. I find it unconvincing. Streets and matt aren't nearly as invested, and aren't posting "science" poached directly from white supremacist sources, and aren't declaring the science settled. You are. Note: you can believe in a genetic IQ gap without posting Nazi skull size shit. But you didn't manage to do that, did you?
:ROFLMAO:

Dude your math skills are killing me. Let's do it by numbers.

1) You claimed the IQ race gap hasn't shrunk in 100 years.
2) That means there was no shrinking since 1919.
3) Murray says it shrunk all the way to 1970.
4) You were wrong by 51 years, according to your biggest ally, Murray.
5) This means you are not correct.
Murray looked at the scores and found that both black and white 18 year olds had a gap of 15 points. The same gap that existed in 1919.
You are not reading your own source material. :ROFLMAO:

Murray prefers to look at test scores by birth cohorts, e.g., how the scores of white and black 18-year olds stack up to one another. Those data show no closing of the gap on tests administered since the late 1970s. It remains at about 15 IQ points.
:ROFLMAO:
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I think you guys are going to start killing me with laughter. :ROFLMAO:

I said, the gap didn't change since 1919.
Arkage, goes and grabs an article that says, the gap in 1970 is the same as it was in 1919.

:ROFLMAO:

And this is his best evidence at calling me racist. By proving me right.

:ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
Murray looked at the scores and found that both black and white 18 year olds had a gap of 15 points. The same gap that existed in 1919.
You are not reading your own source material.
The word "since" means "after." There was no closing of the gap "after" the late 1970s. That means from 1970-present. There was closing of the gap prior. He believe that environmental factors helped close the gap up until the 1970s. He literally says this in debates that I've listened to. He believes improved environment stopped having an effect after the late 1970s. Here is a quote from the article:

When his turn came, Charles Murray noted that the black/white IQ score gap did close somewhat during the 20th century, but that the data show that the narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s.
You literally don't know what the fuck any actual mainstream scientists believes, do you? Not even ones on your general side, like Murray. Sad as fuck. It makes me think English isn't your first language. At least then you would have an excuse.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,060
1,962
1,180
ssolitare: races don’t exist

Also ssolitare: everything is racist, give me money
I always knew that you were a dumbass.

Scientists can accurately identify races by looking at your brain.





But but but but, it's social!
What is this supposed to show? Cortical thickness and surface area can change with age and environmental factors. You can probably pull up studies with how it changes due to socioeconomic factors. Next that study is too limited in data (sample size, data points, controls) to be very helpful, and it talks about a casual relationship, and being "accurate" but it's really not that scientific. If anything you could say that they're at the small stages of establishing a correlation.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
The word "since" means "after." There was no closing of the gap "after" the late 1970s. That means from 1970-present. There was closing of the gap prior.
Are we reading a different article?
Where did either Flynn or Murray talk about the gap closing before the 1970s?

If you're saying the gap went from 15 to 0 to 15 again, we should have direct evidence of this.

In the article, Flynn only brought up papers from 1972 to 2002 and that was about the AGES. 18 years old tested back in the 1970s still had a 15-point gap difference.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
Are we reading a different article?
Where did either Flynn or Murray talk about the gap closing before the 1970s?

When his turn came, Charles Murray noted that the black/white IQ score gap did close somewhat during the 20th century, but that the data show that the narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s.
"The narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s." This means there was narrowing (shrinking) from 1900 to ~1970, generally. I read articles and listen to lectures by both Murray and Flynn, and I know their positions. You seem to do neither. Murray thinks the narrowing stopped in 1970s due to his belief that the environmental factors that effect IQ equaled out between whites and blacks around then. Flynn thinks the narrowing continued into the 2000s due to measures of IQ in all age levels, and the generally improving conditions of blacks between 1970-2000s.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
"The narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s." This means there was narrowing (shrinking) from 1919 to ~1970, generally. I read articles and listen to lectures by both Murray and Flynn, and I know their positions. You seem to do neither. Murray thinks the narrowing stopped in 1970s due to his belief that the environmental factors that effect IQ equaled out between whites and blacks around then. Flynn thinks the narrowing continued into the 2000s due to measures of IQ in all age levels, and the generally improving conditions of blacks between 1970-2000s.
Edit: One more time.

In the 1970s, the gap between black and white 18 year olds was 15 points. In 2002, the same gap was again 15-points. In 1919, the gap was again 15 points.

The data that accuses the gap of narrowing includes ALL AGES. It did not say that 18 year old test takers had their gap narrowed. The gap did not change in the past 100 years.

If it did, we would have this information available readily.
 
Last edited:

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,534
1,046
445
deaftourette.com
Edit: One more time.

In the 1970s, the gap between black and white 18 year olds was 15 points. In 2002, the same gap was again 15-points. In 1919, the gap was again 15 points.

The data that accuses the gap of narrowing includes ALL AGES. It did not say that 18 year old test takers had their gap narrowed. The gap did not change in the past 100 years.

If it did, we would have this information available readily.
It's in @Arkage 's post right above yours:

"The narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s." This means there was narrowing (shrinking) from 1900 to ~1970, generally. I read articles and listen to lectures by both Murray and Flynn, and I know their positions. You seem to do neither. Murray thinks the narrowing stopped in 1970s due to his belief that the environmental factors that effect IQ equaled out between whites and blacks around then. Flynn thinks the narrowing continued into the 2000s due to measures of IQ in all age levels, and the generally improving conditions of blacks between 1970-2000s.
In fact, he's posted that same quote numerous times on this page alone!
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
The 1970s was a decade dude. 1970 ~ 1979.

Again, show me where he says the gap narrowed BEFORE the 1970s. There is not a single research out there that makes note of that.
1) Here is the audio of Murray literally saying he agrees the gap narrowed in the 20th century up until the 1970s. That is when "the narrowing" stopped. Flynn thinks it hasn't stopped, and continues to shrink. I really don't know what the fuck you're on about or how else to explain it to you.

Murray's Audio: "Agreement [with Flynn]. The gap did narrow during the 20th century. Flynn and Dickens have done a lot to help change my mind on this..... The narrowing of the gap has stalled since the 1970s." You said Murray does not think the gap closed prior to 1970, when in fact that is exactly what he is saying. He believes it closed during the 20th century up until the 1970s, and then stopped. Basic English 101.

2) You say there is "not a single research (paper)" that talks about pre 70s gap shrinking. Dude. I literally linked you these studies the last time we had this debate. Here is a 50 page paper on it.





Here are the graphs from that paper I linked you before, which you ignored the first time and will assuredly do so again. Flynn also wrote a paper in the 80s talking about the gap closing by a few points from 1940-1960 though I can't find it online.

Additionally, you brought up earlier about how nobody brings any evidence that refutes your points. Well, just for those who have an extra 50 hours to read through papers: Here is a list of over 100 articles that refute JordanN's premise on pretty much every single point he's attempted to make. Skull sizes, male/female, black athletes, Africa/Asia, etc etc, are covered. If you want to just read one shorter general overview article, This one is good.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,808
6,009
755
Because I did not consider that point one of discussion, but merely clarification of my position. Why would I quote "5 reputable scientific studies" over just the question how I see the term race? If now someone was to challenge me on that and demanded proof it is reasonable, I would do the person the favour of looking up some sources, but as it stands, I did not (and still do not) feel this is time well-invested.
It was directly involved with your debate here. That is why.
It also ignores the fact that there are several fields of activist academia spewing out spurious research that is simply not true. Gender Studies being the obvious example, but any <insert> Studies really. I’ve no doubt that this race as a social construct idea came from African Studies. If the word “diaspora” is mentioned it’s a pretty safe bet.
Exactly. Which is why you should try to check the impact factor of the journal first and foremost. While it doesn't always work, it generally tells you what is a more reputable source as seen internationally. Example: Nature or Science tends to be pretty great reputable journals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
It was directly involved with your debate here. That is why.


Exactly. Which is why you should try to check the impact factor of the journal first and foremost. While it doesn't always work, it generally tells you what is a more reputable source as seen internationally. Example: Nature or Science tends to be pretty great reputable journals.
Generally true, but doesn’t really apply to activist academia. The Grievance Studies Affair hoax articles were published in high impact Gender Studies journals.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,808
6,009
755
Generally true, but doesn’t really apply to activist academia. The Grievance Studies Affair hoax articles were published in high impact Gender Studies journals.
True, but Gender STudies journals are considered jokes within academia anyhow - especially to anyone who is a part of hard sciences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
True, but Gender STudies journals are considered jokes within academia anyhow - especially to anyone who is a part of hard sciences.
But not to the media, who have collectively grasped onto the terrible ideas permeating from Grievance Studies, laundered them, and passed them onto the mainstream culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkage

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,808
6,009
755
But not to the media, who have collectively grasped onto the terrible ideas permeating from Grievance Studies, laundered them, and passed them onto the mainstream culture.
Lets be honest. The media has been a joke for decades.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
It's in @Arkage 's post right above yours:



In fact, he's posted that same quote numerous times on this page alone!
No, I just explained this.
The gap includes all ages. Blacks score higher on IQ tests prior to adolescence. But when they got to adulthood, the same 15-point gap remains since 1919.

That's why I said, show me a paper prior to 1970 that said Black IQ scores narrowed. Again, it doesn't make sense that the gap went from 15 points to 0 or equal and then 15 points again.

How does that happen? What's ironic, is that I posted charts that more Blacks are enrolled/graduating higher levels of school, but they went 15 points backwards since 1970? Again, what does this say? That more education did nothing to fix the gap?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Fuck, I can't believe I've gotten into this and read one of these links myself. I had to since I can't believe two people (Jordan and Arkage can somehow be total opposites from the same link).

So reading the link, I had to see for myself! https://reason.com/2006/12/01/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap

Flynn dude
- Black people's IQ scores decrease as they age. 4 year old 95 IQ, 24 year old drops to 83
- Believes it has to do with environmental factors like Black culture not carrying about education as much as others.... Chinese/Jewish kids focus on books, Black families on shooting hoops

""It is more probable than not that the black/white IQ gap results from environmental factors," he declared."


Murray dude
- the White/Black IQ gap started closing, but in the 70s it stalled
- When Blacks had better opportunities and desegregated, IQ scores propped up a lot, but then leveled off, despite recent No Child Left Behind programs
- Believes there is a general intelligence "G factor" having to do cognitive ability due to hereditary traits. After a certain amount of good environment/gov education is reached, IQ scores don't really keep going up

"When his turn came, Charles Murray noted that the black/white IQ score gap did close somewhat during the 20th century, but that the data show that the narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s. "The remaining gap will be with us indefinitely," he concluded. "


(The following I cut and pasted and formatted for easier reading)

Difference in methodology

Both Flynn and Murray agree that a gap between average black and white scores on IQ tests remains, but since they are both looking at the same information, why don't they agree on whether the gap is closing or not? The difference turns on how they slice the data.

Murray calculation
Murray prefers to look at test scores by birth cohorts, e.g., how the scores of white and black 18-year olds stack up to one another. Those data show no closing of the gap on tests administered since the late 1970s. It remains at about 15 IQ points.

Flynn calculation
Flynn looks at test scores in the year they are administered without taking account of differences in age, e.g., how blacks and whites of every age who took in the test in 1985 compare. Flynn found that the black/white IQ score gap narrowed by 5.67 points between 1972 and 2002. Thus the IQ gap has fallen from 15 points to about 10 ten points. Flynn and Murray agree that the debate over how best to analyze the data is not settled.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,534
1,046
445
deaftourette.com
Fuck, I can't believe I've gotten into this and read one of these links myself. I had to since I can't believe two people (Jordan and Arkage can somehow be total opposites from the same link).

So reading the link, I had to see for myself! https://reason.com/2006/12/01/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap

Flynn dude
- Black people's IQ scores decrease as they age. 4 year old 95 IQ, 24 year old drops to 83
- Believes it has to do with environmental factors like Black culture not carrying about education as much as others.... Chinese/Jewish kids focus on books, Black families on shooting hoops

""It is more probable than not that the black/white IQ gap results from environmental factors," he declared."


Murray dude
- the White/Black IQ gap started closing, but in the 70s it stalled
- When Blacks had better opportunities and desegregated, IQ scores propped up a lot, but then leveled off, despite recent No Child Left Behind programs
- Believes there is a general intelligence "G factor" having to do cognitive ability due to hereditary traits. After a certain amount of good environment/gov education is reached, IQ scores don't really keep going up

"When his turn came, Charles Murray noted that the black/white IQ score gap did close somewhat during the 20th century, but that the data show that the narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s. "The remaining gap will be with us indefinitely," he concluded. "


(The following I cut and pasted and formatted for easier reading)

Difference in methodology

Both Flynn and Murray agree that a gap between average black and white scores on IQ tests remains, but since they are both looking at the same information, why don't they agree on whether the gap is closing or not? The difference turns on how they slice the data.

Murray calculation
Murray prefers to look at test scores by birth cohorts, e.g., how the scores of white and black 18-year olds stack up to one another. Those data show no closing of the gap on tests administered since the late 1970s. It remains at about 15 IQ points.

Flynn calculation
Flynn looks at test scores in the year they are administered without taking account of differences in age, e.g., how blacks and whites of every age who took in the test in 1985 compare. Flynn found that the black/white IQ score gap narrowed by 5.67 points between 1972 and 2002. Thus the IQ gap has fallen from 15 points to about 10 ten points. Flynn and Murray agree that the debate over how best to analyze the data is not settled.
I appreciate that you did this... As a mostly observing poster.