• 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"

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
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.
1. I cannot listen to the audio right now, however, I can still tell you why you're wrong.
Once again, in 1919 and even in 1970, we have on record the average black IQ score was 15 points less. These are adult sampled. What happened between these years that you keep claiming narrowed? Even if I have to find it myself, there is nothing to say the scores where ever equal. But not only that, but both Flynn and Murray admitted a 15 point gap still remains and the causes are genetic. So what exactly are you debating? That the gap narrowed but today we are left with a 15 point gap. The same gap from 1919.

2. That is not a chart explaining historical IQ scores. Again, I was even the first to say education has been rising in the U.S but it had next to no effect on curbing the gap in IQ scores.


Edit Ah, my post got cut off. I hate typing on mobile. I had more stuffed typed but it got deleted.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
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.
It should be pretty evident by this point that @JordanN is cherry picking results from heavily biased authors and obsolete data in order to justify his own questionable views on race. His claims are far from scientific consensus, in fact they represent the minority as shown by this meta-study:

Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, whereas other factors such as geography, climate, test bias, and sampling error were less important.
Moreover, the IQ race gap has not been a stable constant over the decades as he falsely proclaims. In fact, IQ differences correlate heavily with family income, social standing, mobility and opportunities:

The first graph gives the results for reading, the second for math. For reading, the black-white gap for the 1943 cohort was approximately double the gap associated with family income. The black-white gap then shrank from substantially more than a standard deviation for the 1943 cohort to roughly a standard deviation for the 1963 cohort to slightly more than half a standard deviation for the 2003 cohort. For math, the black-white gap went from around slightly more than a standard deviation to slightly more than half a standard deviation.



IQ is highly correlated with these measures of academic achievement, so it is almost surely the case that the black-white IQ gap has been very substantially reduced. (The race gap in IQ itself has not to our knowledge been investigated since 2006, when Dickens and Flynn found that it was around 9.5 points, close to what is suggested by Reardon’s achievement data. In the podcast, Murray asserts that the gap is on the order of 15 points.)

It should be noted that the data for 17-year-olds is comparable to the data overall. (The blog post Murray endorses suggests that the test scores of 17-year-olds reflect genetic influence more than the test scores of 10-year-olds.) The reading gap for 17-year-olds was reduced by 9 points between 1975 and 2012; the math gap was reduced by 4.5 points.

It is true that the average SAT score of blacks has not changed over the past 20 years. However, black adolescents are much more likely to take the SAT today than in the 1990s: The number of black people in the US increased by 4 percent from 1996 to 2015, while the number of black SAT takers doubled, far more than the 17 percent increase in the number of white SAT takers. If the average black IQ is increasing, but the black adolescents from the lower portion of the IQ distribution are increasingly likely to take the test, this will result in a static mean score.

In our original post, we pointed out that adoption from a poor home to a well-off home is associated with a 12- to 18-point gain in IQ.

Second, a previous study co-authored by Turkheimer found an adoption effect of only about 4.4 points. However, the magnitude of the increase afforded by adoption depends on the difference between the biological and adoptive homes. This particular adoption study was conducted in Sweden, using children adopted from homes of slightly less than average economic status into homes that were slightly higher than average. Krona for krona, the IQ gains were just about the same. Again, adoption into improved environments, even in a country with a strong social safety net and relatively slight economic differences between the social classes, increases IQ.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,060
1,962
1,180
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.
Somehow I missed this, I thought that I skimmed over it.

You aren't comparing apples to apples.
Most of the thought evolutionary physical differences (lactose intolerance) are what we call drifter genes, they're single variant mutations, they don't derive from natural selection.

Intelligence works in combination of thousands of genes. No single gene has been found that has a significant role in superior intelligence.

Height comes from about 700 genes, each adding not even a millimeter. That's more apples to apples.

Now athletes are the most rigorously selected segment of our population. They are generally genetic and environmental freaks of nature, so to compare the general population to them makes no sense.

Theoretical models are nice, but people are too happy about finding that one or a few things that is different in a population, and saying that it makes difference overall, even though they don't actually know.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I'm back at my computer, and first let me say, after 11 pages, I still remain confident and triumphant as ever. For any viewers watching at home, my morale has not been shaken. Not in the least.

I'll keep going for as long as I need to, but I do want point out a recap of some events in this thread because I don't want people to miss the point of what actually being argued..

-No one has offered a counter rebuttal to how the 15-point gap between Black & Whites does not also have genetic factors. I have gone over many many many times that intelligence remains 80% inheritable. The 20% environmental factors is not a sufficient answer for explaining the entire gap.
-Charles Murray and Flynn were brought up in this thread to prove that thiswas a "narrowing". All my opponents dismiss comments made by both who also regard the gap between black & white to have genetic factors and that it is unlikely that educational factors will somehow resolve this
-I have not been presented IQ models from the 1919 ~ 1970 to somehow explain what exactly was being narrowed. Once again, no one is showing me this data for something that should be very clear cut.
-Instead, I've been presented with charts showing the gap in math and reading. Not only is this not IQ, but once again, why are we not shown a comparison of Asian American trends in the math and reading gap as well? Which also brings me to the next point.
-My opponents dismiss the gap between Asian and White IQ scores. No explanation is even given whether it's environmental or genetic.


Moreover, the IQ race gap has not been a stable constant over the decades as he falsely proclaims. In fact, IQ differences correlate heavily with family income, social standing, mobility and opportunities:
White Americans (or White people in general) do not come from perfect environments. I should have mentioned this earlier.
Considering the major events that happened in the last century, the idea that environment is completely responsible for the gap should also give way or show anomalies in European/White average test scores.

Europe under went two world wars. The Soviet Union starved its population and forced them to live under oppression. In America, the great depression caused great economic sorrow.

Yet what is the average IQ of white people today? What was the average 100 years ago? No where was the white average at 85 or less.

I could say the same about several Asian countries. Again, Asian countries under went their own wars, starvation, had brutal/repressive dictatorial government (some still do! China still remains the largest Communist state with a tight leash on its citizens). But yet, the average IQ of several Asian countries remain higher than Whites.

It is true that the average SAT score of blacks has not changed over the past 20 years. However, black adolescents are much more likely to take the SAT today than in the 1990s: The number of black people in the US increased by 4 percent from 1996 to 2015, while the number of black SAT takers doubled, far more than the 17 percent increase in the number of white SAT takers.
This is not an argument for rising IQ. Especially when universities themselves have been caught having quotas that favor African-American, but discourage Asians.


Intelligence works in combination of thousands of genes. No single gene has been found that has a significant role in superior intelligence.
I do not have to know what genes cause the Bajau people to survive under water longer than the average human.
I do not have to know what genes cause the Eskimo people to have much stronger visual memory skills than the average human.

Intelligence works the same way. We already have too much examples to prove that after environment is controlled for, there are groups of humans who will always score higher on average on IQ test then compared to other groups. It's occam's razor. Intelligence has to come from the brain. It is not something that is bought and paid for. It's a function of the brain.
 
Last edited:

bigedole

Gold Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,601
1,903
655
Austin, TX
@JordanN, is there a similarly seen decrease in the IQ test scores of white children between the ages of 4 and 18? If not, why do you think that phenomenon is observed in black children if it's not environmental?
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
This DESTROYS the argument that whatever you argue is the environment holding back the black score, doesn't explain why the White or Asian score hasn't also been affected to similar levels.
The statistics I've provided don't lie and expressively refute your claim that the IQ race gap is a constant. I've also already shown you that Asians didn't always outperform white people in the US. Between 1940 and 1980 they performed much worse than white in an educational setting.

Yet what is the average IQ of white people today? What was the average 100 years ago? No where was the white average at 85 or less.
That's wrong. The average American IQ was at 67 points in the 1900's. One of the main reasons why people became smarter over these past decades was because of industrialization and access to formal education. Industrialized countries require more complex tasks to be accomplished, hence why people became smarter.

Despite the two world wars, this accumulation of knowledge was not lost, European countries remained industrial and despite the devastation, access to education was still for the most part guaranteed. Furthermore, Europe has a long standing educational tradition, that wasn't simply lost during the wars. Your argument makes no sense at all.

The Flynn Effect should upend some of the smugness among those who have historically done well in global I.Q. standings. For example, while there is still a race gap, black Americans are catching up — and now do significantly better than white Americans of the "greatest generation" did in the 1940s…

Flynn argues that I.Q. is rising because in industrialized societies we give our brains a constant mental workout that builds up what we might call our brain sinews…
If you take a look the the global distribution of IQ averages, you can easily see that industrialized countries with broad access to formal education are leading:



It is not that Africans are genetically disfavored in relation to IQ distribution, it is that industrialization effects have not taken hold there and access to formal education is still very much a problem.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
@JordanN, is there a similarly seen decrease in the IQ test scores of white children between the ages of 4 and 18? If not, why do you think that phenomenon is observed in black children if it's not environmental?
I'll personally look into it but I can give an answer in the mean time.

I actually have read that Black people biologically mature faster than other races. Which would help explain the higher test scores at age 12, but then the gap widens after they reach 18.

Rushton also talked about this too in his studies.

 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
The statistics I've provided don't lie and expressively refute your claim that the IQ race gap is a constant.
I am still waiting for the IQ data sets from 1919 ~ 1970....


I've also already shown you that Asians didn't always outperform white people in the US. Between 1940 and 1980 they performed much worse than white in an educational setting.
Ok, but after the 1980s, they are still outperforming Whites. Why do you think it hasn't dropped down?


strange headache said:
That's wrong. The average American IQ was at 67 points in the 1900's. One of the main reasons why people became smarter over these past decades was because of industrialization and access to formal education. Industrialized countries require more complex tasks to be accomplished, hence why people became smarter.
In 1919, the White IQ average was 100. Claiming 67 tells me the score was not adjusted by modern IQ standards.
Otherwise, that would imply the Black IQ in the 1900s was 52. It doesn't add up.

Despite the two world wars, this accumulation of knowledge was not lost,
But you're aware these people were living in poverty right? Germans were crippled by WW1 debt and the Soviet Union seized all private property in the name of the state. That is the "environment" you decry holds people back.

Furthermore, Europe has a long standing educational tradition, that wasn't simply lost during the wars. Your argument makes no sense at all.
That predates both world wars and the industrial revolution. Yet why would they do that, if they didn't have a genetic reason to?

The Flynn Effect should upend some of the smugness among those who have historically done well in global I.Q. standings. For example, while there is still a race gap, black Americans are catching up — and now do significantly better than white Americans of the "greatest generation" did in the 1940s…
We have records saying that black people 100 years still scored 15 points less than what the White average was back then. Again, this wouldn't be possible if intelligence did not also have a genetic component to it.

It is completely possible for the flynn effect to still happen but the genes responsible for the gap are omnipresent. Everyone's scores went up, but the gap didn't change in the process.

It is not that Africans are genetically disfavored in relation to IQ distribution, it is that industrialization effects have not taken hold there and access to formal education is still very much a problem.
The two do not contradict each other.
We saw the industrial revolution take root first in Europe. It began in London, England. For Asia, they lagged behind at first but they not only caught up but have surpassed Europe in a very short time.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
Rushton also talked about this too in his studies.
We've already established that Rushton relies on obsolete data and a skewed methodology and he's also a frikkin' Nazi sympathizer, which makes him an extremely biased and unreliable source.

I am still waiting for the IQ data sets from 1919 ~ 1970....
The hell you talking about? The statistics range from 1943 to 2001. This should me more than sufficient to prove your claims wrong.

Ok, but after the 1980s, they are still outperforming Whites. Why do you think it hasn't dropped down?
Which doesn't refute my point. If IQ were mainly a biological or genetic constant, we would not see these fluctuations in such a short time between 1940 and 1980. You made the claim that Asians outperform white people due to their genetics, which the data clearly refutes.

In 1919, the White IQ average was 100. Claiming 67 tells me the score was not adjusted by modern IQ standards.
Otherwise, that would imply the Black IQ in the 1900s was 52. It doesn't add up.
That is mere conjecture on your part and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims.

But you're aware these people were living in poverty right? Germans were crippled by WW1 debt and the Soviet Union seized all private property in the name of the state. That is the "environment" you decry holds people back.
None of that sh*t refutes anything I said.

We have records saying that black people 100 years still scored 15 points less than what the White average was back. Again, this wouldn't be possible if intelligence did not also have a genetic component to it.
I've already proven that your 15 points claim is nonsense and that IQ difference between black and white people in the US is far from being a constant. Stop straw-manning, nobody in this thread denies that genetics doesn't have a certain influence on IQ. The question is to what extent. Point is, there is no scientific consensus in that regard, yet you keep regurgitating the same obsolete Nazi sources in order to claim otherwise.

We saw the industrial revolution take root first in Europe. It began in London, England. For Asia, they lagged behind at first but they not only caught up but have surpassed Europe.
Stop generalizing. If you take a look at the global map, it's evident that only China and Japan are leading while the rest of Asia is behind on par or behind western countries. It is also a well known fact that Chinese and Japanese school are a lot harsher than western ones. More over, China started producing steel roughly a thousand years before the the Europeans did. Their iron industry was much more advanced than ours.

Your blatant generalizations and prejudices do you no favor and result in a very reductionist view of the world. Also, you willfully keep ignoring important factors in order to uphold your simplistic assumptions. If only you'd be willing to let go of your silly race realistic view, you'd easily see that things are much more complicated than you assume.

Talking to you is like trying to convince a flat earther, no amount of empirical data is sufficient to detach you from your boneheaded conclusion. You view and explain the world through race alone, much like a militant feminist who views everything through a gender-focused lens. Even when people try pointing out to you how horribly biased and ideologically misguided the authors you rely on are, you still refuse to let goo of them. That's how caught up you are in your own delusions. It's quite frankly embarrassing.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
I would like to see how nutrition (esp. across generations) plays a role here. Poor nutrition in early childhood is linked to deficiencies in mental development, which in turn has an impact on that child's educational prospects. Magnify that problem across several generations and I wonder what happens. The crux would be determining if the nutritional factors leading to mental deficiencies are more prevalent across generations in the black community.

There are studies blaming things like the 'Southern diet' for the higher incidence of health issues among the USA's black citizens, but I think it runs deeper than that. Over the past 80 years, we've gotten really, really good at producing huge volumes of cheap ingredients like sugar, flour, and meat. Certainly good enough to fill a belly, but lacking in nutrition. What do you think our poor communities are eating, expensive food or cheap food?

Switching to a high-fat junkfood diet lowered cognitive abilities in 9 days. High-sugar diet is also directly linked to a lower IQ. The overload of processed fats, sugars, and chemicals in early childhood is linked to poor IQ.

We're eating ourselves stupid, so to speak. I've been on foodstamps before. I know what it means to stretch that $$ as far as you can. I see what the poor black people (and poor people in general) fill their grocery carts with and it is highly-processed, highly-sugared, high-fat garbo.

So, what affect would this have on a community over the course of many generations? It certainly wouldn't raise their IQ, and since the diet of the parents (especially the mother but surprisingly the father too) has a direct affect on prenatal development, the impact would be passed from generation to generation unless corrected. Our black citizens are more likely to be obese and unlike other communities there isn't nearly as much cultural shame toward obesity.

On the opposite end of poor nutrition, we know that many vitamins and food-based compounds have a direct affect on protecting and improving brain health. Omega-3; sulforaphane; adequate magnesium, zinc, B-complex vitamins, vitamin C, D, and E; anthocyanins; lutein and zeaxanthin; choline; catechins and l-theanine; and nootropic foods such as lion's mane mushrooms. Your typical packaged, food-stamp-affordable groceries are low or lacking in all of these.

One might argue "why aren't poor white people suffering from lower IQ?" (even though they are), and I would ask if the conditions for the comparison are the same, especially since we are widening the window to several generations?

Evidence points to the extreme malleability of the human body, including our brains. Growing up I remember hearing from some older folks that "you shouldn't drink alcohol 'cause it kills brain cells, and brain cells never grow back", but we now know that is incorrect. I do wonder how effective a focused nutritional regimen would have on these low-IQ demographics, and I wonder if statistics might be reversed within a few generations.

While we might compare races, it is the case that we are only comparing a snapshot of races across a handful of generations (in the grand scheme of things). If there are factors involved that could affect multiple generations, then we have to account for those before chalking it up to "genetics" and "race".
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
We've already established that Rushton relies on obsolete data and a skewed methodology and he's also a frikkin' Nazi sympathizer, which makes him an extremely biased and unreliable source.



The hell you talking about? The statistics range from 1943 to 2001. This should me more than sufficient to prove your claims wrong.



Which doesn't refute my point. If IQ were mainly a biological or genetic constant, we would not see these fluctuations in such a short time between 1940 and 1980. You made the claim that Asians outperform white people due to their genetics, which the data clearly refutes.



That is mere conjecture on your part and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims.



None of that sh*t refutes anything I said.



I've already proven that your 15 points claim is nonsense and that IQ difference between black and white people in the US is far from being a constant. Stop straw-manning, nobody in this thread denies that genetics doesn't have a certain influence on IQ. The question is to what extent. Point is, there is no scientific consensus in that regard, yet you keep regurgitating the same obsolete Nazi sources in order to claim otherwise.



Stop generalizing. If you take a look at the global map, it's evident that only China and Japan are leading while the rest of Asia is behind on par or behind western countries. It is also a well known fact that Chinese and Japanese school are a lot harsher than western ones. More over, China started producing steel roughly a thousand years before the the Europeans did. Their iron industry was much more advanced than ours.

Your blatant generalizations and prejudices do you no favor and result in a very reductionist view of the world. Also, you willfully keep ignoring important factors in order to uphold your simplistic assumptions. If only you'd be willing to let go of your silly race realistic view, you'd easily see that things are much more complicated than you assume.

Talking to you is like trying to convince a flat earther, no amount of empirical data is sufficient to detach you from your boneheaded conclusion. You view and explain the world through race alone, much like a militant feminist who views everything through a gender-focused lens. Even when people try pointing out to you how horribly biased and ideologically misguided the authors you rely on are, you still refuse to let goo of them. That's how caught up you are in your own delusions. It's quite frankly embarrassing.
At some point I think everyone has said IQ is a combo of genes and environment.

So if that is the case, why is everyone debating again?

Because people cant decide on whether an 80/20, 50/50 or a 99.9/0.1 ratio is the perfect gene/environment split?
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
At some point I think everyone has said IQ is a combo of genes and environment.

So if that is the case, why is everyone debating again?

Because people cant decide on whether an 80/20, 50/50 or a 99.9/0.1 ratio is the perfect gene/environment split?
Because the fact that IQ is dependant on genes and environment does not establish that blacks have a gentic handicap when it comes to IQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
We've already established that Ruhston relies on obsolete data and a skewed methodology
You didn't establish anything. I just checked your link, nothing there says his research on race & IQ is obsolete/skewed.

The hell you talking about? The statistics range from 1943 to 2001.
What statistics? Again, show me the IQ data sets, not "reading and math coherts". You refuse to do this.

Which doesn't refute my point. If IQ were merely a biological or genetic constant, we would not see these fluctuations in such a short time between 1940 and 1980. You made the claim that Asians outperform white people due to their genetics, which the data clearly refutes.
We see the same fluctuations in their countries. Japan, South Korea, China were behind Europe at one point but pretty much after the 1950s, they've all caught up in some capacity.
If anything, when it's argued that genes play a role in the intelligence gap, it's really telling us how fast a group can adapt or understand something.

Case and point, Germany went from being a whole nation to split in two (East & West Germany) and then united again the 1990s. Even after communism screwed over the Eastern half, the German people did not actually see it as a challenge to unify and today the country is 100% operational again.

South Korea shows what kind of future North Korea would have if it wasn't ruled by a dictatorship. The two countries could also merge one day but no one would really say that Korean genes suddenly changed in just 50 years. The people were always the same, just a bad idealogy held the other back.

Even if Asians in the past were not excelling in all categories, we have seen them rapidly climb the ranks and now outpace White Americans in the same countries. That is what IQ can easily explain for. If you want to use the same example for Black Americans, the gap has never narrowed as fast. For all intents and purpose, if the average IQ is 85, then we can predict there is a much bigger uphill climb compared to Asians who do lean closer to 105.

That is mere conjecture on your part and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims.
An IQ of 67 would imply most Americans were mentally impaired in the 1900s. Given what we know about real IQ ceilings, that would imply they were not fit for the Army (which requires a minimum of 85).
It is not an adjusted score to match modern context.



None of that sh*t refutes anything I said.
If you blame IQ gaps on environment, then why are you bringing up knowledge? I thought you were the people who believed that nutrition,poverty,oppression had negative effects, now it's just lacking education that explains everything?

So again, when the Russians were starving or when the Germans were forced into bankruptcy, why didn't their average IQ's drop?

I also explained that Europeans still had a tradition of "knowledge" prior to the industrial revolution. Again, why or how would they reach this without some sort of genetic explanation? Why do you think the industrial revolution began in Europe first and not anywhere else?

I've already proven that your 15 points claim is nonsense and that IQ difference between black and white people in the US is far from being a constant.
How?
-You did not bring up any IQ data sets
-Charles Murray and Flynn already admitted there was a 15-point gap since the 1970s anyway
-The also claim that this gap was not going to change with "more education". They believe genetic causes are now in play after controlling for environment.

You could wince and moan all day, the above 3 points will still continue to haunt you unless you provide a direct answer.


Stop generalizing. If you take a look at the global map, it's evident that only China and Japan are leading while the rest of Asia is behind on par or behind western countries. It is also a well known fact that Chinese and Japanese school are a lot harsher than western ones. More over, China started producing steel roughly a thousand years before the the Europeans did. Their iron industry was much more advanced than ours.
China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore. Are these not the same countries with average IQs of 105 or more?

Talking to you is like trying to convince a flat earther, no amount of empirical data is sufficient to detach you from your boneheaded conclusion. You view and explain the world through race alone, much like a militant feminist who views everything through a gender-focused lens. It's quite frankly embarrassing.
That's a lot of whining for someone who lacks a lot of points to back them up.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
I'd like someone to please handwave my questions about nutrition, since we know it has been a factor for black people around the world for more than a few generations. In order to be scientific about this debate, we need to properly control for variables, not just search for more papers that affirm our conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Because the fact that IQ is dependant on genes and environment does not establish that blacks have a gentic handicap when it comes to IQ.
I dont know about that.

Pretty sure you have said genes play a part, and jordan has said environment can also plays a part.

It seems that people arent agreeing on the skew or split and are using whatever scientific articles to build a case.

Jordan seems heavy in gene skew, you are heavy on environmental skew.

Unless I missed it, I dont think there is one person who has claimed it is 100% one of the other.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
One might argue "why aren't poor white people suffering from lower IQ?" (even though they are), and I would ask if the conditions for the comparison are the same, especially since we are widening the window to several generations?
Edit: I did research and found out that the state with the poorest White people, still had an average IQ of 98 (West Virignia). The richest state is Massachusetts with an average IQ at 104.

So while there is a gap, it's still not as wide as the black-white gap (which is 15 points).


 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I dont know about that.

Pretty sure you have said genes play a part, and jordan has said environment can also plays a part.

It seems that people arent agreeing on the skew or split and are using whatever scientific articles to build a case.

Jordan seems heavy in gene skew, you are heavy on environmental skew.

Unless I missed it, I dont think there is one person who has claimed it is 100% one of the other.
I have no opinions on how big the share of either is. But from the (disputable) data that JordanN uses in terms of blacks being on average less intelligent, it cannot be deduced (even if they were correct and did not AGAIN come from a neonazi) that THIS differential is genetically caused.

Explanation:
the sum C of A and B is equally dependant on A and B. If you find C is lower than expected, then you have in information whether A or B is lower than you'd have expected.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
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.

IQ can go down through head injury, toxins, disease, neglect, but it can't go meaninfully up.

The Flynn effect is petering out and in fact it seems iq scores are starting to fall in many countries.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I'd like someone to please handwave my questions about nutrition, since we know it has been a factor for black people around the world for more than a few generations. In order to be scientific about this debate, we need to properly control for variables, not just search for more papers that affirm our conclusions.
If nutrition was a problem, then how do we still see so many black athletes (and being the best at their fields)?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
If genetics was a problem, then how do we still see so many black scientists (and being the best at their fields)?
No one ever said black people can't be scientists. Show me who said that.

This is why it's important to understand averages.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
I have no opinions on how big the share of either is. But from the (disputable) data that JordanN uses in terms of blacks being on average less intelligent, it cannot be deduced (even if they were correct and did not AGAIN come from a neonazi) that THIS differential is genetically caused.

Explanation:
the sum C of A and B is equally dependant on A and B. If you find C is lower than expected, then you have in information whether A or B is lower than you'd have expected.
Something like this has many variables there will never be a perfect formula.

Its like climate change. Everyone has their own hypothesis why global temperatures have increased like half a pt the past 100 years. Unless someone mindmelds with mother nature, im pretty sure in the year 5000 nobody will still have figured out a perfect formula.

But what is known is a gap, and some reseachers giving their theories.

Personally I think there is gene component, but skewing smaller than environment. Thats purely a guess.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
If nutrition was a problem, then how do we still see so many black athletes (and being the best at their fields)?
A high-calorie, high-protein, high-fat, high-sugar diet (like I described above in detail) is a great way to grow muscle tissue, whether it is for the purpose of large cattle or large humans.

There isn't much crossover between the nutrition required to build bones and lean muscle and the nutrition required to develop a high-functioning brain. Furthermore, gut health plays a massive role in cognition and the cheap foods I mentioned have been shown to promote gut bacteria that hinders brain function. Conversely, foods that support beneficial gut bacteria have been shown to improve mood and improve brain health.

Believe it or not, you can be a great athlete yet suffer from a low IQ due to malnutrition, especially if the malnutrition starts in childhood.

Also, huge missed opportunity to ask "if carbs were such a problem, why are Asians so smart?", but alas, others like @strange headache have already pointed out the actual trend for Asians over the past 100 years.

EDIT: as a quick edit, your question doesn't actually refute what I posted about nutrition.

Be a scientist, JordanN. Follow the facts. Show me how the nutrition variable cannot lead to the statistics you keep waving around.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
So you understand that top athletes may eat much better than average black people and that this has little bearing on the nutrition of the average black person? Your argument that nutrition is at fault is faulty.
Since when did every athelete become a "top"? Do you apply this logic to every job in existence?
Edit: And why would only athletes want to eat healthy? Shouldn't that be the goal of everyone who has money is to look after their own body vs intentionally junking it?
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
You didn't establish anything. I just checked your link, nothing there says his research on race & IQ is obsolete/skewed.
I'd say it's safe to assume that a Nazi sympathizer is not a good source to rely on when it comes to race related issues. As to his methods, there are many studies refuting his approach:

We find that the methods employed and data obtained by the cited studies are seriously flawed. Additional studies not cited by Rushton suggest a different ordering of brain size than that concluded by him. Strained logic, a failure to take into account alternative explanations, and contrary data seriously limit Rushton's effort. We conclude that there is no credible evidence to support Rushton's claimed relation between race, brain size, and intelligence.
Or this one:

Refutation is accomplished through analysis of the causal chain governing explicit theory and unstated assumptions; documentation of inadequate, spurious and misapplied data sources; and demonstration of scientifically unacceptable methodology.
Or this:

First, they did not explain why natural selection would have favored different reproductive strategies for different races. Second, their data on race differences are of questionable validity because their literature review was selective and their original analyses were based on self-reports. Third, they provided no evidence that these race differences had significant effects on reproduction or that sexual restraint is a K characteristic. Finally, they did not adequately rule out environmental explanations for their data.
I could go on and on and on...


What statistics? Again, show me the IQ data sets, not "reading and math coherts". You refuse to do this.
@Arkage already linked you the full study, which you conveniently ignored. ou're being willfully obtuse because you have nothing to counter with.

We see the same fluctuations in their countries. Japan, South Korea, China were behind Europe at one point but pretty much after the 1950s, they've all caught up in some capacity.
If anything, when it's argued that genes play a role in the intelligence gap, it's really telling us how fast a group can adapt or understand something.
The fact that we see these rapid fluctuations merely shows how important environmental factors are because biological factors don't change that quickly.

Case and point, Germany went from being a whole nation to split in two (East & West Germany) and then united again the 1990s. Even after communism screwed over the Eastern half, the German people did not actually see it as a challenge to unify and today the country is 100% operational again.

South Korea shows what kind of future North Korea would have if it wasn't ruled by a dictatorship. The two countries could also merge one day but no one would really say that Korean genes suddenly changed in just 50 years. The people were always the same, just a bad idealogy held the other back.
None of that sh*t has anything to do with what is being discussed!

Even if Asians in the past were not excelling in all categories, we have seen them rapidly climb the ranks and now outpace White Americans in the same countries. That is what IQ can easily explain for. If you want to use the same example for Black Americans, the gap has never narrowed as fast. For all intents and purpose, if the average IQ is 85, then we can predict there is a much bigger uphill climb compared to Asians who do lean closer to 105.
The mere fact that these gaps are narrowing and changing proves that IQ is not a mere genetic constant. As already explained to you, Asians perform better because their social opportunities changed in the over the past decades. They also have a different educational culture and attitude, that contributes too their success.

An IQ of 67 would imply most Americans were mentally impaired in the 1900s.
Maybe by today's standards where complex tasks and workload require a higher IQ, but not by the standards of 1900.

If you blame IQ gaps on environment, then why are you bringing up knowledge? I thought you were the people who believed that nutrition,poverty,oppression had negative effects, now it's just lacking education that explains everything?
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Education is an environmental factor, such as access to education, school infrastructure and educational personnel.

So again, when the Russians were starving or when the Germans were forced into bankruptcy, why didn't their average IQ's drop?
Short term starvation has no impact on the generational development of IQ. Also, being bankrupt does not imply that education and knowledge simply vanishes.

I also explained that Europeans still had a tradition of "knowledge" prior to the industrial revolution. Again, why or how would they reach this without some sort of genetic explanation? Why do you think the industrial revolution began in Europe first and not anywhere else?
There are many different factors at play, it's a multi-variant problem and not something that can be merely explained by genetics. In many cases, war and conflict are important factors for technological innovation. For example, the cold war was a driving motivator for space exploration. Hence why it is very much possible that the two world wars were not detrimental to IQ, but actually beneficial.


-You did not bring up any IQ data sets
-Charles Murray and Flynn already admitted there was a 15-point gap since the 1970s anyway
-The also claim that this gap was not going to change with "more education". They believe genetic causes are now in play after controlling for environment.
As already explained before, it is not a 15 point gap but a 9.5 one. Furthermore, the gap has been fluctuating and is actually narrowing. Lastly, nobody has denied that genetics don't play a factor.
Do you even read what people are posting here?

That's a lot of whining for someone who lacks a lot of points to back them up.
I've provided more credible and recent sources than you. At the very least I'm not relying on Nazi researchers who used their biased data in order to support race segregation to make my point.

I'd like someone to please handwave my questions about nutrition, since we know it has been a factor for black people around the world for more than a few generations. In order to be scientific about this debate, we need to properly control for variables, not just search for more papers that affirm our conclusions.
I linked to a study that gives a partial answer to that. Health and nutrition also plays an important role, but most experts put it behind education and genes. At the very least, we know that the consumption of meat correlates with the development of our brain.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
If genetics was a problem, then how do we still see so many black scientists (and being the best at their fields)?
Because average, means there are those above and those below average in the population. There are plenty of high iq blacks.
Show me how the nutrition variable cannot lead to the statistics you keep waving around.
Why would there be a nutrition effect affecting just blacks across states and even across nations? In the U.S. there is food coupons, to help the poor. And from what I've heard, if I recall correctly, the iq difference persists even when correcting for socioeconomic status.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Edit: I did research and found out that the state with the poorest White people, still had an average IQ of 98 (West Virignia). The richest state is Massachusetts with an average IQ at 104.

So while there is a gap, it's still not as wide as the black-white gap (which is 15 points).


This does not answer the question of nutrition, especially since we know it has affected black people disproportionately compared to whites across several generations, whether we're talking about blacks in the USA or "starving kids in Africa".

Why would there be a nutrition effect affecting just blacks across states and even across nations? In the U.S. there is food coupons, to help the poor. And from what I've heard, if I recall correctly, the iq difference persists even when correcting for socioeconomic status.
I went to great lengths explaining how nutrition affects cognition here, if you are curious to know my reasoning.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I'd say it's safe to assume that a Nazi sympathizer is not a good source to rely on when it comes to race related issues. As to his methods, there are many studies refuting his approach:
So he's a Nazi sympathizer, but his published research states Asian IQ is higher than Whites?
And no, that "study" does refute Rushton's work. Again, show me a paper that discredits or attempts to refute gaps in IQ he found. Hint: You're not going to find any because the people who called him out (i.e David Suzuki) never attempted to disprove it.

First, they did not explain why natural selection would have favored different reproductive strategies for different races. Second, their data on race differences are of questionable validity because their literature review was selective and their original analyses were based on self-reports. Third, they provided no evidence that these race differences had significant effects on reproduction or that sexual restraint is a K characteristic. Finally, they did not adequately rule out environmental explanations for their data.
He actually wrote another book about this. It's was called Race,Evolution, and Behavior. It came out in 1995 and this paper is from 1989 so uh, maybe check it out?

@Arkage already linked you the full study, which you conveniently ignored. ou're being willfully obtuse because you have nothing to counter with.
That is not an IQ table, sorry. I'm still waiting for it, not the "reading and math coherts".

The fact that we see these rapid fluctuations merely shows how important environmental factors are because biological factors don't change that quickly.
You are now 50% in complete agreement with what I'm saying!
Yes, you are correct that biological factor do not change that fast. I already pointed out that after environment is controlled for, Asians outperform whites. That comes down to genes.

The mere fact that these gaps are narrowing and changing proves that IQ is not a mere genetic constant. As already explained to you, Asians perform better because their social opportunities changed in the over the past decades.
It didn't narrow for the Asians. They literally OVERTOOK Whites in a short amount of time. This is what IQ predicts. You even said in the above "biological factors don't change that fast". Asian IQ is higher, and it quickly showed when the environments became the same. Black IQ did not show the same gains.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Education is an environmental factor, such as access to education, school infrastructure and educational personnel.
You can't have it both ways. Do you blame environment for IQ differences do you blame education? If you consider education apart of environment, then you must also include poverty, nutrition too.

And by the way, education has always been increasing in the U.S, yet the White average is lower than Asians and Black average is behind Whites. By your logic, all 3 should be equal by now.

Maybe by today's standards where complex tasks and workload require a higher IQ, but not by the standards of 1900.
So all the engineers were mentally impaired? All the soldiers were mentally impaired? The 1900s wasn't even that long ago, if you think the people who built skyscrapers and airplanes were mentally impaired, I hate to think what you thought the people who sailed the world in the 1600s was like.

Short term starvation has no impact on the generational development of IQ. Also, being bankrupt does not imply that education and knowledge simply vanishes.
So environment did not affect their IQs at all then? Sounds like you're arguing for genetics.
And how could you afford teachers if your bankrupt? Shit, shouldn't the entire German education system back then be stripped of its budget? Who do you think pays professors for a living if they had no money?


As already explained before, it is not a 15 point gap but a 9.5 one. Furthermore, the gap has been fluctuating and is actually narrowing. Lastly, nobody has denied that genetics don't play a factor.
Do you even read what people are posting here?
Read this article again.
Murray said there was an 15-point difference in black and white 18 year old test takers. It was like this in the 1970s, and Murray and Flynn said it did not change since then.

Nothing is being narrowed. Flynn and Murray already said education cannot fix this gap.
I've provided more credible and recent sources than you. At the very least I'm not relying on Nazi researchers who used their biased data in order to support race segregation to make my point.
Lol.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
I went to great lengths explaining how nutrition affects cognition here, if you are curious to know my reasoning.
My problem with nutrition is that unless there was a strong cultural effect that could transcend state and national boundaries as well as socioeconomic strata, significant differences would be found across groups in different regions or strata.

Also last I heard from charles murray recent research in genetics is starting to elucidate the difference between races in terms of iq, and back up his initial research.

This post suggest as much

Over the past 5 years, a variety of specific genes have been shown to influence IQ. Versions of these genes which lead to higher intelligence are consistently found to be more common in Whites than in Blacks. The difference between Asians and Whites is less clear. The consistency of these findings, which have been replicated across two genetic databases, makes an egalitarian view of racial intelligence differences improbable. This research also suggests that selection, instead of genetic drift, causes racial intelligence differences because IQ related genes are more racially differentiated than most genes are. In fact, they are more racially differentiated than height related genes are, suggesting that selection for racial intelligence differences was stronger than selection for racial height differences. https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-related-genes/
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
This does not answer the question of nutrition, especially since we know it has affected black people disproportionately compared to whites across several generations, whether we're talking about blacks in the USA or "starving kids in Africa".
How?
I said this before, Wal-Mart is open to everyone in America. What is one race buying from them that no else does?

Shouldn't Wal-Mart even have a list of this if it was so prevalent of what people's food buying habits are?

At best, I see them do "culturally" targeted events (i.e Chinese New Year, Diwali, Christmas) but nothing that divides grocery shopping by race.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Arkage

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I can read this shit all day. This thread has to have the most requotes and replies in GAF history.
I actually do want more people to read this.

I want to end the "taboo" surrounding race. As this thread title shows, I want to be able to talk about race without being called "racist".

The Democrats do this already. They are super open about it and the media never calls them out. So why can't Republicans join in on the fun, especially when I've shown many facts from our side exists?
I don't care about any supremacy, I just want to discuss real facts.

Edit: I'm going to get some rest though. I think I made enough replies right now to hold me over and defend my positions. I'll come back when it's time.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
My problem with nutrition is that unless there was a strong cultural effect that could transcend state and national boundaries as well as socioeconomic strata, significant differences would be found across groups in different regions or strata.

Also last I heard from charles murray recent research in genetics is starting to elucidate the difference between races in terms of iq, and back up his initial research.

This post suggest as much
Since we're talking about IQ across generations (giving the impression that the issue is genetic/racial because it appears to be passed down to children), we would need to factor in anything that is also passed from generation to generation. Indeed, we'd especially need to check for variable that can have a direct negative impact on a child's prenatal development, diet being a key one.

Diet is passed down from parents to children. Research confirms in animal studies and human studies that it takes several generations of good nutrition to fully erase the negative GENETIC impact of malnutrition.

Intergenerational effects on linear growth are well documented. Several generations are necessary in animal models to 'wash out' effects of undernutrition, consistent with the unfolding of the secular trend in height in Europe and North America. Birthweight is correlated across generations and short maternal stature, which reflects intrauterine and infant growth failure, is associated with low birthweight, child stunting, delivery complications and increased child mortality, even after adjusting for socio-economic status. A nutrition intervention in Guatemala reduced childhood stunting; it also improved growth of the next generation, but only in the offspring of girls. Possible mechanisms explaining intergenerational effects on linear growth are not mutually exclusive and include, among others, shared genetic characteristics, epigenetic effects, programming of metabolic changes, and the mechanics of a reduced space for the fetus to grow. There are also socio-cultural factors at play that are important such as the intergenerational transmission of poverty and the fear of birthing a large baby, which leads to 'eating down' during pregnancy.

Source.

This would certainly be an intergenerational "environmental/cultural" factor that isn't being given much weight in a topic that is making sweeping intergenerational claims about a particular race's genetic disposition.

How?
I said this before, Wal-Mart is open to everyone in America. What is one race buying from them that no else does?
The nutritional disparity precedes the existence of Wal-Mart by decades. Now it just sounds like you're caught with your pants down and cannot refute my assertion that poor nutrition may be responsible for the observable IQ rates across generations (in the last 100 years).

Maybe you need to do some reading, Mr. Facts? I get the impression you are handwaving my facts and not engaging with the discussion now that your charts and statistics are incapable of explaining this variable.

I'd like to pose a question: the human race has rapidly grown in size worldwide largely due to food security. Would it not stand to reason -- following many millenia of food shortages and malnutrition -- that there would still be a disparity until we close the gap on nutritional security? Filling bellies is one thing. Growing high-performing brains is another matter entirely.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
I'm back at my computer, and first let me say, after 11 pages, I still remain confident and triumphant as ever. For any viewers watching at home, my morale has not been shaken. Not in the least.
This is really the only thing anyone needs to know about your beliefs. Your absolute certainty. Despite all IQ scientists agreeing the data is inconclusive. Despite all IQ scientists agreeing the models are far from settled. Despite the most prominent IQ scientists saying the only thing that we can actually be certain of is that we’re likely wrong about our models and assumptions.

Your personal investment in this topic is absurd. You are an ideologue. Debating you is worthless, since you refuse to address any direct evidence against your claims and instead pivot from point to point to point maintaining a constantly moving target, hoping nobody notices that you keep losing.

I mean, you won’t even admit you were wrong about Murray believing the gap decreased prior to the 70s, despite gloating about it in multiple posts. This level of denial of basic, objective reality is truly astounding, and shows how deeply devoted you are to your political ideology. Make no mistake: it is not science that drives your assertions of certainty around the IQ gap, it is politics.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
This would certainly be an intergenerational "environmental/cultural" factor that isn't being given much weight in a topic that is making sweeping intergenerational claims about a particular race's genetic disposition.
What about across nations? There are differences in average iq across nations, as well as differences in majority ethnicity across nations. A nation includes groups some of which have been high socioeconomic status for generations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
So he's a Nazi sympathizer, but his published research states Asian IQ is higher than Whites?
Frikkin' hell, he was literally the head of a Nazi organisation, get that through your thick skull already!

And no, that "study" does refute Rushton's work. Again, show me a paper that discredits or attempts to refute gaps in IQ he found. Hint: You're not going to find any because the people who called him out (i.e David Suzuki) never attempted to disprove it.
Which one, I linked 3! Goes to show yet again that you don't even bother reading what information people provide here.

It came out in 1995 and this paper is from 1989 so uh, maybe check it out?
He could write a thousand more books, not gonna waste any more time reading what a Nazi sympathizer thinks about race.

That is not an IQ table, sorry. I'm still waiting for it, not the "reading and math coherts".
So because you cannot refute the content you're now whining about the form? What a petty dismissal of factual evidence.

You are now 50% in complete agreement with what I'm saying! Yes, you are correct that biological factor do not change that fast. I already pointed out that after environment is controlled for, Asians outperform whites. That comes down to genes.
Please, don't sully my reputation with assuming that I agree with your race realistic and reductive views. If biological factors don't change that fast, than we can only conclude that the variations we observe are environmental.

It didn't narrow for the Asians. They literally OVERTOOK Whites in a short amount of time. This is what IQ predicts. You even said in the above "biological factors don't change that fast". Asian IQ is higher, and it quickly showed when the environments became the same. Black IQ did not show the same gains.
Maybe that's because many black people still don't have the same opportunities, they certainly don't have the same historical and cultural background as Asians do. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.

You can't have it both ways. Do you blame environment for IQ differences do you blame education? If you consider education apart of environment, then you must also include poverty, nutrition too.
What part of "IQ is a multi-variate approach" did you not understand in my previous comment? All of these factors play a role, yet you keep droning on about race. Hence why I consider your views to be extremely reductive.

And by the way, education has always been increasing in the U.S, yet the White average is lower than Asians and Black average is behind Whites. By your logic, all 3 should be equal by now.
No, because these demographics live in different environments, have different educational cultures, traditions and history.

So all the engineers were mentally impaired? All the soldiers were mentally impaired? The 1900s wasn't even that long ago, if you think the people who built skyscrapers and airplanes were mentally impaired, I hate to think what you thought the people who sailed the world in the 1600s was like.
The average American IQ was at 67 points in the 1900's.

Again, what part of "average" do you not understand? Doesn't mean that there weren't any smart people in the 1900's. But how many engineers, technicians, architects, pilots and other high skilled jobs were there in the 1900's compared to today? Exactly, a whole lot less!

So environment did not affect their IQs at all then? Sounds like you're arguing for genetics.
No, environmental factors need a long time for them to have an impact. Short term starvation is not one of them.

And how could you afford teachers if your bankrupt? Shit, shouldn't the entire German education system back then be stripped of its budget? Who do you think pays professors for a living if they had no money?
Lol, wtf? Do you really think teachers suddenly stopped teaching after the war because there was no money? Do you also think that construction workers suddenly stopped working instead of rebuilding what was destroyed? Did doctors and nurses suddenly stop treating patients? Did butchers and bakers simply stay home? By your dumb logic, post-war reconstruction would never have happened.

Read this article again.
Murray said there was an 15-point difference in black and white 18 year old test takers. It was like this in the 1970s, and Murray and Flynn said it did not change since then. Nothing is being narrowed. Flynn and Murray already said education cannot fix this gap.
Learn to read:

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.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I mean, you won’t even admit you were wrong about Murray believing the gap decreased prior to the 70s, despite gloating about it in multiple posts. This level of denial of basic, objective reality is truly astounding, and shows how deeply devoted you are to your political ideology. Make no mistake: it is not science that drives your understanding of the IQ gap, it is politics.
If I'm shown absolute concrete evidence, I wouldn't deny it.

However, why don't you claim Murray isn't deeply devoted to a political ideaology when he said this:

"The remaining gap will be with us indefinitely," he concluded
Murray argued that a lot the earlier narrowing of the gap occurred as more educational and job opportunities opened and better health and nutrition became available for blacks as state-enforced segregation ended. Once a "merely adequate" environment is provided, there are diminishing marginal returns for increasing IQ scores.
He noted that the programs established by the No Child Left Behind Act have had almost no effect on the black/white educational achievement gap.
Even if a gap did narrow, 99% of everything he said still lines up with me.
-He doesn't think the gap will go away after this
-He believes this gap (after "the narrowing") is up to genetics
-Social programs like the No Child Left Behind Act were a failure

Consider that I do believe that IQ is caused by genetics and environments, everything he just said still matches my argument. There is a still a genetic difference, and we are past the point where controlling for environment wont actually mean anything to stop it.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
Yes, now apply the same logic to the "nutrition is not a factor because of sucessful athletes" argument.
I would say nutrition is probably not that big a factor explaining the gaps, not because of successful black athletes, but because there are low score averages in many nations, and iirc, higher socioeconomic status does not appear to make scores go significantly up.

There is the multigenerational effect of epigenetics, but one would assume at least a significant fraction of high socioeconomic status individuals would have had that for multiple generations, and would thus raise the average across socioeconomic strata if that were the case.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I'll reply to the rest, but this sticks out in particular.

Maybe that's because many black people still don't have the same opportunities, they certainly don't have the same historical and cultural background as Asians do. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.
Literally fake news.
Same access to schools, high levels of government spending per student, affirmative action programs that even give preference to one race over both Asians and Whites.

But the gap didn't change.

Edit: Oh yeah, tell me what opportunities existed back in the 1900s when schools were taught with chalk and a blackboard?

 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I would say nutrition is probably not that big a factor explaining the gaps, not because of successful black athletes, but because there are low score averages in many nations, and iirc, higher socioeconomic status does not appear to make scores go significantly up.

There is the multigenerational effect of epigenetics, but one would assume at least a significant fraction of high socioeconomic status individuals would have had that for multiple generations, and would thus raise the average across socioeconomic strata if that were the case.
I do not know whether it is an important factor, @DunDunDunpachi 's argument does seem valid, but I am no biologist and it would require additional sourcing or research. JordanN's counterargument is shit though and this was all I wanted to say with my analogy above.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
But the gap didn't change.
Holy moly, it's like talking to a brick wall. The gap did change, as evidence by the article you quoted!
Equal opportunities for blacks is a recent phenomenon, you can't expect things to equal out overnight.



Make no mistake: it is not science that drives your assertions of certainty around the IQ gap, it is politics.
Let's just be frank here.

At first I was willing to give him the benefit of doubt. But considering his boneheaded ignorance and continued reliance on segregationist literature, I've come to the conclusion that he's just a closeted race realist, veiling his unsavory views in faux-scientism.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
I would say nutrition is probably not that big a factor explaining the gaps, not because of successful black athletes, but because there are low score averages in many nations, and iirc, higher socioeconomic status does not appear to make scores go significantly up.

There is the multigenerational effect of epigenetics, but one would assume at least a significant fraction of high socioeconomic status individuals would have had that for multiple generations, and would thus raise the average across socioeconomic strata if that were the case.
The high socioeconomic individuals are not guaranteed a sufficient diet for high-IQ brain development, just a better diet in comparison to their poorer peers. Since the effects of malnutrition take several generations to correct, we're talking about a very narrow band of high socioeconomic status individuals, and they aren't going to change the averages if they aren't outpacing the overall growth of population.