• 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
Literally none of your incoherent rambling manages to refute the claims in my previous comment. The fact that you are doubling down on your bullsh*t says more than enough.

You have no leg to stand on. Your intellectual inability to even recognize that you have been linking pseudo-scientific sources straight out of literal Nazi propaganda further emphasizes that you're not interested in the scientific research but merely in confirming your own presuppositions and questionable prejudices.
No.
U.S Army Tests on IQ (among blacks and whites):

U.S Army bans IQs below 85 from joining

1979 San Francisco Court ruling that confirms race differences among children.

Intelligence is at least 80% inheritable confirmed in 1994

Confirmed again in 2014

Edit: And because people keep thinking anatomical skull differences is Nazi, here is the book I also have confirming morphological differences between genders and other groups.




I could go on forever. I think I only mentioned Rushton 1 or 2 times in this topic (not counting this recent discussion). He is not even my main source for this, but I do still appreciate his work since his data does not contradict all other evidence out there on race.


strange headache said:
The stuff you posted here barely elevates above your bog standard flat earther bullcrap. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to lend anymore time of my day to a confirmed racist who was head of a Neo-Nazi organisation. This should say enough about his intellectual credentials and his ideological bias. The same goes for that retarded website you get your information from.

I give you the friendly advice to stop embarrassing yourself before I feel forced to pick more of your shoddy sources and assumptions apart. This isn't the first time you've soiled this forum with your "evidence" straight out of the white supremacist handbook, pulled from shady forums where that sh*t finds a grateful audience for their f*cked up views.
Go ahead. But I prefer you read the above links first and still make claims they're pseudo science or white supremacist.

But you wont, because you're not interested in having a honest debate. Or like I said, do you consider the U.S Army to be Nazi because they have the same answers?


The hell are you talking about? The picture of that German and British Skull is by Dr. Arthur Keith, another known racist and defender of Hitler's views:
Way to miss the point.

And from that same article, Keith shared responsibility with discovering a biological function of the heart. Are we suppose to discredit that because of his "views"?
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
The thing is, if there was no racial difference, why would ivy league universities be caught lowering entry standards for hispanics and blacks while raising standards for asians?

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iPaul93

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
U.S Army Tests on IQ (among blacks and whites):
Oh look, another white supremacist source that was funded by Wickliffe Draper an the Pioneer Fund:

The publication and distribution of her book was funded by the Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, in a bid to counter the desegregation of the American school system following Brown vs. Board of Education.
This is a frikkin' disgrace.

This study shows that certain genetic markers have an impact on intelligence, nowhere does it establish any correlation with racial differences. In other words, this has nothing to do with your race realistic delusions so stop pulling that study into this. This discussion isn't about genetics anyway, but your tendency to post questionable sources from literal Nazi propaganda.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Oh look, another white supremacist source that was funded by Wickliffe Draper an the Pioneer Fund:



This is a frikkin' disgrace.
The tests were gathered from the U.S Army.
Again, are you saying they're white supremacist?

his study shows that certain genetic markers have an impact on intelligence, nowhere does it establish any correlation with racial differences. In other words, this has nothing to do with your race realistic delusions so stop pulling that study into this. This discussion isn't about genetics anyway, but your tendency to post questionable sources from literal Nazi propaganda.
Them you never read this thread.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
And from that same article, Keith shared responsibility with discovering a biological function of the heart. Are we suppose to discredit that because of his "views"?
So what? Are we talking cardiology here or your f*cked up sources? Keith could have been a good cardiologist for all I care, but that doesn't give him any credentials when it comes to his segregationist views.

The tests were gathered from the U.S Army.
No they weren't!

The scholar Graham Richards noted that Shuey's text relied on unpublished material like masters and doctoral theses, many of which originated in the Deep South, that some pre-1940s material that she used contained methodological flaws, and that she overstated the consistency of her sources.
Also the military testings are bunk since they did not take into account the educational background of the black population in America:

 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: 404Ender

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
As somebody who claims to be only interested in empirical genetic and/or biological differences, your obsession with race and the social policies that you seek to derive from this knowledge border on the pseudo-scientific notions of race realism. Yes, you cite a lot of statistics and info-graphics, but most of your sources are seriously flawed.

John Philippe Rushton was a very controversial psychologist who was discredited by the larger scientific community not only for his racial views, but also his shoddy research methods. Not only that, but Rushton was also head of the Pioneer Fund a well known white supremacist NGO founded by eugenicist Wickliffe Draper and with close historical ties to Nazism:



Your second info-graphic is from a website called "humanphenotypes.net" a pseudo-scientific website created by Karsten Reuß a race realist who frequents Stormfront with ties to a since arrested Neo-Nazi and who considers interracial marriage as "destructive". The vast majority of the literature provided on that website is almost a century old and even cites authors like Eickstedt and Schwidetzky both of whom were literally among the leading racial theorists of Nazi Germany.

How is it that you rely so much on long since discredited sources having their roots in outright Nazi literature and Phrenology? My best guess is that you have a massive ideological confirmation bias which makes you easy prey for faulty pseudo-scientific research. In any case, your approach does not shine a very positive light on you since it has become quite apparent that you seem to rely heavily on sh*tty outdated sources that are commonly shared on Neo-Nazi forums.

And no, before you start accusing me, I'm not a far-left social justice militant who throws around the term "Nazi" easily. I am also not accusing JordanN of being one, but I think to have thoroughly demonstrated that his sources are more than questionable with some of them being outright Nazi literature. I also don't approve of OP's tendency to open such a thread without hard evidence and direct quotes, keep the witch hunting to the REEtards who seem to be quite proficient in this type of behavior.

I'm not interested in the discussion whether JordanN is a racist or not, but I do care about proper sources before anybody thinks that the crap he posts here is scientific consensus. I urge everybody to be a lot more cautious around the sources that he relies on.
@Yoshi this is what you should’ve done. Take notes, cum chump.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
There is a section of her book, starting at page 308 to page 317, where she cites widespread IQ Tests from WW1 & WW2.

The findings are consistent with similar IQ Tests done later.




strange headache said:
Also the military testings are bunk since they did not take into account the educational background of the black population in America:
Prior to the Second World War, most of Americans didn't actually have a High School education. Even far less had actually graduated college.




There have been many studies done later that demonstrate education still doesn't narrow the black/white gap. We also see the same gaps between White/Asian persist.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
@Yoshi this is what you should’ve done. Take notes, cum chump.
While I appreciate @strange headache 's work, I did not see the value in doing this, for the following reasons:
1. This thread is totally reframed from my intention as well as original thread title and this upset me slightly.
2. Researching whether obviously racist researches doing pseudo science are known to be racist researchers doing pseudo science was not worth my time.
3. I did not want to have the discussion whether discrediting the sources invalidates their claims with JordanN, because this is clearly what was going to happen if I decided to ignore point (2).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 404Ender

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
While I appreciate @strange headache 's work, I did not see the value in doing this, for the following reasons:
1. This thread is totally reframed from my intention as well as original thread title and this upset me slightly.
2. Researching whether obviously racist researches doing pseudo science are known to be racist researchers doing pseudo science was not worth my time.
3. I did not want to have the discussion whether discrediting the sources invalidates their claims with JordanN, because this is clearly what was going to happen if I decided to ignore point (2).
Nah bro he actually backed his shit up. You just cried racist then fled.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Nah bro he actually backed his shit up. You just cried racist then fled.
Whatever you call backing up. Posting statistics that do not account for various factors (which I did point towards) is not a backup of genetical causation. He showed statistics that indicated a correlation between race and IQ in certain contexts and deduced from that a genetical disadvantage, which is a wrong conclusion. And I can only repeat, the intention of this thread was never to have a big fight with JordanN over his racist intelligence fetish, but to point out, that someone who regularly writes about genetical inferiority of black people and white genocide fantasies cannot dismiss calls for being racist as "they just call every conservative racist, it has no validity". I would have preferred to say that as a simple answer to his posting, but I was forbidden to do it in any other way than this thread and then a mod hijacked the thread right away to make it some sort of general Yoshi vs. JordanN fight thread on racism. I was not interested in arguing whether his bullshit had any merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
So what? Are we talking cardiology here or your f*cked up sources? Keith could have been a good cardiologist for all I care, but that doesn't give him any credentials when it comes to his segregationist views.
When did I argue segregation?

There are 8 pages in this thread, find where I said I wanted or argued for segregation?

I thought it was funny you wanted to discredit Dr.Keith but I pointed out he made other scientific discoveries that his "views" do have an affect on. That's called "cherry picking".
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
Whatever you call backing up. Posting statistics that do not account for various factors (which I did point towards) is not a backup of genetical causation. He showed statistics that indicated a correlation between race and IQ in certain contexts and deduced from that a genetical disadvantage, which is a wrong conclusion. And I can only repeat, the intention of this thread was never to have a big fight with JordanN over his racist intelligence fetish, but to point out, that someone who regularly writes about genetical inferiority of black people and white genocide fantasies cannot dismiss calls for being racist as "they just call every conservative racist, it has no validity". I would have preferred to say that as a simple answer to his posting, but I was forbidden to do it in any other way than this thread and then a mod hijacked the thread right away to make it some sort of general Yoshi vs. JordanN fight thread on racism. I was not interested in arguing whether his bullshit had any merit.
I was talking about strange headache you utter dolt. He did what you should’ve but couldn’t/wouldn’t.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
Prior to the Second World War, most of Americans didn't actually have a High School education. Even far less had actually graduated college.
education does not have a significant effect on iq.

Nutrition, and contaminants like lead as well as physical abuse can, that is the environmental factors that can affect iq by significantly lowering it. There is no reason to believe such factors disproportionately affect people based on race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JordanN

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Remember the discussion about "only two Germans yield a German child; only two French yield a French child"?
Quote where I said this.

I said "Two Europeans make a European child".

Are white people giving birth to children now considered "racism"? Oh god, I hope it doesn't come to this now.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
Race in itself is a concept that biologists reject for humans, so I did not think there was a good chance anyone outside of JordanN would even need any evidence that his sources are bullshit.
The greatest source of bullshit in this thread is you trying to squirm your way out of making heinous accusations and not backing it up.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
The greatest source of bullshit in this thread is you trying to squirm your way out of making heinous accusations and not backing it up.
I defined racism and showed that JordanN matches the definition.

Quote where I said this.

I said "Two Europeans make a European child".

Are white people giving birth to children now considered "racism"? Oh god, I hope it doesn't come to this now.
You argued against the person who claimed it is not necessary to have to French parents to have a French child, but regardless, why wouldn't a German and an Australian be able to have a German child? Or a German and an African? Right, because of your fear of forcefully creating a giant blob.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
education does not have a significant effect on iq.

Nutrition, and contaminants like lead as well as physical abuse can, that is the environmental factors that can affect iq by significantly lowering it. There is no reason to believe such factors disproportionately affect people based on race.
I agree with this.

I was actually arguing that White Americans were less educated but the IQ gap still persisted.

Also, schools 100 years ago didn't have fancy computers and calculators like we do today. "Education" by itself is not responsible for creating scientists and engineers.




These people were educated by chalkboards and basic rulers. But they could still do math.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I defined racism and showed that JordanN matches the definition.


You argued against the person who claimed it is not necessary to have to French parents to have a French child, but regardless, why wouldn't a German and an Australian be able to have a German child? Or a German and an African? Right, because of your fear of forcefully creating a giant blob.
Because Germany & France are both biologically European whereas someone native to Africa is not.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
Prior to the Second World War, most of Americans didn't actually have a High School education. Even far less had actually graduated college.
So? That doesn't dispute the fact that the black population was largely disfavored by the educational system. These tests did not take into account the social realities of the black population and were specifically tailored to a white demographic with specific linguistic background. If white Americans lacked academic education, it's not hard to imagine how severely lacking black education was in comparison. Standardized testing is a very difficult thing and certainly wasn't a major concern for the Nazi authors you like to quote.

Again, I have provided evidence for that being the case in my previous post. You just keep repeating the same tired crap.

There have been many studies done later that demonstrate education still doesn't narrow the black/white gap. We also see the same gaps between White/Asian persist.
"Many studies", eh? It's funny now that the background of your "sources" have been thoroughly fact checked and debunked, that you're running out of the very same scientific evidence that you accuse others of lacking.

When did I argue segregation?
The authors that you quoted used their skewed findings to argue exactly that. If you're against racial segregation, then maybe you should chose your sources more wisely instead of spreading the works of people who sought to promote it.

Lastly, I'm getting real tired of arguing racial differences with you. I'm not interested in that and it was not the point of my original comment. I've long since given up hope having an objective discussion with you in that regards, since your obvious obsession with race is purely ideologically motivated and certainly not the result of distanced scientific inquiry.

My point was that you are sharing racist sources in order to justify your race realistic views. Yet you keep avoiding that fact because you don't want to face the music.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Because Germany & France are both biologically European whereas someone native to Africa is not.
What is biologically European? What happened to the British and the German skull then? Or are skull shapes cultural?




It's a bit of hard mode though because obviously, Europeans have a lot more in common with each other than they do without side groups. Although I would say this becomes an argument in itself to want to protect European groups from becoming a minority.

Also, my experience is being born in a country that sees all Europeans as being "White". If I had lived or spent time in Europe, than no doubt I would be able to identify each ethnic group more easily.



My point was losing the connection between nationality and actual ancestral origin makes it harder to protect Native European diversity, since they would no longer have a homeland that considers them unique.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
310
338
350
If you are committing a Genetic Fallacy because you don't like the source, re-examine your argument.
Perhaps rather than arguing against the most studied concept out of hand, entertain that Twin Studies have given us reliable Heritability estimates for Intelligence that no one really disputes.
You can't debunk g, others have tried who are more intelligent than you.
Try to debunk Twin and Trans-Racial Adoption Studies, there's no literature out there that does.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
What is biologically European?
The opposite of what is Biologically African, or Asian or Native American.


Yoshi said:
What happened to the British and the German skull then? Or are skull shapes cultural?
No, they still exist.
However, British & German are both Europeans. Neither are them are African, Asian or Native American.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If you are committing a Genetic Fallacy because you don't like the source, re-examine your argument.
Perhaps rather than arguing against the most studied concept out of hand, entertain that Twin Studies have given us reliable Heritability estimates for Intelligence that no one really disputes.
You can't debunk g, others have tried who are more intelligent than you.
Try to debunk Twin and Trans-Racial Adoption Studies, there's no literature out there that does.
No one denies that there is a genetical component to intelligence. What is being denied, is, that the studies JordanN used demonstrate that there is a genetically caused intelligence differential between black and white people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
It's funny how a thread about Republicans being racist turns into another episode of @JordanN beating his dead IQ-race hobby horse for the 100th time. There's a few things to point out as someone who debated him at length on this topic:

1) He doesn't understand the Flynn effect, and more often then not denies the role of environment in the historical racial IQ gap.
2) He denies essentially any role of non-genetic factors in historical or current racial IQ gaps. This is a fringe position in the scientific community.
3) He will throw any and all things at the wall to see what sticks, along with changing goal posts when refuted. Don't confuse his glut of information with well-reasoned or well-evidenced positions.
4) The majority of what he links is traceable to Nazi and white supremacist sources whose primary goal was the segregation of races. Additionally, the large majority of his sources are old, dating multiple decades. These sources are as reliable and free from bias as cigarette cancer studies from tobacco companies during the 70s.

Those interested in reading a prior debate I had with him that spanned ridiculous proportions can find it here. You can see him rapidly spin from one claim to another in reply after reply as I continually refuted his garbage can cornucopia of theories. I'm sure it covered all the ground he's re-trodding here yet again, as it is his desperate armchair-internet-professor passion to prove that black people are objectively inferior.

For those who want to know the state of Race, IQ and genetic theory, you can read this editorial by David Reich, a guy who actually studies the subject for a living.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Pretty sure education and IQ correlate.


As for other external factors, for sure too. But depends on the factor.

To me, there is also an inherent biological reason why some people score higher than others. Some people are just too afraid to admit it. Somehow every human on earth can look different, sound different, have different body types and racially have different brain sizes...... yet IQ and smarts have to be exactly the same level for all?

Asians (which I think for tabulation purposes also includes East Indians?) score higher than Whites, yet IQ tests are typically designed by Europeans. Even though IQ tests supposedly try to be equally conforming to everyone, it doesn't make sense that Asians (which come from tons of countries where not everyone has money, goes to school, or even is literate) can score highest, even though IQ tests have verbal components that require people to read and understand what's going on. It's not like everything is a pattern matching question. Even though the tests would be written in native languages, Asians can still understand and answer questions scoring the highest.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
So? That doesn't dispute the fact that the black population was largely disfavored by the educational system. These tests did not take into account the social realities of the black population and were specifically tailored to a white demographic with specific linguistic background. If white Americans lacked academic education, it's not hard to imagine how severely lacking black education was in comparison. Standardized testing is a very difficult thing and certainly wasn't a major concern for the Nazi authors you like to quote.
Black Americans actually had a higher literacy rate than Russian peasants during the same time....

But if your point is saying the gap was exclusively caused by education differences, then no, the same gaps exist 100 years later even when Blacks were given complete access to White Schools.


"Many studies", eh? It's funny now that the background of your "sources" have been thoroughly fact checked and debunked, that you're running out of the very same scientific evidence that you accuse others of lacking.
No they haven't.

New York Times 1979 said:
Agreeing with the plaintiffs, Judge Peckham cited statistics showing that in 80 percent of the state's schools black children represented only 27.5 percent of the student population but 62 percent of students in classes for the mentally retarded.

The judge noted that black children on the average scored 15 points below white children on standard intelligence tests such as the Wechsler intelligence scale and the Stanford‐Binet scale. The average on such tests is 100.


Again, if it was education, why are Asians outperforming Whites? How is this "white supremacy"?


The authors that you quoted used their skewed findings to argue exactly that.
Why should I care about what they argue when I'm not the one who even brought up segregation (you did)?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
1) He doesn't understand the Flynn effect, and more often then not denies its role in the historical racial IQ gap.
The Flynn Effect doesn't mean shit in countries that are already industrialized.


Arkage said:
2) He denies essentially any role of non-genetic factors in historical or current racial IQ gaps. This is a fringe position in the scientific community.
Lies.
I've said intelligence is anywhere up to 80% genetic. I never said it made up the complete 100.


Arkage said:
3) He will throw any and all things at the wall to see what sticks, along with changing goal posts when refuted. Don't confuse his glut of information with well-reasoned or well-evidenced positions.
Wrong.

Arkage said:
4) The majority of what he links is traceable to Nazi and white supremacist sources whose primary goal was the segregation of races. Additionally, the large majority of his sources are old, dating multiple decades. These sources are as reliable and free from bias as cigarette cancer studies from tobacco companies during the 70s.
Wrong.

Arkage said:
Those interested in reading a prior debate I had with him that spanned ridiculous proportions can find it here. You can see him rapidly spin from one claim to another in reply after reply as I continually refuted his garbage can cornucopia of theories. I'm sure it covered all the ground he's re-trodding here yet again, as it is his desperate armchair-internet-professor passion to prove that black people are objectively inferior.
Inferior to who? Did I ever say Whites were inferior to Asians because they score lower on IQ tests?

Arkage said:
For those who want to know the state of Race, IQ and genetic theory, you can read this editorial by David Reich, a guy who actually studies the subject for a living.
Lol.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Black Americans actually had a higher literacy rate than Russian peasants during the same time....

But if your point is saying the gap was exclusively caused by education differences, then no, the same gaps exist 100 years later even when Blacks were given complete access to White Schools.



No they haven't.





Again, if it was education, why are Asians outperforming Whites? How is this "white supremacy"?



Why should I care about what they argue when I'm not the one who even brought up segregation (you did)?
And since it's SAT scores you're talking 18 year olds..... which would include some Asian kids/young adults coming from overseas at some point....... = immediate language issues vs. born and bred Americans. Numbers are universal. So is something like pattern recognition and generic problem solving.

But anything involving language and written tests should be red alert fuck up sections for foreigners, since SATs (I had to Google it) are only done in English. Yet Asians somehow they still score the highest.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
No one denies that there is a genetical component to intelligence. What is being denied, is, that the studies JordanN used demonstrate that there is a genetically caused intelligence differential between black and white people.
The same studies show a gap between between Asians & White. Asians who were reared by White parents in Europe still tested closer to the Asian average than Europe.

You say you don't deny the genetic component, but you refuse to answer why do Asians still score higher on IQ tests even after environment is controlled for?

If white supremacy is all these scientists are after, why don't they just write down "Whites have IQs of 500, everyone else is 0"?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Maybe I'm getting lost in the verbatim, and I haven't read all the posts, but Yoshi is finally saying intelligence has a genetic component? I thought his theory at the beginning was every creed is the exact same, but what makes people different is 100% environmental/society factors, rather than raw genetics.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
310
338
350
It should be said that heritability estimates are measuring the variance between two things attributable to factors.
For example, we don't look at a single cow and ask oursleves, "how much of this cow is Genetic and how much of it is environmental?"
That's a non-question, we have to have another cow to compare it to. So if we have two cows, we would ask "how much of the variance between two cows in a given trait is attributable to Genetic factors and how much is attributable to their environment?"

So when we say the estimated heritability of Intelligence is about .76 according to aggregated studies, that's not saying Intelligence itself is 80%~ due to genes, but rather the DIFFERENCE between two populations or people(for example) is 80% attributable Genes.
The implication then is apparent, that the observable average differences between populations, however you would like classify them*, is largely due to Genetic factors and the rest attributable to Environmental factors.

Once again, heritability estimates are talking about the Difference between population in a given trait, not the trait itself.

*I personally find the discrete races used in Social Sciences fine given people's self-identification of their own race matches their best fit Genetic Cluster 99% of the time. Genetic Clusters also define themselves very well with little overlap the more Loci that are used.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
It's funny how a thread about Republicans being racist
lol reading comprehension fail?

Not all republicans are racists. You are not being called a racist for supporting Republicans, but for your racism. I would have no trouble naming quite a few Republicans or Republican supporters who are not racist (to my best knowledge).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helios

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
This is a fringe position in the scientific community.
The problem is academia is filled with far left activists. Some college students even cry when you suggest men are generally stronger than women.
Pretty sure education and IQ correlate.
There is correlation, as college students tend to have higher iq. But this is not because college causes higher iq, no iq does not increase significantly from college education, it just so happens that higher iq helps you make it into college and into grad school.

That is a college student has nearly identical iq prior to college, at least those tested at younger ages did.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Also the military testings are bunk since they did not take into account the educational background of the black population in America:
I responded to this post before but there's one more thing I want to add:

It says that the immigrants struggled because the tests were in English. Ok. But it also said Black Americans also had the same problem? That doesn't make any sense. What language do people think the majority of Black Americans spoke back then? It had to be English.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
Because Germany & France are both biologically European whereas someone native to Africa is not.
Dafuq is "biologically European"?

Europe is a notion whose definition has drastically changed over the centuries. When Anaximander and Hecateus used the term in the 6th century BCE they mostly referred to Thrace, a part of modern day Turkey. No Roman or peasant during the middle-ages would have described themselves as "Europeans" since that notion did not exist as we know it today.

Again, if it was education, why are Asians outperforming Whites? How is this "white supremacy"?


Gee, Asian genetics must have changed dramatically between 1940 and 1980... or maybe it was their socio-economic standing.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
The problem is academia is filled with far left activists. Some college students even cry when you suggest men are generally stronger than women.

There is correlation, as college students tend to have higher iq. But this is not because college causes higher iq, no iq does not increase significantly from college education, it just so happens that higher iq helps you make it into college and into grad school.

That is the college student had nearly identical iq prior to college, at least those tested at younger ages did.
Pretty sure people know that. I don't think too many people assume getting a college degree suddenly makes someone's IQ go from 90 to 130 in 3 or 4 years.

Most people have never even taken an IQ test. And people who have probably never taken it more than once. So people wouldn't think that since I don't think there's even data comparing a high school kid's IQ to later in life with a degree.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Dafuq is "biologically European"?

Europe is a notion whose definition has drastically changed over the centuries. When Anaximander and Hecateus used the term in the 6th century BCE they mostly referred to Thrace, a part of modern day Turkey. No Roman or peasant during the middle-ages would have described themselves as "Europeans" since that notion did not exist as we know it today.





Gee, Asian genetics must have changed dramatically between 1940 and 1980... or maybe it was their socio-economic standing.
Asian SAT scores in Jordan's chart shows that group have the best scores. These are 17 and 18 year olds, which many students might not even have English as their main language. So how is it they still score the highest when SATs have written/verbal sections which should surely sink anyone with second rate English skills?
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,383
535
305
Pretty sure people know that. I don't think too many people assume getting a college degree suddenly makes someone's IQ go from 90 to 130 in 3 or 4 years.

Most people have never even taken an IQ test. And people who have probably never taken it more than once. So people wouldn't think that since I don't think there's even data comparing a high school kid's IQ to later in life with a degree.
IIRC, and am not misremembering, i think both Jordan Peterson as well as Stefan Molyneux claim no known intervention can significantly increase IQ, including education. So I assume one or both have data to back that claim.

Asian SAT scores in Jordan's chart shows that group have the best scores. These are 17 and 18 year olds, which many students might not even have English as their main language. So how is it they still score the highest when SATs have written/verbal sections which should surely sink anyone with second rate English skills?
english not being native does not necessarily mean second rate.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Dafuq is "biologically European"?
Aahahhahaa, I love this thread.

Do you guys really go your everyday lives pretending that Europe doesn't exist? That Europeans were somehow never distinct from other ethnic groups and cultures around the world?

I'm being serious.


Europe is a notion whose definition has drastically changed over the centuries.
You could say the same about Africa. The borders have changed, yet the people who lived there for thousands of years did not. I wonder why? 🤔

When the fucking European settlers came to North America, did Native Americans transform their skin color to become white? No. They still remained distinct from the European settlers.

Certain Native Americans tribes today actually demand DNA tests before they admit new members. Why would they do this if Europeans were all the same?

Gee, Asian genetics must have changed dramatically between 1940 and 1980... or maybe it was their socio-economic standing.
I already stated in this thread that less Americans were educated in general the further you go back to the past.

That has nothing to do with the actual IQ gap however. In fact, it proves the opposite. More education did not erase the gap.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iPaul93

LegendOfKage

Gold Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,430
3,320
660
@JordanN

I have absolutely no desire to discuss race as it relates to IQ, which isn't what this thread was ever intended to be about, but I do wish you would post your own definition of the term 'racism.' I still don't quite understand why you avoided my questions earlier in the thread. If your concern is that people misuse the word, why would you object to a request for you to define it yourself?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
@JordanN

I have absolutely no desire to discuss race as it relates to IQ, which isn't what this thread was ever intended to be about, but I do wish you would post your own definition of the term 'racism.' I still don't quite understand why you avoided my questions earlier in the thread. If your concern is that people misuse the word, why would you object to a request for you to define it yourself?
Can I ask why does it matter?
I already gave my explanation behind the word.

I don't believe the desire to discuss scientific facts and differences relating to racial groups is racist. I also do not share viewpoints that call for extremism or violence against others.

If someone wanted to discuss certain biological truths behind genders, they wouldn't be called sexist.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,060
1,962
1,180
The greatest source of bullshit in this thread is you trying to squirm your way out of making heinous accusations and not backing it up.
To be fair this isn't the first rodeo with Jordans sources, guys like Charles Murray, John Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Flynn and etc, he's used them and they've been scrutinized. It's easy to find them, but it's also easy to find the rebukes of them. Somehow he only pays attention to particular information. It's not an issue of exposure, but of selection.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
To be fair this isn't the first rodeo with Jordans sources, guys like Charles Murray, John Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Flynn and etc, he's used them and they've been scrutinized. It's easy to find them, but it's also easy to find the rebukes of them. Somehow he only pays attention to particular information. It's not an issue of exposure, but of selection.
Then it should've been easy for Yoshi to do so without just crying racist and the rest of us having to wait for SH to show up and provide a substantiated rebuke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPaul93

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
To be fair this isn't the first rodeo with Jordans sources, guys like Charles Murray, John Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Flynn and etc, he's used them and they've been scrutinized. It's easy to find them, but it's also easy to find the rebukes of them. Somehow he only pays attention to particular information. It's not an issue of exposure, but of selection.
No one has rebuked them.

I even posted a direct video of one of the people who claimed to "debunk" Rushton in a debate and lost.

People need to stop reading "because x scientist disagrees now all research is fake".

By your logic, if I found a scientist who disagreed with climate change, is climate change now fake? No? Ok, now stop treating studies of race & IQ the same.

I've also posted many other sources that don't even make mention of Rushton, Murray, Jensen. Again, you want a honest debate, then actually give a honest read through my material. But no one has done that because they know my information is completely right.
 
Last edited:

LegendOfKage

Gold Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,430
3,320
660
Can I ask why does it matter?
Because for me personally, racism comes down to a form of hypocrisy and an attempt to justify assumptions that one group is better than another, which is why I asked the questions that I asked. If you agree that words matter, can be overused to the point of harming their original meaning, and should be reserved for instances that fit their definition, I would think you'd want to define that original meaning yourself rather than letting others define it for you.

I already gave my explanation behind the word.
You already gave your personal definition of the word racism? Perhaps I missed it. Could you link the post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Because for me personally, racism comes down to a form of hypocrisy and an attempt to justify assumptions that one group is better than another,
Why can't groups be "different"? Why is the go to answer always "superior/inferior"?

Again, this is why I can't take the word seriously because of how easily manipulative it can be.

It is universally accepted that Men and Women possess different physical strength ON AVERAGE. Yet no one is called sexist or a hypocrite for pointing this out.

If I make the same scienitific observations when it comes to other human groups, then I do not want to be called racist for using these facts.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,060
1,962
1,180
No one has rebuked them.

I even posted a direct video of one of the people who claimed to "debunk" Rushton in a debate and lost.

People need to stop reading "because x scientist disagrees now all research is fake".

By your logic, if I found a scientist who disagreed with climate change, is climate change now fake? No? Ok, now stop treating studies of race & IQ the same.

I've also posted many other sources that don't even make mention of Rushton, Murray, Jensen. Again, you want a honest debate, then actually give a honest read through my material. But no one has done that because they know my information is completely right.
No you don't get it. I've even posted many articles for you to read. They showed how flawed all of their methodologies and how premature their conclusions were, especially for your boy Jensen, and yet you still source him. Old ass relics have been long debunked, the science has moved on. There's a name for that kind of science, but I forgot the term right now.

Jordan you can admit the truth. The fundamental problem is that you search for the conclusion that you want.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
No you don't get it. I've even posted many articles for you to read.
Then post them again.
See, look how scared people get that something so simple as refuting "evidence" requires a long drawn conversation of nothing.

I've been here for 9 pages and no one has said anything to refute the evidence I have so far. Just lots of wincing and moaning, but 0 facts.

ssolitare said:
They showed how flawed all of their methodologies and how premature their conclusions were, especially for your boy Jensen, and yet you still source him. Old ass relics have been long debunked, the science has moved on. There's a name for that kind of science, but I forgot the term right now.

Jordan you can admit the truth. The fundamental problem is that you search for the conclusion that you want.
It's 100 years of the same gaps occurring over and over again.

This is literally like climate change/evolution all over again.

"But but it's too early! You need to wait 10 BILLION years to prove evolution is true and not a theory."

Once again, stop moaning. I'm only here for facts, not your feelings.
 
Last edited: