MODS, forgive this slight thread detour, but Tomenable's nonsense must be addressed. On certain other anthophora and science based forums, he wouldn't even be allowed to post such unsubstantiated, unsupported bunk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I'm not the first to say this to you (besides having already personally said this to you several times), but you really
must learn to properly
read and
decipher the articles/studies/sources you cite, less you run the risk of looking
stupid. It's rather ironic that you cite a racialist bigot like Davide Piffer whose work is used by White Nationalists and their sympathizers to argue that IQ should be used to
vet which immigrants are allowed into the country (arguing that intellectual
ineptitude should preclude the current, coincidentally brown batch from entering), yet your very own intellectual laziness and/or
ineptitude prevents you from properly
vetting your (already flawed) sources to make sure they affirm your flimsy, ill-conceived arguments.
It's tragically hilarious for a few reasons, one being that people like you don't
truly believe in science, though you feign to, which is ultimately why your endeavors are usually rooted in pseudo-science and anti-intellectualism.
No room for Black progress in the U.S. left, they already reached their innate potential:
https://thewinnower.com/papers/esti...mpact-of-socioeconomic-factors-and-migrations
Even if the dodgy science and glaring flaws in Davide Piffer's study are ignored, and we just take him at the conclusions he's reached alone, that's still enough to discredit YOU, seeing as how you're citing someone who holds a position contrary to your premise.
But wait a minute, some of Piffer's flaws are too critical to ignore and must be addressed:
1.) The references used by Piffer are replete with reviled, debunked and disgraced White Nationalists/Neo-Nazis like Emil Kirkegaard (who isn't even a scientist, let alone a formally peer reviewed one) and Richard Lynn, who is brazen enough in his pseudo-scientific bigotry that even the SPLC has flagged him (
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-lynn). Though one's personal beliefs and ideologies don't necessarily prohibit him from upholding scientific truth and veracity, they do speak to motivation and agenda. Having said that, Richard Lynn was found to have manipulated and falsified data on his widely panned and ridiculed African IQ studies--the studies that have, in part, driven the work of Davide Piffer and particularly, studies like this.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634
"A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans"
We criticize Lynn and Meisenberg's (this issue) methods to estimate the average IQ (in terms of British norms after correction of the Flynn Effect) of the Black population of sub-Saharan Africa. We argue that their review of the literature is unsystematic, as it involves the inconsistent use of rules to determine the representativeness and hence selection of samples. Employing independent raters, we determined of each sample whether it was (1) considered representative by the original authors, (2) drawn randomly, (3) based on an explicated stratification scheme, (4) composed of healthy test-takers, and (5) considered by the original authors as normal in terms of Socio-Economic Status (SES). We show that the use of these alternative inclusion criteria would not have affected our results. We found that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of the samples' representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples' relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg's unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy.
The samples, considered by Lynn (and Vanhanen), but discarded here, are given in the Appendix. Besides the two samples described above (Klingelhofer, 1967; Zindi, 1994), these are Wober's (1969) sample of factory workers, and Verhaegen's (1956) sample of uneducated adults from a primitive tribe in the then Belgian Congo in the 1950s. Verhaegen indicated that the SPM test format was rather confusing to the test-takers, and that the test did not meet the standards of valid measurement. In Wober's study, the reliability and validity were too low (Wober, 1975). In three of the samples in Table 1, the average IQ is below 70. These are Owen's large sample of Black South African school children tested in the 1980s, the 17 Black South Africans carefully selected for their illiteracy by Sonke (2001), and a group of uneducated Ethiopian Jewish children, who lived isolated from the western world in Ethiopia and immigrated to Israel in the 1980s (Kaniel & Fisherman, 1991). The last two samples cannot be considered to be representative.
[...]
Our review of the literature on the performance of Africans on the Raven's tests showed that the average IQ of Africans on the Raven's tests is lower than the average IQ in western countries. However, the average IQ of Africans is not as low as Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy (2008) maintained. The majority of studies on IQ test performance of Africans not taken into account by Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy showed considerably higher average IQs than the studies that they did review. We judge the reviews of Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy to be unsystematic. These authors missed a large part of the literature on IQ testing in Africa, failed to explicate their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and made downward errors in the conversion of raw scores to IQs (Wicherts, 2007). Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s estimate of average IQ of Africans of around 67 is untenable. Our review indicates that it is about 78 (UK norms) or 80 (US norms). These means are somewhat lower than the means of Africans on other IQ tests, which lie around 82 (Wicherts et al., 2010). These results undermine evolutionary theories of race differences in intelligence of Lynn (2006), Rushton (2000), and Kanazawa (2004) (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010a; Wicherts et al., 2010b).
Essentially, in attaining African IQ samples, Lynn included inadequate samples of mentally and physically disabled people, samples where the test was not administered in its entirety, where a time limit was imposed when it shouldn't have been, where proper instructions were not given, and where there was a lack of appropriate norms. THIS, THIS is the type of "scholar" that Piffer so heavily relies on his is studies--someone whose entire body of work has become suspect and untrustworthy. Utterly pathetic and anti-scientific--the whole lot of you.
2.) Also, like I've said several times in rebutting your ridiculous IQ obsessions, intelligence--even the very limited IQ variant--involves the combination of
thousands of genes. Am I supposed to be swayed by the study of 4 SNPs/alleles by Piffer? Furthermore, no single gene has been found that has a
significant role in defining intelligence and differences in intelligence. So far, most of the genes that have been implicated only have trivial effect on intelligence whereas the effects due to environment, have been far more substantial and noteworthy...which brings me to how even Piffer's shoddy work deflates your premise that "there is no room for Black Progress in the US left."
3.) From Piffer's mouth:
Another aim of this paper is to test the hypothesis that a detrimental environment can depress average phenotypic IQ, hence populations living in worse socioeconomic conditions would not have reached their full potential (as indicated by their genotypic score).
And his conclusion:
The results also provide preliminary evidence in favor of the hypothesis that poor environmental conditions (i.e. economic and sociocultural) tend to depress national IQ scores. Countries with lower per capita GDP and a lower index of Human Development tended to have larger positive “residuals”, that is the difference between the score predicted by the regression (of IQs for developed countries on the 4 SNPs g factor) and the actually measured IQ was larger in countries with lower GDP and HDI (r around 0.7). Thus, poorer and less developed countries have yet to reach their full intellectual potential.
:shocked: :shocked:
Because there is still a large,
UNDISPUTABLE, socioeconomic and inequality gap between blacks and whites in America,
largely due to past, present and residual institutional/systemic racism > (
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html ), how is it that they've already lived up to their "innate potential?" That would be a position that contradicts the one put forth by the bigot you cited?
https://psmag.com/inequality-in-black-and-white-14361b6386f9#.nx08gjz94
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities.aspx
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016...nequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
I know you won't read what I post, but I do so that you are incapable of saying someone actually tried to teach you something.
:useless:
Even though some people falsified scientific data just to prove that everyone is equal:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2011/06/14/mismeasuring-gould/
Gould falsified data about Black cranial capacity just to prove that they have lower IQ because of White racism, and not because of having lower average cranial capacities. I wonder how many "Whiteys" were killed by Blacks because those Blacks blamed them for their failures, instead of blaming their own low cranial capacity?
Now you are doing the same as Gould, justifying racism against "Whiteys" just to achieve some "racial progress", which will not happen anyway.
AGAIN, you cluelessly cite sources that DETRACT from your argument rather than support it.
1.) First of all, Gould didn't "falsify data about Black Cranial capacity." He suggested that Morton, driven by confirmation bias of his racist ideologies,
might have falsified data about Black Cranial capacity. He showed a difference between Morton's results by way of seed-based measurements (that seemed to support Morton's own racialist leanings) and shot-based measurements that seemed to be less favorable to Morton's personal race based biases. But Morton himself had already acknowledged that mistakes had been made in regards to the seed-based measurements that might skew the data. If anything, Gould had been disingenuous but he didn't
falsify that data. Seriously, is reading English a problem for you? I'm not even trying to be nasty, I'm earnestly asking. Alongside key details, you just routinely MISS the point of the articles you cite, to the point that there seems to be a legitimate comprehension issue...which is why you should avoid conversations in which you're ill-equipped to participate. Anyway, Gould's "falsifications" and misanalysis of Morton was indicted primarily by his handling of the Native American samples:
Gould's reanalysis of Morton's 1849 shot-based data resulted in a Native American mean capacity of 86 in3 rather than Morton's original 79 in3[1]. Gould obtained his new average by again taking the group mean of Native American populations with four or more crania. But Gould also applied an additional restriction: he only included Native American crania that Morton had also previously measured with seed. This restriction is entirely arbitrary on Gould's part, as Morton's publications and analyses for his seed- and shot-based measurements are completely separate (1839 versus 1849), and Gould did not apply this restriction to the other groups he reanalyzed in Morton's shot-based data. If this restriction is lifted, Gould's Native American average would be reduced to about 83 in3, considerably below his reported 86 in3(Dataset S3).
2.) This study did actually show that Morton had gotten some of his measurements wrong, but overall, that was not Gould's point. His primary intent wasn't to question Morton's measurements or to proclaim that they were fundamentally fraudulent, but to question Morton's interpretation of his own research and how his possible biases factored into that and what he'd do with that information.
Of the substantive criticisms Gould [1] made of Morton's work, only two are supported here. First, Morton indeed believed in the concept of race and assigned a plethora of different attributes to various groups, often in highly racist fashion. This, however, is readily apparent to anyone reading the opening pages of Morton's Crania Americana. Second, the summary table of Morton's final 1849 catalog [10] has multiple errors (Dataset S3).
Gould was an anti-racist and he wanted to expose Morton's biases. For example, Morton used only females for his "Hottentot" results and only male Englishmen for his white results. He then concluded, based on these results, that the "Hottentots" were the nearest approximation to the lower animals and that their women were even "more repulsive in appearance than the men." That speaks for itself! Gould was certainly correct in pointing out Morton's racist tendencies and how his biases impacted his conclusions.
3.) Now this is the most important thing: Even IF Gould blatantly falsified Morton's data, there was still
NO EVIDENCE OR CONFIRMATION THAT CRANIAL CAPACITY IMPACTS INTELLIGENCE!!!! AND EVEN THE STUDY YOU CITE SAYS AS MUCH:
Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that modern human variation is generally continuous, rather than discrete or “racial,” and that most variation in modern humans is within, rather than between, populations [11],[17]. In particular, cranial capacity variation in human populations appears to be largely a function of climate, so, for example, the full range of average capacities is seen in Native American groups, as they historically occupied the full range of latitudes [18]. It is thus with substantial reluctance that we use various racial labels, but it is impossible to discuss Morton and Gould's work without using the terms they employed.
That nature article does the same thing:
Now, in a paper published on 7 June, Jason Lewis, an anthropologist at Stanford University in California, and his colleagues test Gould's assertions in detail (J. Lewis et al.PLoS Biol. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071; 2011). They remeasured the volume of some 300 skulls in Morton's collection, which survives at the University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia, while taking care to blind themselves to knowledge of the population that each skull came from. Comparing their measurements to Morton's, they find no evidence that his were distorted by bias. Still, because they couldn't measure all the skulls, they do not know whether the average cranial capacities that Morton reported represent his sample accurately. (Cranial capacity varies mostly as a function of overall body size and stature, which is related to climate and nutrition, and there is no clear evidence of a link between cranial capacity and intelligence.)
And that living anthropologically source actually has a favorable bent towards Gould and the import of his overarching criticism of racism within science! For the love of SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE, Odin, Thor, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, and all things
holy, please learn to properly decipher the data you cite! You did not prove anything! Instead, your sources flat out contradict your claim! Herregud.
:useless:
Lastly, don't wonder about how many blacks have killed white people because of supposedly not accepting responsibility for their lot in life, which by the way, is the height of ridiculousness as a concept and moreover, those numbers would pale in comparison to the unwarranted atrocities committed towards them. If you want to be concerned, worry about the millions and millions of black people that died during the Middle Passage of the TransAtlantic slave trade; worry about the millions of native Africans slaughtered by European Colonialist/Imperialist forces; worry about the millions of black people displaced and disenfranchised by white European aggression. If they did want to blame and seek revenge on "Whitey" for his transgressions, they'd be totally justified. Word to the wise, try not to speak on subjects about which you know little to nothing. Again, all that does is expose the extent of your mind-blowing ignorance.
