BTW perhaps skin color is more than just skin deep?
For instance this study finds darker pigment people are: More aggressive, have more sex and lower IQ
BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER GIVEN EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN RACE AND IQ.
You’ve made that assertion several times, un-asked for, and never once backed up the causal chain. When you asked rhetorically–probably as a means of avoiding the requirement of giving EVIDENCE OF CAUSE–whether it even mattered, many people said yes it matters.
You then never even attempted to prove a causal link. You refered to a couple blogs, shifted the goal posts, and tried to go on the attack (poorly).
The onus is on YOU to provide evidence of cause for your original assertion.
2 Likes
Again…
In the field of logic - yet another field you know nothing about - this is what’s called an ad hominem. You’re simply stating they’re wrong on the facts because they, uh, are jerks politically inclined to disagree (with, incidentally, no proof that they are, you don’t know their politics). Nope, they said the conclusions are unsupported.
Whatever you think of what I’ve posted on race and IQ, people here have made a positive claim to knowledge (racial differences are environmentally driven). No one has backed this assertion or laid it out
RE: Weat Hunter…In fields completely unrelated to the study and understanding of genetics (one is an optical physicist), who didn’t cite any sources, and who make assertions that are mindbogglingly dumb to a modern geneticist.
RE: Nyborg is a psychologist. Not a geneticist, and has not published anything even remotely close to evidence of a causal link. Again, his assertion is completely ad hoc.
Which you haven’t given, mr. blog poster.
I posted a link (to Brick). @anon50325502 posted a bunch of information supporting this claim. So, as usual, you’re lying in hopes of distracting from your shortcomings.
But, as has been repeated a zillion times, the burden is on you to show causation. You won’t because you can’t, but more important to the point, your claim is dead in the water till you do. That’s basic science and evidence - you don’t get to change the rules just because the demands of science and evidence undermine the social voodoo you lazily subscribe to.
1 Like
Are you a geneticist?
This one is dedicated to you.
[quote]
The association between family/parenting and offspring IQ remains the matter of debate because of threats related to genetic confounding. The current study is designed to shed some light on this association by examining the influence of parenting influences on adolescent and young adult IQ scores. To do so, a nationally representative sample of youth is analyzed along with a sample of adoptees. The sample of adoptees is able to more fully control for genetic confounding. The results of the study revealed that there is only a marginal and inconsistent influence of parenting on offspring IQ in adolescence and young adulthood. These weak associations were detected in both the nationally representative sample and the adoptee subsample. Sensitivity analyses that focused only on monozygotic twins also revealed no consistent associations between parenting/family measures and verbal intelligence. Taken together, the results of these statistical models indicate that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores. The implications of this study are discussed in relation to research examining the effects of family/parenting on offspring IQ scores. [/quote]
No shit, dude. You know what, though, it’s my fault for arguing with someone that is clearly handicapped.
Just to throw in my 2 pennies, I don’t think there’s a link between race and IQ but there is definitely a link between IQ and culture.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Many adopted children have led messed up lives prior to adoption. They are not a good sample population for studying development on any level.
I want to say that environment makes a difference, but even when environmental factors are factored in, they still cannot completely account for racial differences in IQ that consistently show up.
Malnutrition, breastfeeding, spanking for example have shown some effects on IQ.
The problem is many people in this thread are so devoted to the idea that race plays no difference. It’s akin to questioning a religious belief for them.
Unfortunately for you, posting just " a couple" links, one or two, is not exactly how it is done. It runs straight into the possibility of the fallacy of cherry picking.
To avoid cherry picking it is usually best practice to gather a large number of references for numerous assertions as well as to show that the idea is supported by numerous lines of evidence and/or researchers/studies.
Evidence is cumulative.
Let’s take a look at a couple normal standards shall we? In the author submission guidelines for the journal “Science” references are supposed to number about 30 for short reports about 3 pages, about 40 for research articles about 5 pages, and about 100 for reviews.
“Cancer Discovery” guidelines indicate research articles 50 references, research briefs have 25 references, reviews have 75 references. Mini reviews are allowed to have 50 references.
Even letters to the editor are required to have 5 references.
Now, since this is an online forum and not a peer reviewed journal there are no reference requirements to post an opinion. To assert something scientifically on the other hand does require evidence of some kind to show it is not pulled directly out of your ass.
Generally speaking when you’re talking about causal evidence for a specofoc assertion you had better have more than 1 or 2 links to blog posts to support it to be taken seriously by scientists. We are USED to reading papers with 30+ references, and in fact we usually prefer that so that we can check the studies ourselves.
Of course, stating an opinion doesn’t need any references. I think the Beatles kick ass. And talking about logical arguments doesn’t necessarily need any references either–rules of logic ahould apply.
On the other hand, if you want an assertion to be taken seriously on an empirical subject in science, it would probably be better to at least attempt to support it.
4 Likes
Well, now I’m not talking to them about that assertion am I? I am talking to YOU about YOUR assertion. Whataboutism doesn’t save you
1 Like
The mass posting of links which I am objecting to is so we can have a conversation on this topic in the medium of communication we are using.
How on earth do you expect someone to effectively read through a dozen links, especially when he doesn’t even annotate them with his own explanations?
Biochemist, which is integrally linked to genetics. I am pursuing additional formal advanced degree work focusing on genetics and epigenetics.
EDIT–to add: biochemistry is the father field of modern genetics, as the pioneers who developed the field as well as the duo that discovered DNA’s role as gene carriers were biochemists.
In addition, it is extremely common for biochemists to work together with strict geneticists in publishing and performing research as well as with molecular biologists. They are both highly related fields and crossover is the norm.
4 Likes
A more fundamental problem is your inability to define the term race (in a way that isn’t tautological).
From what I’ve read, racial differences have accelerated in the past 10,000 years in the advent of agriculture. As agriculture grew, so did population size leading to more genetic variants.
Let me post the source, i read it a while ago, explanation is here: