Is IQ Really a Genetic Thing? [Archive]

Nachtwolf

Feb9-04, 06:52 PM

All knowledge is inherently neutral. You're asking a very good question, Paleo-Conservative, but this is a political question, and it isn't something you can answer just with the raw facts.

I actually make an effort to educate about racial differences precisely in the hope that people will use the knowledge humanely and wisely. Modern society is starting to fall into a trap - I've heard people say that "Of course slavery was wrong to deny minorities the right to vote, because we know that the races are the same." This kind of thinking confuses ethical issues with factual ones and essentially claims "If the races weren't equal, slavery would be justified." You already seem well aware of where that leads.

The key at this point is to educate in a calm and neutral sense. If we integrate this knowledge slowly and gently, there's no reason why we have to abandon our current value set which calls for humane treatment of everybody, irresopective of intelligence or racial origin.

This is why I have a problem with kids not having the right to vote and with retards getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing." We're all U.S. citizens, and as long as we draw lines based on intellectual ability we're setting a precedent. We really need to re-think our entire political system, although the trouble is that we probably won't.

Specifically regarding the fate of minorities, you can bet that this information will have some negative consequences. Affirmative action may well disappear, along with plenty of jobs currently held by minorities. Hate crime legislation will probably disappear. You'll probably see a lot of resentment on the part of whites who realize they've been hoodwinked and who take it out on minorities.

But it doesn't have to be all bad - schools integrated on the basis on of ability are an absolute nightmare for another significantly above or below the average, and most blacks are significantly below the average, so school is an endless series of frustrations for blacks. Large national surveys show that black 17-year-olds perform in school like white 13-year-olds - they are four years behind. Can you imagine an entire group of children bumped up four grades and expected to keep up? I can, and it sounds like an absolute nightmare to me!

Additionally people will finally be able to quit blaming minorities for economic and social failures. As it is now liberals blame conservatives and conservatives blame the minorities, but really this is just Mother Nature making us all different. Instead of flailing around ineffectually, we at least have the potential to strike at the root of the problem, apply gentle eugenic pressure, and resolve the issue in a positive way.

One thing is clear, however - there's no turning back. Now that the facts have been brought to light, we can't make them disappear. All we can do is try to steer this in a sensible direction as best we can.

--Mark

Nachtwolf

Feb9-04, 06:56 PM

Here's an article written in the 70's which I think is even more relevant to this issue today than it was then. We've had decades to adjust to this knowledge, and we aren't doing it very well.

--Mark

ARE ALL RACES EQUALLY INTELLIGENT? -- OR:
WHEN IS KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/knowledg.html

There has recently been an extensive controversy in the psychology literature on the possible genetic base of racial differences in intelligence. This has been so acrimonious as to inspire the thought that the controversy itself forms an interesting case-study in the sociology of knowledge. I refer to the articles by Jensen (1968 and 1969) and Garrett (1969). One outcome of these controversies is the apparently justified accusation by Jensen (1969b) that an important body of his colleagues (the members of the council of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) indulged in "propaganda" and disregard for the facts of the issue. Garrett (1969) makes similar observations. As Van den Haag (1969) points out, the cause of equalitarianism seems to have induced some remarkable failures of reasoning even among normally eminent social scientists. How may these phenomena be explained?

Study of Intelligence as the Hereditary Given

Before one can understand what is really going on in this controversy, it is necessary briefly to recapitulate some basic findings.

There is no doubt that American Negroes obtain lower average scores on standard intelligence tests than do American whites (Tyler, 1965, p. 306; Garrett; 1969). In fact the differences found are often so large and so regular in their incidence that this might be held to be one of the most impressive uniformities in the whole of psychological measurement.

To use Hebb's (1949) terminology there are two types of intelligence -- A and B. Intelligence A is the inborn, hereditary "given" whereas intelligence B is intelligence as measured, i.e. intelligence A plus some variable overlay of learned problem-solving strategies. It is mean differences across races in intelligence A that is of concern here.

Substitution of Ideology for Science

The way to assess differences in intelligence A is to control or equalize the influences and opportunities affecting the B Component. When this is done, differences remaining are attributable to intelligence A variations. Tanser (1939), Bruce (1940), and McQueen and Browning (1960) have carried out such studies where environmental influences on white and Negro groups have been controlled. All reported significant superiority of the white groups. In spite of this, most psychologists (Tyler, 1965, 9, 300) continue to claim that there are no innate differences in intelligence between whites and Negroes. The usual reason advanced for adherence to this credo is that the tests used must in some way be unfair to non-members of the dominant white culture (even though the Negroes and whites of Tanser's study had attended the same schools since 1890!). If this claim is true, how does one explain the consistent finding (Pintner, 1931) that Chinese and Japanese school-children get average test scores equal to or above those of American whites? One is asked to believe that the tests are unfair to people who have sat in the same classrooms as whites but not unfair to Chinese and Japanese who have a totally different cultural background.

Why is it that psychologists, who are most in a position to observe racial differences in intelligence, resolutely refuse to believe the evidence before their eyes? The answer to this is, I believe, an instructive, if sad, incident in the sociology of knowledge. Often drawn to their profession by humane or humanitarian considerations, psychologists are so committed to the belief that whites and Negroes morally should be treated equally that they seem to conclude, albeit unconsciously, that the best way of securing this morally desirable end is to convince people that whites and Negroes in fact are ontologically equal. If the facts fell into line with this account, all would be well, but as it is, the present author would question whether any moral goal is ultimately well served by denying reality as it is. If there are native differences in intelligence, our strategy in pursuing humanitarian goals must presumably become more adaptive by a recognition of it.

This question of the ideology subscribed to by the scientist is also relevant to the question of what we accept as a criterion for evidence. There have been many attempts to construct "culture fair" tests but their application has not been successful in removing Negro-white differences. We must then at some point ask ourselves: "When do we stop?" When do we consider the case proved? When do we start to conclude that there might not after all be some real difference there that is not attributable to a measurement artifact? Given the impressive uniformity of the findings to date, it seems abundantly clear that the existence of a real difference between races would long ago have been considered to have been proven out of hand were it not for an ideological commitment to the opposite viewpoint.

When is Moral Moral?

Just how much ideology can cause even an outstanding psychologist to drift into self-deception is exemplified in the position taken by McElwain (1970). McElwain is head of the Department of Psychology at Australia's largest university (Queensland) and author of the definitive "Queensland Test" of Aboriginal intelligence. This test was normed and validated on Aboriginal groups themselves. It includes only those sub-tests which could be shown to discriminate within the Aboriginal population. Although he does not appear to have committed himself in print, he has repeated to the present author in writing, an assertion often made to his students -- that when the Queensland test is given also to whites, a negative relationship between the discriminating power of a subtest within the Aboriginal population and the size of the gap between white and Aboriginal mean scores appears, i.e., as the test gets better so Aborigines rose closer to whites in average test scores. From this McElwain appears to suggest that if we got a really discriminating test, the difference between whites and Aborigines would disappear altogether.

Here, then, McElwain appears to commit the same fallacy in reverse that is so frequently alleged against tests normed and validated for whites! A test is designed specifically for an Aboriginal culture and yet whites still get higher scores on it! The amazing thing is that whites do not get lower scores on it. Of course the discriminating power and the size of the cross-racial gap are related. As the test is more and more characteristically Aboriginal in specific background, so whites are more and more disadvantaged. A true comparison study of the question set by this paper using the Queensland's test would require that a group of whites be found who shared an environmental background similar to the Aborigine culture. In that case only, might mean scores on McElwain's test be reasonably compared across the two racial groups.

If racial differences exist how do we explain them? A possible explanation is the ecological one: different racial groups develop different areas of excellence according to the specific demands of their characteristic environment. In the harsh European climate, forethought (symbolic thought) has historically been essential to survival -- particularly through the long winters. In Africa these same mental qualities have not had the same relative importance. Because of the more beneficient climate the importance of certain physical and psychomotor abilities has risen in comparison. In time the process of natural selection has ensured that these differentia became racially fixed. With the different characteristic environments of the white and Negro races, it would in fact be highly surprising to find similar levels in all abilities. What one would expect and what one does, I believe, find is that whites would be higher on cognitive abilities and Negroes higher on certain physical abilities.

Using the concept of a morality hierarchy proposed by Hampden-Turner and Whitten (1971) it might be said in fact that the attempt to deny the empirical findings of racial differences in intelligence in order to secure the moral goal of having all races treated equally represents a very low level of moral maturity. The person at the highest stage of moral development would presumably not need to have his moral resolve to treat people equally bolstered by assertions that people are equal anyhow. He would be anxious to do justice to the empirical findings in the awareness that they are essentially irrelevant to the moral decision he has made.

For the future then, humanitarian aims might perhaps best be served by abandoning the unlikely enterprise of proving all men equal. Instead, perhaps, we might concentrate on the question of what the difference between groups are -- and how differences might be used in the betterment of all.

Another God

Feb9-04, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Paleo-Conservative
In other words, will this information be used to help "lesser races" or to oppress them?

What lesser races?

hitssquad

Feb9-04, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
About 1/8 of our people, both white and black, have some trouble getting through the day in our bureauocratic country. we cannot expect the corproations to do anything for them, therefore the government has to help them.
There seems to be something missing in your syllogism.

-Chris

selfAdjoint

Feb9-04, 08:13 PM

It isn't a syllogism, it's a policy statement. Of course one solution would be just to kill those who can't "keep up", or to let them die of lack of food and medical care. But that isn't within my scope, and so something has to be done.

Paleo-Conservative

Feb10-04, 03:27 AM

Is this an example of what we non-Whites should be doing:

[The following is the first essay from Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays,
Three Papers Read Before the New York Board of Jewish Ministers, 1915,
Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1916.]

Jewish Eugenics
By Rabbi Max Reichler

Who knows the cause of Israel's survival? Why did the Jew survive the
onslaughts of Time, when others, numerically and politically stronger,
succumbed? Obedience to the Law of Life, declares the modern student
of eugenics, was the saving quality which rendered the Jewish race
immune from disease and destruction. "The Jews, ancient and modern,"
says Dr. Stanton Coit, "have always understood the science of eugenics,
and have governed themselves in accordance with it; hence the
preservation of the Jewish race."1

I. Jewish Attitude

To be sure eugenics as a science could hardly have existed among the
ancient Jews; but many eugenic rules were certainly incorporated in the
large collection of Biblical and Rabbinical laws. Indeed there are clear
indications of a conscious effort to utilize all influences that might
improve the inborn qualities of the Jewish race, and to guard against any
practice that might vitiate the purity of the race, or "impair the racial
qualities of future generations" either physically, mentally, or morally.2
The Jew approached the matter of sex relationship neither with the horror
of the prude, nor with the passionate eagerness of the pagan, but with
the sane and sound attitude of the far-seeing prophet. His goal was the
creation of the ideal home, which to him meant the abode of purity and
happiness, the source of strength and vigor for body and mind.4

The complete article is at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=rabbi+max+eugenics&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=b7j8f9%245qi%241%40reader08.wxs.nl&rnum=1

hitssquad

Feb10-04, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
It isn't a syllogism,
A syllogism is a "deductive logical scheme or analysis of a formal argument that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion." (M-W Unabridged 3.0)

About 1/8 of our people, both white and black, have some trouble getting through the day in our bureauocratic country.

That is a major premise.

we cannot expect the corproations to do anything for them,

That is a minor premise.

therefore the government has to help them.

That is a conclusion.

Major premise; minor premise; conclusion. It looks like it indeed is a syllogism.

it's a policy statement.
It might very well be, but it appears to be in the form of a syllogism. The conclusion of that syllogism does not appear to follow from its premises.

Of course one solution would be just to kill
Was there a problem stated?

something has to be done.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22something+has+to+be+done%22

-Chris

selfAdjoint

Feb10-04, 10:29 AM

Nah, I was the one who wrote it and I say it wasn't a syllogism, so it wasn't. I didn't lay out all the possibilities or want to. This is a very "sylly" argument.

Nereid

Feb10-04, 11:48 AM

Nachtwolf wrote (my emphasis): This is why I have a problem with kids not having the right to vote and with retards getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing." We're all U.S. citizens, and as long as we draw lines based on intellectual ability we're setting a precedent. We really need to re-think our entire political system, although the trouble is that we probably won't.Er, no we (PF members and guests) are not. FYI, the top five economies today (ranked by size of population):
China
India
EU
USA
Indonesia

According to information from the US Census Bureau's website (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html), the US has <5% of the world's population (it doesn't seem to tally citizens and 'resident aliens' as separate groups).

Nereid

Feb10-04, 12:08 PM

Paleo wrote: *SNIP But, as a person of color, I am curious to know what White people plan to do with this information. I mean, let's say it's really true, all these claims about intelligence, race, etc.Just as Nachtwolf assumed the US is the whole world, so Paleo is perhaps blurring the distinction between some White folk in the US and members of population groups such as 'English', 'Greek', 'Italian', and 'Danish' (per hitssquad's link to data from Cavalli-Sforza et al), most of whom don't live in the US.

Paleo, if folk such as Nachtwolf were true to their beliefs, they should campaign for the US to become the 33rd province of the People's Republic of China (or something similar), then agitate for social benefits for disadvantaged whites. At the same time, they would encourage inter-breeding between folk in the 33rd province and Japanese, Koreans and Chinese, as part of a eugenic campaign to allow them (the whites) to catch up with the JKC's in mean IQ.

Of course I'm kidding, but it makes you wonder how the boot feels when it's on the other foot. [;)]

hitssquad

Feb11-04, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
Nachtwolf wrote (my emphasis)
We're all U.S. citizens, and as long as we draw lines based on intellectual ability we're setting a precedent.
Er, no we (PF members and guests) are not. FYI, the top five economies today (ranked by size of population):
China
India
EU
USA
Indonesia
And the top six nations in terms of size of population of netizenry are:

1 United States 165,750,000 2002
2 Japan 56,000,000 2002
3 China 45,800,000 2002
4 United Kingdom 34,300,000 2002
5 Germany 32,100,000 2002
6 Korea, South 25,600,000 2002

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2153rank.html

According to information from the US Census Bureau's website (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html), the US has <5% of the world's population
According to the CIA World Factbook's figure of 604,111,719 netizens in the world, the United States has 27% of the world's netizen population.

So, 27% of us are U.S. citizens.

-Chris

Nachtwolf

Feb11-04, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Paleo-Conservative
Is this an example of what we non-Whites should be doing:
I'd say it's an example of what everybody should be doing, although it is merely an example. Eugenics has been practiced in many forms throughout society; older societies (such as Greece or China) often practiced infanticide on unwanted children and polygamy for the upper class males, and more modern societies (like my own state of California) have enacted forced sterilization laws. (See http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/essays.htm --> Ancient Times for a more thorough investigation.)

It's important to realize that these severe or awkward eugenic methods are not necessary to improve intellectual ability. Certainly I know of no self described eugenist alive who advocates any of that! The best eugenic method - and this is only my opinion - is simply the voluntary procreation of intelligent and healthy couples. This is the form of eugenics promoted by Hawk in his Millennium, and its effectiveness rests entirely on the conscience of the individual rather than the impersonal hand of the state.

--Mark

Nereid

Feb12-04, 09:12 PM

So, 27% of us are U.S. citizens. You forgot the 'resident aliens', illegal immigrants, ...!

Evo

Feb16-04, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

This is why I have a problem with kids not having the right to vote and with retards getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing." --Mark retards? getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing? You are unbelieveable.

Nachtwolf

Feb16-04, 04:42 PM

The only thing unbelievable is your ignorance, Evo - although I'm rapidly becoming a believer!

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/32/features-catania2.php

The generally accepted definition of mental retardation is an intelligence quotient of around 70 or less, with significant limitations on adaptive skills, such as communication or caring for oneself. The high court's ruling last week barring the execution of the mentally retarded also requires the onset of such a condition by age 18.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Sharp_MR.htm

Currently, during pre-trial, trial and appeals, the law provides evaluation for mental competency -- and such an evaluation requires that the defendant understand the consequences of their actions, that they must be able to constructively participate in their own defense and that they understand the nature of their punishment. Furthermore, mental capability is one of the many issues that a jury might consider when establishing mitigation which may dictate a sentence less than death. Quite simply, only mentally competent capital murderers can face either execution or life in prison.

I'm sure we'd all love to see Evo explain to us how a convicted murderer who gets to dance away from his sentence on account of mental retardation isn't "getting off easy!"

--Mark

Evo

Feb16-04, 09:38 PM

No you ignoramous, I was referring to your use of the word "retard" in reference to a person with a mental illness. What are you 10 years old?

You are too ignorant and uneducated to catch that!!!!!

Nachtwolf you are so stupid it is mind boggling.

Nachtwolf

Feb16-04, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Evo
No you ignoramous, I was referring to your use of the word "retard" in reference to a person with a mental illness. What are you 10 years old?
Hahahaha, am I not politically correct enough for you? Just for fun, let's think back - the word "retarded" is actually an old PC term. It was a way to talk about people who were previously called "idiots" or "morons" in a friendly, non-stigmatized way.

I'm sorry if you find the word "retard" offensive, although it's quite amusing that you'll defend the honor of the retarded and then immediately turn around and try to insult me by calling me the stupidest person you've ever seen.

--Mark

Evo

Feb16-04, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Hahahaha, am I not politically correct enough for you? Just for fun, let's think back - the word "retarded" is actually an old PC term. It was a way to talk about people who were previously called "idiots" or "morons" in a friendly, non-stigmatized way.
--Mark Actually the word "moron" originally was a medical classification used in psychology for people with mild mental retardation of a mental age between 7-12 years of age generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. It's original use did not have the negative connotations currently associated with it.

The term "idiot" was originally a medical classification used in pyschology to describe a person with profound mental retardation, usually with a mental age below 3 years and generally unable to learn connected speech.

The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard". [;)]

Nachtwolf

Feb17-04, 01:06 AM

The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.
One of my good friends, Daniel, is gay. He refers to himself as a fag. The politeness police freak out when they hear this; it's incredible how emotionally unhinged some people are, isn't it?

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard".
Well, you can call me anything you like, but your hypersensetivity to the word "retard" doesn't change the fact that right now, retards can be convicted of heinous crimes and avoid the full penalty of the law. If you don't dispute that, then why are you even arguing? Because you personally are intolerant of certain words, and feel the need to burden others with your emotional baggage?

--Mark

Nereid

Feb17-04, 09:44 PM

hitssquad wrote: According to the CIA World Factbook's figure of 604,111,719 netizens in the world, the United States has 27% of the world's netizen population.... and making some possibly unwarranted extrapolations (using data from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm),
- next year (2005) there will be more netizens in the EU than the US
- in 2007 there will be more in China than the US (so that Accenture (?) ad wasn't wrong!)

Nachtwolf

Feb17-04, 10:42 PM

Hey, now you're thinking like a eugenist!

And I'd be surprised if 2007 rolled around and you turned out to be wrong.

--Mark

hitssquad

Feb17-04, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
- next year (2005) there will be more netizens in the EU than the US
- in 2007 there will be more in China than the US
That latter extrapolation is in keeping with Richard Lynn's prediction (from his book Eugenics: A Reassesment) that China -- because of its population's present characteristic IQ and because of its population's characteristic temperament which allows for state-controlled eugenics -- will soon become the world's sole superpower.

--
As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state.
--
(Richard Lynn. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Chapter 21, The Evolution of the Eugenic World State; Part 5, The Emergence of Chinese Global Supremacy; p314.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275958221

-Chris

Nereid

Feb18-04, 04:48 AM

Hmm, Let's see now, 1.2b > 0.3b, so China will become a bigger economy than the US when its per capita GDP is only ~25% as big (crudely). India, 1.1b > 0.3b; 1.1b ~1.2b, so India will reach the size of China (economically) only if their relative rates of economic growth cross over. Further, once there's (relatively) free trade, (relatively) free movement of capital, not too much corruption, at least a modestly capitalist economy, a decent system of universal public education, (etc), then the economic theory of comparative advantage is all you need to say that the Chinese economy will grow to be larger than the US'. And so will India's, but it might take another 10 more years.

No need for Lynn; Ricardo and Adam Smith are more than sufficient.

hitssquad

Feb18-04, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
once there's (relatively) free trade, (relatively) free movement of capital, not too much corruption, at least a modestly capitalist economy, a decent system of universal public education, (etc), then the economic theory of comparative advantage is all you need to say that the Chinese economy will grow to be larger than the US'. And so will India's,
Many arabic nations have all of these things, yet universally are economic failures, relying upon happenstance rentier rights, rather than upon creation of economic value, to feed themselves.

Ditto for many tropical resort nations.

These are the low-IQ outliers from the Lynn-Vanhanen regression trend line. They make far more money than their IQs alone would predict. But they also make far less money than their happenstance wealth would predict under the comparative advantage model. Norway is similarly blessed with oil as Saudi Arabia is, yet, unlike the latter's, Norway's economy is not dropping like a rock. The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool afflicted with a tendency to express as a low-IQ, uneducable and unemployable populace that cannot even find employment for itself within its own national borders in the face of competition from higher-IQ foreign guest workers. These are Saudis with college degrees. Perhaps it is because Saudi employers -- in a nation of mentally-13-year-olds where everyone possesses a state-sponsored college degree -- know what a Saudi college degree is worth.

With an average IQ of 81, India will buck the trend and grow to be a more-powerful economy than the United States (with an average IQ of 98) is? How? The United States has plenty of people with low IQs, too. They systematically fail to contribute to the economy of the United States. Why would low-IQ people perform any differently in India?

As they softly speak magic spells rote memorized in a decent system of universal public education they will burn their cow dung into gold bars? In the words of Vandana Shiva,

--
In India we worship cow-dung as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. The famous festival of Gobur-dhan puja is literally the occasion to worship gobur (cow-dung) dhan (wealth).
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=india+%22cow+dung%22

-Chris

russ_watters

Feb18-04, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
One thing is clear, however - there's no turning back. Now that the facts have been brought to light, we can't make them disappear. All we can do is try to steer this in a sensible direction as best we can.

--Mark Just to be clear here, you're suggesting that those deemed less intelligent should not be allowed to breed?[edit:nevermind, just read the next thread.]

There are some major misconceptions in your post, specifically your comment re: voting, but I'll get to that later. That eugenics thing if I understand you correctly is very, very bad.

And I didn't see it, but has anyone mentioned the identical twins issue?

hitssquad

Feb18-04, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
has anyone mentioned the identical twins issue?
What is the identical twins issue?

-Chris

Nereid

Feb18-04, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by hitssquad
Many arabic nations have all of these things, yet universally are economic failures, relying upon happenstance rentier rights, rather than upon creation of economic value, to feed themselves.

Ditto for many tropical resort nations.

These are the low-IQ outliers from the Lynn-Vanhanen regression trend line. They make far more money than their IQs alone would predict. But they also make far less money than their happenstance wealth would predict under the comparative advantage model. Norway is similarly blessed with oil as Saudi Arabia is, yet, unlike the latter's, Norway's economy is not dropping like a rock. The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool afflicted with a tendency to express as a low-IQ, uneducable and unemployable populace that cannot even find employment for itself within its own national borders in the face of competition from higher-IQ foreign guest workers. These are Saudis with college degrees. Perhaps it is because Saudi employers -- in a nation of mentally-13-year-olds where everyone possesses a state-sponsored college degree -- know what a Saudi college degree is worth.

With an average IQ of 81, India will buck the trend and grow to be a more-powerful economy than the United States (with an average IQ of 98) is? How? The United States has plenty of people with low IQs, too. They systematically fail to contribute to the economy of the United States. Why would low-IQ people perform any differently in India?

As they softly speak magic spells rote memorized in a decent system of universal public education they will burn their cow dung into gold bars? In the words of Vandana Shiva,

--
In India we worship cow-dung as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. The famous festival of Gobur-dhan puja is literally the occasion to worship gobur (cow-dung) dhan (wealth).
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=india+%22cow+dung%22(taking a deep breath ....)

Perhaps we should start a thread on economic development? It's taken quite a while - and some rigourous applications of statistics that would make even Jensen's hair curl - but there's a solid body of economic practice and theory that addresses your points.

In 15-second sound bites (yes, vastly over-simplified):

Many arabic nations: deliberately denying half the adult population the opportunity to participate meaningfully and fully in economic life?

Ditto for many tropical resort nations: small economies with very narrow bases -> no resilience against the inevitable shocks

*SNIP higher-IQ foreign guest workers (in Saudi)*SNAP; *SNIPWith an average IQ of 81, India will *SNIP: er, the guest workers come from India (and Pakistan, and ...)

The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool *SNIP: make that "a corrupt elite" and it's generalisable; immense natural resource wealth is a curse, especially for a developing economy without strong democratic institutions

Democratic and 'free economy' institutions: these are more important than was realised in the 1950s, and take ~two decades to build if there are older traditions and institutions to work from; if not (e.g. a particularly nasty colonial legacy, as in the Congo; a war, as in VietNam), even longer

Women's lib: as above

Universal public education: literacy matters (and numeracy counts)

And above all else: free trade. This is the most powerful tool the US has used - as both carrot and stick. And it's still hugely important - ask the cotton farmers of west Africa why they can't make a living by exporting their high quality, competitively priced cotton to the world's largest market. One reason why the Chinese economy has been able to grow so well (and why the Indian economy will too) is that it's big enough to withstand shocks from trade with the US, and is big enough to be credible in negotiating with OECD countries.

Oh, and if L+V's work is badly flawed, what is the point of repeating what's in their book?

Nachtwolf

Feb18-04, 05:33 PM

That eugenics thing if I understand you correctly is very, very bad.
I think you understand me correctly, but I also think your ability to use value judgments is underdeveloped. Let's be sure of the first point and then we'll tackle the second.

I shouldn't have to state that I'm opposed to genocide and involuntary sterilization. I am wary of genetic manipulation and don't promote it. I'm not a fan of totalitarian schemes of any sort. But I am especially in favor of voluntary eugenics such as free mate choice, genetic counselling, and personal decisions about how many children to have, and I am also in favor of certain low-key governmental programs such as socialized (free, widely and easily available) birth control, immigration reform, and public announcements.

Now that that's clear, let's look at your ability to use value judgments.

What in God's Green Earth is wrong with voluntarily deciding to have more or fewer children? What in blazes is "very, very bad" about giving people free birth control and letting them use it as they wish? What is so horrible about educating people on the subject of evolution? Are those "Truth" commercials which highlight the inherent dangers to smoking "very, very bad?"

Here's a better question, Russ - do you think that poverty, crime, illiteracy, illegitemacy, driving accidents, and workplace incompetence are "very, very bad?" And if so, what is your plan for decreasing these problems? If you think you have a better way to resolve these issues in a humane and cost effective manner, I'm sure we would all be very interested to hear what it is!

--Mark

Nereid

Feb18-04, 06:07 PM

hitssqud wrote: That latter extrapolation is in keeping with Richard Lynn's prediction (from his book Eugenics: A Reassesment) that China -- because of its population's present characteristic IQ and because of its population's characteristic temperament which allows for state-controlled eugenics -- will soon become the world's sole superpower.
--
As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state.
You don't need any of this scary stuff, simple global free trade and an open economy (plus 1.2 billion people) will ensure that China gets bigger than the US economically (with India following a decade or two later).

The rest seems to me like what I understand psychologists call "projection" - it's what Lynn would do if he were Hu Jintao's successor.

A more detailed study of Chinese culture might lead a different scholar to a very different conclusion.

Nereid

Feb18-04, 06:16 PM

Nachtwolf wrote: But I am especially in favor of voluntary eugenics such as free mate choice, genetic counselling, and personal decisions about how many children to have, and I am also in favor of certain low-key governmental programs such as socialized (free, widely and easily available) birth control, immigration reform, and public announcements.Didn't I see that you also thought removal of all 'hate laws' would be a good idea, ditto a return to segregated schools (in the US), banning all conjugal visits to prisoners (or was it only blacks?), significant welfare reform, and (I'm not so sure of this) redistribution of spending on public education, away from schools for poor blacks to rich whites?

hitssquad

Feb19-04, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
You don't need
...the g nexus?...

simple global free trade and an open economy (plus 1.2 billion people) will ensure that China gets bigger than the US economically (with India following a decade or two later).
Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world?

China's genetically characteristic high IQ, and India's genetically characteristic IQ terminating at below the mental age of the average 13 year old British child, do not effect the respective probabilities for China's and India's respective economic outcomes? Yet IQ does effect relative outcome between American cities and American states? How could this be?

-Chris

Nereid

Feb19-04, 07:18 PM

hitssquad wrote:
China's genetically characteristic high IQ, and India's genetically characteristic IQ terminating at below the mental age of the average 13 year old British child, do not effect [sic; I think hitssquad means 'affect'] the respective probabilities for China's and India's respective economic outcomes? Yet IQ does effect [sic; harder to say; both 'affect' and 'effect' could be what hitssquad means] relative outcome between American cities and American states? How could this be? Well, for a start, I don't think it's been established what the 'genetically characteristic IQ' of either economy is.

First, there's still an open 'Stats-101' question about the data Lynn and Vanhanen used - and the conclusion they reached - re 'China' and the dominant population group (Han Chinese).

Then, for me at least, a set of open questions on L+V's methods.

Third, the Wipro reality check (see the other thread) - I understand Wipro is not a sport, nor managed by white Americans (and certainly not by Han Chinese!); there're a rather a lot of Indian software companies, producing absolutely world-class products. (But then, maybe 13 year old British kids are pretty good hackers? Well, last time I looked, the Indians among them certainly could be [;)]).

Fourth, my toy research - city living all but guarrantees smarts.hitssquad wrote: Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world? This is a really good question [:))] . I've got some ideas; ttul. [:)]

hitssquad

Feb20-04, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
city living all but guarrantees smarts.
Then we are left with the questions of why:

1. within the United States, heritability of IQ has been found to be high.

2. children rescued from adversity, both moderate and severe, tend to fall into a normal distribution of IQs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22children+rescued+from+adversity%22

3. Chinese have high IQs despite China's poor environment (Chinese heat their homes with coal buring inside the home; much of the population lacks an education, viz literacy is only at 86%).

4. wealthy, urbanized oil and resort nations have low IQs.

-Chris

Nereid

Feb20-04, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by hitssquad
Then we are left with the questions of why:

1. within the United States, heritability of IQ has been found to be high.

2. children rescued from adversity, both moderate and severe, tend to fall into a normal distribution of IQs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22children+rescued+from+adversity%22

3. Chinese have high IQs despite China's poor environment (Chinese heat their homes with coal buring inside the home; much of the population lacks an education, viz literacy is only at 86%).

4. wealthy, urbanized oil and resort nations have low IQs. These are, of course, very good questions.

However, the second two require us to first have to hand good data on the IQs of many, many groups of people in many countries. Such data may exist; however, it's not to be found in Lynn and Vanhanen's " Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations".

Let's do some toy research anyway. Let's take L+V's "National IQ" for rich North American (Canada, US), European (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK), and Asia-Pacific economies (Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore). I've already established, using L+V's reported data, that there's no correlation between National IQ and 1998 real per capita GDP ('wealth' for shorthand).

What about wealth and urbanisation? No correlation.

How about National IQ and urbanisation?
~57% correlation!

Of course, this is toy research, and almost all the correlation is accounted for by two data points - Ireland (IQ 87, urbanisation 6) and Portugal (91, 5.8); Finland (the other low urbanisation nation (also 6) has the same IQ as the US (98), is the outlier (must be all those Lapps ... oops! Lapps are closest to SE Indians genetically, and nearest Indians on the PC plane ... and they have IQs of ... er, oh dear)

Nereid

Feb20-04, 10:00 PM

hitssquad wrote: Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world?First thing to make very clear: if we're doing science, we can't assume it operates outside the region it has been shown to work*, we have to do the hard work to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that it does.

Let's start with g. Is it tied to biology? No. As quite a number of the threads here (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000699/) make clear, a) g is an operational construct (briefly "g measures the ability to do well at tests"), not a theoretical one (e.g. within Pinker's neuroplastic theory of meta-linguistic ability, g is an outcome of hyper-language fixation - that's not real, I made it up); and b) research results showing a biological link are far from being well-established. This means that, short of doing the same extensive research that Jensen et al did in the US in every other region of the world, we have no basis for thinking a generalisation will be true (equally, none for thinking it would not).

Is g 40 to 80% hereditable? Among US 'blacks' and 'whites', it may be*; among some samples of folk in 50's and 60's England (and Wales?), it may be. However, without unequivocal identification of 'g genes' or detailed studies into g's hereditability in the thousands of ethnic groups throughout the world, it's an open question.

Next, the g-nexus.
Criminals. A study of the g-nexus in China in 1959 would likely have shown a high correlation between prisoners and g ... the smarter folk were disproportionately represented within the prison population. The same may be true in Cuba today. Of course we immediately dismiss this as a serious counter to the g-nexus; but what not-so-obvious variations of this might be at work? What's the g profile of the ~600 people in Guantanamo Bay? The inmates of the Woomera Detention Centre?

SES (social and economic success). In many countries of the world, we can be very, very certain of the primary factor in SES - gender. If you're a woman in many (most? all?) of the Middle East nations, your g plays no significant part in your SES. The same is undoubtedly true in Lynn's poster children - Japan and S Korea. In many other countries, other factors are clearly important if not necessarily of primary importance - caste (e.g. India), physical strength (e.g. rural areas in developing countries), general disease resistance (ditto), birthplace (e.g. China; under the hukou system, if you're born in 'the countryside', you can't go live in a city; the good news is that this is breaking down).

What else? IMHO, it's probably worth looking at language (e.g. tonal vs atonal), writing (e.g. ideographic vs phonemic), family traditions (e.g. behaviours and values exhibited in early childhood), behaviour of mothers in early childhood, and birth order and spacing (didn't I read that the US decline in average SAT scores was laid at the feet of younger siblings?).

*Note: I'm not saying that it does/is; I'm merely examining the logical consistency.

Evo

Feb20-04, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Because you personally are intolerant of certain words, and feel the need to burden others with your emotional baggage?

--Mark You are making incorrect assumptions. I am not offended. I was merely pointing out your obvious lack of intellect.

selfAdjoint

Feb21-04, 11:29 AM

Nereid,

g is an operational construct (briefly "g measures the ability to do well at tests"),

is an inaccurate way to characterize g. "A systematic propensity to do better on some test questions than others, found to persist across individuals and populations in the US and Britain" would be better, and not weaken your argument.

Secondly your insistance (made in several different ways in several posts) that US and British evidence tells us nothing about non-anglo populations or selected subgroups, is a little weak. In science we do make "uniformitarian" assumptions, sometimes quite strongly. We assume physics is the same in the solar system as in the remote galaxies, for example. I am quite sensitive to your points about Chinese prisoners, hypothetical Cuban prisoners, and Guantanamo detainees, and I think they would make interesting case studies, but can't believe any consequence of those studies would much affect the broad populational results which have been developed.

Nereid

Feb21-04, 01:12 PM

SelfAdjoint wrote: Secondly your insistance (made in several different ways in several posts) that US and British evidence tells us nothing about non-anglo populations or selected subgroups, is a little weak. In science we do make "uniformitarian" assumptions, sometimes quite strongly. We assume physics is the same in the solar system as in the remote galaxies, for example. I am quite sensitive to your points about Chinese prisoners, hypothetical Cuban prisoners, and Guantanamo detainees, and I think they would make interesting case studies, but can't believe any consequence of those studies would much affect the broad populational results which have been developed. Some time ago, back in Physics (or was it Astronomy and Cosmology) I started a discussion on just the question of 'how do we know that the physics we do in our labs here is the same as that in remote galaxies'. The point is that we *don't* assume it's the same, we are continually doing experiments and making observations to be sure that it is (as much as anything can be sure of anything in science). For example, there's a lively debate about whether the speed of light is constant, and has always been constant (the question is far better addressed through the fine structure constant than c).

When it comes to g, which has no theoretical basis (unlike what we do in physics, mostly) and no biological links, it seems to me that generalisation should be demonstrated, concretely, step-by-step.

However, the more important limitation is on the g-nexus; the g factor's importance (going up) in explaining/accounting for/predicting/etc SES, criminality, child abuse by welfare Moms, the wealth and poverty of nations, ... (and going down), its hereditability etc.

Finally, there's the 'race' component in the g-nexus. As is discussed on another thread, Jensen's work was built on a concept of race that is clearly peculiar to the US (and highly unlikely to be generalisable in any meaningful sense) - self-reporting, and only two 'races' studied ("Black" and "White").

selfAdjoint

Feb21-04, 08:18 PM

The present situation in astrophysics and cosmology is dependent up many recent breakthroughs in technologies, such as observation from satellites. Back when Einstein was in his prime, or even Feynmann (which I remember well), these things that are now discussed in falsifiable manner were simply assumed to be so, and the reason given was uniformaitarianism. Some day g will be tested in all the venues you desire and more, but till then it is still a valid construct.

On the black and white issue, you say his evidence was collected on the basis of race. In fact it was collected on the basis of self identification in one of two long standing little interbreeding (at that time) populations in the US. He may have used the word race but nothing in his work depended on any of the racial beliefs of the time. The differential sociology of these populations was and is a large study, and he had data on the different social and econmoc classes within the two populations.

Nereid

Feb22-04, 10:50 AM

SelfAdjoint: Back when Einstein was in his prime, or even Feynmann (which I remember well), these things that are now discussed in falsifiable manner were simply assumed to be so, and the reason given was uniformaitarianism. This is very interesting, and well worth a good discussion in Astronomy & Cosmology. For now I merely note that helium was discovered in the spectrum of the Sun 25 years before it was found on Earth, and that Dirac's prediction of the positron was followed 4 years later by Anderson's discovery ... in cosmic rays.SelfAdjoint: Some day g will be tested in all the venues ... It may be that g is relatively unexceptional; what I am more concerned about is the baggage it has accumulated - the g-nexus - g and race, g and crime, g and SES, g and national wealth and poverty ...SelfAdjoint: On the black and white issue, you say his [Jensen's] evidence was collected on the basis of race. In fact it was collected on the basis of self identification in one of two long standing little interbreeding (at that time) populations in the US. He may have used the word race but nothing in his work depended on any of the racial beliefs of the time. The differential sociology of these populations was and is a large study, and he had data on the different social and econmoc classes within the two populations.It would seem that Jensen himself studiously avoided the term 'intelligence', feeling that it was too overloaded with different meanings and associations. Curiously, he seems to not have had the same qualms with 'race', where self-identification hardly constitutes a reliable basis (except perhaps as a social group), where the biology of period was unequivocal as to its unreliability, and where there was ample evidence of the historical extent of interbreeding and the contemporaneous trends (the US Census Bureau's data was publicly available, and the trends hard to miss).

To reinforce this last point, perhaps someone au fait with population statistics could tell us quickly what degree of gene mixing we could expect among two groups:
A: breeds within its group and with group B; all progency considered to be group A, 10% of all breeding is inter-group
B: breeds within its group and with group A; 5% of all breeding is inter-group, all inter-group progency considered to be group A.

Caveat: these comments apply more to the period from 1980 than post-World War II to 1980. However, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a 1967 film (not that Hollywood should be considered serious science!)

hitssquad

Feb22-04, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
It would seem that Jensen himself studiously avoided the term 'intelligence', feeling that it was too overloaded with different meanings and associations. Curiously, he seems to not have had the same qualms with 'race', where self-identification hardly constitutes a reliable basis,
As far as a statistical viewpoint is concerned, statistical methods quantify reliability. Statistical methods applied to instances of self-identification of racial categories return quantifications of reliability in those instances.

Unreliability in an instance of racial self-identification would imply, over the lifetimes of a substantial portion of individuals in the populations under study, systematic inconsistency in the answering of the institutionally-posed race-category question. E.g., a given unreliably-self-identifying individual may claim to be black one year, white the next, then asian, then American Indian, etc.

where the biology of period was unequivocal as to its unreliability,
Lack of discrete knowledge of the inner workings of biology is noticably unreliable in its hindering of the reaching of reliable and valid conclusions.

and where there was ample evidence of the historical extent of interbreeding
Interbreeding is one of the modes of race generation and is consistent with the realities of statistically-defined sets. It does not conflict with race or racial categorization.

--
a race is one of a number of statistically distinguishable groups in which individual membership is not mutually exclusive by any single criterion, and individuals in a given group differ only statistically from one another and from the group's central tendency on each of the many imperfectly correlated genetic characteristics that distinguish between groups as such. The important point is that the average difference on all of these characteristics that differ among individuals within the group is less than the average difference between the groups on these genetic characteristics.
--
(The g Factor. p425)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

and the contemporaneous trends (the US Census Bureau's data was publicly available, and the trends hard to miss).
What contemporaneous trends are referred to here?

what degree of gene mixing we could expect among two groups:
A: breeds within its group and with group B; all progency considered to be group A, 10% of all breeding is inter-group
B: breeds within its group and with group A; 5% of all breeding is inter-group, all inter-group progency considered to be group A.
In the first instance, group A's progeny end up bearing an average of 5% of group B's markers.

In the second instance, group A's progeny end up bearing an average of 2.5% of group B's markers.

-Chris

Nereid

Feb22-04, 04:06 PM

hitssquad: Unreliability in an instance of racial self-identification would imply, over the lifetimes of a substantial portion of individuals in the populations under study, systematic inconsistency in the answering of the institutionally-posed race-category question. E.g., a given unreliably-self-identifying individual may claim to be black one year, white the next, then asian, then American Indian, etc. Well there's some indication that precisely that may be happening: 2.4% of respondents in the 2000 Census gave 'more than one race' as their race (the first time this was allowed); the 'other race' category rose from 0.3% in the 1970 census to 5.5% (more if you count the 'more than one race' responses) in 2000. Of course, without access to the individual records, there would appear no way to tell, from the Census data, how many folk changed their 'race' between censuses.hitssquad: Lack of discrete knowledge of the inner workings of biology is noticably unreliable in its hindering of the reaching of reliable and valid conclusions. Translation: not knowing how the biology works can sometimes mean your conclusions are unreliable and invalid, other times it doesn't seem to matter; before you find out the biological mechanisms you cannot be sure which it will be. Yes/No/Other?hitssquad: Interbreeding is one of the modes of race generation and is consistent with the realities of statistically-defined sets. It does not conflict with race or racial categorization. There are at least two important caveats: if there are factors which vary continuously (or nearly so) across the whole population, the distributions about the means of each subset are unlikely to be Gaussian, and you should be able to recover the continuous distribution from statistical analysis. What does Jensen have to say on these points?hitssquad: What contemporaneous trends are referred to here? Inter-racial marriage. AFAIK, laws against black-white marriage (or all inter-racial marriage?) were declared unconstitutional in the US only in 1967; Census Bureau data shows a) a fairly swift rise in black-white marriages, at least from 1970, and b) >8 white-black marriages for every 100 black-black marriage (in 2002).hitssquad: In the first instance, group A's progeny end up bearing an average of 5% of group B's markers. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, given reasonable assumptions, how quickly would virtually all members of Group A have at least one Group B ancestor? My small envelope says as few as 4 generations.

Nereid

Feb22-04, 09:33 PM

From this document (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000692/) :

"... Jensen dismisses data from a racial admixture study in Germany which found no significant or consistent differences in IQ with race, because parental IQ was unknown, and because white and black fathers were not randomly sampled, two faults shared with the Minnesota adoption study. The absence of differences in the German study is also consistent with a maternal effects hypothesis, since the mothers were all white."

What is the German study?

What studies have been done into the material effects hypothesis?

Nachtwolf

Feb23-04, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
What is the German study?
Now here's a great question.

The German study was a done on the bastard children of American WWII officers and German woman, and Jensen doesn't dismiss it for those reasons you quoted alone.

Referring to his book, The g Factor, I note that the study was done in 1959 on almost 400 children, 194 white and 193 mixed race children. The IQs are as follows:

White Boys: 101 IQ
White Girls: 93 IQ
Mixed Boys: 97 IQ
Mixed Girls: 96 IQ

As you can see, there is no important difference in the averages between the White and Mixed groups. Here are the objections he presents on page 483 of The g Factor, summarized:

1. The fathers were not representative of their respective populations, "since 30 percent of blacks, as compared with about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed services." (In other words, the blacks had a higher-than-average IQ, probably closer to 95 than 85.)

2. Nothing is known about the army rank of the fathers. (This strikes me as mere quibbling.)

3. The children were tested before adolescence, which is before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested.

4. Heterosis (or hybrid vigor) probably enhanced the IQ of these first generation mixed race children. (Heterosis has in other instances been seen to raise IQ scores by 2 to 4 points.)

In other words, Jensen's Default Hypothesis would predict, using the information we have at our disposal, an IQ gap on the order of 1 IQ point, while the environmental hypothesis would predict an IQ gap of 0 IQ points. These two predictions are so close that the test is unable to vindicate one and falsify the other and was, essentially, a waste of time.

What studies have been done into the material effects hypothesis?
This is a good question, and I cannot answer it. Chris might be able to, however.

You are making incorrect assumptions. I am not offended. I was merely pointing out your obvious lack of intellect.
Hello Evo. Please explain, in fifty thousand words or less, how my refusal to bow before idiotic standards of political correctness which are quite mindlessly embraced by sheeple such as yourself marks me as an individual with a "lack of intellect."

When considering your answer, Evo, pay careful attention to these objective test results:

This report compares Mark W. Henshaw from the country USA to other men between 21 and 40 years of age.

...

..Intellect................87 (Out of 100)

Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests. Your level of intellect is high.

--Mark

Nereid

Feb23-04, 06:33 PM

Do you have a reference to the German study Nachtwolf?

Would you care to counterpose the Minnesota transracial adoption study with the German study?

Here's a quote from the same source as my previous quote; you may wish to consider this as your draw up the comparison table:

"Jensen's "default hypothesis" is that differences in white and black IQ scores are made up of genetic and environmental effects and that environmental effects are often small relative to genetic effects (e.g. pp. 177-175, 475, 476, 489). These conclusions seem best supported by estimates of heritability [...] and from the Minnesota transracial adoption study. This adoption study has several flaws. Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites. The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown. The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups. And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons."

hitssquad

Feb24-04, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
Do you have a reference to the German study Nachtwolf?
Sprechen Sie Deutsch, Nereid?

--
Black-White Hybrids in Post-World War II Germany. We saw in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study that the interracial (BW) adoptees, whose biological fathers were black and whose biological mothers were white, averaged lower in IQ than the adoptees who had two white parents (WW). (See Table 12.5 , p. 474.) This finding appears to be at odds with the study conducted by Eyferth [^{68}] in Germany following World War II, which found no difference between offspring of BW and WW matings who were reared by their biological mothers. All of the fathers (black or white) were members of the U.S. occupation forces stationed in Germany. The mothers were unmarried German women, mostly of low SES. There were about ninety-eight interracial (BW) children and about eighty-three white children (WW). The mothers of the BW and WW children were approximately matched for SES. The children averaged about 10 years of age, ranging between ages 5 and 13 years. They all were tested with the German version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). The results are shown in Table 12.6. The overall WW-BW difference is only one IQ point. As there is no basis for expecting a difference between boys and girls (whose average IQs are equal in the WISC standardization sample), the eight-point difference between the WW boys and WW girls in this study is most likely due to sampling error. But sampling error does not only result in sample differences that are larger than the corresponding population difference; it can also result in sample differences that are smaller than the population difference, and this could be the case for the overall mean WW-BW difference.

This study, although consistent with a purely environmental hypothesis of the racial difference in test scores, is not conclusive, however, because the IQs of the probands' mothers and fathers' were unknown and the white and black fathers were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, as compared with about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed services. Further, nothing was known about the Army rank of the black or white fathers of the illegitimate offspring; they could have been more similar in IQ than the average black or white in the occupation forces because of selective preferences on the part of the German women with whom they had sexual relations. Then, too, nearly all of the children were tested before adolescence, which is before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested. Generally in adoption studies, the correlation of IQ and genotype increases between childhood and late adolescence, while the correlation between IQ and environment decreases markedly. (The respective correlations are the square roots of the heritability, \sqrt{H^2}\\, and of the environmentality, \sqrt{1-H^2} = \sqrt{E^2}\\.) Finally, heterosis (the outbreeding effect; see Chapter 7, p. 196) probably enhanced the IQ level of the interracial children, thereby diminishing the IQ difference between the interracial children and the white children born to German women. A heterotic effect equivalent to about +4 IQ points was reported for European-Asian interracial offspring in Hawaii. ^{69}
--
The g Factor. pp482-483.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

--
68. Eyferth, 1959, 1961; Eyferth et al., 1960. This study is described in some detail by Loehlin et al., 1975. Flynn (1980, pp. 219-261) offers a quite detailed summary and analysis of the study in support of his view that it probably constitutes the strongest of what he terms "direct" evidence against the hypothesis that the mean W-B IQ difference has a substantial genetic component.

69. Nagoshi & Johnson (1986) reported g factor scores averaging .26\sigma\\ higher for interracial European-Asian offspring than for the offspring of same-race parents who were matched with the interracial parents in education and SES. Heterosis was greater on the more highly g-loaded tests; the vector of heterotic effects on fifteen tests correlated +.44 (p = .10) with the vector of the tests' g loadings.
--
Ibid. pp526-527.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

Eyferth K. (1959). Eine Untersuchung der Neger-Mischlingskinder in Westdeutschland. Vita Humana, 2, 102-114.

Eyferth K. (1961). Leistungen verschiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 222-241.

Eyferth K., Brandt U. & Hawel W. Farbige Kinder in Deutschland. München: Juventa Verlag.

Flynn J. R. (1980). Race, IQ and Jensen. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Loehlin J. C., Lindzey G. & Spuhler J. N. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Nagoshi C. T. & Johnson R. C. (1986). The ubiquity of g. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 201-208.

(References are quoted from The g Factor. The g Factor omitted the date from the Eyferth et al. reference. Footnote 68, above, implies it should be 1960.)

Nachtwolf already reproduced the IQ data from Table 12.6 Mean WISC IQ of Black Interracial Children (BW) and of White Children (WW) of German Mothers. Here it is again, for convenience:

White Boys: 101 IQ
White Girls: 93 IQ
Mixed Boys: 97 IQ
Mixed Girls: 96 IQ

[Edit: added a parenthesis and corrected a page number citation]

-Chris

Nachtwolf

Feb24-04, 05:10 PM

Would you care to counterpose the Minnesota transracial adoption study with the German study?

Try reading this and see what you think.
http://euvolution.com/articles/shockley.html

--Mark

Nachtwolf

Feb24-04, 05:33 PM

To give a more specific analysis:

This adoption study has several flaws.
Certainly. Scarr & Weinberg admit that no study is perfect.

Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.
Maybe not.

The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown.
Indeed.

The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups.
Just so.

And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons.
Quite true.

But:

We don't know whether maternal effects were involved - they are a "possibility."

We don't know whether the parents were unusually high or low for IQ - their IQs are "unknown."

We don't know what effect, if any, the (unspecified) mean age difference would have had.

We don't know whether it's true that parents give up kids for different reasons, only that they "might." And we don't know whether this could have any effect - we're just expected to assume that it could.

But Jensen brings up real, solid points which mitigate the results and interpretation of the German study:

The black fathers of the German kids were smarter than average. This isn't a possibility - it's what we know.

Heterosis probably boosted the IQ scores - this isn't just a guess; you can see heterosis showing up in Scarr & Weinberg's study, too.

And there were no fully black kids for comparison, just half-black children - there's no speculation about this, as they all had white mothers.

So while there's room for doubt, and probably good reason to do a better follow-up study, the mitigating points brought up to explain the Scarr & Weinberg study are generally... well... vaporous, while the mitigating points brought up against the German Study have some actual substance to them.

--Mark

Nereid

Mar4-04, 06:46 PM

Sorry to say that, as reported in the link you posted Nachtwolf, the Minnesota and German studies only very weakly support Jensen's (and hitssquad's, and yours, and Apollo's, and Adam's?) assertion.

By far the biggest problem is the conflating of 'unknown' with 'random'; a second (but still large) problem is identifying the adopted children as 'black' or 'white'

{bold blue text is from Biological Determinism Unwarranted (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000692/) }Nachtwolf: To give a more specific analysis:
{the adoption study has several flaws}
Nachtwolf: Certainly. Scarr & Weinberg admit that no study is perfect.A study with flaws is not unusual; a study which is accepted without a serious attempt to estimate the potential size of systematic errors is worthless.{Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.}
Nachtwolf: Maybe not. Ignoring a leading alternative hypothesis is intellectual dishonesty (at least). Translation of Nachtwolf's comment?: I don't care what the alternative hypotheses are, I know I'm right, and won't countenance any dissenting interpretations.{The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown.}
Nachtwolf: Indeed.Er, did you realise that this is, in fact, fatal to your case?{The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups.}
Nachtwolf: Just so.
{And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons.}
Nachtwolf: Quite true.IIRC, you, hitssquad or Jensen actually stated that this was quite important. Unless these differences are well accounted for, it's likely the study's results say little or nothing wrt your key assertions.Nachtwolf: But:

We don't know whether maternal effects were involved - they are a "possibility."

We don't know whether the parents were unusually high or low for IQ - their IQs are "unknown."

We don't know what effect, if any, the (unspecified) mean age difference would have had.

We don't know whether it's true that parents give up kids for different reasons, only that they "might." And we don't know whether this could have any effect - we're just expected to assume that it could.Hmm, and the Minnesota study is the landmark study which most clearly makes the hereditarian IQ case??

If Nachtwolf's comments are indicative of how the scientific method is applied in IQ studies, I can only say that there would clearly be prima facie grounds for ignoring the entire field as serious science. Fortunately, reading through the papers in the link I originally posted, I conclude that few of the professionals are so cavalier as Nachtwolf appears to be.Nachtwolf: But Jensen brings up real, solid points which mitigate the results and interpretation of the German study:

The black fathers of the German kids were smarter than average. This isn't a possibility - it's what we know.Those are confounding factors which need to be taken into account; they are not reasons to dismiss the German study out of hand (or, if they are, there are equally good reasons for dismissing the Minnesota study).Nachtwolf: Heterosis probably boosted the IQ scores - this isn't just a guess; you can see heterosis showing up in Scarr & Weinberg's study, too.

And there were no fully black kids for comparison, just half-black children - there's no speculation about this, as they all had white mothers.I couldn't believe this when I first read it, and I'm still find it hard to believe Nachtwolf was serious when he wrote it. Jensen himself cites studies which show that groups of 'blacks', geographically, have a 'white' ancestry which ranges from (IIRC) 4% to 40%; he also makes it very clear that within groups of people (such as 'Californian blacks') there is considerable variation in the degree of 'white' ancestry. Further, though he didn't dwell on this (I wonder why not?), the same thing can undoubtedly be said of 'whites' (even for the German mothers; for example, what is their 'Roma' ancestry?).

Yet, without at least some reliable data on the 'blackness' and 'whiteness' of the parents, any conclusions about the 'racial' hereditability of IQ are meaningless. And it's even worse when so much about the parents is 'unknown' (esp in the Minnesota study).Nachtwolf: So while there's room for doubt, and probably good reason to do a better follow-up study, the mitigating points brought up to explain the Scarr & Weinberg study are generally... well... vaporous, while the mitigating points brought up against the German Study have some actual substance to them.Translation: Nachtwolf doesn't really understand his own case, how hereditability works, why analysis of systematic errors and confounding factors is important, and so on.

Accuracy and attention to detail: 1
Natchwolf: 0

selfAdjoint

Mar4-04, 07:09 PM

{Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.}

Nereid, the Minnesota study was not about finding reasons why blacks have lower IQ than whites. It was about the degree in which IQ and a lot of other variables were inherited, based on on comparison studies of mono- and dizygotic twins raised together and apart. This was a perfectly sound research topic, as they had data available to do a much better study than had ever been done before, and Science published the results in a leading article. Are there possibly other factors? Surely, and let there be other studies to examine them.

The lack of data on the parents of the adopted children limits the scope of the study but does not invalidate the results that it found. If you will look at it honestly you will see that the attempts to characterize it as unsound by raising all sorts of other potential causes that it might have studied but didn't for are themselves flawed by a parti pris desire to hit it with any club avilable.

Zero

Mar4-04, 08:15 PM

Nereid

Mar4-04, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
{Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.}

Nereid, the Minnesota study was not about finding reasons why blacks have lower IQ than whites. It was about the degree in which IQ and a lot of other variables were inherited, based on on comparison studies of mono- and dizygotic twins raised together and apart. This was a perfectly sound research topic, as they had data available to do a much better study than had ever been done before, and Science published the results in a leading article. Are there possibly other factors? Surely, and let there be other studies to examine them.

The lack of data on the parents of the adopted children limits the scope of the study but does not invalidate the results that it found. If you will look at it honestly you will see that the attempts to characterize it as unsound by raising all sorts of other potential causes that it might have studied but didn't for are themselves flawed by a parti pris desire to hit it with any club available. The context:

Nereid, quoting B. Raymond:
"... Jensen dismisses data from a racial admixture study in Germany which found no significant or consistent differences in IQ with race, because parental IQ was unknown, and because white and black fathers were not randomly sampled, two faults shared with the Minnesota adoption study. The absence of differences in the German study is also consistent with a maternal effects hypothesis, since the mothers were all white."

and
"Jensen's "default hypothesis" is that differences in white and black IQ scores are made up of genetic and environmental effects and that environmental effects are often small relative to genetic effects (e.g. pp. 177-175, 475, 476, 489). These conclusions seem best supported by estimates of heritability [...] and from the Minnesota transracial adoption study. This adoption study has several flaws. Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites. The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown. The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups. And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons."

Nereid: "Would you [Nachtwolf] care to counterpose the Minnesota transracial adoption study with the German study?"

Nachtwolf gave a link to a webpage as an answer to this question; my response was based on this webpage's characterisation of the Minnesota study; Nachtwolf did not post a link to a paper published in Science.

So, the context is 'black/white' differences in IQ scores, the extent to which the Minnesota study supports Jensen's default hypothesis (Nachtwolf's assertion?) while the German study is irrelevant to the same assertion.

selfAdjoint

Mar5-04, 08:35 AM

So, the context is 'black/white' differences in IQ scores, the extent to which the Minnesota study supports Jensen's default hypothesis (Nachtwolf's assertion?) while the German study is irrelevant to the same assertion.

Sure. But then you pass from the fact that the Minnesota test doesn't support the conclusions from the German study to attacking the Minnesota study (or quoting somebody who does) because it wasn't designed to do that.

Nachtwolf

Mar5-04, 09:29 PM

A study with flaws is not unusual; a study which is accepted without a serious attempt to estimate the potential size of systematic errors is worthless.
This is an epistemological error. All study results have a margin for error, and the margin for error is never calculable, only, as you admit, estimable. This study was, quite clearly, better than the German study, in that it had fewer known problems. To call it "worthless" because it had a margin for error is juvenile.

Er, did you realise that this is, in fact, fatal to your case?
Did you not realize that, absent specific knowledge about the IQs of the mothers, we can assume that the law of averages would smooth out wrinkles and ensure that they were representative of their population? You are familiar with the law of averages? Right? God, it's so boring refuting your posts. Why do I perpetually feel like I'm taking an otherwise bright and intelligent person and having to explain the obvious? I can't believe I actually bothered replying to you. Especially when Zero's around:

correlation doesn't equal causation.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what selfAdjoint just said, Zero.

Let's not get them confused, shall we?
God forbid that you should become confused, hahaha!

If you will look at it honestly you will see that the attempts to characterize it as unsound by raising all sorts of other potential causes that it might have studied but didn't for are themselves flawed by a parti pris desire to hit it with any club avilable.
You know, the thing that's interesting to me, selfAdjoint, is that the Minnesota study was carried out by two people who both believed very firmly in the environmental hypothesis. I can't help but feel some sympathy for them, who had to suffer these attacks by people in their own camp, and at the same time be ridiculed by the Jensenists for their refusal to come around. I think that's why my sympathy stops, however - unlike Jensen, who started out as an environmentalist but then had the flexibility and honesty to change his position, trading his comfortable life for endless controversy and armed guards, Scarr and Weinberg clung to the security of familiar, safe beliefs. Ultimately, it's exactly this kind of cowardice which results in honest researchers like Jensen being forced to hire bodyguards. You're familiar with the Snyderman & Rothman poll, right? If the 45% who thought Jensen was right would all stand up and admit it, we might actually be able to have meaningful public dialogues on this subject and take all the mystery and vehemence out of it.

--Mark

Evo

Mar5-04, 10:39 PM

The Minnesota Twin study was largely funded by the Pioneer Fund.

Some of the Pioneer Fund's largest grants have gone to a well-known--and well-respected--study of twins at the University of Minnesota.

If you are not familiar with the Pioneer Fund, here is an exerpt from an article in the Phoenix New Times. It's a very long article, so I am showing just the Pioneer Fund info below to save reading through all of it.

------------
One of those testifying on behalf of lowering immigration levels was a man named Harry Hamilton Laughlin. An advocate of eugenics--a philosophy, then growing in popularity, which seeks to improve the human race through selective breeding--Laughlin cited Goddard's results and argued that the genetic "inadequacy" of eastern and southern Europeans would negatively affect "the germ plasm of the future American population."

Laughlin was one of several experts who helped convince Congress to severely clamp down on immigration in 1924. For the next 40 years--Beck's "Golden Era of Immigration"--immigrating to the U.S. from eastern Europe became very difficult; for Asians it became nearly impossible.

"For years, [Laughlin] successfully lobbied to maintain the restrictions, which eventually blocked an escape route for Jews fleeing the Nazis," Newsday reported in 1994. "In 1922, Laughlin wrote and lobbied for a law that forced the sterilization of tens of thousands of 'unfit' U.S. citizens, including the insane, the homeless and the blind."

Similar laws were later passed in Nazi Germany, where Laughlin was lauded. In 1936, the University of Heidelberg awarded Laughlin an honorary degree. Laughlin, in turn, asked the American Eugenics Society to offer Adolf Hitler an honorary membership.

The next year, five New York millionaires created a private foundation with an endowment of $5 million. One of those men was Wickliffe P. Draper, a textile tycoon who advocated sending American blacks to Africa.

The millionaires named their creation the Pioneer Fund and charged it with backing research in heredity, eugenics and "race betterment." Harry Laughlin became its first president.

He died four years later, however, and until the 1950s, the fund remained largely inactive. Partly, that may have been a result of the severe blow eugenics suffered as the truth about Nazi atrocities came to light. In 1950, the United Nations made its famous declaration in the wake of the Holocaust that "Mankind is one."

Eugenicists and researchers in hereditary intelligence were all but driven underground

The Pioneer Fund persevered, however, and became increasingly active through the 1950s. It was the fund's opposition to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to integrate public schools which attracted its current president, New York lawyer Harry F. Weyher, who assumed the job in 1958.

Since then, the Pioneer Fund has doled out money to people such as Roger Pearson, a British ex-patriate living in Georgia who, in 1958, founded the Northern League to promote "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations."

"Early recruits," reports the London-based Independent, "included Hans Gunther, who was awarded a Goethe medal in 1941 for his work on Nordic racial philosophy, Ernest Sevier Cox, an American leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Wilhelm Kusserow, a former SS Untersturmfuhrer."

Between 1981 and 1991 alone (payments continued at least through 1994), Pearson received $568,000 from the Pioneer Fund to publish Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science."

In the 1970s, reports the Independent, Mankind Quarterly's editorial advisers included Otmar, Baron Von Verscheur, who had served as director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a post as doctor at Auschwitz.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1997-12-25/feature.html/1/index.html

<edit to add this is not about the Minnesota Transracial Study performed by Scarr after the first twin study>

Nachtwolf

Mar6-04, 12:12 AM

Oh my God, you've found them out, Evo. And here we all thought that Scarr & Weinberg were actually liberals and bioegaletarians, based on the way they interpreted their own results as being, you know, supportive of the environmentalist position, but now we know they were really just a - a pack of Nazis! Oh my God, the Nazis, they're everywhere! It's a giant Nazi conspiracy funded by Pioneer, aaaaah!

--Mark

Evo

Mar6-04, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Oh my God, you've found them out, Evo. And here we all thought that Scarr & Weinberg were actually liberals and bioegaletarians, based on the way they interpreted their own results as being, you know, supportive of the environmentalist position, but now we know they were really just a - a pack of Nazis! Oh my God, the Nazis, they're everywhere! It's a giant Nazi conspiracy funded by Pioneer, aaaaah!

--Mark You make it so easy. [:D] And you don't even realize it, which makes it even funnier. [:D] [:D]

I was thinking today, wouldn't it be sad if Nachtwolf stopped posting, we wouldn't have anyone to toy with anymore. You do amuse us. [:D]

Nachtwolf

Mar6-04, 12:30 AM

I'm sorry - amidst all the smilies and irrelevant trivia involving Pioneer, I must have lost track of your point.

--Mark

Evo

Mar6-04, 01:19 AM

The number of smilies were intentional. I have you figured out. [:D]

Sensitive about the Pioneer Fund, huh?

Zero

Mar6-04, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Evo
The number of smilies were intentional. I have you figured out. [:D]

Sensitive about the Pioneer Fund, huh? I would be too...those guys are nutter Nazi-types, after all. It sort of bursts that "we're really not racist" angle when all the research is paid for by racists.

GlamGein

Apr7-04, 03:48 AM

the problem with all of these posts is that all the authors believe the propaganda about race. There is no biological distiction between the "races". Our society decides to catagorize "races" based upon a few obvious distinctions, such as skin color, hair type, etc., but there are many other genetic and phenotpyic characteristics that society does not count. Genetically, it is inaccurate to assume that a white guy is more closely related to some other white guy he meets walking down the street than the to the black guy he meets walking down the street.

Adam

Apr7-04, 04:00 AM

There is no biological distiction between the "races".

Skin colour isn't a matter of biology? Wow. You learn something new every day...

Sorry, but there are biological differences between people which clearly identify large sections of the population according to where the larger number of their ancestors come from. These differences fill books. Coroners use these books every day, all around the world, to help identify partially decomposed corpses. For example, they check differences in skull shape and size, differences in the teeth and limb length, et cetera. This is not "racist propaganda". This is reality. Deal with it.

Nachtwolf

Apr9-04, 01:22 AM

Skin colour isn't a matter of biology? Wow. You learn something new every day...
Hahaha! Well some people learn new things. Others are bioegalitarians and Ismalic fundamentalists.

This is not "racist propaganda". This is reality. Deal with it.
They are. Denial is their way of dealing with it. Of course, denial doesn't help to stop or slow current dysgenic trends - which, by the way, appear to be hitting blacks harder than whites, at least in the United States, ho hum, no pressure - but it makes them feel better. Their only real problem, Adam, is meanies like you who keep insisting on the unpleasant truth. Hey maybe you should be nice to them and nod along with them; just chant "Race is a social construct" and "Diversity is our strength" and see if that doesn't make them feel better. I know it makes me feel better! As any bioegalitarian will tell you, chanting is easier than thinking. And it's more fun, too! See - the problem with all of these posts is that all the authors believe the propaganda about race. There is no biological distiction between the races. There is only one God and Mohammed is His prophet. Praise Allah!

--Mark

Adam

Apr9-04, 04:16 AM

Well, I'm not saying any group is better than another. I don't really care about that stuff. I know Carl Lewis is/was (Is he still alive?) a far better athlete than me. I know Colin Powell makes more money than me, and served in the military longer than me. I know Professor Wang from NEC who did that infamous FTL experiment a few years ago is far more educated than me in terms of science. I know John Howard makes more money, has more experience and knowledge in politics. I know the Dalai Lama is probably more spiritually sorted-out with himself than I am, like he knows his definite beliefs and is focused on a path. On the other hand, I know in which ways I am far superior to many other people, at least according to my own beliefs about what makes someone "good" or "bad".

But the fact is, people are different. I can run better than that guy in the wheelchair. I have lighter skin than Carl Lewis. I'm taller than the Dalai Lama. I'm younger than John Howard. People do have physical differences. Many of these are genetic. Deal with it.

Nachtwolf

Apr9-04, 06:17 PM

Well, I'm not saying any group is better than another.
I know; I'm not saying that either, and I'm quite explicit about that here:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Race

But the fact that we reject the idea of a Herrenfolk doesn't matter. Bioegalitarians can't even tolerate the idea that race might make any difference at all. Our insistence on the obvious is completely anathema to the delusional worldview they espouse, and their knee-jerk hysteria and irrational devotion to their programming is quite entertaining for people like myself!

People do have physical differences. Many of these are genetic. Deal with it.
Yes, well some of us deal with it by trying to help everyone end up with a decent set of genes. I think it's very sad that some people end up retarded or schizophrenic or with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, and I'd like to reduce the frequencies of these genes in order to make life better for everyone and preserve my own culture - but of course bioegalitarians like GlamGein are certain that this a vile heresy and evidence of a perverse and villainous cast of mind.

Perhaps the most humorous thing of all is that GlamGein and his ilk can't even figure out how to actually oppose us. (Hey GlamGain, how many kids do you plan on having?) They don't realize that their values are being slowly eradicated by current reproductive patterns. If present trends persist, the only ones left around will be descended from criminals (heritaility: 60%), welfare recipients, religious fundamentalists (heritability: 45%), and brilliant eugenists. If bioegalitarians want to perpetuate their mythological worldview, they need to have children to carry it forward. But criminals, welfare addicts, and religious fundamentalists have no use for bioegalitarianism, and it is unlikely that my own offspring will be weak-minded enough to fall prey to such delusions.

--Mark

P.S. Information on heritability can be found at

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Heritability

Nereid

Apr17-04, 07:32 PM

*SNIP
If present trends persist, the only ones left around will be descended from criminals (heritaility: 60%) [...]. But criminals, [...] have no use for bioegalitarianism, and it is unlikely that my own offspring will be weak-minded enough to fall prey to such delusions.
Given the immense damage
criminals such as these (http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/more-reports/RL31866.pdf) recently caused, and the scale of their crimes, I guess Mark will be promoting research into the hereditability of high-SES* criminalilty, and will shortly announce a major revision of his disgenics proposals. Let's all hope that Mark doesn't have too many ancestors who committed wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, consipiracy, obstruction of justice, money laundering, tax fraud, insider trading, grand larceny, ... even if they weren't caught :wink:

*there's no doubt of these folks' SES, at least until they were caught; I wonder about their IQ?

selfAdjoint

Apr18-04, 10:01 AM

*there's no doubt of these folks' SES, at least until they were caught; I wonder about their IQ?

The well known correlation between IQ and income fails at the highest income levels. Access to the highest levels of income seems to depend on other factors than (g-loaded) intelligence.

mee

Apr27-04, 01:47 PM

Actually the word "moron" originally was a medical classification used in psychology for people with mild mental retardation of a mental age between 7-12 years of age generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. It's original use did not have the negative connotations currently associated with it.

The term "idiot" was originally a medical classification used in pyschology to describe a person with profound mental retardation, usually with a mental age below 3 years and generally unable to learn connected speech.

The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard". [;)]

Actually, I believe the word idiot was originally a greek word used in ancient greece to refer to a nonprofessional person. I believe this might mean one with no skills for a profession.

Angel Loupe

Apr27-04, 02:16 PM

I believe IQ is 50% inherited & 50% determined by how each individual responds to its environment. I base this on a personal example. I come from a long line of extremely gifted people. All have documented IQ's of above 150. I was raised by a different birth parent and this truth was not revealed to me until my teenage years. Although I had the potential at a young age to fill the shoes I was supposed to wear, the combination of a traumatic childhood and a devastating revelation took a toll on me, and I fell short as an adult. However, it is still obvious that my genetics gave me a higher disposition of intelligence, since those around me growing up were all around 120 IQ, and I still maintained a higher sense of intelligence, but emotionally, I accepted my family and strived to belong (fit in, so to speak), and I believe that deterred my development. This is only applicable to myself, but the longer I live, the more I believe that it holds true across the board.

Concept

Apr27-04, 06:07 PM

Everybody accepts that genes play a role in intelligence. No one believes in 100% enviormentalism. The problem is people who fail to grasp flexibility of gene expression. How much intelligence is heritable vs. enviormental isn't an exactly quantifiable percentage where one side necessarily plays a measurably larger role than the other.

BlackVision

Apr28-04, 06:13 AM

IQ is about 80% genetic, 20% environment. These figures can accurately be drawn by studying identical twins raised in different environments.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm

Concept

Apr28-04, 07:51 PM

selfAdjoint

Apr28-04, 08:07 PM

It's actually the reduction in variance caused by similar or identical genetics. So of the variance in IQ between individuals, 80% of it would be expected to go away if they were identical twins.

And I am surprised to see these 80%, 85% figures; since about 1970 figures more like 60% - 70% have been most frequently quoted.

BlackVision

Apr28-04, 09:06 PM

If it was 80% unchangably genetic, that would mean there should be NO people who exhibited a larger than 20% difference. If its the average, that means there are people who show a larger than 20% difference.
Ok FIRST, you have the balance the genetics before doing any comparision. Since one person has different genes than another person, of course the gap between 2 people can and will be greater than 20%. But when you compare people with SAME GENES, aka identical twins, the gap is within 20%.

BlackVision

Apr28-04, 09:08 PM

And I am surprised to see these 80%, 85% figures; since about 1970 figures more like 60% - 70% have been most frequently quoted.

I've heard the 70% figure as well. Never 60% though. To be on the safe side, let's say roughly 70-80%.

Concept

Apr28-04, 11:18 PM

Ok FIRST, you have the balance the genetics before doing any comparision. Since one person has different genes than another person, of course the gap between 2 people can and will be greater than 20%. But when you compare people with SAME GENES, aka identical twins, the gap is within 20%.
yes, I was talking about the idential twins. Do you have the exact statistics of the study? The part quoted says they "tend" to be about 80% the same.

Concept

Apr28-04, 11:35 PM

haha, I just re-read the article noticed you quoted the part about twins raised together.

The quirky cases strengthen our sense of the power of nature, but they don't provide enough data to make a scientific case. "There probably are genetic influences on almost all facets of human behavior," Bouchard says today, "but the emphasis on the idiosyncratic characteristics is misleading. On average, identical twins raised separately are about 50 percent similar -- and that defeats the widespread belief that identical twins are carbon copies. Obviously, they are not. Each is a unique individual in his or her own right."

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 01:06 AM

haha, I just re-read the article noticed you quoted the part about twins raised together.

Well you're wrong but at least you're trying.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 01:08 AM

On average, identical twins raised separately are about 50 percent similar -- and that defeats the widespread belief that identical twins are carbon copies. Obviously, they are not. Each is a unique individual in his or her own right."
50 percent similiar to behavior. NOT IQ. Other behaviors are more dependent on environment than IQ is. IQ is almost fully genetic.

You should study this more in depth. There are hundreds of articles on it. All the numbers I've seen come out to be 70% or 80% for twins raised separately for IQ.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 01:37 AM

Concept

Apr29-04, 09:02 AM

Do you even read the entire sites you're posting? The last one specifically cites adoption studies showing that black children adopted into white families show little IQ variation from whites and studies showing that improving the conditions of disadvantaged children raises their IQ signifigantly.

In addition, it isn't surprising that identical twins show a higher correlation in IQ. Like I said, everyone accepts that genetics play a role in determining intelligence. My problem is that people attempt to quantify exactly how much enviornment vs. heredity plays a role, and don't regard flexibility of gene expression at all. There have been studies showing that enviorment influences the extent to which genes are expressed. Even if it were shown exactly how much genetics determine intelligence, that wouldn't indicate that enviorment wouldn't be able to change it. (see: height)

hitssquad

Apr29-04, 10:15 AM

Do you even read the entire sites you're posting? The last one specifically cites adoption studies showing that black children adopted into white families show little IQ variation from whites and studies showing that improving the conditions of disadvantaged children raises their IQ signifigantly.It was the notes for a lecture purposefully contrasting "hereditarians" and "environmentalists." Inconsistent studies are cited throughout that web page to show that different scientists have different views on IQ heredity.

everyone accepts that genetics play a role in determining intelligence.In terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

people attempt to quantify exactly how much enviornment vs. heredity plays a roleIn terms of heredity, that statement also does not make sense.

There have been studies showing that enviorment influences the extent to which genes are expressed.Again, in terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

Even if it were shown exactly how much genetics determine intelligence, that wouldn't indicate that enviorment wouldn't be able to change it.Yet again, in terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

Concept

Apr29-04, 10:23 AM

Evo

Apr29-04, 05:05 PM

Well you're wrong but at least you're trying.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things.

Bouchard's twin study was primarily funded by the Pioneer Fund, a racist/eugenics organization. Bouchard to date has received 1.8 million dollars from the Pioneer fund.

"The failure of Bouchard and his colleagues in the Minnesota
Twin Study to participate in the peer review process is an
extreme example of circumventing the scientific process and using
the media for public relations. "

"Finally, Bouchard and McGue simply pooled the samples from
very different tests and from tests which gave extraordinarily
divergent results. For instance, one test of siblings gave an
I.Q. correlation of 10 percent, while another test gave a
correlation of 90 percent. Bouchard and McGue simply averaged the
two to give a correlation of 50 percent. "

"The first New York Times report about the Minnesota Twin
study quoted Bouchard as saying, "I'm going to beg, borrow, and
steal" to pursue the twin study. In fact, Bouchard has solicited
money from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation with racist and radical
right-wing connections. the University of Minnesota has received
grants from the fund for Bouchard's twin study. But the Pioneer
Fund is best known for its support of research purporting the
inferiority of blacks."

"Once headed by directors such as the Chairman of the House
Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Representative Francis E.
Walter, and Mississippi Senator James O. Eastland, the fund has
long subsidized research and publication of the works of
scientific racists, including William Shockley and Arthur Jensen,
Jensen served on the scientific advisory board of the German Neo-
Nazi journal Newe Anthropologie. (SeeBarry Mehler's article "The
New Eugenics" in the May/June 1983 issue of _Science for the
People_.)"

"Bouchard, in his grant application to the Pioneer Fund,
noted that the National Science Foundation has repeatedly refused
funding for his study and has made numerous criticisms of his
method. Bouchard has claimed that the NSF and the National
Institutes of Health are packed with left liberals who deny him
funds on ideological grounds."

http://www.textfiles.com/conspiracy/twins.txt

Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.htmlYour source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund. Phillipe Rushton is currently president of the Pioneer Fund.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 05:36 PM

You know deciding to attack the funding of a research, rather than the merits of the research, makes your case extraordinarily weak.

But you wanna know the truth about the Pioneer Fund? Here you go:

"A related example is the charge that The Bell Curve is based on "tainted sources." Charles Lane introduced this theme with an article in the New Republic and then a much longer one in the New York Review of Books. In the latter piece, he proclaimed that "No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly, a notorious journal of `racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race." Lane also discovered that we cited thirteen scholars who had received grants from the Pioneer Fund, established and run (he alleged) by men who were Nazi sympathizers, eugenicists, and advocates of white racial superiority. Leon Kamin, a vociferous critic of IQ in all its manifestations, took up the same argument at length in his review of The Bell Curve in Scientific American.

Never mind that The Bell Curve draws its evidence from more than 1,000 sources. Never mind that among the scholars in Lane's short list are some of the most respected psychologists of our time, and that the "tainted sources" consist overwhelmingly of articles that were published in respected and refereed journals. Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford and today's Ford Foundation."

And Washington Post is an extremely liberal newspaper. You honestly think they'll post an article supporting neo-nazis? Trying to start invalid conspiracies is the best way to avoid the truth.

By the way, I think you need to learn what it means to be racist or have a racial superiority complex. IQ researches, REGARDLESS of who does the study, whether a white guy, black guy, whatever, anyways comes up with the same researches. To call the Bell Curve, "racist" cause Murray and Herrnstein reaches a conclusion that Jews and Asians had higher IQs makes absolutely no sense. J Rushton that reaches the exact same conclusion. To call him a racist, again makes no sense. Since when does a racist, like to promote 2 groups above their own?

Nereid

Apr29-04, 05:42 PM

I wonder whether BlackVision has any relationship to Nachtwolf?

In any case, surely a more significant scientific test of genetic component of IQ would be identical twins raised apart, from 'birth', in very different environments?

For example, one twin raised in white middle America, the other in rural Africa (or by a Saudi prince, or a worker's family in Lanzhou, ...). How else can we 'control' for variations in 'mother tongue', 'child raising practices' (esp from very early ages), diet, birth order (IIRC, this makes a big difference in SAT scores in the US; who knows how it affects the IQs of kids growing up with Mongolian cattle nomads?), peer groups, ...

Oh, and it would be nice if the results of such 'twin studies' were published in peer-review journals (and not funded by the Pioneer Fund).

Evo

Apr29-04, 05:55 PM

You know deciding to attack the funding of a research, rather than the merits of the research, makes your case extraordinarily weak.If you had read my post, you would have realized that I was criticizing the lack of scientific peer review. Perhaps you should read a post before making inaccurate assumptions.

But you wanna know the truth about the Pioneer Fund? Here you go:Here's the truth about the Pioneer Fund.

The Pioneer Fund persevered, however, and became increasingly active through the 1950s. It was the fund's opposition to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to integrate public schools which attracted its previous president, New York lawyer Harry F. Weyher, who assumed the job in 1958.

Since then, the Pioneer Fund has doled out money to people such as Roger Pearson, a British ex-patriate living in Georgia who, in 1958, founded the Northern League to promote "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations."

"Early recruits," reports the London-based Independent, "included Hans Gunther, who was awarded a Goethe medal in 1941 for his work on Nordic racial philosophy, Ernest Sevier Cox, an American leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Wilhelm Kusserow, a former SS Untersturmfuhrer."

Between 1981 and 1991 alone (payments continued at least through 1994), Pearson received $568,000 from the Pioneer Fund to publish Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science."

In the 1970s, reports the Independent, Mankind Quarterly's editorial advisers included Otmar, Baron Von Verscheur, who had served as director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a post as doctor at Auschwitz.

The Pioneer Fund has also paid for research by various scientists looking for proof of a connection between heredity and IQ scores, and IQ score difference between races.

Some of the Pioneer Fund's largest grants have gone to a well-known--and well-respected--study of twins at the University of Minnesota.

But the fund has also given more than $500,000 to Phillipe Rushton, a Canadian professor who asserts that brain size and intelligence are greater in Asians than whites, who in turn have larger brains and more intelligence than blacks. He also argues that penis size shows a similar, but reverse, correlation, and claims that the larger penises of blacks is an indication of greater promiscuity--a conclusion he based on interviewing 50 black students at the university where he teaches--and proof that blacks are less evolved. In 1989, police investigated Rushton under Canadian hate-propaganda laws but did not charge him.

And Washingpost Post is an extremely liberal newspaper. You honestly think they'll post an article supporting neo-nazis? Trying to start invalid conspiracies is the best way to avoid the truth.I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.

By the way, I think you need to learn what it means to be racist or have a racial superiority complex. IQ researches, REGARDLESS of who does the study, whether a white guy, black guy, whatever, anyways comes up with the same researches. To call the Bell Curve, "racist" cause Murray and Herrnstein reaches a conclusion that Jews and Asians had higher IQs makes absolutely no sense. ?I haven't mentioned the Bell Curve. But it is a well known fact that the authors are racist, now that you mention it.

J Rushton that reaches the exact same conclusion. To call him a racist, again makes no sense. Since when does a racist, like to promote 2 groups above their own?When it suits their purpose of slandering a particular race.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 06:16 PM

If you had read my post, you would have realized that I was criticizing the lack of scientific peer review. Perhaps you should read a post before making inaccurate assumptions.
80 years of scientific consistent scientific research is quite hard to refute. Which is why it's yet to succesfully be done.

Here's the truth about the Pioneer Fund.

The Pioneer Fund persevered, however, and became increasingly active through the 1950s. It was the fund's opposition to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to integrate public schools which attracted its previous president, New York lawyer Harry F. Weyher, who assumed the job in 1958.

Since then, the Pioneer Fund has doled out money to people such as Roger Pearson, a British ex-patriate living in Georgia who, in 1958, founded the Northern League to promote "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations."

"Early recruits," reports the London-based Independent, "included Hans Gunther, who was awarded a Goethe medal in 1941 for his work on Nordic racial philosophy, Ernest Sevier Cox, an American leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Wilhelm Kusserow, a former SS Untersturmfuhrer."

Between 1981 and 1991 alone (payments continued at least through 1994), Pearson received $568,000 from the Pioneer Fund to publish Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science."

In the 1970s, reports the Independent, Mankind Quarterly's editorial advisers included Otmar, Baron Von Verscheur, who had served as director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a post as doctor at Auschwitz.

The Pioneer Fund has also paid for research by various scientists looking for proof of a connection between heredity and IQ scores, and IQ score difference between races.

Some of the Pioneer Fund's largest grants have gone to a well-known--and well-respected--study of twins at the University of Minnesota.

But the fund has also given more than $500,000 to Phillipe Rushton, a Canadian professor who asserts that brain size and intelligence are greater in Asians than whites, who in turn have larger brains and more intelligence than blacks. He also argues that penis size shows a similar, but reverse, correlation, and claims that the larger penises of blacks is an indication of greater promiscuity--a conclusion he based on interviewing 50 black students at the university where he teaches--and proof that blacks are less evolved. In 1989, police investigated Rushton under Canadian hate-propaganda laws but did not charge him.
Read what I posted about the Pioneer Fund again. And once again, where one get his research money is a weak argument. You wanna refute a research, you refute it's facts, it's data, it's statistics, it's conclusions. If this is your primarily focus, there is no debate.

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.
My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted.

I haven't mentioned the Bell Curve. But it is a well known fact that the authors are racist, now that you mention it.
Right cause simply using fundamental mainstream science on a taboo subject makes it racist. All scientists I'm sure will agree that Siamese cats are the smartest cat. Perhaps these scientists are cat racists against other cats too aye.

When it suits their purpose of slandering a particular race.
It couldn't simply have to do with using science or finding the truth huh. The fact remains, concluding 2 groups above your own DOES NOT make one a racist.

So the only way that someone isn't racist is if they perfectly agree with you on racial matters? Oh that's just great. Forget science. Forget research. Let's just create happy answers to live in our oh so delusional politically correct world where feelings have become more important than the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of science.

Evo

Apr29-04, 06:21 PM

I wonder whether BlackVision has any relationship to Nachtwolf?I was thinking the same thing!

Concept

Apr29-04, 06:32 PM

I like how BV just totally ignored my post.

Evo

Apr29-04, 06:36 PM

80 years of scientific consistent scientific research is quite hard to refute. Which is why it's yet to succesfully be done.

Read what I posted about the Pioneer Fund again. And once again, where one get his research money is a weak argument. You wanna refute a research, you refute it's facts, it's data, it's statistics, it's conclusions. If this is your primarily focus, there is no debate.Hmmm, here is my opening statement "Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things." Bouchard's statistics, data and conclusions have all been questioned and Bouchard has failed to provide documentation (which he promised) which could validate his study.

My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted.WRONG. You really cannot read, can you? Here it is again, so you may read it. Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackVision
Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

Your source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund. Phillipe Rushton is currently president of the Pioneer Fund. If you had reading comprehension skills, you would note first that I was refering to the source of the mugu.com website and the rest of the LINKS you posted. I never referred to your post.

Right cause simply using fundamental mainstream science on a taboo subject makes it racist. All scientists I'm sure will agree that Siamese cats are the smartest cat. Perhaps these scientists are cat racists against other cats too aye.Getting silly now?

It couldn't simply have to do with using science or finding the truth huh. The fact remains, concluding 2 groups above your own DOES NOT make one a racist.I never said it did. It's all the other facts that make them racists.

So the only way that someone isn't racist is if they perfectly agree with you on racial matters? Oh that's just great. Forget science. Forget research. Let's just create happy answers to live in our oh so delusional politically correct world where feelings have become more important than the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of science.It is about the science, and VALID research, not the skewed and biased "studies" that you post.

Would you like the facts about the study that concluded that whites and Asians had larger brain sizes? Oh please ask me to post it.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 06:58 PM

Hmmm, here is my opening statement "Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things." Bouchard's statistics, data and conclusions have all been questioned and Bouchard has failed to provide documentation (which he promised) which could validate his study.
Again 80 years of research by psychologists. This isn't one study. These are hundreds of studies done for the past 80 years. Ever since IQ tests have been invented. Quit singling out one single person.

WRONG. You really cannot read, can you? Here it is again, so you may read it. Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackVision
Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html
Wow YOU can't read can you? Let me repost my first source.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm

Your source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund. Phillipe Rushton is currently president of the Pioneer Fund. If you had reading comprehension skills, you would note first that I was refering to the source of the mugu.com website and the rest of the LINKS you posted. I never referred to your post.
And these sites make it racist? How? Cause it doesn't agree with your illogical state of mind? But want me to post the article from "Wall Street Journal" Here. I'd like to you try and attempt and say Wall Street Journal is racist.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence
The Wall Street Journal
December 13, 1994

Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered
opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence.
Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly
supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers
on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical
consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is
to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the
research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully
described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in
intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other
things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think
abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from
experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or
test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability
for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of
things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests
measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms,
reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do
not measure creativity, character personality, or other important
differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure
the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific
cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use
shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal
concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be
represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal
curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are
either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ
130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the
same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the
threshold for mental retardation).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or
other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ
scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of
race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well
can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little
understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural
transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the
brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The
bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often
differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The
bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered
somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and
Hispanics) ale centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell
curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different
subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and
blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100
the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

Getting silly now?
No I would say you are.

I never said it did. It's all the other facts that make them racists.
Point out these "facts" No more Pioneer Fund either.

It is about the science, and VALID research, not the skewed and biased "studies" that you post.
Alright if you're honestly about the science, let's try this with a open mind. Would you be willing to accept that thousands of years of evolution in various locations in the world, has allowed slight differences in various abilities of both mental and physical characteristics of the human races. I'm not exactly referring to IQ or the Bell Curve, but would you be willing to conclude that some variation exists in between races in both physical and mental characteristics.

Would you like the facts about the study that concluded that whites and Asians had larger brain sizes? Oh please ask me to post it.
Post if you wish.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 07:08 PM

I like how BV just totally ignored my post.
Would you like to me to copy and paste my previous responses?

The world purpose of an IQ test is be culturally unbias. It's by definition suppose to measure natural intelligence. If it was bias toward higher education, toward a culture, that would defeat the whole purpose of IQ test now wouldn't it? And would be considered invalid by all psychologists. Since psychologists and geneticists alike seem overwhelmingly in support of such tests, the validity of such tests are strongly upheld.

Especially matrices IQ test. Let me show you what a matrix IQ test looks like.

http://nicologic.free.fr/MatrixA.htm

You honestly think education would have any major impact on your ability to take this test?

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 07:18 PM

how do these statements not make sense?

and studies do consistently show that changes in enviorment with the specific intent to improve ones conditions can raise IQ.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040303/01
Ok would you like to point out where in this article it even mentions IQ?

Power law governs gene expression
Proportional dynamics illustrates commonality of gene expression levels in all organisms | By Cathy Holding

With an ever-increasing number of genomes available for analysis, there has been a shift in emphasis away from the study of single genes and a greater attempt to understand gene expression at the network or systems level. A report in the March 1 PNAS shows that power laws—a universal mathematical dynamic—govern the process.

Hiroki Ueda and colleagues at the Center for Developmental Biology describe the mathematical principle underlying observed levels of gene expression. They used information from public databases of whole genome sequences and from their own microarray analyses. Proportional dynamics, also known as “rich-travel-more,” showed that power law levels of gene expression were observed not only in different organisms, but also within discrete organs or at specific developmental times in the same organism (PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.0306244101, March 1, 2004).

The team examined how genes change their expression in different conditions and observed that highly expressed genes change more, while genes expressed infrequently change less. “It's proportional; the magnitude of change[s] are proportional to their expression levels,” said Ueda. “I also found [that] proportional dynamics can reproduce the complex pattern of distribution in gene expression levels—called power law distribution.”

Ueda said he was surprised to find Escherichia coli and humans are governed by the same simple mechanism. “I am glad to have found a simple and universal mechanism that exists in all systems of life,” he told The Scientist.

Plotting the distribution of different gene expression levels against the expression hierarchy of those genes results in a straight line. “I unexpectedly found that distribution[s] of gene expression were heterogeneous and governed by the power law of minus 2 exponent,” he told The Scientist in an E-mail.

Yutaka Suzuki, research scientist at the Institute of Medical Science Human Genome Center explained, “In every case, you can see the straight line in the scattering plot. The basic concept is that such a kind of law is conserved between cell types and organisms in many kinds of context.”

Suzuki, who was not involved in the study, explained that it is the ratio of minus 2 that is conserved. “That's the universal observation, that's the point of this manuscript,” he said.

Lada Adamic, a power law expert in the Information Dynamics Laboratory at Hewlett-Packard, told The Scientist that although she was not a biologist, she would almost expect this observation because these distributions are extremely common. “As long as you have like a multiplicative process—which is what this is, this proportional process—you're going to end up with a distribution like that,” she said.

Adamic, who was not involved in the study, said that the same distribution was actually observed by Yule in 1913 when he was looking at the abundance of species in different genera. “So that's kind of like a biological thing,” she said. “The problem with power laws is that people keep kind of rediscovering them.”

“I myself have heard that this behavior of a system is very universal, [but] this is the first groundwork for this kind of analysis as I believe it. For biological systems, this is a first, so in that sense at least I think this is significant,” Suzuki said.

Ueda said that in the future, statistical analysis utilizing this “proportional” dynamics would be useful for the analysis of microarray data in any organism. “Statistical analysis based on “proportional” dynamics can be applied to the search for the significantly changed genes in two conditions,” he said in an E-mail. “We are preparing the manuscript on this type of application.”

Evo

Apr29-04, 07:26 PM

Again 80 years of research by psychologists. This isn't one study. These are hundreds of studies done for the past 80 years. Ever since IQ tests have been invented. Quit singling out one single person.You were the one that posted Bouchard as an impeccable source, not me. I was responding to your piece on him. Why do you keep bringing up other things you have posted that I did not respond to?

Wow YOU can't read can you? Let me repost my first source.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm[/QUOTE'You are a DIM bulb. I did not post anything concerning this. If you say that it rains daily in the Sahara, and I reply saying "no, that's not correct", why would you then keep saying "but it snows in Iceland". I'm not discussing Iceland, I'm discussing the Sahara. Understand?

[QUOTE=BlackVision]And these sites make it racist? How? Cause it doesn't agree with your illogical state of mind? But want me to post the article from "Wall Street Journal" Here. I'd like to you try and attempt and say Wall Street Journal is racist.What are you rambling about? You think something is true just because of where something is repeated? Are you really that naive?

I never said it did. It's all the other facts that make them racists.
Point out these "facts" No more Pioneer Fund either.I will gladly point them out. I will do so later tonight when I have a bit more time. Sorry, the Pioneer Fund is closely tied to and in many cases responsible for the studies you hold as the truth. There is no way to exclude them.

Alright if you're honestly about the science, let's try this with a open mind. Would you be willing to accept that thousands of years of evolution in various locations in the world, has allowed slight differences in various abilities of both mental and physical characteristics of the human races. I'm not exactly referring to IQ or the Bell Curve, but would you be willing to conclude that some variation exists in between races in both physical and mental characteristics.I agree that there are physical differences caused by climate, nutrition, etc... I do not agree that there are mental differences.

Post if you wish.The study are you referring to that shows that Asians have larger size brains than Africans is the unscientific, biased & debunked study by Rushton, that won't fly.

Funny that the reason the African brain size was significantly smaller was due to the grossly disproportionate sampling of PYGMIES.

"This paper
contains the geographical means widely cited by Rushton, namely
that the mean cranial volume for 26 Asian societies was 1380 cc,
the mean volume for 10 European societies was 1362, and the mean
for 10 African societies was 1276. Notably, the African sample
contained 5 groups that are characterized by exceptionally small
body size (2 pygmy groups and 2 bushman groups). Indeed the Akka
pygmies (representing 1/10 of the whole African sample) had the
smallest cranial volume ever found in extant humans (1085 cc)."

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/dann...-1994/0088.html

All of you eugenicists have this tiny database of skewed information that you draw from. Do you have any idea how many times everything you have posted has previously been posted here and debunked?

Concept

Apr29-04, 07:43 PM

Would you like to me to copy and paste my previous responses?

The world purpose of an IQ test is be culturally unbias. It's by definition suppose to measure natural intelligence. If it was bias toward higher education, toward a culture, that would defeat the whole purpose of IQ test now wouldn't it? And would be considered invalid by all psychologists. Since psychologists and geneticists alike seem overwhelmingly in support of such tests, the validity of such tests are strongly upheld.

Especially matrices IQ test. Let me show you what a matrix IQ test looks like.

http://nicologic.free.fr/MatrixA.htm

You honestly think education would have any major impact on your ability to take this test?
then how exactly do you explain studies that consistently show that improving education and improving conditions increases IQ? Second of all, no one says IQ tests measure nothing. They were invented to indentify children who needed extra help, the person who created them specifically warned against an inherentist interpetation of the results. Third of all, implying the majority of psychologists agree that IQ is inherent is simply false. The existance of g is highly debatable, because it is merely one mathematical interpetation of IQ test results.

also, I posted the article because it talks about how enviornment influences gene expression. Thinking it doesn't influence IQ is a huge assumption.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 07:46 PM

You were the one that posted Bouchard as an impeccable source, not me. I was responding to your piece on him. Why do you keep bringing up other things you have posted that I did not respond to?
Cause YOU are the one fixating on him. Trying to remove credibility of 80 years of psychology research from one person. Do you think there aren't hundreds of others that did their own researches that didn't draw the same conclusion as he did? Again, what is your fixation with him?

What are you rambling about? You think something is true just because of where something is repeated? Are you really that naive?
Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are by no measures a racist propaganda news source. Nor would they ever attempt to advocate any racism. For them to run the stories, does show credibility.

I will gladly point them out. I will do so later tonight when I have a bit more time. Sorry, the Pioneer Fund is closely tied to and in many cases responsible for the studies you hold as the truth. There is no way to exclude them.
Perhaps focusing on refuting statistics and datas rather than where the money trail goes. Even if Hitler himself donated $10 million to fund the project, that itself certainly doesn't discredit any findings now does it.

I agree that there are physical differences caused by climate, nutrition, etc... I do not agree that there are mental differences.
See this is where PC mentality fails you and clouds your ability to use proper science. What makes you think nature is bias toward physical differences but doesn't lay a figure on mental attributes. Are you also gonna state there are no mental differences between one group of cats and other? One group of birds and another? One group of dogs and another? One group of fish and another?

Since when does mother nature ignore mental attributes. Since when does mental attributes become completely distanced from evolution. How does thousands of years of evolution not create even a single shred of mental differences? You may have to learn the basics of evolution first before we attempt to discuss this further.

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/dann...-1994/0088.html
Can you fix this link? It doesn't seem to work.

Do you have any idea how many times everything you have posted has previously been posted here and debunked?
Debunked? Really? Hmm. So nobody here shares the same viewpoint I have? Why do I find that hard to believe.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 07:52 PM

then how exactly do you explain studies that consistently show that improving education and improving conditions increases IQ? Second of all, no one says IQ tests measure nothing. They were invented to indentify children who needed extra help, the person who created them specifically warned against an inherentist interpetation of the results. Third of all, implying the majority of psychologists agree that IQ is inherent is simply false. The existance of g is highly debatable, because it is merely one mathematical interpetation of IQ test results.
IQ tests are approximately 70-80% genetic. I'm quite sure no one will say that it's completely genetic. That being said, better environments will have slight improvements in IQ. But by no means can someone jump from an IQ of 100 to an IQ of 130 regardless of environment. No environment in the world will give someone Einstein like IQ level. Genetics is the predominating factor.

also, I posted the article because it talks about how enviornment influences gene expression. Thinking it doesn't influence IQ is a huge assumption.
Well perhaps you need to find an article that directly relates to IQ. That would have far more weight.

Evo

Apr29-04, 08:01 PM

Cause YOU are the one fixating on him. Trying to remove credibility of 80 years of psychology research from one person. Do you think there aren't hundreds of others that did their own researches that didn't draw the same conclusion as he did? Again, what is your fixation with him?I'm not fixated, *you* are the one that keeps bringing him up and refuses to move on.

Can you fix this link? It doesn't seem to work.Sorry, here it is. http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/november-1994/0088.html

Debunked? Really? Hmm. So nobody here shares the same viewpoint I have? Why do I find that hard to believe.Yes, really. There is you, Nachtwolf & hitssquad.

I will respond to your other items when I return. Or maybe it would be better to just give you the other threads that already go over all of this in boring repetitive detail.

Evo

Apr29-04, 08:06 PM

IQ tests are approximately 70-80% genetic.Really? Please post the studies done that have proven this, I've somehow missed them in all my research on the subject.

Concept

Apr29-04, 08:31 PM

IQ tests are approximately 70-80% genetic. I'm quite sure no one will say that it's completely genetic. That being said, better environments will have slight improvements in IQ. But by no means can someone jump from an IQ of 100 to an IQ of 130 regardless of environment. No environment in the world will give someone Einstein like IQ level. Genetics is the predominating factor.

one of the sites YOU posted cites a study that says blacks adopted by white families don't show real IQ difference.

of course everybody has limits. Not everyone can be Einstein. People like that are extreme cases.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 09:03 PM

I'm not fixated, *you* are the one that keeps bringing him up and refuses to move on.
What the hell are you talking about? You're the one constantly trying to discredit 80 years of consistent psychology research by pointing out the "supposed" flaws of one guy.

Sorry, here it is. http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/november-1994/0088.html
This is your best source? Could of at least attempted to find a reliable source with doctors and bibliographical notes. What is this?

Also note that I never even brought up brain size so not sure why you brought it up. We were discussing IQ weren't we?

Yes, really. There is you, Nachtwolf & hitssquad.
How long have you been here? I'd been here for like a week and I'd read more support than just those 2. Simply naming the two most vocal ones doesn't mean those are the only ones.

The Bell Curve also has been widely accepted in the psychology world. Are there vocal opposers? Of course. For such a taboo subject it's expected. But it certainly has a wide area of support. Including black professors and academics.

I will respond to your other items when I return. Or maybe it would be better to just give you the other threads that already go over all of this in boring repetitive detail.
You think you've debated this a lot? You have any idea how much I have? You and I both know how it'll end up.

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 09:06 PM

Really? Please post the studies done that have proven this, I've somehow missed them in all my research on the subject.
Seeing how there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures, I would say that it's quite substantiated. Did your bias just have a tendency to simply skip over each and every single one of them in your so called "researches"?

BlackVision

Apr29-04, 09:07 PM

one of the sites YOU posted cites a study that says blacks adopted by white families don't show real IQ difference.
Such studies have shown slight IQ improvements but nothing drastic.

hitssquad

Apr30-04, 01:07 AM

Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things.PubMed returns (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed&term=bouchard+tj+twin) 47 citations for bouchard+tj+twin:

1: Johnson W, McGue M, Krueger RF, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Marriage and personality: a genetic analysis.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Feb;86(2):285-94.
PMID: 14769084 [PubMed - in process]
2: Krueger RF, Markon KE, Bouchard TJ Jr.
The extended genotype: the heritability of personality accounts for the heritability of recalled family environments in twins reared apart.
J Pers. 2003 Oct;71(5):809-33.
PMID: 12932211
3: Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M.
Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences.
J Neurobiol. 2003 Jan;54(1):4-45. Review.
PMID: 12486697
4: Markon KE, Krueger RF, Bouchard TJ Jr, Gottesman II.
Normal and abnormal personality traits: evidence for genetic and environmental relationships in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart.
J Pers. 2002 Oct;70(5):661-93.
PMID: 12322856
5: Johnson W, Krueger RF, Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M.
The personalities of twins: just ordinary folks.
Twin Res. 2002 Apr;5(2):125-31.
PMID: 11931690
6: Bouchard TJ Jr, Loehlin JC.
Genes, evolution, and personality.
Behav Genet. 2001 May;31(3):243-73. Review.
PMID: 11699599
7: Michalowicz BS, Pihlstrom BL, Hodges JS, Bouchard TJ Jr.
No heritability of temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms.
J Dent Res. 2000 Aug;79(8):1573-8.
PMID: 11023277
8: DiLalla DL, Gottesman II, Carey G, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Heritability of MMPI Harris-Lingoes and Subtle-Obvious subscales in twins reared apart.
Assessment. 1999 Dec;6(4):353-66.
PMID: 10539982
9: Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M, Lykken D, Tellegen A.
Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: genetic and environmental influences and personality correlates.
Twin Res. 1999 Jun;2(2):88-98.
PMID: 10480743
10: Michalowicz BS, Wolff LF, Klump D, Hinrichs JE, Aeppli DM, Bouchard TJ Jr, Pihlstrom BL.
Periodontal bacteria in adult twins.
J Periodontol. 1999 Mar;70(3):263-73.
PMID: 10225542
11: Hur YM, Bouchard TJ Jr, Eckert E.
Genetic and environmental influences on self-reported diet: a reared-apart twin study.
Physiol Behav. 1998 Jul;64(5):629-36.
PMID: 9817574
12: Ziegler DK, Hur YM, Bouchard TJ Jr, Hassanein RS, Barter R.
Migraine in twins raised together and apart.
Headache. 1998 Jun;38(6):417-22.
PMID: 9664744
13: Newman DL, Tellegen A, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Individual differences in adult ego development: sources of influence in twins reared apart.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Apr;74(4):985-95.
PMID: 9569654
14: Bouchard TJ Jr.
Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities.
Hum Biol. 1998 Apr;70(2):257-79. Review.
PMID: 9549239
15: McGue M, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Genetic and environmental influences on human behavioral differences.
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1998;21:1-24. Review.
PMID: 9530489
16: Bouchard TJ Jr, Hur YM.
Genetic and environmental influences on the continuous scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: an analysis based on twins reared apart.
J Pers. 1998 Apr;66(2):135-49.
PMID: 9529660
17: Hur YM, Bouchard TJ Jr.
The genetic correlation between impulsivity and sensation seeking traits.
Behav Genet. 1997 Sep;27(5):455-63.
PMID: 9336082
18: Bouchard TJ Jr.
Experience Producing Drive Theory: how genes drive experience and shape personality.
Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1997 Jul;422:60-4. Review.
PMID: 9298795
19: Fox PW, Hershberger SL, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Genetic and environmental contributions to the acquisition of a motor skill.
Nature. 1996 Nov 28;384(6607):356-8.
PMID: 8934520
20: DiLalla DL, Carey G, Gottesman II, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Heritability of MMPI personality indicators of psychopathology in twins reared apart.
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Nov;105(4):491-9.
PMID: 8952182
21: Hur YM, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Genetic influences on perceptions of childhood family environment: a reared apart twin study.
Child Dev. 1995 Apr;66(2):330-45.
PMID: 7750369
22: Bouchard TJ Jr.
Genes, environment, and personality.
Science. 1994 Jun 17;264(5166):1700-1. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 8209250
23: Conry JP, Messer LB, Boraas JC, Aeppli DP, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Dental caries and treatment characteristics in human twins reared apart.
Arch Oral Biol. 1993 Nov;38(11):937-43.
PMID: 8297257
24: Lykken DT, Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M, Tellegen A.
Heritability of interests: a twin study.
J Appl Psychol. 1993 Aug;78(4):649-61.
PMID: 8407707
25: Segal NL, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Grief intensity following the loss of a twin and other relatives: test of kinship genetic hypotheses.
Hum Biol. 1993 Feb;65(1):87-105. Erratum in: Hum Biol 1993 Apr;65(2):following 336.
PMID: 8436394
26: Lykken DT, McGue M, Tellegen A, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Emergenesis. Genetic traits that may not run in families.
Am Psychol. 1992 Dec;47(12):1565-77.
PMID: 1476327
27: Michalowicz BS, Aeppli DP, Kuba RK, Bereuter JE, Conry JP, Segal NL, Bouchard TJ Jr, Pihlstrom BL.
A twin study of genetic variation in proportional radiographic alveolar bone height.
J Dent Res. 1991 Nov;70(11):1431-5.
PMID: 1960253
28: Michalowicz BS, Aeppli D, Virag JG, Klump DG, Hinrichs JE, Segal NL, Bouchard TJ Jr, Pihlstrom BL.
Periodontal findings in adult twins.
J Periodontol. 1991 May;62(5):293-9.
PMID: 2072240
29: Hanson B, McGue M, Roitman-Johnson B, Segal NL, Bouchard TJ Jr, Blumenthal MN.
Atopic disease and immunoglobulin E in twins reared apart and together.
Am J Hum Genet. 1991 May;48(5):873-9.
PMID: 2018039
30: Bouchard TJ, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal N, Tellegen A.
When kin correlations are not squared.
Science. 1990 Dec 14;250(4987):1498. No abstract available.
PMID: 2274774
31: Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal NL, Tellegen A.
Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart.
Science. 1990 Oct 12;250(4978):223-8.
PMID: 2218526
32: Lykken DT, McGue M, Bouchard TJ Jr, Tellegen A.
Does contact lead to similarity or similarity to contact?
Behav Genet. 1990 Sep;20(5):547-61.
PMID: 2288545
33: Grove WM, Eckert ED, Heston L, Bouchard TJ Jr, Segal N, Lykken DT.
Heritability of substance abuse and antisocial behavior: a study of monozygotic twins reared apart.
Biol Psychiatry. 1990 Jun 15;27(12):1293-304.
PMID: 2364118
34: Lykken DT, Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M, Tellegen A.
The Minnesota Twin Family Registry: some initial findings.
Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1990;39(1):35-70.
PMID: 2392892
35: Bouchard TJ Jr, Segal NL, Lykken DT.
Genetic and environmental influences on special mental abilities in a sample of twins reared apart.
Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1990;39(2):193-206.
PMID: 2239105
36: Tellegen A, Lykken DT, Bouchard TJ Jr, Wilcox KJ, Segal NL, Rich S.
Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1031-9.
PMID: 3397862
37: Lykken DT, Iacono WG, Haroian K, McGue M, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Habituation of the skin conductance response to strong stimuli: a twin study.
Psychophysiology. 1988 Jan;25(1):4-15. No abstract available.
PMID: 3353484
38: Eckert ED, Bouchard TJ, Bohlen J, Heston LL.
Homosexuality in monozygotic twins reared apart.
Br J Psychiatry. 1986 Apr;148:421-5.
PMID: 3730708
39: Kohler PF, Rivera VJ, Eckert ED, Bouchard TJ Jr, Heston LL.
Genetic regulation of immunoglobulin and specific antibody levels in twins reared apart.
J Clin Invest. 1985 Mar;75(3):883-8.
PMID: 4038983
40: Knobloch WH, Leavenworth NM, Bouchard TJ, Eckert ED.
Eye findings in twins reared apart.
Ophthalmic Paediatr Genet. 1985 Feb;5(1-2):59-66.
PMID: 4058873
41: McGue M, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex.
Behav Genet. 1984 Jul;14(4):325-43. No abstract available.
PMID: 6542356
42: Segal NL, Bouchard TJ Jr.
Zygosity diagnosis of twins in medical research.
Arch Intern Med. 1984 Jul;144(7):1505, 1509. No abstract available.
PMID: 6539582
43: Hanson BR, Halberg F, Tuna N, Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, Cornelissen G, Heston LL.
Rhythmometry reveals heritability of circadian characteristics of heart rate of human twins reared apart.
Cardiologia. 1984 May-Jun;29(5-6):267-82. No abstract available.
PMID: 6542411
44: Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M.
Familial studies of intelligence: a review.
Science. 1981 May 29;212(4498):1055-9.
PMID: 7195071
45: Bouchard TJ Jr, Heston L, Eckert E, Keyes M, Resnick S.
The Minnesota study of twins reared apart: project description and sample results in the developmental domain.
Prog Clin Biol Res. 1981;69 Pt B:227-33. No abstract available.
PMID: 7199166
46: Bouchard TJ Jr.
The study of mental ability using twin and adoption designs.
Prog Clin Biol Res. 1981;69 Pt B:21-3. No abstract available.
PMID: 7199164
47: Eckert ED, Heston LL, Bouchard TJ Jr.
MZ twins reared apart: preliminary findings of psychiatric disturbances and traits.
Prog Clin Biol Res. 1981;69 Pt B:179-88. No abstract available.
PMID: 7199161

hitssquad

Apr30-04, 04:43 AM

Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer reviewOVID PsycINFO returns 54 citations for (bouchard t j or bouchard thomas j or bouchard thomas j jr).au. and (twin or twins).mp:1. Johnson, Wendy; McGue, Matt; Krueger, Robert F; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 86(2) Feb 2004, 285-294. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
2. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. The genetics of personality. Blum, Kenneth (Ed); Noble, Ernest P. (Ed); et al. (1997). Handbook of psychiatric genetics. (pp. 273-296). Boca Raton, FL, US: CRC Press. 498pp.

• •
3. Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; McGue, Matthew; Segal, Nancy L; et al. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Response. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191-192. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US

• •
4. Krueger, Robert F; Markon, Kristian E; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. The Extended Genotype: The Heritability of Personality Accounts for the Heritability of Recalled Family Environments in Twins Reared Apart. Journal of Personality. Vol 71(5) Oct 2003, 809-833. Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom

• •
5. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Segal, Nancy L; Tellegen, Auke; McGue, Matt; Keyes, Margaret; Krueger, Robert. Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the Wilson-Patterson Conservatism Scale: A reared-apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 34(6) Apr 2003, 959-969. Elsevier Science, United Kingdom

• •
6. Johnson, Wendy; Bouchard, Thomas J. JR; Segal, Nancy L; Keyes, Margaret; Samuels, Jay. The Stroop Color-Word Test: Genetic and environmental influences; Reading, mental ability, and personality correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol 95(1) Mar 2003, 58-65. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
7. Markon, Kristian E; Krueger, Robert F; Bouchard, Thomas J. JR; Gottesman, Irving I. Normal and abnormal personality traits: Evidence for genetic and environmental relationships in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Journal of Personality. Vol 70(5) Oct 2002, 661-693. Blackwell Publishers, US

• •
8. DiLalla, David L; Gottesman, Irving I; Carey, Gregory; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Heritability of MMPI Harris-Lingoes and Subtle-Obvious subscales in twins reared apart. Assessment. Vol 6(4) Dec 1999, 353-366. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc, US

• •
9. Bouchard, Thomas J. Genes, environment, and personality. Ceci, Stephen J. (Ed); Williams, Wendy M. (Ed). (1999). The nature--nurture debate: The essential readings. Essential readings in developmental psychology. (pp. 97-103). xi, 294pp.

• •
10. McCourt, Kathryn; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Lykken, David T; Tellegen, Auke; Keyes, Margaret. Authoritarianism revisited: Genetic and environmental influences examined in twins reared apart and together. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 27(5) Nov 1999, 985-1014. Elsevier Science, England

• •
11. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Pedersen, Nancy. Twins reared apart: Nature's double experiment. LaBuda, Michele C. (Ed); Grigorenko, Elena L. (Ed). (1999). On the way to individuality: Current methodological issues in behavioral genetics. (pp. 71-93). xi, 252pp.

• •
12. McGue, Matt; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Genetic and environmental influences on human behavioral differences. Annual Review of Neuroscience. Vol 21 1998, 1-24. Annual Reviews, US

• •
13. Hur, Yoon-Mi; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Eckert, Elke. Genetic and environmental influences on self-reported diet: A reared-apart twin study. Physiology & Behavior. Vol 64(5) Jul 1998, 629-636. Elsevier Science, US

• •
14. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; McGue, Matt; Hur, Yoon-Mi; Horn, Joseph M. A genetic and environmental analysis of the California Psychological Inventory using adult twins reared apart and together. European Journal of Personality. Vol 12(5) Sep-Oct 1998, 307-320. John Wiley & Sons, US

• •
15. Hur, Yoon-Mi; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Lykken, David T. Genetic and environmental influence on morningness-eveningness. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 25(5) Nov 1998, 917-925. Elsevier Science, England

• •
16. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Hur, Yoon-Mi. Genetic and environmental influences on the continuous scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: An analysis based on twins reared apart. Journal of Personality. Vol 66(2) Apr 1998, 135-149. Blackwell Publishers, US

• •
17. Newman, Denise L; Tellegen, Auke; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Individual differences in adult ego development: Sources of influence in twins reared apart. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 74(4) Apr 1998, 985-995. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
18. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. IQ similarity in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed); Grigorenko, Elena L. (Ed). (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. (pp. 126-160). xvii, 608pp.

• •
19. Hur, Yoon-Mi; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. The genetic correlation between impulsivity and sensation seeking traits. Behavior Genetics. Vol 27(5) Sep 1997, 455-463. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US

• •
20. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. The genetics of personality. Blum, Kenneth (Ed); Noble, Ernest P. (Ed); et al. (1997). Handbook of psychiatric genetics. (pp. 273-296). 498pp.

• •
21. DiLalla, David L; Carey, Gregory; Gottesman, Irving I; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Heritability of MMPI personality indicators of psychopathology in twins reared apart. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 105(4) Nov 1996, 491-499. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
22. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Lykken, David T; Tellegen, Auke; McGue, Matthew. Genes, drives, environment, and experience: EPD theory revised. Benbow, Camilla Persson (Ed); Lubinski, David John (Ed). (1996). Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues. (pp. 5-43). xii, 428pp.

• •
23. Segal, Nancy L; Wilson, Steven M; Bouchard, Thomas J; Gitlin, Dinah G. Comparative grief experiences of bereaved twins and other bereaved relatives. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 18(4) Apr 1995, 511-524. Elsevier Science, England

• •
24. Hur, Yoon-Mi; Bouchard, Thomas J. Genetic influences on perceptions of childhood family environment: A reared apart twin study. Child Development. Vol 66(2) Apr 1995, 330-345. Blackwell Publishers, US

• •
25. Arvey, Richard D; McCall, Brian P; Bouchard, Thomas J; Taubman, Paul; et al. Genetic influences on job satisfaction and work value. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 17(1) Jul 1994, 21-33. Elsevier Science, England

• •
26. Bouchard, Thomas J. Genes, environment, and personality. Science. Vol 264(5166) Jun 1994, 1700-1701. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US

• •
27. Betsworth, Deborah G; Bouchard, Thomas J; Cooper, Catherine R; Grotevant, Harold D; et al. Genetic and environmental influences on vocational interests assessed using adoptive and biological families and twins reared apart and together. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Vol 44(3) Jun 1994, 263-278. Elsevier Science, US

• •
28. Baker, L. A; Asendorpf, J; Bishop, D; Boomsma, D. I; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Brand, C. R; Fulker, D. W; Gardner, H; Kinsbourne, M; et al. Group report: Intelligence and its inheritance--A diversity of views. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. (Ed); Propping, Peter (Ed). (1993). Twins as a tool of behavioral genetics. Life sciences research report, 53. (pp. 85-108). xvi, 310pp.

• •
29. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Propping, Peter. Twins: Nature's twice-told tale. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. (Ed); Propping, Peter (Ed). (1993). Twins as a tool of behavioral genetics. Life sciences research report, 53. (pp. 1-15). xvi, 310pp.

• •
30. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. (Ed); Propping, Peter (Ed). Twins as a tool of behavioral genetics. (1993). xvi, 310pp.

• •
Book Series Title
Life sciences research report, 53.
31. Waller, Niels G; Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; Tellegen, Auke; et al. Creativity, heritability, familiality: Which word does not belong? Psychological Inquiry. Vol 4(3) 1993, 235-237. Lawrence Erlbaum, US

• •
32. McGue, Matt; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr; Iacono, William G; Lykken, David T. Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective. Plomin, Robert (Ed); McClearn, Gerald E. (Ed). (1993). Nature, nurture & psychology. (pp. 59-76). xvi, 498pp.

• •
33. Lykken, David T; Bouchard, T. J; McGue, M; Tellegen, Auke. Heritability of interests: A twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 78(4) Aug 1993, 649-661. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
34. Lykken, David T; McGue, Matt; Tellegen, A; Bouchard, T. J. Emergenesis: Genetic traits that may not run in families. American Psychologist. Vol 47(12) Dec 1992, 1565-1577. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
35. Keller, Lauren M; Bouchard, Thomas J; Arvey, Richard D; Segal, Nancy L; et al. Work values: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 77(1) Feb 1992, 79-88. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
36. Bouchard, Thomas J; Arvey, Richard D; Keller, Lauren M; Segal, Nancy L. Genetic influences on job satisfaction: A reply to Cropanzano and James. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 77(1) Feb 1992, 89-93. American Psychological Assn, US

hitssquad

Apr30-04, 04:48 AM

37. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. A twice-told tale: Twins reared apart. Cicchetti, Dante (Ed); Grove, William M. (Ed). (1991). Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 1: Matters of public interest; Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology. (pp. 188-215). xxiii, 744pp.

• •
38. Segal, Nancy L; Grove, William M; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Psychiatric investigations and findings from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Tsuang, Ming T. (Ed); Kendler, Kenneth S. (Ed); et al. (1991). Genetic issues in psychosocial epidemiology. Series in psychosocial epidemiology, Vol. 8. (pp. 247-266). xvi, 280pp.

• •
39. Moloney, Daniel P; Bouchard, Thomas J; Segal, Nancy L. A genetic and environmental analysis of the vocational interests of monozygotic and dizygotic twins reared apart. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Vol 39(1) Aug 1991, 76-109. Elsevier Science, US

• •
40. Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; McGue, Matthew; Segal, Nancy L; et al. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Response. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191-192. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US

• •
41. Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; McGue, Matthew; Segal, Nancy L; et al. Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science. Vol 250(4978) Oct 1990, 223-228. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US

• •
42. Lykken, David T; McGue, Matt; Bouchard, T. J; Tellegen, A. Does contact lead to similarity or similarity to contact? Behavior Genetics. Vol 20(5) Sep 1990, 547-561. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US

• •
43. Bouchard, Thomas J; Segal, N. L; Lykken, D. T. Genetic and environmental influences on special mental abilities in a sample of twins reared apart. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae. Vol 39(2) 1990, 193-206. Associazione Instituto de Genetica Medica e Gemellologia Gregorio Mendel, Italy

• •
44. Grove, William M; Eckert, Elke D; Heston, Leonard; Bouchard, Thomas J; et al. Heritability of substance abuse and antisocial behavior: A study of monozygotic twins reared apart. Biological Psychiatry. Vol 27(12) Jun 1990, 1293-1304. Elsevier Science, US

• •
45. Bouchard, Thomas J; McGue, Matthew. Genetic and rearing environmental influences on adult personality: An analysis of adopted twins reared apart. Journal of Personality. Vol 58(1) Mar 1990, 263-292. Blackwell Publishers, US

• •
46. Waller, Niels G; Kojetin, Brian A; Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; et al. Genetic and environmental influences on religious interests, attitudes, and values: A study of twins reared apart and together. Psychological Science. Vol 1(2) Mar 1990, 138-142. Blackwell Publishers, US

• •
47. Segal, Nancy L; Dysken, Maurice W; Bouchard, Thomas J; Pedersen, Nancy L; et al. Tourette's disorder in a set of reared-apart triplets: Genetic and environmental influences. American Journal of Psychiatry. Vol 147(2) Feb 1990, 196-199. American Psychiatric Assn, US

• •
48. McGue, Matt; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Genetic and environmental determinants of information processing and special mental abilities: A twin analysis. Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed). (1989). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, Vol. 5. (pp. 7-45). x, 236pp.

• •
49. Arvey, Richard D; Bouchard, Thomas J; Segal, Nancy L; Abraham, Lauren M. Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 74(2) Apr 1989, 187-192. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
50. Tellegen, Auke; Lykken, David T; Bouchard, Thomas J; Wilcox, Kimerly J; et al. Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 54(6) Jun 1988, 1031-1039. American Psychological Assn, US

• •
51. Eckert, Elke D; Bouchard, Thomas J; Bohlen, Joseph; Heston, Leonard L. Homosexuality in monozygotic twins reared apart. British Journal of Psychiatry. Vol 148 Apr 1986, 421-425. Royal Coll of Psychiatrists, England

• •
52. McGue, Matt; Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; Feuer, Dale. Information processing abilities in twins reared apart. Intelligence. Vol 8(3) Jul-Sep 1984, 239-258. Elsevier/JAI Press Inc, US

• •
53. McGue, Matt; Bouchard, Thomas J. Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behavior Genetics. Vol 14(4) Jul 1984, 325-343. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US

• •
54. Bouchard, Thomas J. Do environmental similarities explain the similarity in intelligence of identical twins reared apart? Intelligence. Vol 7(2) Apr-Jun 1983, 175-184. Elsevier/JAI Press Inc, US

Evo

Apr30-04, 11:34 AM

[QUOTE=hitssquad]OVID PsycINFO returns 54 citations for (bouchard t j or bouchard thomas j or bouchard thomas j jr).au. and (twin or twins).mp:[list]1. Johnson, Wendy; McGue, Matt; Krueger, Robert F; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 86(2) Feb 2004, 285-294. American Psychological Assn, US[\QUOTE]

hitssquad, this is meaningless, this isn't peer review of the study. This is just a listing of articles where Bouchard was mentioned.

"And yet, Bouchard's twin studies, which are now in their second decade, have still NEVER been published in a scholarly journal or monograph, nor have they been subjected to peer review by other researchers, nor have other scientists replicated them. Although Bouchard promised to publish a full-length study by 1987, he has failed to do so. (Mehler 1997) Since then he has refused to let any other researcher examine the case histories he claims to have studied."

"Bouchard's group promised a book length study a decade ago, but it never appeared. The Human Genome Issue of Science published a review article by Bouchard covering research that Science's peer reviewers had earlier rejected."

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/matfem/current/msg00173.html

hitssquad

Apr30-04, 06:27 PM

OVID PsycINFO returns 54 citations for (bouchard t j or bouchard thomas j or bouchard thomas j jr).au. and (twin or twins).mp:[list]1. Johnson, Wendy; McGue, Matt; Krueger, Robert F; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 86(2) Feb 2004, 285-294. American Psychological Assn, UShitssquad, this is meaningless, this isn't peer review of the study. This is just a listing of articles where Bouchard was mentioned.None of these are articles mentioning Bouchard (except where he refers to his own publications). Every one of these citations lists Bouchard as an author. In OVID PsycINFO, .au means author. In PubMed, any letter string followed by exactly one or two letters is parsed as author.

All of these publications mention twins. Some of these publications are reviews of twin studies in general or summaries of Bouchard's own findings. Some of these publications are replies to comments. The rest of these publications are of initial findings or of methods and findings from Bouchard's Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart.

"And yet, Bouchard's twin studies, which are now in their second decade, have still NEVER been published in a scholarly journal or monograph, nor have they been subjected to peer review by other researchers, nor have other scientists replicated them. Although Bouchard promised to publish a full-length study by 1987, he has failed to do so. (Mehler 1997) Since then he has refused to let any other researcher examine the case histories he claims to have studied."

"Bouchard's group promised a book length study a decade ago, but it never appeared. The Human Genome Issue of Science published a review article by Bouchard covering research that Science's peer reviewers had earlier rejected."
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/matfem/current/msg00173.html
The Human Genome Issue of Science was dated 16 February 2001 Volume 291 Number 5507. Bouchard published his complete article on his twin study, Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, in the Oct 12, 1990 issue of Science. You can read the PDF of that article here (http://www.jstor.org/browse/00368075/di002138/00p0025p/0) (click DOWNLOAD). Since then more findings have been published by Bouchard in peer-reviewed journals. His latest article on his findings from his twin study is Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis, published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol 86(2) Feb 2004.

Evo

Apr30-04, 08:40 PM

None of these are articles mentioning Bouchard (except where he refers to his own publications). Every one of these citations lists Bouchard as an author. In OVID PsycINFO, .au means author. In PubMed, any letter string followed by exactly one or two letters is parsed as author.Being an "author" doesn't mean didly squat.

All of these publications mention twins. Some of these publications are reviews of twin studies in general or summaries of Bouchard's own findings. Some of these publications are replies to comments. The rest of these publications are of initial findings or of methods and findings from Bouchard's Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart in the Oct 12, 1990 issue of Science. You can read the PDF of that article here (click DOWNLOAD). Since then more findings have been published by Bouchard in peer-reviewed journals. His latest article on his findings from his twin study is Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis, published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol 86(2) Feb 2004.Meaningless again. I don't care that he had an article published. Having snippets of articles posted here & there doesn't validate his research. As I posted, he has published a LOT of stuff, none of it validated. Show me the findings of other legitimate researchers that have examined the case histories he claims to have studied and have validated Bouchard's "eerie anecdotes" as they're jokingly referred to.

Don't forget the fraudulent twin studies done by Sir Cyril Burt used by Jensen and others to base theories of hereditary racial IQ differences. What an embarrassment that was!

I have found nothing that validates Bouchard's so called research.

hitssquad

May1-04, 12:03 AM

Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, in the Oct 12, 1990 issue of Science. You can read the PDF of that article here (http://www.jstor.org/browse/00368075/di002138/00p0025p/0) (click DOWNLOAD).I don't care that he had an article published.Actually, you said (in regards to a list of peer-reviewed publications by Bouchard, about twins, and including research articles specifically about his own twins study), "hitssquad, this is meaningless, this isn't peer review of the study." Science is a peer-reviewed magazine. Here is part of Science's General Information for Authors (http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/prep/gen_info.shtml):

Research Articles (up to ~4500 words or ~5 journal pages) are expected to present a major advance. Research Articles include an abstract, an introduction, up to 6 figures or tables, sections with brief subheadings, and a maximum of 40 references. Materials and Methods should usually be included in supporting online material, which should also include information needed to support the paper's conclusions.

Bouchard's October 1990 Science Magazine article was six pages, so it qualifies under Science Magazine's guidelines as a Research Article since that is the longest manuscript type Science Magazine accepts save for Reviews.

Further on, Science's guidelines say:

Most submitted papers are rated for suitability by members of Science's Board of Reviewing Editors. The editors at Science consider this advice in selecting papers for in-depth review; priority is given to papers that reveal novel concepts of broad interest. Authors of papers that are not highly rated are notified promptly, within about 1 to 2 weeks. Authors are notified of decisions by e-mail only. Membership in AAAS is not a factor in selection of manuscripts for publication.

Papers are reviewed in depth by two or more outside referees. It is the policy of Science that reviewers are anonymous. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and asked to return comments within 1 week to 10 days for most papers. We are able to expedite the review process significantly for papers that require rapid assessment. Selected papers are edited to improve accuracy and clarity and to shorten, if necessary. Papers cannot be resubmitted over a disagreement on interest or relative merit. If a paper was rejected on the basis of serious reviewer error, resubmission will be considered.

Conditions of Acceptance
When a paper is accepted for publication in Science, it is understood that:

Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.

Authors agree to disclose all affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias, as defined by Science's conflict of interest policy.

Additionally, correspondence regarding Bouchard's 1990 Science Magazine article took place within the pages of Science Magazine between Bouchard and respondents to the article. Potential faults were pointed out and Bouchard responded to those criticisms. Correspondence also took place within the pages of the Journal of Applied Psychology regarding another publication of findings from the twin study published there. And finally, response to criticism was published in Sternberg's 1997 Intelligence, heredity, and environment.

3. Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; McGue, Matthew; Segal, Nancy L; et al. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Response. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191-192. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27358-001.
• •
Responds to criticism by R. M. Dudley (see record 1991-27363-001) and J. Beckwith et al (see record 1991-27352-001) of studies by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). In response to Dudley, it is argued that the heritability of IQ in the reported sample could be high, and the correlation between co-twin differences and a feature of the environment could also be high. Beckwith et al's complaint that the similarities between monozygotic twins reared apart might be explained by unreported environmental similarities is considered highly unlikely.

18. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. IQ similarity in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed); Grigorenko, Elena L. (Ed). (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. (pp. 126-160). xvii, 608pp.
AN: Chapter: 1997-97582-005.
• •
(from the chapter) Bouchard considers the findings of his and others' twin studies and also critiques of these studies. Bouchard concludes that there is no plausible alternative to genetic influence for explaining the similarities in IQ in monozygotic twins reared apart. Bouchard notes that results from these studies are consistent with the results of other kinds of behavior-genetic studies, such as of adult kinships, and also concludes that genetics predominates over environment in the transmission of human intelligence, at least in modern Western societies.

36. Bouchard, Thomas J; Arvey, Richard D; Keller, Lauren M; Segal, Nancy L. Genetic influences on job satisfaction: A reply to Cropanzano and James. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 77(1) Feb 1992, 89-93. American Psychological Assn, US
AN: Journal Article: 1992-18811-001.
• •
Responds to the points made by R. Cropanzano and K. James (see record 1991-00462-001) concerning the article by R. D. Arvey et al (1989). The authors acknowledge that the Arvey et al study is based on a single design, makes use of a small and special sample, and, as such, is vulnerable to threats of internal and external validity. Nevertheless, after providing a more comprehensive conceptual and empirical context for the study, and after reviewing a number of the issues raised by Cropanzano and James, the authors conclude that it is not premature to accept the idea that work attitudes are partially genetically influenced. Indeed, the authors use behavioral genetic theory, together with data gathered in the Arvey et al study, to make specific point predictions regarding the outcomes of an array of studies that easily can be undertaken. Finally, the authors acknowledge that the comments and issues raised by Cropanzano and James, along with the interchange, can offer directions for future research in this important area.

Dudley, Richard M. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27363-001.
• •
Criticizes the use of IQ score correlation of monozygotic twins reared apart as an estimate of IQ heritability in the population at large as reported by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). It is argued that Bouchard et al erroneously assumed no environmental similarity for co-twins.

Beckwith, Jonathan; Geller, Lisa; Sarkar, Sahotra. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Journal Article: 1991-27352-001.
• •
Criticizes the claim of T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001) that several psychological traits are highly heritable and therefore genetic in origin. It is argued that some of their data have not been published in a format that permits independent scrutiny. Bouchard et al also fail to cite articles containing case studies of the impact of environment on twins.

hitssquad

May1-04, 09:35 AM

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm

want me to post the article from "Wall Street Journal" Here. I'd like to you try and attempt and say Wall Street Journal is racist.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence
The Wall Street Journal
December 13, 1994The first item you referenced above, BlackVision, is a January 11, 1998 article published in the Washington Post. The second item you referenced, "Mainstream Science on Intelligence (http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/wsj.htm)," is a December 13, 1994 advertisement taken out in the Wall Street Journal. While the first item is genuinely an article, the second is merely a collective position statement. Being a paid advertisement, it does not necessarily represent the views of the Wall Street Journal, its owners, its staff, its editors, or its patrons. Calling it an "article from 'Wall Street Journal'" is a stretch.

Evo

May1-04, 01:42 PM

Conditions of Acceptance
When a paper is accepted for publication in Science, it is understood that:

Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.Ok, I will accept this as a peer reviewed article. Based on this Bouchard was discredited. He refused to adhere to conditions listed above. Bouchard has refused to allow anyone access to any of the above.

Authors agree to disclose all affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias, as defined by Science's conflict of interest policy.[/list]And we know about the Pioneer Fund paying for this.

Additionally, correspondence regarding Bouchard's 1990 Science Magazine article took place within the pages of Science Magazine between Bouchard and respondents to the article. Potential faults were pointed out and Bouchard responded to those criticisms.LOL. Yes he responded by saying he was "right", but failed to provide any information that answered any of the questions or would prove he was right.

Here are a couple of examples. I don't even see responses from Bouchard on the last couple of entries disputing Bouchard's validity.

18. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. IQ similarity in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed); Grigorenko, Elena L. (Ed). (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. (pp. 126-160). xvii, 608pp.
AN: Chapter: 1997-97582-005.

• •

(from the chapter) Bouchard considers the findings of his and others' twin studies and also critiques of these studies. Bouchard concludes that there is no plausible alternative to genetic influence for explaining the similarities in IQ in monozygotic twins reared apart. Bouchard notes that results from these studies are consistent with the results of other kinds of behavior-genetic studies, such as of adult kinships, and also concludes that genetics predominates over environment in the transmission of human intelligence, at least in modern Western societies.See, this is exactly what I am talking about. He offers no proof. This is meaningless.

Dudley, Richard M. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27363-001.

• •

Criticizes the use of IQ score correlation of monozygotic twins reared apart as an estimate of IQ heritability in the population at large as reported by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). It is argued that Bouchard et al erroneously assumed no environmental similarity for co-twins.

Beckwith, Jonathan; Geller, Lisa; Sarkar, Sahotra. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Journal Article: 1991-27352-001.

• •

Criticizes the claim of T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001) that several psychological traits are highly heritable and therefore genetic in origin. It is argued that some of their data have not been published in a format that permits independent scrutiny. Bouchard et al also fail to cite articles containing case studies of the impact of environment on twins.[/list]

hitssquad, you are awesome when it comes to finding information. :smile:

Have you been able to find where Bouchard allowed other researchers access to his data and they concurred that his study was vaild?

Evo

May1-04, 02:03 PM

What the hell are you talking about? You're the one constantly trying to discredit 80 years of consistent psychology research by pointing out the "supposed" flaws of one guy.You used Bouchard as your source, I showed he was wrong. You have yet to show me that I am wrong. So, either show me the studies done by other researchers that Bouchard allowed access to his data and proved his study to be sound, or stop beating a dead horse.

This is your best source? Could of at least attempted to find a reliable source with doctors and bibliographical notes. What is this?

Also note that I never even brought up brain size so not sure why you brought it up. We were discussing IQ weren't we??This is the information from the actual research that was used by Rushton for that debunked study *you* cited stating Asians and whites had higher IQ's. You don't know about the supposed correlation of brain size to IQ? It's all part of the same argument.

How long have you been here? I'd been here for like a week and I'd read more support than just those 2. Simply naming the two most vocal ones doesn't mean those are the only ones.I am not aware of any others that once they were presented with additional information continued with the debate. I have a lot of respect for hitssquad. He and I obviously see things differently, but he backs up his arguments with facts. Usually not facts I agree with, but he's a tough adversary, something you are not.

You think you've debated this a lot? You have any idea how much I have? You and I both know how it'll end up.Yes, I will win because when you are presented with information that debunks something you have stated, you are consistently incapable of responding with valid new information to support your position.

Evo

May1-04, 02:07 PM

Seeing how there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures, I would say that it's quite substantiated. Did your bias just have a tendency to simply skip over each and every single one of them in your so called "researches"?Well, you should have no problem posting a few of those studies here as I previously requested, which you have failed to do.

BlackVision, you will find that when you start making things up like your above statement "there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures" you will immediately lose your credibility here.

BlackVision

May1-04, 04:01 PM

You used Bouchard as your source, I showed he was wrong. You have yet to show me that I am wrong. So, either show me the studies done by other researchers that Bouchard allowed access to his data and proved his study to be sound, or stop beating a dead horse.
Did you even READ all the articles I posted? Obviously not. First read them, and then come back.

This is the information from the actual research that was used by Rushton for that debunked study *you* cited stating Asians and whites had higher IQ's. You don't know about the supposed correlation of brain size to IQ? It's all part of the same argument.
Do you have ANY idea how many researches came up with Asians and Jews with the highest IQ? Let's see....Pretty much every single research done on the taboo subject of race and intelligence. Arthur Jensen for example decades ago but also even before him. What is your constant fixation with one person? You fail to discredit a person but you act like if you do, that every other study on the matter for the past 80 years somehow gets discredited.

I am not aware of any others that once they were presented with additional information continued with the debate. I have a lot of respect for hitssquad. He and I obviously see things differently, but he backs up his arguments with facts. Usually not facts I agree with, but he's a tough adversary, something you are not.
And you're so tough. Oh no. Pioneer Fund. Whenever you mention it, I already know you have no argument. Either that or you completely blow off my questions. Let's see. How many questions so far have you ignored of mine?

Yes, I will win because when you are presented with information that debunks something you have stated, you are consistently incapable of responding with valid new information to support your position.
Incapable of responding with valid new information? Hmmm. Let's see. I think what you mean is all the times you refused to answer my question except go "I will answer later when I have time" Right....later...sure you will.

Perhaps while you answer those "later", you should also write a letter to all the academics in elite universities and also tell them they are wrong. You've got to be kidding yourself if you don't think this viewpoint isn't a popular one in the academic circles. The Bell Curve information was general knowledge in the science community far before the book was published. It proved nothing new. Why such a support in academic circles for something that's "debunked"

BlackVision

May1-04, 04:09 PM

Well, you should have no problem posting a few of those studies here as I previously requested, which you have failed to do.
Hmmm funny it seems I already posted 4. Would you like to me post another 10?

BlackVision, you will find that when you start making things up like your above statement "there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures" you will immediately lose your credibility here.
Seems you have no more credibility to even lose. Putting political correctness and your own political motives before science.

And that's a made up statement? Right...cause the majority of sources don't state that number. Is this you trying to kid yourself again? Continue to have your fingers stuck to your ears.

Evo

May1-04, 05:15 PM

Did you even READ all the articles I posted? Obviously not. First read them, and then come back.I only responded to the Bouchard post. Since you have failed repeatedly to respond to my debunking of it, it is obvious you have nothing to prove me wrong. I have won this one. If you bring up this topic again without providing evidence to support your claims I will not respond as I have no time to deal with an idiot.

Do you have ANY idea how many researches came up with Asians and Jews with the highest IQ? Let's see....Pretty much every single research done on the taboo subject of race and intelligence. Arthur Jensen for example decades ago but also even before him.Why don't you post a few? What is your constant fixation with one person? You fail to discredit a person but you act like if you do, that every other study on the matter for the past 80 years somehow gets discredited.Again, I don't have a fixation, *you* are the one that keeps bringing Bouchard up, why, I have no idea.

And you're so tough. Oh no. Pioneer Fund. Whenever you mention it, I already know you have no argument. Either that or you completely blow off my questions. Let's see. How many questions so far have you ignored of mine?Because Bouchard, Rushton, Lynn, Jenson, etc... are all affiliated with the Pioneer Fund, see some connection here?

Incapable of responding with valid new information? I have yet to see you post one single thing that can refute anything I've said.Hmmm. Let's see. I think what you mean is all the times you refused to answer my question except go "I will answer later when I have time" Right....later...sure you will.I've answered all of your questions that were on the topic we were discussing. I have a lot of posts to make, I have to get the information off another laptop and I simply haven't had the time. Since I am still waiting for you to respond to my first request, I didn't feel any urgency.

Perhaps while you answer those "later", you should also write a letter to all the academics in elite universities and also tell them they are wrong. You've got to be kidding yourself if you don't think this viewpoint isn't a popular one in the academic circles. The Bell Curve information was general knowledge in the science community far before the book was published. It proved nothing new. Why such a support in academic circles for something that's "debunked"The Bell Curve is flawed. Read this.

Sloppy Statistics, Bogus Science and the Assault on Racial Equity

"The "science" of books like The Bell Curve is inherently flawed, mostly because the concept of distinct biological "races" that can be studied, compared and found to be "superior" or "inferior" is itself a misnomer."

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm

Evo

May1-04, 05:30 PM

Hmmm funny it seems I already posted 4. Would you like to me post another 10?You have posted 0 in reponse to MY request. Please post them in reponse to this request, or admit you don't have anything to post. I'm waiting.

BlackVision, you will find that when you start making things up like your above statement "there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures" you will immediately lose your credibility here.

Seems you have no more credibility to even lose. Putting political correctness and your own political motives before science.

And that's a made up statement? Right...cause the majority of sources don't state that number. Is this you trying to kid yourself again? Continue to have your fingers stuck to your ears.Again you have failed to respond with anything more than gibberish. I asked you to substantiate your claim by posting a few of these "50,000 sources" you claim knowledge of. Yes, it's a made up statement. BlackVision, you are a flake. Until you can post something that can back up your claims or admit you can't dispute my posts, I really don't have time for you. I have wasted a lot of time repeatedly asking you for the same information, which not only do you NOT provide, you ask totally unrelated questions seemingly in an ill disguised attempt to get away from something you can't answer.

BlackVision

May1-04, 05:43 PM

I only responded to the Bouchard post. Since you have failed repeatedly to respond to my debunking of it, it is obvious you have nothing to prove me wrong. I have won this one. If you bring up this topic again without providing evidence to support your claims I will not respond as I have no time to deal with an idiot.
Hasn't hitssquad already debunked your Bouchard comments? Enough said.

And this idiot is getting high honors in one of the most prestigious universities so :smile: And where exactly are you in life?

Why don't you post a few?
What the hell? Didn't I just say Arthur Jensen. Can you read. What do you think about Thomas Sowell, PhD. One of the most respected black academics. Graduate of Harvard University. Who agrees with Arthur Jensen on the consensus that part of the white-black IQ gap is genetically based.

Again, I don't have a fixation, *you* are the one that keeps bringing Bouchard up, why, I have no idea.
This isn't about Bouchard. You bring up Rushton. There certainly is far more in the field than just Rushton.

Because Bouchard, Rushton, Lynn, Jenson, etc... are all affiliated with the Pioneer Fund, see some connection here?
What did I tell you about funding? Look up "irrelevance" in your dictionary. An alien word to you. This is like saying any politician that accepts funding from Microsoft is tainted. Let's see who Microsoft donated to in the last election. Oh yes that's right both Bush AND gore. And pretty much funds any politician that runs every election.

Again if you wanna be taken seriously, you're gonna actually have to refute the statistics, the data. Going after funding, and making it your MAIN argument, shows your absolute weakness making your case.

I have yet to see you post one single thing that can refute anything I've said.
Funny how this is how I think about you.

I've answered all of your questions that were on the topic we were discussing. I have a lot of posts to make, I have to get the information off another laptop and I simply haven't had the time. Since I am still waiting for you to respond to my first request, I didn't feel any urgency.
What first request? And you've avoided my questions from the way beginning. Don't give me that BS. I asked for actual evidence that refutes the Bell Curve. The only thing you did was whine about the Pioneer Fund. This is your defense? Really?

The Bell Curve is flawed. Read this.

Sloppy Statistics, Bogus Science and the Assault on Racial Equity

"The "science" of books like The Bell Curve is inherently flawed, mostly because the concept of distinct biological "races" that can be studied, compared and found to be "superior" or "inferior" is itself a misnomer."

http://www.raceandhistory.com/histo...iews/ukwise.htm
You know you might wanna try finding better sources that ones that go "date unknown by Tim Wise" Tim Wise? What is this? Not Dr. Tim Wise. Not Professor Tim Wise. But plain old Tim Wise. Oh I didn't know that just anybody had the ability to speak on this matter. Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein are PhDs out of Harvard and MIT. Richard Herrnstein holds the most respected chair in psychology at Harvard University. The Edgar Pierce Chair. The most respected chair, in the most repected university. And the person you come up with to try to refute this is Tim Wise?? Jesus Christ.

Not to mention this guy fails to even realize that their are real genetic differences in between races. A geneticist can easily tell a person's race, simply by looking at their DNA. That in itself is proof of genetic differences in between races.

And again calling it racist. Very weak case. Oh yes all these white academics are racist supremacists that like to put asians and jews as superior. Perfect logic here. Oh it could have absolutely nothing to do with looking at facts and an unbias perspective and coming up with the logic conclusions. And unlike you, real science involves not being politically correct, not putting your own political motives.

BlackVision

May1-04, 05:49 PM

You have posted 0 in reponse to MY request. Please post them in reponse to this request, or admit you don't have anything to post. I'm waiting.
I already posted 4. If you're too blind to see them then that's your own problem. And what request???

Again you have failed to respond with anything more than gibberish. I asked you to substantiate your claim by posting a few of these "50,000 sources" you claim knowledge of. Yes, it's a made up statement. BlackVision, you are a flake. Until you can post something that can back up your claims or admit you can't dispute my posts, I really don't have time for you. I have wasted a lot of time repeatedly asking you for the same information, which not only do you NOT provide, you ask totally unrelated questions seemingly in an ill disguised attempt to get away from something you can't answer.
How blind are you really? Does your brain just ignore information that it doesn't want to input? I already posted 4. Do you want me to simply post them again? You might wanna go get that neurological disorder checked out.

BlackVision

May1-04, 06:10 PM

"The first reactions to The Bell Curve were expressions of public outrage. In the second round of reaction, some commentators suggested that Herrnstein and Murray were merely bringing up facts that were well known in the scientific community, but perhaps best not discussed in public. A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, "Mokita". It means "truth that we all know, but agree not to talk about"---Professor Earl Hunt

Evo

May1-04, 06:12 PM

Hasn't hitssquad already debunked your Bouchard comments? Enough said. No, he hasn't yet, but he is doing a great job of finding items to prove my previous article wrong. Something you are incapable of.

And this idiot is getting high honors in one of the most prestigious universities so :smile: And where exactly are you in life?Making more money than you will ever hope to.

What the hell? Didn't I just say Arthur Jensen.ROFLMAO!!! You think a name, without providing any information whatsoever, is a way to substantiate a claim you are making?

I'm not wasting anymore time with you, you can't even debate.

Oh, I loved where hitssquad showed that the "article" you said was in The Wall Street Journal, that you were throwing around to try to prove your point turned out to be an advertisement!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!! (that's my Nachtwolf imitation) :biggrin:

BlackVision

May1-04, 06:22 PM

What is this? Again with the avoiding of questions. Notice how short your replies are to in comparsion to my responses.

No, he hasn't yet, but he is doing a great job of finding items to prove my previous article wrong. Something you are incapable of.
And yet you fail to prove me wrong. Still fail to provide any shred of evidence.

Making more money than you will ever hope to.
And you live in the MIDDLE of America? Kansas? Oklahoma? Oh cause we all know the richest people live in Middle America right? You're obviously not rich enough to live by the coast. I live in the hills of Brentwood in Los Angeles. The average house here goes for over $1 million here. Not that it makes me a better person or anything but it is you that brought up money into this.

ROFLMAO!!! You think a name, without providing any information whatsoever, is a way to substantiate a claim you are making?
Wasn't it you that kept saying to provide names? I provided one and you completely ignored it. And do I really have to bother providing and explaining Arthur Jensen's work? Who's pretty much the most famous psychologist of all time? If you don't know his work, if I actually have to explain to you what he does, then that's quite sad.

I'm not wasting anymore time with you, you can't even debate.
Do us both a favor and don't waste my time. When you try to refute something, you have to actually say something that goes against the data, the statistics. Pioneer Fund. Well it just shows you have nothing.

Oh, I loved where hitssquad showed that the "article" you said was in The Wall Street Journal, that you were throwing around to try to prove your point turned out to be an advertisement!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!! (that's my Nachtwolf imitation) :biggrin:
I loved it when you kept telling me that I can't read and I didn't post a Washington Post article only to prove you wrong. :biggrin: (that's me laughing at you)

Evo

May1-04, 08:13 PM

What is this? Again with the avoiding of questions. Notice how short your replies are to in comparsion to my responses.Because you are so dense, I will do this one last time. An intelligent person usually is able to respond with fewer words. I've only refused to be sidetracked and chosen not to answer questions that were unrelated to our discussion.

And yet you fail to prove me wrong. Still fail to provide any shred of evidence.On the contrary, I proved YOU wrong in my first post, and you have yet to disprove me. End of discussion.

And you live in the MIDDLE of America? Kansas? Oklahoma? Oh cause we all know the richest people live in Middle America right? You're obviously not rich enough to live by the coast. I live in the hills of Brentwood in Los Angeles. The average house here goes for over $1 million here. Not that it makes me a better person or anything but it is you that brought up money into this.If you live in LA and your house only costs $1 million, you're barely middle class dear.

Wasn't it you that kept saying to provide names?Nope, I never asked for a name. I provided one and you completely ignored it. And do I really have to bother providing and explaining Arthur Jensen's work? Who's pretty much the most famous psychologist of all time? If you don't know his work, if I actually have to explain to you what he does, then that's quite sad.Oh, I am quite familiar with Jensen, he is a well known racist. I have quite a bit of information on him.

Do us both a favor and don't waste my time. When you try to refute something, you have to actually say something that goes against the data, the statistics. Pioneer Fund. Well it just shows you have nothing.No, it is you that has proven you have nothing. Anyone reading this thread can see this for themselves. Alright, let me come down to your level so you can understand why the ties the researchers have to Pioneer Fund and Pioneer Fund's involvement in these studies has to be brought up. Let's call the Pioneer Fund the Ku Klux Klan, both are racist organizations, Pioneer Fund members don't wear white sheets though. Ok, a Ku Klux Klan member does a study to show that blacks are less intelligent than other races, his study is paid for by the Ku Klux Klan. You don't think it's important to mention the KKK when these so called "studies" are mentioned? Ok, now replace Ku Klux Klan with Pioneer Fund and we will have the answer to why the studies and researchers you refer to are not to be depended on as an unbiased source of information. Got it now?

I loved it when you kept telling me that I can't read and I didn't post a Washington Post article only to prove you wrong. :biggrin: (that's me laughing at you)Uhm, you obviously can't read because I have NEVER said that you didn't post a Washington Post article. Go back, read all the posts then tuck your tail between your legs and admit you don't know what you are talking about. :biggrin:

BlackVision

May1-04, 10:37 PM

Because you are so dense, I will do this one last time. An intelligent person usually is able to respond with fewer words. I've only refused to be sidetracked and chosen not to answer questions that were unrelated to our discussion.
Ah so Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein wrote a 850 page book cause they're unintelligent. Alright. I always thought thoroughness was a good thing. Guess I'm wrong.

And choose not to answer or do not have the ability to answer?

On the contrary, I proved YOU wrong in my first post, and you have yet to disprove me. End of discussion.
Well you can keep thinking that but your lack of ability to answer any of my questions is proof in itself.

If you live in LA and your house only costs $1 million, you're barely middle class dear.
Los Angeles County: $209,300 median house value

But again. Economical status here is irrelevant.

Source: US Census Bureau

Nope, I never asked for a name. Oh, I am quite familiar with Jensen, he is a well known racist. I have quite a bit of information on him.
Yes yes cause anyone that doesn't agree with you is of course racist. No matter how much science and facts are behind it. Funny how Thomas Sowell, a black academic, has strong support for Arthur Jensen, this so called "racist"

No, it is you that has proven you have nothing. Anyone reading this thread can see this for themselves. Alright, let me come down to your level so you can understand why the ties the researchers have to Pioneer Fund and Pioneer Fund's involvement in these studies has to be brought up. Let's call the Pioneer Fund the Ku Klux Klan, both are racist organizations, Pioneer Fund members don't wear white sheets though. Ok, a Ku Klux Klan member does a study to show that blacks are less intelligent than other races, his study is paid for by the Ku Klux Klan. You don't think it's important to mention the KKK when these so called "studies" are mentioned? Ok, now replace Ku Klux Klan with Pioneer Fund and we will have the answer to why the studies and researchers you refer to are not to be depended on as an unbiased source of information. Got it now?
Again your decision to focus on funding shows the weakness of your case. Like I said, it doesn't matter if Hitler himself funds a project. That itself doesn't disprove anything. If you wanna begin refuting something, you refute the facts. Since you are unable to do this, you choose to attack funding. Again very weak.

Uhm, you obviously can't read because I have NEVER said that you didn't post a Washington Post article. Go back, read all the posts then tuck your tail between your legs and admit you don't know what you are talking about. :biggrin:
"My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted."--BlackVision

"WRONG. You really cannot read, can you?"--Evo

Yeah ok. :biggrin:

Evo

May1-04, 11:03 PM

Ah so Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein wrote a 850 page book cause they're unintelligent. Alright. I always thought thoroughness was a good thing. Guess I'm wrong.Murray & Herrnstein have both been debunked.

Los Angeles County: $209,300 median house valueYeah, including the ghettos. Homes where I live start at $2 million, they would be 10 times that on the west or east coast.

"My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted."--BlackVisionGo back and read, you wrongly thought I was referring to your previous post, I corrected you and showed you I was referring to your links.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. :biggrin:

BlackVision

May2-04, 02:24 AM

Murray & Herrnstein have both been debunked.
Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

Yeah, including the ghettos. Homes where I live start at $2 million, they would be 10 times that on the west or east coast.

How odd that the median house value of your neighborhood is higher than the richest town in America. And the only 2 towns here that could even be considered Middle America is Aspen, CO and Snowmass Village, CO. Are you gonna tell me you live in either of these towns?

Top 10 Median Home Prices in America:

Jupiter Island, FL - $1,900,000
Aspen, CO - $1,750,000
Atherton, CA - $1,697,500
Belvedere, CA - $1,462,500
Rolling Hills, CA - $1,425,000
Hillsborough, CA - $1,380,000
Los Altos Hills, CA - $1,331,000
Mountain Village, CA - $1,325,000
Rancho Santa Fe, CA - $1,325,000
Snowmass Village, CO - $1,300,000

Source: http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/20000522_richestowns.htm

And homes in LA would cost more....really....I wonder why. Ever hear of supply and demand? And yet here you are trying to state that where you live, is richer than the richest town in Los Angeles. Hell richer than any town in California. No no. Richer than the richest town in America. Geez I wonder why I nor anyone else is gonna believe you.

Go back and read, you wrongly thought I was referring to your previous post, I corrected you and showed you I was referring to your links.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. :biggrin:
Um Washington Post WAS one of my links. I think you're getting deeper and deeper.
:biggrin:

Moonbear

May2-04, 02:50 AM

But if that article wasn't good enough for you, here you go.

"Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation."

Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html

"Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart"

Source: http://danny.oz.au/communities/anthro-l/debates/race-iq/

"Monozygotic Twins raised apart had a 74% correlation in IQ. Adopted childs had a 20% correlation in IQ"

Source: http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem992/unit4311/Lecture5.html

Of these links provided, the last two are just someone's lecture material, which may or may not be citing the studies correctly. The first is at least somewhat written up as a research report, but none of the tables or figures are included, so it's impossible to determine from that whether the claims are valid. The study does seem to be lacking proper controls. How does one determine the degree that IQ is associated with genetics when there is no comparison of the twins with non-related individuals? Indeed, the authors cite that the standard deviation of IQs for the group studied was lower than for the general population, suggesting even the non-related twins in the study were similar in IQ (meaning, if you paired the IQ results of one twin randomly with another person in the study who is not their twin, what is the likelihood of coming up with the same correlation?). The only conclusion those authors seem to be making is that there is no difference in the similarity of IQ between twins raised together vs raised apart. That still doesn't make it a genetic link, but just means other environmental factors could be similar even with the adopted families. From the description provided, the adoptive families sound quite similar...similar education and socioeconomic status of the adoptive parents. These alone could contribute to the similarities in IQ of the twins. Also, how do the population means compare between twins raised apart and twins raised together? Could it be that twins raised apart seem to have similar IQs because the stress of being separated from their twin at a young age has an overall suppressive effect on learning and development such that this masks any potential for differences had circumstances been different?

It is also relevant if these studies are all funded by a group with a specific agenda. It is called "conflict of interest" and is a valid concern related to scientific bias, which is why journals require disclosure of funding sources. Bias can work in more than one way. Even if you try to be unbiased, if you have a particular outcome in mind, it can be more difficult to notice the design flaws in a study and to more quickly accept the outcome when it fits with the preconcieved ideas of that outcome. This can happen in any area of science, even seemingly objective studies, and is the reason for analyzing data blind to the "treatment" groups and need for showing the results can be replicated.

BlackVision

May2-04, 03:40 AM

Of these links provided, the last two are just someone's lecture material, which may or may not be citing the studies correctly. The first is at least somewhat written up as a research report, but none of the tables or figures are included, so it's impossible to determine from that whether the claims are valid. The study does seem to be lacking proper controls. How does one determine the degree that IQ is associated with genetics when there is no comparison of the twins with non-related individuals? Indeed, the authors cite that the standard deviation of IQs for the group studied was lower than for the general population, suggesting even the non-related twins in the study were similar in IQ (meaning, if you paired the IQ results of one twin randomly with another person in the study who is not their twin, what is the likelihood of coming up with the same correlation?). The only conclusion those authors seem to be making is that there is no difference in the similarity of IQ between twins raised together vs raised apart. That still doesn't make it a genetic link, but just means other environmental factors could be similar even with the adopted families. From the description provided, the adoptive families sound quite similar...similar education and socioeconomic status of the adoptive parents. These alone could contribute to the similarities in IQ of the twins. Also, how do the population means compare between twins raised apart and twins raised together? Could it be that twins raised apart seem to have similar IQs because the stress of being separated from their twin at a young age has an overall suppressive effect on learning and development such that this masks any potential for differences had circumstances been different?

The differences between identical twins, fraternal twins, and adopted childs are listed. Here.

Mean IQ Correlation:

Identical Twins raised together: 85%
Identical Twins raised apart: 74%
Fraternal Twins raised together: 59%
Siblings raised together: 46%
Siblings raised apart: 24%
Single parent/child together: 41%
Single parent/child apart: 24%
Adopting parent/child together: 20%

http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem992/unit4311/Lecture5.html

It is also relevant if these studies are all funded by a group with a specific agenda. It is called "conflict of interest" and is a valid concern related to scientific bias, which is why journals require disclosure of funding sources. Bias can work in more than one way. Even if you try to be unbiased, if you have a particular outcome in mind, it can be more difficult to notice the design flaws in a study and to more quickly accept the outcome when it fits with the preconcieved ideas of that outcome. This can happen in any area of science, even seemingly objective studies, and is the reason for analyzing data blind to the "treatment" groups and need for showing the results can be replicated.

Evo tries to pass off Pioneer Fund as racist. Which it's not. The relation of Pioneer Fund of decades ago to today is like the relation of Volkswagen of decades ago to today. It's like saying if a group gets funding from Volkswagen, that it's racially bias against Jews cause Volkswagen is after all a company founded by Adolf Hitler.

Q&A of the Pioneer Fund:
http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html

Also even if you do think funding is suspicious, you nonetheless have to point out the flaws of the studies itself. Otherwise, as I've said, it doesn't matter who funds it. "The Bell Curve" "The g Factor" "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" were all peer reviewed. Cross examined by thousands before it was released.

BlackVision

May2-04, 04:04 AM

P.S. The Bell Curve was NOT funded by the Pioneer Fund. They were funded by the Bradley Foundation.

hitssquad

May2-04, 07:44 AM

I don't even see responses (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=200876&highlight=bouchard#post200876) from Bouchard on the last couple of entries disputing Bouchard's validity.The last couple of entries are Dudley's and Beckwith's separate criticisms of Bouchard's October 1990 Science article. Here again are those criticisms published in the April 12th, 1991 issue of Science:

Dudley, Richard M. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27363-001.
• •
Criticizes the use of IQ score correlation of monozygotic twins reared apart as an estimate of IQ heritability in the population at large as reported by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). It is argued that Bouchard et al erroneously assumed no environmental similarity for co-twins.

Beckwith, Jonathan; Geller, Lisa; Sarkar, Sahotra. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Journal Article: 1991-27352-001.
• •
Criticizes the claim of T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001) that several psychological traits are highly heritable and therefore genetic in origin. It is argued that some of their data have not been published in a format that permits independent scrutiny. Bouchard et al also fail to cite articles containing case studies of the impact of environment on twins.

Here again are Bouchard's responses (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=200651&highlight=bouchard#post200651) to both Dudley's and Beckwith's criticisms in the same April 12th, 1991 issue of Science:

3. Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; McGue, Matthew; Segal, Nancy L; et al. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Response. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191-192. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27358-001.
• •
Responds to criticism by R. M. Dudley (see record 1991-27363-001) and J. Beckwith et al (see record 1991-27352-001) of studies by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). In response to Dudley, it is argued that the heritability of IQ in the reported sample could be high, and the correlation between co-twin differences and a feature of the environment could also be high. Beckwith et al's complaint that the similarities between monozygotic twins reared apart might be explained by unreported environmental similarities is considered highly unlikely.

Edit: Here are jpegs of the first (http://community.webshots.com/s/image8/5/64/99/139456499MtthTJ_fs.jpg) and second (http://community.webshots.com/s/image11/5/65/98/139456598rpWmtd_fs.jpg) (of the two concerning Bouchard) pages of responses printed in the April 12th, 1991 issue of Science.

Edit2: Beckwith, in his criticism here, mentions that the case studies should be "fully published":...Given these essential problems in assessing the impact of the environment on twins, it is imperative that case studies be fully published. In 12 years, the Minnesota group have not provided these case studies, and the two apparently relevant articles cited by Bouchard et al (1) contain no relevant case studies.

1. T. J. Bouchard, Jr., N. L. Segal, D. T. Lykken, Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 39, 193 (1990); D. T. Lykken, T. J. Bouchard, Jr., M. McGue, A. Tellegan, ibid, p. 35.

Evo

May2-04, 04:28 PM

How odd that the median house value of your neighborhood is higher than the richest town in America. And the only 2 towns here that could even be considered Middle America is Aspen, CO and Snowmass Village, CO. Are you gonna tell me you live in either of these towns?I was refering to my neighborhood, since you mentioned your neighborhood, I don't see where I said that was the starting price for homes in town. Obviously you think a neighborhood is a town.

And homes in LA would cost more....really....I wonder why. Ever hear of supply and demand? And yet here you are trying to state that where you live, is richer than the richest town in Los Angeles. Hell richer than any town in California. No no. Richer than the richest town in America. Geez I wonder why I nor anyone else is gonna believe you. :biggrin: I love it, the more you write the more you show your lack of intelligence. LA is overpopulated, of course there is more demand for housing, this is why I choose to live here.

Um Washington Post WAS one of my links. I think you're getting deeper and deeper. :biggrin:Uhm, no it wasn't. Here is your post, gee I don't see a link to the Washington Post, do you? You are the stupidist person I have ever run across.

But if that article wasn't good enough for you, here you go.

"Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation."

Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

"Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart"

Source: http://danny.oz.au/communities/anth...ebates/race-iq/

"Monozygotic Twins raised apart had a 74% correlation in IQ. Adopted childs had a 20% correlation in IQ"

Source: http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectu...1/Lecture5.html

Evo

May2-04, 04:52 PM

Evo tries to pass off Pioneer Fund as racist. Which it's not. The relation of Pioneer Fund of decades ago to today is like the relation of Volkswagen of decades ago to today. It's like saying if a group gets funding from Volkswagen, that it's racially bias against Jews cause Volkswagen is after all a company founded by Adolf Hitler.

Q&A of the Pioneer Fund:
http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html

Also even if you do think funding is suspicious, you nonetheless have to point out the flaws of the studies itself. Otherwise, as I've said, it doesn't matter who funds it. "The Bell Curve" "The g Factor" "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" were all peer reviewed. Cross examined by thousands before it was released.Here's the CURRENT Pioneer Fund, a RACIST organization.

Race-based science might seem like a relic of the Victorian age, and eugenics an experiment in "human improvement" that passed away with Hitler.

But thanks in large part to the Pioneer Fund both subjects are still alive. Set up in to "improve the character of the American people" by promoting eugenics and procreation by people of white colonial stock, Pioneer has financed a number of leading race scientists, lavishing more than $500,000 a year on those who work to "prove" inherent racial differences that the vast majority of scientists regard as balderdash.

Now, with the death of its long-time president and the appointment of a Canadian race scientist to replace him, the Pioneer Fund may be nearing the end, with plans to spend down its remaining endowment in the next few years.

Harry F. Weyher died on March 27 in La Grange, N.C. A corporate lawyer educated at Harvard, Weyher had administered the fund since 1958, giving money to "scientists" in pursuit of the Orwellian goal of "human race betterment," but also to more "mainstream" groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

One of those people is Pioneer's new president, one of the most notorious race scientists in the world. Psychology professor Jean-Phillippe Rushton, who has been investigated for allegedly violating Canadian hate-speech laws, has been showered with Pioneer money in recent years.

Rushton, a British expatriate who teaches at the University of Western Ontario, first courted infamy in 1989 when he published work focusing on the sexual characteristics of different races. His findings: Blacks have larger genitals, breasts and buttocks — characteristics that Rushton alleged have an inverse relationship to brain size and, thus, intelligence.

When Rushton took the helm of the Pioneer Fund, he was joined on the board of directors by a scientist who may be even more extreme: Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster who published one of the most stunning recent examples of race science in the July 2002 issue of the eugenicist American Renaissance magazine.

Blacks are not only less intelligent than other races, Lynn asserted, but also "more psychopathic." Putting a new twist on the "science" that once supported slavery, Lynn concluded that because of their "psychopathic personalities," blacks are more aggressive than other races, less able to form long-term relationships, and more sexually promiscuous, reckless and prone to lying.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=83

Evo

May2-04, 04:57 PM

More on the Pioneer Fund.

A movement begins

After falling out of favor in the 1940s, eugenics started interesting researchers again in the 1960s, said Barry Mehler, a professor of history at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Mich., and the director of the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism.

"In the '60s, we began to see a real trend toward the new eugenics, with a whole new generation for blatantly racist work by people like (Arthur) Jensen and (William) Shockley," Mehler said.

Jensen, a professor of education psychology at the University of California at Berkley, developed intelligence tests that led him to believe that blacks are genetically destined to be less intelligent.

Shockley, a Nobel Prize winner for his work in physics, researched the connection between heredity and intelligence for years and came to the same conclusion as Jensen.

As more research money became available in the last 10 years, the rekindled eugenics movement accelerated and attracted the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Beirich said. "It's definitely re-emerging. At the early part of the (20th) century, eugenics was a very big topic of research ... in the last 10 years it's become resurgent because you have the funding," Beirich said.

She said that most of the research money is coming from the Pioneer Fund, a nonprofit organization that pays for the study of heredity and race. The fund supported the eugenics movement when it began in the 1930s and now spends millions each year on research that looks at genetic differences between the races.

The movement is also growing because researchers interested in eugenics are getting better organized, Beirich said.

Much of their work is published in American Renaissance and Mankind Quarterly, journals that are written in scientific language but don't follow such scientific conventions as peer review - the process that gives other researchers a chance to verify research results.

These researchers also move in the same circles, attend the same conferences, review each other's books and exchange correspondence.
"They know each other very well," Beirich said. "They have gotten their act together. They shouldn't be taken lightly because I think we're going to be hearing more from them in the future."

J. Philippe Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, is one of the researchers at the top of the watch list at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Rushton has researched the differences between the races for years. He has compared IQ scores, brain size and fertility rates of blacks and whites. His studies have led him to conclude that blacks as a whole will never measure up to whites, he said.

"Give them the best opportunities. But I think we have to learn to live with the differences. On average, there are going to be fewer geniuses, fewer people in the top professions," Rushton said.

The Institute for the Study of Academic Racism tracks several academics who are researching race differences and nearly always coming up with results that favor whites.

One recommends "phasing out" people of incompetent cultures. Another claimed that Jews used eugenics to increase their intelligence, verbal skills and ability to manipulate and use propaganda.

Glayde Whitney, a Florida State University professor who recently died, wrote the introduction to David Duke's autobiography. He also did studies that tried to link the number of crimes in a city to the size of its black population.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/sterilization2.htm

BlackVision

May2-04, 09:28 PM

I was refering to my neighborhood, since you mentioned your neighborhood, I don't see where I said that was the starting price for homes in town. Obviously you think a neighborhood is a town.
Believe it or not, each neighborhood has a name. I know this may come as a shock to you, but it's true. That listing was for the top neighborhoods/towns. Brentwood IS the name of the neighborhood I live in. It's also listed in the full version of the Richest neighborhood/town in America list. This "neighborhood" is part of Los Angeles the city. Among other celebrities, it's where Kobe Bryant lives.

But like I said, saying the median house value of your middle America neighborhood/town (take your pick) is higher than the median house value of the richest neighborhoods of Los Angeles (Did you forget how many rich people live here?) is quite laughable to say the least.

:biggrin: I love it, the more you write the more you show your lack of intelligence. LA is overpopulated, of course there is more demand for housing, this is why I choose to live here.
Overpopulated. Kinda the wrong word. I would say where you live is underpopulated. Awww no one wants to live in your town. How sad :(

Uhm, no it wasn't. Here is your post, gee I don't see a link to the Washington Post, do you? You are the stupidist person I have ever run across.

Here is my post:

IQ is about 80% genetic, 20% environment. These figures can accurately be drawn by studying identical twins raised in different environments.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm
LOL. You sure aren't too bright are you? You make yourself look dumber and dumber.

BlackVision

May2-04, 09:33 PM

BlackVision

May2-04, 09:46 PM

And why is it that you like to go after the most prominent of all academics. Charles Murray, a Harvard graduate with a PhD from MIT. Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard PhD. Not only that but held the Edgar Pierce Chair. Arthur Jensen, a Berkeley graduate and a PhD from Columbia University. J Rushton, University of London, PhD.

I mean these are academics that come from the most respected and most prestigious universities. I would say they're more than qualified to speak of the field that they do.

Evo

May2-04, 10:07 PM

Believe it or not, each neighborhood has a name. I know this may come as a shock to you, but it's true. That listing was for the top neighborhoods/towns. Brentwood IS the name of the neighborhood I live in. It's also listed in the full version of the Richest neighborhood/town in America list. This "neighborhood" is part of Los Angeles the city. Among other celebrities, it's where Kobe Bryant lives.I know Brentwood is a neighborhood, that's what I said. I guess you are confused again and have no point?

But like I said, saying the median house value of your middle America neighborhood/town (take your pick) is higher than the median house value of the richest neighborhoods of Los Angeles (Did you forget how many rich people live here?) is quite laughable to say the least.I never said any such thing, go back and look. Again, why are you making up lies?

You keep making up things which anyone can go back & see isn't true. Do you think other people can't read?

Overpopulated. Kinda the wrong word. I would say where you live is underpopulated. Awww no one wants to live in your town. How sad :(I'm loving this.

Here is my post:
IQ is about 80% genetic, 20% environment. These figures can accurately be drawn by studying identical twins raised in different environments.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm

LOL. You sure aren't too bright are you? You make yourself look dumber and dumber.Since this isn't the post I responded to, looks like you just confirmed again that you have no idea what you are posting. You appear to be unable to remember who responded to you, what they said, what posts they replied to, who asked what. I suggest you go back, re-read the post you want to comment on, probably be a good idea if you did a "quote" of the post you are replying to, perhaps that way you could remember what you are talking about. It is really annoying when people like you that can't keep their thoughts straight get on a forum.

Here it is your post again that I commented on, gee I don't see any link to the Washington Post here. Do you see a link to the Washington Post here?But if that article wasn't good enough for you, here you go.

"Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation."

Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

"Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart"

Source: http://danny.oz.au/communities/anth...ebates/race-iq/

"Monozygotic Twins raised apart had a 74% correlation in IQ. Adopted childs had a 20% correlation in IQ"

Source: http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectu...1/Lecture5.html Please highlight the link to the Washington Post that you claim is in your links above.

Evo

May2-04, 10:11 PM

You know spreading false propaganda about the Pioneer Fund doesn't exactly make it true.

Also "The Bell Curve" was NOT funded by the Pioneer Fund but by the Bradley Foundation. Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein DID NOT get a penny from the Pioneer Fund. They had absolutely no obligation to the Pioneer Fund.

How odd that you like to miss over this fact.I never said that The Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund. You're confused again. Gee, you have yet to get one single statement in one single post of yours correct.

Evo

May2-04, 10:16 PM

BlackVision

May2-04, 10:20 PM

I know Brentwood is a neighborhood, that's what I said. I guess you are confused again and have no point?
Must I repeat it again? The richest neighborhoods in California aren't even listed at median values of $2 million. Yes neighborhoods not towns. Yet you're gonna state that in the redneck area that you live, that it STARTS at $2 million. Right. You are hopeless.

I never said any such thing, go back and look. Again, why are you making up lies?
So you never stated in your neighborhood that the house values START at $2 million which is a value higher than the richest MEDIAN house value of any neighborhood in California. Hmmm. Good thing these posts are recorded to show I'm right. By the way, if it starts at $2 million, what's the median value? LOL.

You keep making up things which anyone can go back & see isn't true. Do you think other people can't read?
Fortunetely some people CAN read.

Since this isn't the post I responded to, looks like you just confirmed again that you have no idea what you are posting. You appear to be unable to remember who responded to you, what they said, what posts they replied to, who asked what. I suggest you go back, re-read the post you want to comment on, probably be a good idea if you did a "quote" of the post you are replying to, perhaps that way you could remember what you are talking about. It is really annoying when people like you that can't keep their thoughts straight get on a forum.
Since the ONLY thing I ever stated was that I DID post a Washington Post article, you are an idiot. What you were replying to is irrelevant. I ONLY said that I posted a Washington Post article. In which case afterwards you called me a liar. But keep pretending this didn't happen if it allows you to sleep at night.

Here it is your post again that I commented on, gee I don't see any link to the Washington Post here. Do you see a link to the Washington Post here? Please highlight the link to the Washington Post that you claim is in your links above.
See above comment.

BlackVision

May2-04, 10:24 PM

I never said that The Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund. You're confused again. Gee, you have yet to get one single statement in one single post of yours correct.
I NEVER said that you stated that the Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund. I simply pointed out the fact that they weren't since you like to use this Pioneer Fund argument oh so much.

The point was that The Bell Curve didn't receive any Pioneer Fund money. So even EVEN, and this is a big hypothetical, if the Pioneer Fund was racist, doesn't it seem rather irrelevant to The Bell Curve since they didn't receive any Pioneer Fund money?

Evo

May2-04, 11:18 PM

Must I repeat it again? The richest neighborhoods in California aren't even listed at median values of $2 million. Yes neighborhoods not towns. Yet you're gonna state that in the redneck area that you live, that it STARTS at $2 million. Right. You are hopeless.

So you never stated in your neighborhood that the house values START at $2 million which is a value higher than the richest MEDIAN house value of any neighborhood in California. Hmmm. Good thing these posts are recorded to show I'm right. By the way, if it starts at $2 million, what's the median value? LOL.Homes in the area in which I live start at a little over $2 miilion, some are over $10 million. My daughter's friend's home that was just completed was around $8 million. I live in a rural unincorporated area. People buy land here usually 50+ acres and build custom homes (referred to as estates here), most have horse stables, some have tennis courts, servants quarters, guest houses, the guy around the corner has 4 kitchens, a pond with an island, a bath house next to the pool almost the size of my house. I have one of the "cheaper" homes. Apparantly the fact that there are expensive homes here seems to unsettle you, why do you feel so threatened?

Since the ONLY thing I ever stated was that I DID post a Washington Post article, you are an idiot. What you were replying to is irrelevant. I ONLY said that I posted a Washington Post article. In which case afterwards you called me a liar. But keep pretending this didn't happen if it allows you to sleep at night.Well, here are the posts, looks like you are lying when you claim you didn't say this. You're totally psycho. You have repeatedly been posting off the wall things about the Washington Post article and I keep telling you I have never mentioned the Washington Post article. What part of "I have never mentioned the Washington Post article" do you not get?

Post #126 I loved it when you kept telling me that I can't read and I didn't post a Washington Post article only to prove you wrong. (that's me laughing at you)I rest my case. I never said anything about this article. You're nuts.

Post #127Uhm, you obviously can't read because I have NEVER said that you didn't post a Washington Post article.

Post #128 My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted. And I repeat, I have never posted anything about your stupid article, except to keep telling you I am not referring to it, which you keep insisting I am.

I keep waiting for you to post anything that can substantiate your wild claims, but you apparently can't. This discussion is not progressing because you have not contributed anything since my first post, (except for ridiculous claims of non-existant posts that anyone can see aren't even there).

Ok, enough time wasted on BlankVision, psycho delusionary poster. :biggrin:

Buh bye.

BlackVision

May3-04, 01:47 AM

Homes in the area in which I live start at a little over $2 miilion, some are over $10 million. My daughter's friend's home that was just completed was around $8 million. I live in a rural unincorporated area. People buy land here usually 50+ acres and build custom homes (referred to as estates here), most have horse stables, some have tennis courts, servants quarters, guest houses, the guy around the corner has 4 kitchens, a pond with an island, a bath house next to the pool almost the size of my house. I have one of the "cheaper" homes. Apparantly the fact that there are expensive homes here seems to unsettle you, why do you feel so threatened?
Ok. Do you have any logical sense at all? If the richest neighborhood in America has a median house value under $2 million, and you're stating that in your neighorhood houses START at $2 million. Do you honestly think that makes any sense at all? Logic is obviously a lost concept on you.

And oh yeah cause celebrities in Beverly Hills don't have 100s of acres and have tennis courts, water fountains, etc. Yeah you know cause celebrities don't like to live large.

And the MAIN value of a house is location. A rural unincorporated area? Talk about a codeword for a redneck zone. Yeah cause we all know of the such extraordinary high demand for such an area.

Well, here are the posts, looks like you are lying when you claim you didn't say this. You're totally psycho. You have repeatedly been posting off the wall things about the Washington Post article and I keep telling you I have never mentioned the Washington Post article. What part of "I have never mentioned the Washington Post article" do you not get?

Post #90 "My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted."--BlackVision

Your DIRECT response to this quote.

Post #93 "WRONG. You really cannot read, can you?"--you

Again I must laugh at you. :biggrin:

BlackVision

May3-04, 01:50 AM

"The point was that The Bell Curve didn't receive any Pioneer Fund money. So even EVEN, and this is a big hypothetical, if the Pioneer Fund was racist, doesn't it seem rather irrelevant to The Bell Curve since they didn't receive any Pioneer Fund money?"

Having a problem answering this question? :smile:

hitssquad

May3-04, 07:07 AM

The Bell Curve didn't receive any Pioneer Fund money. ...irrelevant to The Bell Curve since they didn't receive any Pioneer Fund money?Pioneer is relevant to The Bell Curve because studies cited in the Bell Curve were funded (http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html) by Pioneer.

It is not surprising, however, that those who would like to remove The Bell Curve’s conclusions from public discussion attack the Pioneer Fund because much of the research it cited was conducted by Pioneer grantees.

BlackVision

May3-04, 07:12 AM

Pioneer is relevant to The Bell Curve because studies cited in the Bell Curve were funded (http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html) by Pioneer.

It is not surprising, however, that those who would like to remove The Bell Curve’s conclusions from public discussion attack the Pioneer Fund because much of the research it cited was conducted by Pioneer grantees.
Do you have any idea how many sources the Bell Curve cites? It cites literally thousands. To say it's tainted cause a couple of sources such as Arthur Jensen is cited, (how the hell do you not make a IQ book without citing him) is quite ridiculous. So the thousands of other cites all of a sudden become irrelevant?

Botton line. The Bell Curve had no obligation to the Pioneer Fund. And it's work didn't even revolve around psychologists that received Pioneer Fund money.

Concept

May3-04, 07:30 AM

However the bell curve was funded, it doesn't change the fact that it was wrong.

http://goinside.com/98/3/postmod.html

BlackVision

May3-04, 07:36 AM

But you know what? I can be just as dumb as Evo. I recently saw a Volkswagen ad on NBC. Which means NBC received funding from Volkswagen. A little history on Volkswagen:

"The idea for the Beetle came from Adolf Hitler, who while in prison in 1924 following the unsuccessful putsch on the Federal German capital. Hitler conceived of an idea to solve Germany's unemployment problem, the Government would build special roads (autobahns) for motor vehicles. He would also mass-produce a car (the peoples car, the Volkswagen) which the average man in the street would be able buy. 9 Years later (February 1933) the Nazi party swept to power, and at the very first cabinet meeting Hitler raised the issue of the special roads. Work began on these roads in September 1933.

In 1937 Hitler formed the Gesellschaft zur Vorbereitung des Volkswagens (Company for the Development of People's Cars), later called Volkswagenwerk, to begin planning the construction of the car factory. Hitler himself laid the foundation stone for the Volkswagen factory at Wolfsburg at a ceremony in May 1938.

BlackVision

May3-04, 07:38 AM

You hear that? I guess NBC are nothing but a bunch of Nazi supporters! :eek:

BlackVision

May3-04, 07:41 AM

However the bell curve was funded, it doesn't change the fact that it was wrong.

http://goinside.com/98/3/postmod.html
Are you really gonna make this a copy and paste war? Alright here.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html

I think it's better if you post your own thoughts on the matter though

Evo

May3-04, 12:16 PM

Ok. Do you have any logical sense at all? If the richest neighborhood in America has a median house value under $2 million, and you're stating that in your neighorhood houses START at $2 million. Do you honestly think that makes any sense at all? Logic is obviously a lost concept on you.

And oh yeah cause celebrities in Beverly Hills don't have 100s of acres and have tennis courts, water fountains, etc. Yeah you know cause celebrities don't like to live large.

And the MAIN value of a house is location. A rural unincorporated area? Talk about a codeword for a redneck zone. Yeah cause we all know of the such extraordinary high demand for such an area.BlackVision, your lack of knowledge of the real world outside your own backyard is evident, you don't know what you are talking about. You're really embarrassing yourself. End of this subject also, your comments are senseless and immature.

Post #90 "My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted."--BlackVision

Your DIRECT response to this quote.

Post #93 "WRONG. You really cannot read, can you?"--you

Again I must laugh at you.Yeah, I said you were wrong, I never said that the Washington Post link was tainted, I never even mentioned the Washingtoon Post, you just proved me correct.

I will post from the beginning and maybe you will see your error.

My first post was in response to your post #82 containing 3 links. Post #86Originally posted by BlackVision - Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

Originally posted by Evo - Your source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund.

To which you responded with this comment:Post #87
And Washington Post is an extremely liberal newspaper.Ok, now I’m wondering why on earth is he bringing this up, this wasn’t mentioned in the post I responded to.

To which I replied Post #89 I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.

To which you replied: : Post #90 My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted.Which made no sense to me because I hadn’t read any of your previous posts and there was no mention of the Washington Post in your post #82 that I was responding to. You were obviously confused. So I replied that you were wrong because I have never mentioned anything about a Washington Post article or link. Here is my reply post #93 WRONG. You really cannot read, can you? Here it is again, so you may read it. Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackVision
Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

Originally posted by Evo - Your source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund. Phillipe Rushton is currently president of the Pioneer Fund. If you had reading comprehension skills, you would note first that I was referring to the source of the mugu.com website and the rest of the LINKS you posted. (in the post I was discussing #82, why you would think I was referring to a link in a previous post I’d never mentioned?)

Which you then posted a blurb from a post you had made before my first post, one that I keep telling you I am not referring to post #94 Wow YOU can't read can you? Let me repost my first source.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm I am not talking about this post, never have, so why do you keep bringing it up?

BlackVision, I keep telling you I have NEVER mentioned a post of yours that was about the Washington Post, yet you keep accusing me of telling you it doesn’t exist, or that I said it was tainted, what is your problem? For the FINAL time – I HAVE NEVER DISCUSSED YOUR POST ABOUT THE WASHINGTON POST. SO STOP BRINGING IT UP.

Evo

May3-04, 12:48 PM

Do you have any idea how many sources the Bell Curve cites? It cites literally thousands. To say it's tainted cause a couple of sources such as Arthur Jensen is cited, (how the hell do you not make a IQ book without citing him) is quite ridiculous. So the thousands of other cites all of a sudden become irrelevant?

Botton line. The Bell Curve had no obligation to the Pioneer Fund. And it's work didn't even revolve around psychologists that received Pioneer Fund money.Anyone familiar with The Bell Curve knows that although it lists a lot of references, the study was based primarily on just a few studies.

Most significant was the data provided by Richard Lynn.

Here is an exerpt from an excellent report being worked on explaining the sources and actual data used by The Bell Curves' authors.

The Bell Curve also relies heavily on the research of Richard Lynn, described by the authors as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences." As one example of Lynn's scholarship, consider this quote, cited in Newsday, November 9, 1994:

"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of ‘phasing out' such peoples…Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."

Lynn has also explained, that in his opinion, "…the poor and the ill are weak specimens whose proliferation needs to be discouraged in the interests of the improvement of the genetic quality of the group, and ultimately of group survival," and that "the Caucasoid and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contribution to civilization," leading one to wonder where Lynn—obviously no historian—would place the Ancient Egyptians among these two racial groups.

The Bell Curve references Lynn's work in an effort to "prove" the following propositions that are central to the book's arguments:

1) African Blacks have IQ's substantially below the African American average;
2) East Asians have higher IQ's than any other group; and,
3) Immigrants of color to the US have sub-par IQ's

Taking a look at his "evidence" on African IQ, there is little doubt of its intellectual vacuity. Lynn's "proof" was based heavily on a 1988 review by three South African psychologists who looked at Black South African test performance. But the authors of this study concluded the OPPOSITE of Lynn and Murray and Herrnstein. In fact, when presented with Lynn's interpretation of their work, they responded with the following:

"It would be rash to suppose that psychometric tests constitute valid measures of intelligence among non-Westerners. The inability of most psychologists to look beyond the confines of their own cultures has led to the kind of arrogance whereby judgments are made concerning the ‘simplicity' of African mental structure and ‘retarded cognitive growth'."

The main source for the Bell Curve's claims regarding African IQ was a Lynn article from Mankind Quarterly in 1991, in which he said mean African IQ was 70. Lynn claims that he arrived at this figure by looking at the "best studies" on the subject since 1929. The study he claimed was the "best" was conducted in 1989 and involved 1,093 16-year old blacks, who scored a mean of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. From this, Lynn then extrapolated mean IQ to the whole of Black Africa. Even worse, Lynn completely misconstrued the findings of the study in question. According to the study's author, Dr Ken Owen, his test was "not at all" evidence of genetic intelligence. In fact, Owen has noted that the results were found directly related to the existence of apartheid era oppression, and the fact that the test was in English.

Another of the "definitive" studies cited by Lynn in his own article was a 1929 study, in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the Army Beta Test and scored a mean of 65. But this test was administered by M.L. Finch, an open protagonist of the view that blacks were inherently inferior, even before he had done any studies to "prove" such a thing: he was, in other words, hardly a pure, unbiased scientist. Furthermore, the Beta Test was one of the most culturally biased tests in the world at that time: one question on the 1929 version in dispute showed people playing tennis without a net. To get full credit for the question, one would have to draw the net in the picture—something few black Africans could have possibly known to do in 1929, having never been exposed to the game. A leading proponent of the Beta Test, C.C. Brigham, actually admitted that the test had no validity whatsoever for non-Americans: a fact totally ignored by Lynn, and by the Bell Curve.

As for the East Asian IQ superiority, this "evidence" was as weak and uncompelling as that regarding African IQ's. The data on this issue in the Bell Curve relies heavily on a Lynn article from 1982 in Nature magazine, in which he claimed the Japanese have a 10-point IQ advantage over European whites. In 1983, Lynn's piece was dissected completely in the pages of Nature by two American psychologists who noted that Lynn's study sample was made up of Japanese kids from well-off urban parents, likely to have higher IQ's than the more mixed group of Europeans against which they were compared. Murray and Herrnstein only make mention of the Nature rebuttal to Lynn in a footnote, and even there, refuse to discuss its contents.

Two other studies cited by Lynn to "prove" higher Asian IQ's are equally bogus. The first used samples of American, British and Japanese students on a test of abstract reasoning. On this test the Brits and Americans did far worse; and the second study found that 9-year-olds in the UK did worse on the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices than 9-year-olds from Japan and Hong Kong. But if you check the footnotes for this "evidence," you find that the author Lynn was citing for both of these studies was himself. And if you look up the studies, it doesn't take long to notice the flawed methodology involved in both: The first of these studies consisted of a test given to 178 Japanese children that did not reflect the demographic makeup of the nation as a whole, economically, culturally, or in terms of gender. The testers showed up at two schools, one urban and one rural, and gave the tests to whomever was present that day. Lynn then took the results of this test and compared it to a test that was thirteen years old, had been given to 64,000 American children, and had been pre-screened for representativeness; he then compared the Japanese results to a similarly pre-screened sample of 10,000 British children who had been given a similar test in the previous decade.

In the second study, Lynn claims to have found a substantial difference between Japanese and Hong Kong student IQ's on the one hand, and those of British children on the other. Yet this study looked only at 118 9-year olds from Hong Kong, 444 children from Japan and 239 British children, and involved no known controls for environmental and demographic representativeness."

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm

Concept

May3-04, 01:05 PM

Are you really gonna make this a copy and paste war? Alright here.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html

I think it's better if you post your own thoughts on the matter though

:rolleyes: 5 pages ago:

But if that article wasn't good enough for you, here you go.

"Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation."

Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html

"Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart"

Source: http://danny.oz.au/communities/anthro-l/debates/race-iq/

"Monozygotic Twins raised apart had a 74% correlation in IQ. Adopted childs had a 20% correlation in IQ"

Source: http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem992/unit4311/Lecture5.html

hey kettle, you're black.

hitssquad

May3-04, 02:29 PM

The Bell Curve also relies heavily on the research of Richard Lynn, described by the authors as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences." As one example of Lynn's scholarship, consider this quote, cited in Newsday, November 9, 1994:

"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of ‘phasing out' such peoples…Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."Had you ABC News investigators investigated (http://www.pioneerfund.org/Gordon.pdf) to the extent of actually reading the piece by Professor Lynn, you would have discovered easily enough that he was summarizing, by paraphrase, ideas found in a 1972 book authored by the famous psychologist Raymond B. Cattell, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beyondismscience/) (New York: Pergamon Press), for a November 1974 book review (http://www.euvolution.com/articles/review.html) published in the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. Professor Lynn, who was not contacted by ABC, informed me that the sentences quoted by ABC were the views of the book's author, and not an expression of his own opinion at all.

On February 16th, 1990, only one day after his appearance in the Big Rapids Pioneer, Professor Mehler himself gave a rambling presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from which it was quite clear that he understood fully that Richard Lynn's words had been intended to summarize the Cattell book for a book review (there are other forms of scientific articles called "reviews").

At the AAAS meeting, Professor Mehler's exact words were: "Richard Lynn is summarizing the book. It's in a review that he wrote . . . and he says: 'See what we are talking about here is not genocide . . . . ' " Three months later, however, on May 14, 1990, Professor Mehler was again informing the world, or at least the television audience of the Donahue show (transcript #2945), that "Richard Lynn writes a review . . . in which . . . he says--and this is almost a quote--what we're talking here about is 'phasing out incompetent societies.'" Neither Professor Cattell's name nor the name of his book was mentioned on this occasion, and the possible significance of the single word "review" was surely lost on Mr. Donahue and his audience.

Lynn has also explained, that in his opinion, "…the poor and the ill are weak specimens whose proliferation needs to be discouraged in the interests of the improvement of the genetic quality of the group, and ultimately of group survival," and that "the Caucasoid and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contribution to civilization,"This sounds like Cattell also, but perhaps in this latter case Lynn actually meant to express these as his own ideas.

Evo

May3-04, 03:35 PM

Had you ABC News investigators investigated (http://www.pioneerfund.org/Gordon.pdf) to the extent of actually reading the piece by Professor Lynn, you would have discovered easily enough that he was summarizing, by paraphrase, ideas found in a 1972 book authored by the famous psychologist Raymond B. Cattell, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beyondismscience/) (New York: Pergamon Press), for a November 1974 book review (http://www.euvolution.com/articles/review.html) published in the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. Professor Lynn, who was not contacted by ABC, informed me that the sentences quoted by ABC were the views of the book's author, and not an expression of his own opinion at all.

On February 16th, 1990, only one day after his appearance in the Big Rapids Pioneer, Professor Mehler himself gave a rambling presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from which it was quite clear that he understood fully that Richard Lynn's words had been intended to summarize the Cattell book for a book review (there are other forms of scientific articles called "reviews").

At the AAAS meeting, Professor Mehler's exact words were: "Richard Lynn is summarizing the book. It's in a review that he wrote . . . and he says: 'See what we are talking about here is not genocide . . . . ' " Three months later, however, on May 14, 1990, Professor Mehler was again informing the world, or at least the television audience of the Donahue show (transcript #2945), that "Richard Lynn writes a review . . . in which . . . he says--and this is almost a quote--what we're talking here about is 'phasing out incompetent societies.'" Neither Professor Cattell's name nor the name of his book was mentioned on this occasion, and the possible significance of the single word "review" was surely lost on Mr. Donahue and his audience.Actually my post is attributed to an interview with Newsday in Jan 1994, but you are right, it looks similar. Ok, so let's add this to make it a correct statement. In summarizing Professor Cattell's book, Richard Lynn said "What is called for here is not genocide, but the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples . . . Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent."

According to the link you gave to the Pioneer Fund's website, they are not saying Lynn didn't say this, they are complaining that the fact that Lynn was giving his views on Cattell's book was not acknowledged. Same difference? This is still Lynn's opinion, and in his own words, these are not the exact words in Cattell's book from what I see, it's not a quote. I'm glancing through this very quickly as I am busy, is that correct? I didn't have time to copy from the PDF, so forgive me if I have misread.

BlackVision

May3-04, 04:18 PM

BlackVision, your lack of knowledge of the real world outside your own backyard is evident, you don't know what you are talking about. You're really embarrassing yourself. End of this subject also, your comments are senseless and immature.
How to Debate When You Have Absolutely No Case:

Step #1. Avoid every single one of the person's questions and comments that you can't answer and simply make childish personal attacks.

Yeah, I said you were wrong, I never said that the Washington Post link was tainted, I never even mentioned the Washingtoon Post, you just proved me correct.

I will post from the beginning and maybe you will see your error.

My first post was in response to your post #82 containing 3 links. Post #86

To which you responded with this comment:Ok, now I’m wondering why on earth is he bringing this up, this wasn’t mentioned in the post I responded to.

To which I replied

To which you replied: :Which made no sense to me because I hadn’t read any of your previous posts and there was no mention of the Washington Post in your post #82 that I was responding to. You were obviously confused. So I replied that you were wrong because I have never mentioned anything about a Washington Post article or link. Here is my reply (in the post I was discussing #82, why you would think I was referring to a link in a previous post I’d never mentioned?)

Which you then posted a blurb from a post you had made before my first post, one that I keep telling you I am not referring to I am not talking about this post, never have, so why do you keep bringing it up?

BlackVision, I keep telling you I have NEVER mentioned a post of yours that was about the Washington Post, yet you keep accusing me of telling you it doesn’t exist, or that I said it was tainted, what is your problem? For the FINAL time – I HAVE NEVER DISCUSSED YOUR POST ABOUT THE WASHINGTON POST. SO STOP BRINGING IT UP.

Ok you are obviously confused. I listed several sources for IQ heritability. Washington Post was one of them. You kept trying to say all my sources were tainted. I told you that one of my sources was from Washington Post which is an extremely liberal newspaper. You told me I was wrong. Don't try to BS around it. When I said I posted a Washington Post article, you strictly and specifically told me I did not. Like I said, it's irrelevant to what you were responding to when I personally was talking about the Washington Post article. And why would one bring it up? Cause perhaps it related to the discussion and YOU trying to say ALL of my sources were tainted. Keep scratching your head.

BlackVision

May3-04, 04:23 PM

:rolleyes: 5 pages ago:
hey kettle, you're black.
Yeah cause if I DON'T list sources, I will get bombarded with people asking for them.

There's NOTHING wrong with listing an article. That is even recommended. But to conduct a good debate, you should input some of your own thoughts as well. Or nick and pick a few points from the article that you feel is worth discussing. That's what I'm trying to say.

Nothing's wrong with what you did. It's just that better debate would arise from a person putting their own thoughts into it. I mean you posted an article right. So I posted one back. But not much discussion gets done with just that.

Evo

May3-04, 06:12 PM

Ok you are obviously confused. No, you are. I listed several sources for IQ heritability. Washington Post was one of them. I never saw that post, and I never responded to it. You kept trying to say all my sources were tainted. No, I was only referring to the three links in post #82, you WRONGLY assumed I meant every link you had ever posted anywhere I told you that one of my sources was from Washington Post which is an extremely liberal newspaper. You told me I was wrong. No, I said that you were wrong when you said that I was saying that the Washington Post link was tainted. Don't try to BS around it. Can you not read? Look at the history of the posts!!! When I said I posted a Washington Post article, you strictly and specifically told me I did not. NO, I said I hadn't said anything about the Washington Post. Like I said, it's irrelevant to what you were responding to when I personally was talking about the Washington Post article.You WEREN'T talking about the Washington Post article in your post #82, which is what I posted about, the only links you had were to mugu, dany.oz and canbera.edu., in response you came totally out of left field with "And Washington Post is an extremely liberal newspaper" What the hell has that got to do with those 3 links??? And why would one bring it up? Cause perhaps it related to the discussion and YOU trying to say ALL of my sources were tainted. AGAIN, NO, I was only referring to your post #82 which had NOTHING in it about the Washington POST. As I have asked you a dozen times, go back and read your post #82 and highlight where you talk about the Washington Post. YOU DIDN"T. Keep scratching your head.Amazing, I have NEVER posted anything about the Washington Post except to keep telling you I am NOT REFERRING TO IT.

BlackVision, why don't you ask hitssquad to explain it to you since you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that I NEVER said ANYTHING about any post or link to the Washington Post. Geeze o pete, I would have an easier time explaining this to a rock. I can't wait to see how red your face turns when you realize you've been wrong all this time.

hitssquad

May3-04, 06:54 PM

This is still Lynn's opinion, and in his own words, these are not the exact words in Cattell's book from what I see, it's not a quote. ...is that correct?I don't know if it is Lynn's opinion. After reading his brusque write-off of Beyondism (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beyondismscience/) in his recent book Eugenics, I suspect it is not his opinion. Otherwise, yes, it is not a quote. Here, from A New Morality from Science: Beyondism, pp220-221, are Cattell's closest words to Lynn's paraphrase:

If the earth is not to be choked with the more primitive forerunners a condition of birth of the new is the disappearance of the old. However, it is part of that cooperativeness in competition that an emotional harmony with the total purpose should eliminate the barbarities and emotional misunderstandings which have constituted the brutality of expansion and contraction in past history. Newer and more humane methods must prevail. For the trajedy of the death of the individual is magnified in the death of a culture and a people.

Unfortunately, whenever a question of relative reduction of a population is concerned the word "genocide" is today being bendied about as a propaganda term. Nature constantly commits both homicide and genocide, and there is no question that both individuals and races are born to die. But at what point voluntary euthanasia by individuals or genthanasia by groups becomes appropriate is a difficult question. As regards animal species, we are today inclined, for aesthetic and scientific purposes, to make sanctuaries and reservations for species obviously heading for extinction, and still more extreme and scrupulous consideration is indicated before allowing a breed of humans -- however maladapted -- to become extinct. But it is realistically questionable in both cases how much space the more vital species will continue to allow for museum "storage." The maintenance of the status quo cannot extend to making ninety-nine hundredths of the earth a living museum. Clarity of discussion on these solemn issues of rise and fall in culturo-racial groups would be aided if genocide were reserved for a literal killing off of all members of a people, as in several instances in the Old Testament, and genthanasia for what has above been called "phasing out," in which a moribund culture is ended, by educational and birth control measures, without a single member dying before his time.

Moonbear

May3-04, 07:35 PM

The differences between identical twins, fraternal twins, and adopted childs are listed. Here.

Mean IQ Correlation:

Identical Twins raised together: 85%
Identical Twins raised apart: 74%
Fraternal Twins raised together: 59%
Siblings raised together: 46%
Siblings raised apart: 24%
Single parent/child together: 41%
Single parent/child apart: 24%
Adopting parent/child together: 20%

http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem992/unit4311/Lecture5.html

You already cited that link. That's one of the ones I was referring to when I said it was only somebody's lecture material, not an actual study. You need to cite the original study, otherwise, for all I know, it was presented in this person's lecture as an example of a flawed study! Without the reference to the original study, how can I evaluate that the methods were correct? By the way, even if something passes peer review, it can still have major flaws...I find these types of articles all the time in even much less controversial fields. Reviewers have been known to be lazy, or don't catch something because they are too busy, so sometimes flawed studies are published.

If one accepts those numbers at face-value, it certainly suggests an environmental influence...greater correlation of IQ among children raised together than those raised apart. There's a missing group. What about fraternal twins raised apart? I'd be interested to know how they compare to identical twins raised apart. A comparison with siblings alone is not very useful as clearly there is an age effect when you compare fraternal twins and siblings (same relatedness, different age association). So, you really need to have the comparison of fraternal twins raised apart vs identical twins raised apart to have a properly controlled comparison for the effect of genetic relatedness.

I haven't read the remainder of the posts yet, so will see if you've answered my other question about the characteristics of the adoptive families and how similar the environments of the twins raised apart are. I'm also still wondering what the mean IQ is of twins raised apart vs twins raised together (not the degree of similarity of IQs, but whether there's an overall difference if a twin experiences the stress of separation from their twin at an early age). Oh, were all the twins in these studies separated at birth, or at an older age? Perhaps there are still common early developmental factors that need to be considered. If you'll just cite the original study, I can look up whether that information is reported, as it's all critical to the interpretation.

Moonbear

May3-04, 08:00 PM

Evo, take a breath! Really, the housing debate is distracting from the main points. I also live in the "middle" of American and I know there are neighborhoods with properties starting in the multi-million dollar range. Heck, I was recently out looking at houses in those areas with friends of mine (I can't afford them, but one of my friends can...I like just dreaming). It seems to disturb folks from the coasts that they pay $2 million and get a postage stamp sized property, and those of us in the middle of the country can get the same size property for 1/10th that price, or for that price, can get a huge chunk of land with a gorgeous, huge house, stables, tennis courts, pools, etc. Anyway, chill out :cool: , we can argue quite well on facts, so relax about the personal stuff :wink: Besides, if you were a redneck, you wouldn't be arguing against racism!

Evo

May3-04, 08:07 PM

hitssquad

May4-04, 07:15 AM

BlackVision

May4-04, 09:54 AM

Amazing, I have NEVER posted anything about the Washington Post except to keep telling you I am NOT REFERRING TO IT.
Yes you did! Jesus Christ does your memory suck or what.

BlackVision, why don't you ask hitssquad to explain it to you
Play your old goddamn battles. Trying to get others involved, in this toil of yours. How pathetic and weak. Are you gonna run to your mommy next?

since you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that I NEVER said ANYTHING about any post or link to the Washington Post.
Again yes you did. You directly quoted the Washington Post article on Bouchard's study of twins.

Edit: See my proof below in new post.

I can't wait to see how red your face turns when you realize you've been wrong all this time.
As red as your neck? :eek:

BlackVision

May4-04, 09:58 AM

BlackVision

May4-04, 10:37 AM

Anyways, time to show how dumb Evo is.

Post #73 by BlackVision

IQ is about 80% genetic, 20% environment. These figures can accurately be drawn by studying identical twins raised in different environments.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm

----
Post #80 by BlackVision. Note here that I took a quote directly FROM the Washington Post article.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.

----
Post #86 by Evo. Look here as she QUOTES my Washington Post article and responds directly to it.

Originally Posted by BlackVision
Well you're wrong but at least you're trying.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.

Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things.

Bouchard's twin study was primarily funded by the Pioneer Fund, a racist/eugenics organization. Bouchard to date has received 1.8 million dollars from the Pioneer fund.

----
Post #87 by BlackVision.

And Washington Post is an extremely liberal newspaper. You honestly think they'll post an article supporting neo-nazis? Trying to start invalid conspiracies is the best way to avoid the truth.

----
Post #89 by Evo. Here she tries to say that she didn't quote anything from Washington Post!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.

----
CASE CLOSED. THANK YOU AMERICA. GOODNIGHT!!!!

BlackVision

May4-04, 10:47 AM

Bet you feel pretty stupid now don't you Evo. :biggrin:

russ_watters

May4-04, 01:37 PM

Anyways, time to show how dumb Evo is.... BV, this must stop.

hitssquad

May4-04, 02:00 PM

Conditions of Acceptance
When a paper is accepted for publication in Science, it is understood that:

Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.Ok (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=200876&postcount=115), I will accept this as a peer reviewed article. Based on this Bouchard was discredited. He refused to adhere to conditions listed above. Bouchard has refused to allow anyone access to any of the above.As of April, 1991, Bouchard had not published the case studies. It was requested in a letter (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201291&postcount=134) to Science by Beckwith that Bouchard publish his case studies. As quoted above, Science magazine requires that requests for data be reasonable, and Science's test for reasonableness of request for data is that the data in question be necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported. Beckwith argued (http://community.webshots.com/s/image8/5/64/99/139456499MtthTJ_fs.jpg) that the reason the request was reasonable was that placement bias by adoption agencies might cause the environments of the separated MZ twins to correlate independently of their genetics (making the genetic correlation look higher than it is).

Jensen, on page 178 of his 1998 book The g Factor (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874), explains that placement bias is irrelevant because the variance in IQ caused by placement variance itself can be calculated and in turn shown to be "exceedingly small":

Also, due to "placement bias" by adoption agencies the environments of the separated MZ twins in these studies are not perfectly uncorrelated, so one could argue that the high correlation between MZAs is attributable to the similarity of the postadoptive environments in which they were reared. This problem was thoroughly investigated in the MZAs of the ongoing Minnesota twin study, [10] which has a larger sample of MZAs than any other study to date. It is not enough simply to show that there is a correlation between the separated twin's environments on such variables as father's and mother's level of education, their socioeconomic status, their intellectual and achievement orientation, and various physical and cultural advantages in the home environment. One must also take account of the degree to which these placement variables are correlated with IQ. The placement variables' contribution to the MZA IQ correlation, then, is the product of the MZA correlation on measures of the placement variables and the correlation of the placement variables with IQ. This product, it turns out, is exceedingly small and statistically nonsignificant, ranging from-.007 to +.032, with an average of +.0045, when calculated for nine different placement variables. In other words, similarities in the MZA's environments cannot possibly account for more than a minute fraction of the IQ correlation of +.75 between MZAs. If there were no genetic component at all in the correlation between the twins' IQs, the correlation between their environments would not account for an IQ correlation of more than +.10.

So, that is why Bouchard's October, 1990 Science article can be considered both:

published in a peer-reviewed journal

and

adhering to the guidelines of that journal upon which legitimate peer-reviewed status ultimately rests

Evo

May4-04, 02:13 PM

Anyways, time to show how dumb Evo is.

Post #73 by BlackVision

IQ is about 80% genetic, 20% environment. These figures can accurately be drawn by studying identical twins raised in different environments.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htmI never read this post or went to this link. I did not reply to this post.

----
Post #80 by BlackVision. Note here that I took a quote directly FROM the Washington Post article.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.your post #80 never says where this information came from, you listed no source. It wouldn't matter even if you did since my response about the links you posted in your post #82 has nothing to do with post #80. My response to post #80 was about Bouchard, my response to post #82 was about the credibility of your sources listed there, you keep getting the two confused.

Here is your entire post #80.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept
haha, I just re-read the article noticed you quoted the part about twins raised together

Well you're wrong but at least you're trying.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.Show me where in this post you state this is from the Washington Post. You never said that the blurb in post #80 was from the Washington Post.

Plus, when I referred to your sources (links) I was referring to post #82, not this one.

If you want to argue about this PM me, we're cluttering this thread.

Evo

May4-04, 02:15 PM

Bet you feel pretty stupid now don't you Evo. :biggrin:No, you failed to say what your source was. :smile: PLUS, as I repeatedly mentioned, I was refering to the three links from a totally different post, post #82, not post #80, as being slanted. You however, kept confusing my response to post #82 as being a response to post #80. So, I rest my case, I was not referring to post #80.

Evo

May4-04, 02:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evo
But this test was administered by M.L. Finch . . . hardly a pure, unbiased scientist.

In politics, absence of bias is a requirement for authenticity.

There is no such requirement in science, and this partly because authenticity is not an aim of science.Is this something in a link I posted? I don't have the verbage from every link memorized. I don't even know who M. L. Finch is. :smile:

Evo

May4-04, 02:29 PM

Are there $2 million houses in Middle America? Of course. Are there ANY neighborhoods in Middle America that has a MEDIAN value of $2 million. NO!!!! That was my point. Evo is trying to say that the STARTING value of her neighorhood is $2 million which is absolutely false. If $2 million is the starting value, I would LOVE to know what the median value is.A neighborhood is a group of homes, in the context that we are discussing. It can be 2 homes. It can be 100 homes. Every home in a neighborhood can be the same price. There is no rule that says there has to be a range of prices or how many homes there have to be. I know you don't understand this.

Moonbear is correct, this is off topic.

Monique

May4-04, 02:54 PM

Evo

May4-04, 02:58 PM

As of April, 1991, Bouchard had not published the case studies. It was requested in a letter (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201291&postcount=134) to Science by Beckwith that Bouchard publish his case studies. As quoted above, Science magazine requires that requests for data be reasonable, and Science's test for reasonableness of request for data is that the data in question be necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported. Beckwith argued (http://community.webshots.com/s/image8/5/64/99/139456499MtthTJ_fs.jpg) that the reason the request was reasonable was that placement bias by adoption agencies might cause the environments of the separated MZ twins to correlate independently of their genetics (making the genetic correlation look higher than it is).

Jensen, on page 178 of his 1998 book The g Factor (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874), explains that placement bias is irrelevant because the variance in IQ caused by placement variance itself can be calculated and in turn shown to be "exceedingly small":

<snip>

So, that is why Bouchard's October, 1990 Science article can be considered both:

published in a peer-reviewed journal

and

adhering to the guidelines of that journal upon which legitimate peer-reviewed status ultimately restsI don't believe that it was the concensus of Science that Bouchard had met the requirements. Do you have anything that says Science agrees he met the criteria? I think I still have an article or two that says he didn't. That would mean that he had not met the peer review criteria. But I was willing to let you have that one. I still am, because I am really swamped right now and don't want to spend the time hunting for them.

Even if we say he had one peer reveiwed article in Science, his peers in this journal almost unanimously criticized and/or rejected his article for a number of reasons. In essence he failed the peer review. I know you will tell me that Bouchard rejected the criticism he received, but merely rejecting the criticism of a peer without disproving the accusation is meaningless. Anyone can say "no, darn it, I am sure I am right".

And the fact remains, Bouchard has never allowed another researcher to examine the data he used, so no one has ever been able to verify the accuracy or validity of his study.

This is what I have a problem with. If he didn't intentionally slant the data, why is he so afraid to let another researcher look at it? If he truly is correct, why would he allow himself to come under so much criticism? Seems to me that unless he had something to hide he'd be glad to clear his name.

Nereid

May4-04, 03:34 PM

Has Bouchard ever stated publicly why he is (was?) unwilling to allow other researchers to examine his data?

BlackVision

May4-04, 05:14 PM

BV, this must stop.
I'm just playing ball. Evo did flame me first. I merely return the favor.

BlackVision

May4-04, 05:18 PM

As we agree it is off topic, don't go into it any further or this topic will be locked. Also, BlackVision, please stop calling other members dumb or stupid as it only undermines your own intellect. This has been going on long enough.
Apologies. But as I've said, Evo started the flame war. I merely played along. Notice that I haven't been flaming anyone else.

I must wonder why when Evo does it, it goes unnoticed. Cause she's been here longer? She get's more leadway? Regardless, in respect for everybody, I am done.

Evo

May4-04, 05:51 PM

Apologies. But as I've said, Evo started the flame war. I merely played along. Notice that I haven't been flaming anyone else.

I must wonder why when Evo does it, it goes unnoticed. Cause she's been here longer? She get's more leadway? Regardless, in respect for everybody, I am done.Yes, I am guilty of starting it, I was growing tired of your snide remarks and insults, but I should not have called you names, I have no excuse for losing my temper. I apologize.

I did stop and try to bring it back up to a normal discussion though, I've been refraining from calling you names recently, it hasn't been easy.

BlackVision

May4-04, 06:03 PM

Yes, I am guilty of starting it, I was growing tired of your snide remarks and insults, but I should not have called you names, I have no excuse for losing my temper. I apologize.

I did stop and try to bring it back up to a normal discussion though, I've been refraining from calling you names recently, it hasn't been easy.
Yeah you haven't been lately but once it starts, hard to refrain from it afterwards. I apologize as well.

hitssquad

May4-04, 06:51 PM

But (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=202059&postcount=156) this test was administered by M.L. Finch . . . hardly a pure, unbiased scientist.In politics, absence of bias is a requirement for authenticity.

There is no such requirement in science, and this partly because authenticity is not an aim of science.Is this something in a link I posted?No. It is part of the excerpt from the "excellent report" by Tim White that you reproduced in this post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=202059&postcount=156).

I don't even know who M. L. Finch is.If you do an Advanced Search of Physics Forums with the Show Results as Posts option selected and for the argument finch, you will find a link to your Post 156 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=202059&postcount=156) from this thread wherein you wrote:

Anyone familiar with The Bell Curve knows that although it lists a lot of references, the study was based primarily on just a few studies.

Most significant was the data provided by Richard Lynn.

Here is an exerpt from an excellent report being worked on explaining the sources and actual data used by The Bell Curves' authors....

Another of the "definitive" studies cited by Lynn in his own article was a 1929 study, in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the Army Beta Test and scored a mean of 65. But this test was administered by M.L. Finch, an open protagonist of the view that blacks were inherently inferior, even before he had done any studies to "prove" such a thing: he was, in other words, hardly a pure, unbiased scientist. Furthermore, the Beta Test was one of the most culturally biased tests in the world at that time: one question on the 1929 version in dispute showed people playing tennis without a net. To get full credit for the question, one would have to draw the net in the picture—something few black Africans could have possibly known to do in 1929, having never been exposed to the game. A leading proponent of the Beta Test, C.C. Brigham, actually admitted that the test had no validity whatsoever for non-Americans: a fact totally ignored by Lynn, and by the Bell Curve.