The Impact of Genetic Heritability on Intelligence: Fact or Fiction?

[Evo]

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]

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]

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.

Because they are all known racists with known racist agendas. Having a degree and using it to try to gain credibility for innacurate and biased data is disgusting.

 

[BlackVision]

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 going to 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]

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]

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 going to 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.

Buh bye.

 

[BlackVision]

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.

 

[BlackVision]

"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?

 

[hitssquad]

Was The Bell Curve funded by Pioneer

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 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]

Pioneer is relevant to The Bell Curve because studies cited in the Bell Curve 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]

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

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]

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

 

[BlackVision]

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 going to 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]

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 #86

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.

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]

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]

Are you really going to 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

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]

Lynn's Beyondism review quote

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."

• http://www.pioneerfund.org/Gordon.pdf 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]

• http://www.pioneerfund.org/Gordon.pdf 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]

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]

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]

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]

Cattell's original words on genocide and genthanasia

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 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]

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]

This post off-topic

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 , we can argue quite well on facts, so relax about the personal stuff Besides, if you were a redneck, you wouldn't be arguing against racism!

 

[Evo]

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 , we can argue quite well on facts, so relax about the personal stuff Besides, if you were a redneck, you wouldn't be arguing against racism!

I agree and I told BV no more discussion on it a few posts back.

Ooh, we might be neighbors. :tongue: I live in a cheap house compared to what I am surrounded by. I just like the quiet and the chihuahua eating mountain lion.

 

[hitssquad]

Authenticity tests in science and politics

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.

 

[BlackVision]

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 going to 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?

 

[BlackVision]

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 , we can argue quite well on facts, so relax about the personal stuff Besides, if you were a redneck, you wouldn't be arguing against racism!

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.

 

[BlackVision]

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]

Bet you feel pretty stupid now don't you Evo.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyways, time to show how dumb Evo is...

BV, this must stop.

 

[hitssquad]

The math behind the mootness of Beckwith's data request

• 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.

As of April, 1991, Bouchard had not published the case studies. It was requested in a letter 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 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, 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]

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

I 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]

Bet you feel pretty stupid now don't you Evo.

No, you failed to say what your source was. PLUS, as I repeatedly mentioned, I was referring 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.