Why do people cling so tightly to racism?

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Zero
There are deep flaws in the IQ vs. race research, but people cling to the faulty research anyways. We know for a fact that the studies have been done improperly, or the data has been manipulated, and yet some people want to claim that the research is somehow not flawed.

Mr. Pot, I see you're calling Mr. Kettle black again. You're clinging to the idea that this research is flawed without any evidence to the contrary.

Can actually identify these 'deep flaws' in race vs. IQ research, or do you have a cogent argument that reseach of this type is intrinsically flawed?
I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but the way that you 'defend' it is so dogmatic, and so flawed that I can only describe it as a straw man.

Originally posted by Zero What it most reminds me of is creationism. Creationists already know what they believe, then they selectively choose data that will back up their beliefs, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence against them.

Without granting unwarrented credence to the notion that there is some correlation between IQ and race, it seems like you're more intersted in spouting your dogmatic position about some poorly defined notion of racial equality.

Originally posted by Zero But, creationism and Nazi-style breeding programs have nothing to do with science, even when it is disguised under names like "intelligent design" and "eugenics". It is all about the political and social movement, and any "facts" presented aren't their to convince fellow scientists. All teh work is done as propaganda, to convince gullible laypersons that their pre-existing biases have some sort of scientific basis.

Just because you do not agree with the results of research does not automatically make it propaganda.

Originally posted by Zero
Cold fusion is a good case in point for another reason, Russ, one that you or others may not be familiar with. As with The Bell Curve and other propaganda, the cold fusion supporters bypassed peer review and publication in scientific journals, and went straight to the public.

Because, of course, we all know that the cold fusion was propaganda designed to support the political cause of ... hmm, exactly what politics would be interested in having cold fusion work?

As with The Bell Curve Other scientists are usually willing to go over each and every page of a study and point out flaws in the experimental set-up, possible math errors, ways to eliminate researcher bias, etc. When someone avoids peer review, it is very often a sign of trouble.

There are problems with the peer review process, because the reviewers have political and selfish motivations -- I've heard more than one story about people whose reviews invariably include 'cite paper ***** that I published'. So although I agree that avoiding peer review indicates a problem, it's not necessarily the case that the problem is with the research or the paper.

As with The Bell Curve
And, of course, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question about Pygmies and African brain-size studies...its a good one, and shows the inherent lack of science in racism-supporting science.

Probably for similar motivations to the ones that lead you elect innuendo over substance.

So, in response to your original question:

Why do people cling so tightly to racism?

Many of the characteristics associated with race - for example skin color - are easily observable, and have significant predictive value in many situations. That is, that in some situations 'racism' is a reasonable behavior. For example, in areas which are primarily populated by one 'racial group' people from outside that racial group are much more likely to be outsiders. This applies equally well to people who dress differently, or speak differently than the locals. The treatment of ousiders varies depending on the society and situation, but it's easy to document that they are generally treated differently than locals.

There are, of course, unreasonable racist behaviors. There are supposedly people, who, for example, believe that all or most jews are part of an international banking cabal which controls the world.

 

[Zero]

Nate, I'll give you one last chance to take a wild stab at why I would possibly feel that any inclusion of Pygmies in a brain-size study would almost certainly show inherently poor methodology...I swear its a groovy reason, and I was hoping that Nachtwolf character would go for it, since he just LOVES brain-size studies.

*edited to add*Wait...you didn't just defend creationism, did you?

 

[Zero]

BTW...isn't almost a law of science that people who complain the most about discrimination against their work are the ones who also deserve it the most? Claims of pressure against research from "mainstream science" and "political correctness" appear most often from pseudoscientific sources, after all.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Cold fusion is a good case in point for another reason, Russ, one that you or others may not be familiar with. As with The Bell Curve and other propaganda, the cold fusion supporters bypassed peer review and publication in scientific journals, and went straight to the public. Other scientists are usually willing to go over each and every page of a study and point out flaws in the experimental set-up, possible math errors, ways to eliminate researcher bias, etc. When someone avoids peer review, it is very often a sign of trouble.

I alluded to that, but yeah, the fact that they subverted the scientific process is a big flashing red light that for some reason most scientists didn't pick up on. They should have simply ignored it, yet for some reason (the credentials of P&F maybe?) they dropped everything to research it. And in doing so, they lended unwarranted (and really, unintended) credibility to the claims.

And, of course, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question about Pygmies and African brain-size studies...its a good one, and shows the inherent lack of science in racism-supporting science.

The pygmies thing is a funny joke until you realize its for real. Then it becomes pathetic and disturbing. I'm at a loss to explain how people can look at such a clear and obvious flaw and disregard it. Its like telling someone they have a headlight out on their car and having them disagree. Its tough to know what to say next.

That's awfully close to an ad hominem, russ_waters.

I'll see if I can find the quote. It was quite explicit.

I am all for genetic engineering, I think the positive results can be very beneficial. Which is why I am all for stem cell research. I am against eugenics, the two are not the same.

Yeah, I seem to be missing this one too, Evo. Adam, care to clarify? You say you are for eugenics, but what you describe sounds like genetic engineering. Not the same thing.

Can actually identify these 'deep flaws' in race vs. IQ research, or do you have a cogent argument that reseach of this type is intrinsically flawed?

Again, I'm not following. There have been literally dozens of examples given by Nereid of flaws in this type of resarch and these flaws are for the most part common to all research on the subject (given by the fact that most papers cite the same studies over and over).

It may be possible to do some real research on the subject, but as yet it appears no one has attempted to. Part of the reason for that, no doubt, is such a thing would be extrordinarily complicated.

Just because you do not agree with the results of research does not automatically make it propaganda.

Him, me, Nereid, virtually the entire scientific community... How many people does it take before you will consider the possibility that you are wrong? (this applies to everyone here who lends credence to these studies)

Ergo...

...concordantly, vis-a-vis. [/matrix] (sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[Zero]

Here's an interesting layman's background article on the specific racist political and social aspirations behind the Eugenics movement(sorry Adam, I don't mean you genetic engineering supporters...):http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
There have been literally dozens of examples given by Nereid of flaws in this type of resarch and these flaws are for the most part common to all research on the subject (given by the fact that most papers cite the same studies over and over).

It may be possible to do some real research on the subject, but as yet it appears no one has attempted to. Part of the reason for that, no doubt, is such a thing would be extrordinarily complicated. Him, me, Nereid, virtually the entire scientific community... How many people does it take before you will consider the possibility that you are wrong? (this applies to everyone here who lends credence to these studies) ...concordantly, vis-a-vis. [/matrix] (sorry, couldn't resist).

You'll probably enjoy the link I just posted then, Russ, which shows that the financial backers of the seminal eugenics work were staunch supporters of racism, who most likely sent people out with the express goal of getting results to back up their racism in the first place.(it is a "liberal" link, try not to be too alarmed, ok? )

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Zero
Nate, I'll give you one last chance to take a wild stab at why I would possibly feel that any inclusion of Pygmies in a brain-size study would almost certainly show inherently poor methodology.

It's roughly the same reason that your claim that research about race and IQ correlations is flawed because of excessive pygmy sample use in a skull size survey: poor sampling.
I may have misunderstood the paragraph that I quoted, but the claim it makes, at least without context, is that all research regarding race and IQ is flawed.

My personal experience with this type of research is that it is generally post hoc -- it seems to invariably be a survey of some other research or surveys, so that selective sampling (of research) is readily possible, and my position on the issue is probably close to Russ's:

It may be possible to do some real research on the subject, but as yet it appears no one has attempted to. Part of the reason for that, no doubt, is such a thing would be extrordinarily complicated.

Originally posted by Zero
*edited to add*Wait...you didn't just defend creationism, did you?

Only in the sense that I don't agree with the argument you're making. You're conflating creationism with IQ correlation is a form of a straw man argument. Essentially what you said is
"Creationism is like eugenics. Creationism and eugenics are unscientific and wrong. Anything that indicates that either of them is correct is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to further a political agenda or provide people with excuses." You did spice things up by thowing in other emotionally loaded or controversial terms like 'nazi', "intelligent design', and 'propaganda', but it's not exactly a well formed argument. (OT: Since nazi was used appropriately, Goodwin's law does not apply)

In a more general sense, the problem with your posts is that they are not persuasive. They generally follow the format of "foo is wrong/unscientific/bad", and while expessing your position is fine, it doesn't really make for a usefull discussion to just endlessly repeat statements of that form.

Some of the other posters - Evo, Russ, and Adam who posted in this thread for example - back up their claims with reason, or at least identify how they reached the position that they have.

Here are paraphasings:

Adam - I think people should reproduce selectively because it can prevent problem x.
Evo - Study foo is flawed because there were too many pygmys and bushmen in the sample.
Russ - Race and IQ correlation research appears to be flawed in general because all of the studies that we've seen have had flaws.
Zero - Eugenics is wrong.

The part after the because is important not only because it makes the arguments more persuasive, but also because it identifies misunderstandings and/or fundamental differences. Consider, for example the distinction between eugenics as 'state controlled human breeding program' and 'selective reproduction' that came up in this thread.

By the bye, describing the use of amniocentesis combined with elective abortion as genetic engineering is questionable because genetic engineering typically refers to recombinant DNA. Similarly, testing for recessive genes to reduce the risk of inhereted disorders in progency is also probably not genetic engineering.

 

[Zero]

Nate...if you don't like my posting style...ummm...tough. Ya big goofball!

Eugenics is flawed BECAUSE it is a bunch of Nazi propaganda...happy?

 

[Nachtwolf]

NateTG says:My personal experience with this type of research is that it is generally post hoc -- it seems to invariably be a survey of some other research or surveys, so that selective sampling (of research) is readily possible

Nate, haven't you been paying attention to where I repeatedly asked Zero to provide a single study contradicting what I've said? If you think there's selective sampling going on, find me one study where blacks have higher IQs than whites or East Asians, or where they have larger brains. I know I was using this as a means of ridiculing Zero, but I'd genuinely appreciate it if you could even show me one such study. Right now - and I'm just being honest, here - I don't think they exist.

Zero says:
Eugenics is flawed BECAUSE it is a bunch of Nazi propaganda...happy?

No, eugenics was around before the Nazis, having been created in Britain by a relative of Charles Darwin named Francis Galton, and implemented throughout a variety of Western societies, including my home state of California. The Germans came somewhat late to the game. To conflate eugenics with Nazism because the Nazis believed in it just like everyone else did, and to then shout "it's discredited because of the Nazis!" is like saying that the Nazis believed in a round Earth so "the world must be flat!" This is of course utterly absurd, and it only further demonstrates what I've said before about you having a fundamental inability to understand what this whole thing is about, Zero.

The most amusing thing here is that even after I've just explained this to you, you still won't get it. You'll continue to believe on faith that eugenics is bad and continue to make an utter fool of yourself.


--Mark

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf Nate, haven't you been paying attention to where I repeatedly asked Zero to provide a single study contradicting what I've said? If you think there's selective sampling going on, find me one study where blacks have higher IQs than whites or East Asians, or where they have larger brains. I know I was using this as a means of ridiculing Zero, but I'd genuinely appreciate it if you could even show me one such study. Right now - and I'm just being honest, here - I don't think they exist.

Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late
19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc. Ricklan and Tobias 1986

 

[Nereid]

hitssquad: A race made from a mixture of races can be a new race, as long as the resulting population inbreeds and breeds true. This has been going on for 10,000 years in the field of animal husbandry, and it apparently happened in the case of a group of 35 some-odd million Americans who -- with some degree of consistency -- self-identify today as blacks.

Hitssquad and Nereid have discussed this point too, elsewhere in Social Sciences.

Nereid observed that, since the US Supreme Court ruled, in 1967, that laws against 'inter-racial marriage' are unconstitutional, the rate of 'white-black' marriage (expressed as a % of 'black-black' marriages) has been increasing (according to Census Bureau data); at first it grew very quickly, then the rate of increase slowed down (but it continued its remorseless increase), and today is ~1 in 10. Of course, 'marriage' is not the same as 'breeding'. Perhaps someone steeped in population dynamics can tell us whether an 'out-breeding rate' of 1:10 meets hitssquad's criteria ("the resulting population inbreeds and breeds true"), especially as - according to hitssquad - the offspring overwhelmingly self-identify as 'blacks'.

hitssquad: The two distributions superimposed might look like this. The positive skew noticable in the black distribution might be the result of progressively both greater and rarer caucasian admixtures in the American black gene pool.

Thank you hitssquad, if the author of the webpage you provided the link to has drawn the curve accurately, it's confirmation that much of the g-nexus rests on rather shaky statistical grounds. Why was it so difficult to bring this manifest non-Gaussianity to light?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late
19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc. Ricklan and Tobias 1986

1. Good job; that's interesting, thanks. I'll remember that.

2. You've shown me a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison. I hope you won't fault me if I say:

I rest my case.


--Mark

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
2. You've shown me a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison. I hope you won't fault me if I say:

I rest my case.

Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. Nice to meet you.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
2. You've shown me a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison.

It happens to be in one of the 6 studies sited by Rushton (although he didn't use this bit of information) along with the HO et al reference "you" posted without a URL. You don't have it? I'm surprised.

You did say "any study". I gave you what you asked for.

 

[hitssquad]

Ricklan Tobias Zulu

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late
19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc. Ricklan and Tobias 1986

a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison.

Google returns http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/november-1994/0088.html of Ricklan Tobias Zulu:


--
Rushton cited several papers on brain size and IQ differences and I have now had a chance to carefully read them...

BRAIN SIZE- Rushton submitted 6 references to support the conclusion that brain size is largest among Asians, intermediate among Euros and smallest among Afros. I will summarize the main results of each and then discuss the overall pattern...

Ricklan and Tobias 1986. This paper reports a mean endocranial volume for 50 male and 50 female Zulu of South Africa. The sample came from cadavers which the authors point out come mainly from the lower socioeconomic strata of society. Male cranial volume was 1373.3cc and female volume was 1251.2. This gives a combined sex mean of 1312.3cc. The main point of the paper is to emphasize the low level of sexual dimorphism in this population. The authors review a good deal of material on cranial volume in African populations and report means for 1) American Negros; 2) other African Negros; and 3) South African Negros. Their data (p.289) show largest cranial volumes for South Africans Negros (1310cc mixed sex mean), followed by other African Negros (1285 cc mixed sex mean), and then American Negros (1282cc mixed sex mean). The authors also present some data that suggest a negative secular trend in cranial capacity among the Zulus during the past 100 years (ie. volumes may have been decreasing in time). It is known that Zulus have shown a negative secular trend in stature during the past century and also that stature correlates with cranial volume. Thus a negative secular trend in cranial volume might be expected. Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late 19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc (or a 6% larger volume) at that time. [/color]
--




Here's the abstract of the Ricklan and Tobias study as indexed on medline:


--
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1986 Nov;71(3):285-93.

Unusually low sexual dimorphism of endocranial capacity in a Zulu cranial series.

Ricklan DE, Tobias PV.

The mean cranial capacities of 50 male and 50 female Zulu crania were found to be 1373.3 +/- 107.4 ml for males and 1251.2 +/- 101.1 ml for females (means +/- SD). The male value resembles that of other Negro groups, while the female value is somewhat higher than the value for Negro crania as a whole. The index of sexual dimorphism is 8.9%, which is low when compared with those of other Negroid series and other populations. The possible causes for this form of a low sexual dimorphism are as follows: A negative secular trend, with the assumption that the Zulu crania were larger than those of the reference populations of African Negroids before the start of the secular trend change. This would seem to be the most likely possibility, with some supporting evidence for both parts of the explanation. An absence of secular trend, with a demographic sampling aberration, in which large females and small males of the population are sampled. This possibility cannot be totally excluded. An absence of secular trend, with a genetic difference in sexual dimorphism for cranial capacity between the Zulu and the reference populations. While this possibility cannot be excluded, it would be the least preferable explanation.

PMID: 3812650 [/color]
--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3812650&dopt=Abstract




-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. Nice to meet you.

I'm a Seeker, Russ. Since you're ignorant of Millennium, and too lazy to check the website I devoted to that wonderful religion, you may not know that it revolves around three tenets:

1. Self Doubt
2. Objectivity
3. Reason

I glanced at the above which you wrote, and at Evo's comment underneath it, and thought, "I should remember Self Doubt here. I'm not always right. It looks like I did something wrong." I was ready to apologize; I was thinking about how I should phrase it. Meanwhile I sat down. And I clicked, and clicked, and clicked. And I looked through the thread and scanned through the posts I'd been ignoring to make sure I knew what this "pot to kettle" thing was in reference to. Two possibilities emerge.

Possibility 1:

From Ho et. al. (1988) "Covariation Between Intelligence and speed of Cognitive processing. Genetic and environmental influences" (Published in Behavioral Genetics, 18, page 247-261.)

White Males (413)... Brain Weight: 1392g... Brain Weight Ht.Adjusted: 1392g

Black Males (228)... Brain Weight: 1286g... Brain Weight Ht.Adjusted: 1290g

Note where I supplied a date, title, and place of publication so that anyone who wished could look it up. Note also where I supplied a white male size, and a black male size, for comparison. What did I complain about, Russ? Maybe the extremely old date on Evo's source, the lack of a comparison group to give the data she supplied some relative meaning, the lack of a title and place of publication, and my inability to look it up.

(Note to Evo: I didn't find my source through Ruston's work; I found it through Jensen's The g Factor, so of course, I didn't have a URL, did I? I gave you the source information I had, and it was plenty.)


Possibility 2:

"Other people dismiss your studies, and now you're dismissing Evo's!"

Yeah. Because it had no reference group so there's no brain size disparity, just a mean value, because there was no title so I wasn't even be sure this study existed, and because it's over a hundred years old! What do you want me to say? "Oh my God, this totally refutes all the myriad studies which are more recent and use better methods like MRI!" I thanked Evo for providing it, and she should be happy with that, because it is, honestly, pathetic.

"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

I could tell you that this doesn't show up in my dictionary, but this is more to the point - which race do I think is superior to others, Russ? American Blacks, with their high ratio of fast twitch to short twitch muscle fiber, high bone density, and high T-levels, which grant them a powerful edge throughout the entire sporting arena? East Asians, with their excellent Visuospatial ability which lends them skill in the sciences? Jews, perhaps, with the best apparent verbal ability on the planet and high earning power? Or whites, with their noteworthy Field Independence? Read your own definition and understand my positions before b****ing to me about me being a racist - I don't believe in the superiority of anyone race, so no, I'm not a racist even by your definition of the word, am I?

Then clarify it. Simplify. Boil it down. HOW EXACTLY do you plan/hope to achieve this?

If you really cared about my intentions and beliefs, you could have figured them out without too much trouble by dropping by the website I run. If you check the section labeled "strategies" under http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm , you'll see these things listed:

Socialized Birth Control
Voluntary Measures
Welfare Reform
Prison Reform
Immigration Reform
Research

You'll also note that I say this:

Many people have simplistic ideas about what eugenics ultimately boils down to. The two main methods for affecting eugenic change which come to mind when you mention the word "eugenics" to someone is either mass sterilization or genetic manipulation, neither of which are seriously spoken of amongst modern eugenists regardless of religious or political affiliation.

You people oppose, and oppose, and oppose, and it's all one giant straw man. Nereid at least understands whom she's arguing against. She bores me to tears but she has a clue what this is about. Did it ever even occur to you, Russ (or Zero), as I was busily telling you that you weren't getting it, that you weren't getting it?

Nachtwolf repeatedly ignored questions, said he was too busy to address manifest inconsistencies in his assertions

I'm not trying to bust your chops here, Nereid, but you keep picking at this, and I keep telling you that I don't care about your trivial points. I'm sorry if you feel left out or disappointed or irritated or whatever because I don't reply. Sometimes you say things that I think are interesting or at least worth a rebuttal; most of the time, it's a waste. See what I just did for Russ? Those points he raised were trivial, and my responding to them was ultimately a waste of my time.

So let me be crystal clear for you, and Russ, and Evo, and everybody else in the Nachtwolf Fan Club over here: If I don't reply to your posts, or if I seem like I'm dismissive of or unaffected by your comments, it's because they're lame, and I have better things to do than assuage your ego and make you feel as though your concerns are valid when they aren't.

Let this be a blanket explanation which serves the next time I don't respond to your posts or don't rush to explain my position. You people can continue to heckle and harass me with these stupid charges of racism and these inept mischaracterizations of my goals and philosophy; just don't expect me to act horrified and struggle to defend myself. I don't want to be needlessly harsh, here, but I'm not responsible for what you believe, and I can't be blamed for your misunderstanding my ideas. If you really are that interested in eugenics, you can always do what Nereid has, and go to the Millennium website, where you will learn more than you ever wanted to about what I think. And if you decide after reading it that I'm even more horrible than you ever imagined, that's fine; just please don't ask me to explain this again, because I'm juggling hot babes and tough classes and just don't have the energy.


--Mark


P.S. Adam: I'd have liked to discuss further your apparent promotion of genetic tinkering, which as I've said is unusual for eugenists and which I'm not really for, but it'll have to wait. Also, it's good to see that you understand that race and eugenics aren't linked. I can appreciate that you think the entire subject of race is dodgy; you may be surprised to learn that I used to try to avoid the subject of race entirely, but everywhere I went, the Ad Hominem Nazi/racist connections just poured down, so I realized that I couldn't run away from them. If you can avoid race, while still standing up for your apparently eugenic sentiments, more power to you, and good luck.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid: Nachtwolf repeatedly ignored questions, said he was too busy to address manifest inconsistencies in his assertions[/color]
Nachtwolf: I'm not trying to bust your chops here, Nereid, but you keep picking at this, and I keep telling you that I don't care about your trivial points.

Some questions which Nachtwolf didn't answer seem to go right to heart of his case:

1) In Singapore, the government, concerned that high IQ professionals seemed to be having few children (or not even marrying), while low IQ folk were having plenty, instituted a program that seems quite similar to what Nachtwolf is advocating. The program failed. Nachtwolf considers this - one of the few (only?) programs directed at addressing what he states as his key concern - a 'trivial' point?

2) Nachtwolf, unlike Lynn or hitssquad, seems to believe that environmental changes cannot affect IQ to any significant extent; he also believes that population groups (which he incorrectly calls 'races') have fixed average IQ. As support for these beliefs he cites the Lynn and Vanhanen study (among others). Leaving aside the fact that L+V's work is deeply flawed and that their stated conclusion quite unsupported by even the data they supply, L+V contains ample material which contradicts Natchwolf's beliefs. Strange that he feels these contradictions 'trivial'.

3) Nachtwolf listed 6 'facts' of 'grim importance' and asserted that his proposed eugenics program would remedy them. Upon closer examination, it turns out that one 'fact' is simply Nachtwolf's prediction, one is a misstatement of Lynn and Vanhanen's conclusion (which is inconsistent with the data they themselves use!), and the remaining four would remain 'facts of grim importance' even if Nachtwolf's eugenics program were to raise the average IQ in the US by 40 points. Trivial?

Here's what really puzzles me: as measured by those who post to the 'IQ threads', Natchwolf has failed to win any hearts and minds (which he needs to do if he is to win support for his cherished program - hearts and minds in general, not just on PF). I don't know about those who read these posts but don't make posts of their own. So why is Nachtwolf still here? Is he - in a different community, on a different webforum, in a different way - using the material posted here for an entirely different purpose?

 

[Zero]

I'm still trying to figure out how ANY of this isn't racist neo-Nazi propaganda. The studies are deeply flawed, it has been shown that the financial supporters of the studies had ulterior motives, and general support of nonsense.

Further, the whole thing seems to rest on two factors: inherent racism and false nonconformist thinking. There is no rational thinking associated with eugenics(look at how Nachtwolf seems to thing that crainal size is the be-all end-all of intelligence), nor is there any independent thinking. Real science rejects eugenics, because it is nonsense, based on an objective look at the evidence. On teh eugenics side is a series of studies that are deeply skewed by researcher bias.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf I'm a Seeker, Russ. Since you're ignorant of Millennium, and too lazy to check the website I devoted to that wonderful religion, you may not know that it revolves around three tenets:

1. Self Doubt
2. Objectivity
3. Reason

I have been to Nachtwolf's website. These links are recommended there:

• Race as a Biological Concept
• Race, Genetics, and Human Reproductive Strategies
• On the biological meaning of race
• Race Differences in Intelligence: a Global Perspective
• Does Race Matter - Recent Developments
• The Reality of Race - A Summary of John R. Baker's book: "Race"
• Virtue in "Racism"
• Race, Evolution, and Behavior Summary - by Glayde Whitney
• Race, Evolution, and Behavior Summary - by Mark Snyderman

Nachtwolf is always citing the biased and distorted research of Rushton, as in the brain size studies he posted in this thread. Rushton is a known racist and Rushton is plastered all over Nachtwolf's website.

I posted part of this in another thread, but it actually is more appropriate in this thread, so forgive me for posting it again if you have already seen it.

Rushton receives a lot of financial backing from the Pioneer Fund.

Here is an excerpt from the article discussing Rushton.

"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."

Here is the information on the Pioneer Fund.

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

 

[Zero]

Thanks again, Evo...that matches and confirms the link I posted earlier. This is a movement funded and populated with racists, not open-minded people who go where "mainstream science" is afraid or unwilling to go.

What all these brain-size studies really are is a throwback to the pseudoscience of phrenology. A more interesting study would be to link individual brain size with individual IQ...Evo, I know there was a study done on this, mind helping me find it?

More importantly, using this single factor in isolation as a predictor of mental development ignores current data in neurology and cognition. There are studies that show that genetics plays only a partial role in brain function. Environment plays a key role, especially post-natal. The brain of a newborn is basically unfinished, and forms connections between brain cells based on external stimulus. There was another study, and I'm going to hunt it down, that shows a solid link between upbringing and brain development.

In other words, there is a lot of really interesting work being done in teh field, work that the rasict Eugenics groups ignore in favor of nonsense from the Pioneer Fund's chosen pseudoscientists.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Note where I supplied a date, title, and place of publication so that anyone who wished could look it up. Note also where I supplied a white male size, and a black male size, for comparison. What did I complain about, Russ? Maybe the extremely old date on Evo's source, the lack of a comparison group to give the data she supplied some relative meaning, the lack of a title and place of publication, and my inability to look it up.

(Note to Evo: I didn't find my source through Ruston's work; I found it through Jensen's The g Factor, so of course, I didn't have a URL, did I? I gave you the source information I had, and it was plenty.)

I was poking fun at you. You were so smug challenging anyone to find just ONE single reference that showed a larger African brain size. I furnished what you asked for. Funny how it got your knickers in such a knot! It wasn't an attempt to refute the biased information you've posted. I'm afraid I don't take you seriously enough to go to that much trouble.

originally posted by Nachtwolf - I'm not trying to bust your chops here, Nereid, but you keep picking at this, and I keep telling you that I don't care about your trivial points. I'm sorry if you feel left out or disappointed or irritated or whatever because I don't reply. Sometimes you say things that I think are interesting or at least worth a rebuttal; most of the time, it's a waste. See what I just did for Russ? Those points he raised were trivial, and my responding to them was ultimately a waste of my time.

So let me be crystal clear for you, and Russ, and Evo, and everybody else in the Nachtwolf Fan Club over here: If I don't reply to your posts, or if I seem like I'm dismissive of or unaffected by your comments, it's because they're lame, and I have better things to do than assuage your ego and make you feel as though your concerns are valid when they aren't.

Let this be a blanket explanation which serves the next time I don't respond to your posts or don't rush to explain my position. You people can continue to heckle and harass me with these stupid charges of racism and these inept mischaracterizations of my goals and philosophy; just don't expect me to act horrified and struggle to defend myself. I don't want to be needlessly harsh, here, but I'm not responsible for what you believe, and I can't be blamed for your misunderstanding my ideas. If you really are that interested in eugenics, you can always do what Nereid has, and go to the Millennium website, where you will learn more than you ever wanted to about what I think. And if you decide after reading it that I'm even more horrible than you ever imagined, that's fine; just please don't ask me to explain this again, because I'm juggling hot babes and tough classes and just don't have the energy.

This is hysterical! Oh Nachtwolf, stop, you're killing me! I haven't laughed this hard in ages. You're not only a crackpot, you're a seriously deluded one.

 

[Zero]

Oh Christ, he's got goals and a philosophy... ...thank goodness his hot classes and tough babes keep him occupied, or he'd be the next Hitler for sure!

For those of you who are college aged: is racism the new pseudo-socialism or pseudo-environmentalism? The new hobby for bored rich kids to dabble with in college before taking over daddy's business or getting married to a senator?

(BTW, Evo...nice name, it reminds me of the world-famous guitar of the same name, which makes me happy)

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Zero A more interesting study would be to link individual brain size with individual IQ...Evo, I know there was a study done on this, mind helping me find it?

I'd love to.

 

[Zero]

I found this one...awfully small sample, but just glancing at the FSIQ in relation to brain size there doesn't seem to be a big correlation...the woman with the smallest brain scored a 101, the second smallest scored a 133, the woman with the largest brain ALSO scored a 133, the woman with teh largest brain scored a 138. The woman with the second largest brain scored a 133, the same as the woman with the second smallest brain. I'm not sure what any of this means...[:P]

http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/ssapra/datafile/brainsiz.htm

 

[Evo]

Nachtwolf has links to the Pioneer Fund's "Mankind Quarterly" articles on his website. No wonder he was so touchy about me revealing who those people are. Kinda blows his whole "no racist or nazi stuff" spiel.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Evo
Nachtwolf has links to the Pioneer Fund's "Mankind Quarterly" articles on his website. No wonder he was so touchy about me revealing who those people are. Kinda blows his whole "no racist or nazi stuff" spiel.

LOL

That brings up the question of intellectual honesty, at least in my eyes. Why not just admit that you think black people are inferior, and at least be honest? Why take a false intellectual stance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position? I understand the Pioneer Fund, at least, because they are a political organization hoping to finish what the Nazis started, by other means. What I don't understand is how they manage to recruit new people, who don't consider themselves to be racists(I'm giving Nachtwolf the benefit of the doubt on this one).

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Nate, haven't you been paying attention to where I repeatedly asked Zero to provide a single study contradicting what I've said? If you think there's selective sampling going on, find me one study where blacks have higher IQs than whites or East Asians, or where they have larger brains.

Why don't you show a study that demonstrates that martian natives have green skin?

Before you can do science about whether therein is a correlation between race and IQ, you need to establish what race is. In order for survey science to be effective you need to have consensus on what a representaive sample consists of.

I expect that people who are careful about sampling rapidly run into the probem that there is no suitable definition of 'black', or 'white' for population sampling.

If you would like, you can compare the average brain size of black NBA players with the average brain size of white sixth graders. I doubt that you'll find that the NBA players have smaller brains.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by NateTG
Why don't you show a study that demonstrates that martian natives have green skin?

Before you can do science about whether therein is a correlation between race and IQ, you need to establish what race is. In order for survey science to be effective you need to have consensus on what a representaive sample consists of.

I expect that people who are careful about sampling rapidly run into the probem that there is no suitable definition of 'black', or 'white' for population sampling.

If you would like, you can compare the average brain size of black NBA players with the average brain size of white sixth graders. I doubt that you'll find that the NBA players have smaller brains.

Like I mentioned earlier, that sort of study, one that might give an accurate picture of the situation, would require hundreds of people, decades of study, and more tens of millions of dollars than anyone is willing to devote to it. Instead, some of the Eugenics folks stand outside and ask people how large their penises are...

 

[Evo]

Here are some interesting stats on brain size. I will edit later to add the URL.

Let us look at a study reported by Kuhlenbeck (1973) with regards to intelligence and brain size. Studies of brains of "outstanding" or "genius" human individuals have been interpreted to show some statistical correlation between high brain weight and intellectual capacity. However, in individual cases, a person with a low brain weight around 1017g was highly gifted while another with a brain of 1800g was extremely mentally handicapped. In addition, one of the highest recorded human brain weights, mentions Kuhlenbeck, is said to have reached 2850g and this person was reported to be "an epileptic affected with idiocy" (Kuhlenbeck, 1973, 732). How does this affect our use of absolute magnitude of brain size to correlate with intelligence?

For another example, the average weight of a "typical" adult male is +- 1400 while an adult female brain weight averages at +- 1300. Does this mean that males are more intelligent, more advanced than female humans? If we correlated large brain size with increased intelligence, then we would have to assume this comparison, yet on a whole it has not been documented that males are any more intelligent than females.

Thus, it seems that statistical correlation of brain weight and "superior intellectual ability" remains rather inconclusive. Therefore, perhaps we should find another method for comparing brain sizes and structures of various species.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int2.html

 

[hitssquad]

Brain weight/volume and IQ

Originally posted by Evo
Studies of brains of "outstanding" or "genius" human individuals have been interpreted to show some statistical correlation between high brain weight and intellectual capacity.

What studies and interpretations were those?

in individual cases, a person with a low brain weight around 1017g was highly gifted while another with a brain of 1800g was extremely mentally handicapped... one of the highest recorded human brain weights, mentions Kuhlenbeck, is said to have reached 2850g and this person was reported to be "an epileptic affected with idiocy" (Kuhlenbeck, 1973, 732).

--
Developmental PET scan studies in individuals from early childhood to maturity show decreasing utilization of glucose in all areas of the brain as individuals mature. In other words, the brain's glucose uptake curve is inversely related to the negatively accelerated curve of mental age, from early childhood to maturity. The increase in the brain's metabolic efficiency seems to be related to the "neural pruning," or normal spontaneous decrease in synaptic density. The spontaneous decrease is greatest during the first several years of life. "Neural pruning" apparently results in greater efficiency of the brain's capacity for information processing. Paradoxical as it may seem, an insufficient loss of neurons during early maturation is associated with some types of mental retardation. [/color]
--
The g Factor. Chapter 6: Biological Correlates of g. p158.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

the average weight of a "typical" adult male is +- 1400 while an adult female brain weight averages at +- 1300. Does this mean that males are more intelligent, more advanced than female humans? If we correlated large brain size with increased intelligence, then we would have to assume this comparison, yet on a whole it has not been documented that males are any more intelligent than females.

Jensen's answer to this was recently reproduced in a Physics Forums post titled https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=156404&highlight=mysteries#post156404. Here it is again:


--
One of the unsolved mysteries regarding the relation of brain size to IQ is the seeming paradox that there is a considerable sex difference in brain size (the adult female brain being about 100 cm^3 smaller than the male) without there being a corresponding sex difference in IQ. ^{[13]} It has been argued that some IQ tests have purposely eliminated items that discriminate between the sexes or have balanced-out sex differences in items or subtests. This is not true, however, for many tests such as Raven's matrices, which is almost a pure measure of g, yet shows no consistent or significant sex difference. Also, the differing g loadings of the subscales of the Wechsler Intelligence Test are not correlated with the size of the sex difference on the various subtests. ^{[14]} The correlation between brain size and IQ is virtually the same for both sexes.The explanation for the well-established mean sex difference in brain size is still somewhat uncertain, although one hypothesis has been empirically tested, with positive results. Properly controlling (by regression) the sex difference in body size diminishes, but by no means eliminates, the sex difference in brain size. Three plausible hypotheses have been proposed to explain the sex difference (of about 8 percent) in average brain size between the sexes despite there being no sex difference in g:

• Possible sexual dimorphism in neural circuitry or in overall neural conduction velocity could cause the female brain to process information more efficiently.
  
• The brain size difference could be due to the one ability factor, independent of g, that unequivocally shows a large sex difference, namely, spatial visualization ability, in which only 25 percent of females exceed the male median. Spatial ability could well depend upon a large number of neurons, and males may have more of these "spatial ability" neurons than females, thereby increasing the volume of the male brain.
  
• Females have the same amount of functional neural tissue as males but there is greater "packing density" of the neurons in the female brain. While the two previous hypotheses remain purely speculative at present, there is recent direct evidence for a sex difference in the "packing density" of neurons. ^{[15]} In the cortical regions most directly related to cognitive ability, the autopsied brains of adult women possessed, on average, about 11 percent more neurons per unit volume than were found in the brain of adult men. The males and females were virtually equated on Wechsler Full Scale IQ (112.3 and 110.6, respectively). The male brains were about 12.5 percent heavier than the female brains. Hence the greater neuronal packing density in the female brain nearly balances the larger size of the male brain. Of course, further studies based on histological, MRI, and PET techniques will be needed to establish the packing density hypothesis as the definitive explanation for the seeming paradox of the two sexes differing in brain size but not differing in IQ despite a correlation of about +.40 between these variables within each sex group.

[/color]--
The g Factor. Chapter 6: Biological Correlates of g. pp148-149.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874



Not every author agrees that the evidence indicates equal IQs between men and women. And the present author has offered the explanation that the greater fragility of males, via organic stunting of IQ, masks the difference in IQ that would be predicted by the male-female difference in brain weight and also explains the larger standard deviation found in the male IQ distribution.

perhaps we should find another method for comparing brain sizes and structures of various species.

We might examine genetic influence on brain structure in relation to mental abilities. 3-D MRI maps of unrelated subjects and 10 fraternal and 10 identical twin pairs were derived by Thompson et al, 2001, who found that "a highly significant relationship (**p < 0.0044) exists between gray matter volume in the frontal cortex and Spearman’s g." (p1256.)

As noted by Jensen, body-size controlled brain volume is correlated with IQ at r = .40; non-autonomic brain volume is even more correlated with IQ; and frontal brain volume may have the highest correlation with IQ.

Thompson et al, 2001, also note that:


--
...a recent abstract also observed that differences in regional gray matter volume were significantly correlated with differences in IQ, in a sample of 28 pediatric MZ twin pairs (mean age, 12.1 years) studied volumetrically (E. Molloy et al., 7th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, 447, Brighton, England, 2001).

In frontal brain regions, a regionally specific linkage has previously been found^{39} between g and metabolic activity measured by positron emission tomography (PET), suggesting that general cognitive ability may in part derive from a specific frontal system important in controlling diverse forms of behavior. Frontal regions also show task-dependent activity in tests involving working (short-term) memory, divided and sustained attention, and response selection^{40}. Genetic factors may therefore contribute to structural differences in the brain that are statistically linked with cognitive differences. This is especially noteworthy, as cognitive performance seems to be linked with brain structure in the very regions where structure is under greatest genetic control (Figs. 2 and 3). This emphasizes the pronounced contribution of genetic factors to structural and functional differences across individuals, as detected here in frontal brain regions. [/color]
--
(p1255)




-Chris