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

[Evo]

The number of smilies were intentional. I have you figured out.

Sensitive about the Pioneer Fund, huh?

 

[Zero]

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

Sensitive about the Pioneer Fund, huh?

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

 

[GlamGein]

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

 

[Adam]

There is no biological distiction between the "races".

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

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

 

[Nachtwolf]

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

Hahaha! Well some people learn new things. Others are bioegalitarians and Ismalic fundamentalists.

This is not "racist propaganda". This is reality. Deal with it.

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


--Mark

 

[Adam]

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

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

 

[Nachtwolf]

Well, I'm not saying any group is better than another.

I know; I'm not saying that either, and I'm quite explicit about that here:

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

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

People do have physical differences. Many of these are genetic. Deal with it.

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

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


--Mark

P.S. Information on heritability can be found at

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

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
If present trends persist, the only ones left around will be descended from criminals (heritaility: 60%) [...]. But criminals, [...] have no use for bioegalitarianism, and it is unlikely that my own offspring will be weak-minded enough to fall prey to such delusions.

Given the immense damage
http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/more-reports/RL31866.pdf recently caused, and the scale of their crimes, I guess Mark will be promoting research into the hereditability of high-SES* criminalilty, and will shortly announce a major revision of his disgenics proposals. Let's all hope that Mark doesn't have too many ancestors who committed wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, consipiracy, obstruction of justice, money laundering, tax fraud, insider trading, grand larceny, ... even if they weren't caught

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

 

[mee]

On idiot

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Angel Loupe]

Iq

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

 

[Concept]

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

 

[BlackVision]

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


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

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

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

 

[Concept]

If it was 80% unchangably genetic, that would mean there should be NO people who exhibited a larger than 20% difference. If its the average, that means there are people who show a larger than 20% difference.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

If it was 80% unchangably genetic, that would mean there should be NO people who exhibited a larger than 20% difference. If its the average, that means there are people who show a larger than 20% difference.

Ok FIRST, you have the balance the genetics before doing any comparision. Since one person has different genes than another person, of course the gap between 2 people can and will be greater than 20%. But when you compare people with SAME GENES, aka identical twins, the gap is within 20%.

 

[BlackVision]

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

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

 

[Concept]

Ok FIRST, you have the balance the genetics before doing any comparision. Since one person has different genes than another person, of course the gap between 2 people can and will be greater than 20%. But when you compare people with SAME GENES, aka identical twins, the gap is within 20%.

yes, I was talking about the idential twins. Do you have the exact statistics of the study? The part quoted says they "tend" to be about 80% the same.

 

[Concept]

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

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

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

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

On average, identical twins raised separately are about 50 percent similar -- and that defeats the widespread belief that identical twins are carbon copies. Obviously, they are not. Each is a unique individual in his or her own right."

50 percent similar to behavior. NOT IQ. Other behaviors are more dependent on environment than IQ is. IQ is almost fully genetic.

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

 

[BlackVision]

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

 

[Concept]

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

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

 

[hitssquad]

Process vs outcome - the two PF worldviews clash yet again

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

It was the notes for a lecture purposefully contrasting "hereditarians" and "environmentalists." Inconsistent studies are cited throughout that web page to show that different scientists have different views on IQ heredity.

everyone accepts that genetics play a role in determining intelligence.

In terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

people attempt to quantify exactly how much enviornment vs. heredity plays a role

In terms of heredity, that statement also does not make sense.

There have been studies showing that enviorment influences the extent to which genes are expressed.

Again, in terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

Even if it were shown exactly how much genetics determine intelligence, that wouldn't indicate that enviorment wouldn't be able to change it.

Yet again, in terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

 

[Concept]

how do these statements not make sense?

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

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040303/01

 

[Evo]

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

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

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

Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[Nereid]

I wonder whether BlackVision has any relationship to Nachtwolf?

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

If you had read my post, you would have realized that I was criticizing the lack of scientific peer review. Perhaps you should read a post before making inaccurate assumptions.

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

Here's the truth about the Pioneer Fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.

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

I haven't mentioned the Bell Curve. But it is a well known fact that the authors are racist, now that you mention it.

J Rushton that reaches the exact same conclusion. To call him a racist, again makes no sense. Since when does a racist, like to promote 2 groups above their own?

When it suits their purpose of slandering a particular race.

 

[BlackVision]

If you had read my post, you would have realized that I was criticizing the lack of scientific peer review. Perhaps you should read a post before making inaccurate assumptions.

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

Here's the truth about the Pioneer Fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read what I posted about the Pioneer Fund again. And once again, where one get his research money is a weak argument. You want to refute a research, you refute it's facts, it's data, it's statistics, it's conclusions. If this is your primarily focus, there is no debate.

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.

My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted.

I haven't mentioned the Bell Curve. But it is a well known fact that the authors are racist, now that you mention it.

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

When it suits their purpose of slandering a particular race.

It couldn't simply have to do with using science or finding the truth huh. The fact remains, concluding 2 groups above your own DOES NOT make one a racist.

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