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

[Evo]

Hmmm funny it seems I already posted 4. Would you like to me post another 10?

You have posted 0 in reponse to MY request. Please post them in reponse to this request, or admit you don't have anything to post. I'm waiting.

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

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

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

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

Hasn't hitssquad already debunked your Bouchard comments? Enough said.

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

Why don't you post a few?

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

Again, I don't have a fixation, *you* are the one that keeps bringing Bouchard up, why, I have no idea.

This isn't about Bouchard. You bring up Rushton. There certainly is far more in the field than just Rushton.

Because Bouchard, Rushton, Lynn, Jenson, etc... are all affiliated with the Pioneer Fund, see some connection here?

What did I tell you about funding? Look up "irrelevance" in your dictionary. An alien word to you. This is like saying any politician that accepts funding from Microsoft is tainted. Let's see who Microsoft donated to in the last election. Oh yes that's right both Bush AND gore. And pretty much funds any politician that runs every election.

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

I have yet to see you post one single thing that can refute anything I've said.

Funny how this is how I think about you.

I've answered all of your questions that were on the topic we were discussing. I have a lot of posts to make, I have to get the information off another laptop and I simply haven't had the time. Since I am still waiting for you to respond to my first request, I didn't feel any urgency.

What first request? And you've avoided my questions from the way beginning. Don't give me that BS. I asked for actual evidence that refutes the Bell Curve. The only thing you did was whine about the Pioneer Fund. This is your defense? Really?

The Bell Curve is flawed. Read this.

Sloppy Statistics, Bogus Science and the Assault on Racial Equity

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

http://www.raceandhistory.com/histo...iews/ukwise.htm

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

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

You have posted 0 in reponse to MY request. Please post them in reponse to this request, or admit you don't have anything to post. I'm waiting.

I already posted 4. If you're too blind to see them then that's your own problem. And what request?

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

How blind are you really? Does your brain just ignore information that it doesn't want to input? I already posted 4. Do you want me to simply post them again? You might want to go get that neurological disorder checked out.

 

[BlackVision]

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

 

[Evo]

Hasn't hitssquad already debunked your Bouchard comments? Enough said.

No, he hasn't yet, but he is doing a great job of finding items to prove my previous article wrong. Something you are incapable of.

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

Making more money than you will ever hope to.

What the hell? Didn't I just say Arthur Jensen.

ROFLMAO! You think a name, without providing any information whatsoever, is a way to substantiate a claim you are making?

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

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

No, he hasn't yet, but he is doing a great job of finding items to prove my previous article wrong. Something you are incapable of.

And yet you fail to prove me wrong. Still fail to provide any shred of evidence.

Making more money than you will ever hope to.

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

ROFLMAO! You think a name, without providing any information whatsoever, is a way to substantiate a claim you are making?

Wasn't it you that kept saying to provide names? I provided one and you completely ignored it. And do I really have to bother providing and explaining Arthur Jensen's work? Who's pretty much the most famous psychologist of all time? If you don't know his work, if I actually have to explain to you what he does, then that's quite sad.

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

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

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

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)

 

[Evo]

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

Because you are so dense, I will do this one last time. An intelligent person usually is able to respond with fewer words. I've only refused to be sidetracked and chosen not to answer questions that were unrelated to our discussion.

And yet you fail to prove me wrong. Still fail to provide any shred of evidence.

On the contrary, I proved YOU wrong in my first post, and you have yet to disprove me. End of discussion.

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

If you live in LA and your house only costs $1 million, you're barely middle class dear.

Wasn't it you that kept saying to provide names?

Nope, I never asked for a name.

I provided one and you completely ignored it. And do I really have to bother providing and explaining Arthur Jensen's work? Who's pretty much the most famous psychologist of all time? If you don't know his work, if I actually have to explain to you what he does, then that's quite sad.

Oh, I am quite familiar with Jensen, he is a well known racist. I have quite a bit of information on him.

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

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

I loved it when you kept telling me that I can't read and I didn't post a Washington Post article only to prove you wrong. (that's me laughing at you)

Uhm, you obviously can't read because I have NEVER said that you didn't post a Washington Post article. Go back, read all the posts then tuck your tail between your legs and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[BlackVision]

Because you are so dense, I will do this one last time. An intelligent person usually is able to respond with fewer words. I've only refused to be sidetracked and chosen not to answer questions that were unrelated to our discussion.

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

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

On the contrary, I proved YOU wrong in my first post, and you have yet to disprove me. End of discussion.

Well you can keep thinking that but your lack of ability to answer any of my questions is proof in itself.

If you live in LA and your house only costs $1 million, you're barely middle class dear.

Los Angeles County: $209,300 median house value

But again. Economical status here is irrelevant.

Source: US Census Bureau

Nope, I never asked for a name. Oh, I am quite familiar with Jensen, he is a well known racist. I have quite a bit of information on him.

Yes yes cause anyone that doesn't agree with you is of course racist. No matter how much science and facts are behind it. Funny how Thomas Sowell, a black academic, has strong support for Arthur Jensen, this so called "racist"

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

Again your decision to focus on funding shows the weakness of your case. Like I said, it doesn't matter if Hitler himself funds a project. That itself doesn't disprove anything. If you want to begin refuting something, you refute the facts. Since you are unable to do this, you choose to attack funding. Again very weak.

Uhm, you obviously can't read because I have NEVER said that you didn't post a Washington Post article. Go back, read all the posts then tuck your tail between your legs and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

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

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

Yeah ok.

 

[Evo]

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

Murray & Herrnstein have both been debunked.

Los Angeles County: $209,300 median house value

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

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

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

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

 

[BlackVision]

Murray & Herrnstein have both been debunked.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

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

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

Top 10 Median Home Prices in America:

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

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

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

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

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

Um Washington Post WAS one of my links. I think you're getting deeper and deeper.

 

[Moonbear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

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

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

Mean IQ Correlation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

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

 

[hitssquad]

Bouchard's responses in the April 12, 1991 issue of Science

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

The last couple of entries are Dudley's and Beckwith's separate criticisms of Bouchard's October 1990 Science article. Here again are those criticisms published in the April 12th, 1991 issue of Science:

• Dudley, Richard M. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
  AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27363-001.
  • •
  Criticizes the use of IQ score correlation of monozygotic twins reared apart as an estimate of IQ heritability in the population at large as reported by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). It is argued that Bouchard et al erroneously assumed no environmental similarity for co-twins.
  
  
• Beckwith, Jonathan; Geller, Lisa; Sarkar, Sahotra. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
  AN: Journal Article: 1991-27352-001.
  • •
  Criticizes the claim of T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001) that several psychological traits are highly heritable and therefore genetic in origin. It is argued that some of their data have not been published in a format that permits independent scrutiny. Bouchard et al also fail to cite articles containing case studies of the impact of environment on twins.

Here again are Bouchard's responses to both Dudley's and Beckwith's criticisms in the same April 12th, 1991 issue of Science:

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

Edit:[/color] Here are jpegs of the first and second (of the two concerning Bouchard) pages of responses printed in the April 12th, 1991 issue of Science.

Edit2:[/color] Beckwith, in his criticism here, mentions that the case studies should be "fully published":

• ...Given these essential problems in assessing the impact of the environment on twins, it is imperative that case studies be fully published. In 12 years, the Minnesota group have not provided these case studies, and the two apparently relevant articles cited by Bouchard et al (1) contain no relevant case studies.
  
  1. T. J. Bouchard, Jr., N. L. Segal, D. T. Lykken, Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 39, 193 (1990); D. T. Lykken, T. J. Bouchard, Jr., M. McGue, A. Tellegan, ibid, p. 35.

 

[Evo]

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

I was referring to my neighborhood, since you mentioned your neighborhood, I don't see where I said that was the starting price for homes in town. Obviously you think a neighborhood is a town.

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

I love it, the more you write the more you show your lack of intelligence. LA is overpopulated, of course there is more demand for housing, this is why I choose to live here.

Um Washington Post WAS one of my links. I think you're getting deeper and deeper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

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

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

Here's the CURRENT Pioneer Fund, a RACIST organization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

Pioneer Fund Facts

More on the Pioneer Fund.

A movement begins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BlackVision]

I was referring to my neighborhood, since you mentioned your neighborhood, I don't see where I said that was the starting price for homes in town. Obviously you think a neighborhood is a town.

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

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

I love it, the more you write the more you show your lack of intelligence. LA is overpopulated, of course there is more demand for housing, this is why I choose to live here.

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

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

Here is my post:

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

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

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

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

LOL. You sure aren't too bright are you? You make yourself look dumber and dumber.

 

[BlackVision]

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.

 

[BlackVision]

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

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

 

[Evo]

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.