What does Holla Forums think about racial differences in psychometric profiles...

Lol it changes I q to Autism.

Even if race was real and intelligence was purely genetic and blah blah blah all these Nazi cuck fantasies were true it still wouldn't justify excluding black people from any given society or socialism in general.

archive.is/uPGEN
archive.is/I9vEh
archive.is/GFOBo
archive.is/An7zF

Do we need this thread every week?

Heritability is only telling you the % of variance accounted for by genetics between individuals, not between groups; there isn't really any good evidence to rule out the hypothesis that differences in Autism Level between ethnic groups are 100% due to environmental factors like wealth and culture. See science20.com/gerhard_adam/what_heritability-93424 for more info on individual variance vs. group variance.

And for some arguments against the theory of Ashkenazi Jews' higher average Autism Level scores being a result of genetics, see the article at talkreason.org/articles/chosen.cfm

See: Lewontin's Fallacy
humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Edwards, A.W.F. "Human genetic diversity- Lewontin's fallacy." BioEssays 25 (2003).pdf
Also see:

...

the first thread is just this rewritten -
debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ie/2016/07/debunking-more-myths-on-more-blacks-are.html

firstly, general criticisms refuted here - jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/21/refuting-richard-nisbett/
Nisbett is refuted here (proves that brain size is correlated with intelligence)

and there's a few paragraphs here on pg 204 refuting all criticism of spearmans g - larspenke.eu/pdfs/Deary_Penke_Johnson_2010_-_Neuroscience_of_intelligence_review.pdf

And the flynn effect is explained here - analyseeconomique.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/explanation-behind-the-non-g-gains-in-the-flynn-effect-introducing-the-measurement-invariance-model/

leftypol BTFO again

...

The first thread is the original source of the blogpost

Rushton and Jensen had been BTFO countless times, something you'd knew if you read the threads.

lmao

If the heritability of Autism Level is really so high as ~0.7-0.8, why shouldn't we expect it to be heavily affected by directional selection?

As opposed to Lynn inventing half of his data?

Also heritability is not the same thing as quantifying the percentage of a trait resulting from genetics.

debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/

Doesn't detract from the fact that Gould is a complete fraud

Laughable, refuted here - unz.com/pfrost/a-modern-myth/

Do a bit more reading, seems like you need it

Jews have the highest Autism Level, yes, but much like orientals they lack the creative force. This requires them to steal pieces of culture from other civilizations, namely Aryan ones.

...

Bow down before your overlords, meek Aryan

You guys don't know what you're talking about–if you actually read the paper linked by the first user, it's obvious that "Lewontin's fallacy" has nothing to do with with refuting the observation that it's possible for genetics to explain a lot of the variance in a trait between individuals while the difference between two groups could be 100% environmental, nor does it have anything to do with the analogy Lewontin came up to illustrate this involving the two groups of seeds planted in different soils. Rather, the paper is attacking the following unrelated claim by Lewontin:

Lewontin's fallacy is only relevant to refuting people who claim that race has no biological reality–it is true that if you do some kind of statistical cluster analysis on the 15% or so of the genome that varies between race, and you specify that you want the computer to divide everyone into say 5-10 major clusters, then the clusters you get will correspond fairly well to traditional racial groups like sub-saharan African, European, East Asian, Native American etc. as discussed at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering (on the other hand if you ask for 30 clusters you'll get a more fine-grained division, so in that sense there is some degree of arbitrariness to how we divide people up into races). And it's also true that you can use this to predict the broad geographic region a person's ancestor came from with high accuracy if all you have is a DNA sample. So Lewontin was wrong in the claim that race doesn't correspond to any sort of natural way of dividing up human populations. But Lewontin's fallacy isn't relevant at all to the question about whether group behavioral differences have a genetic influence or if they are all environmental.

If you don't believe environment can cause groups to have different I Qs, look at these examples of group I Q differences between Europeans:

The I Q difference between whites in Massachusetts and whites in Alabama is about as large as the national black/white I Q gap: archive.is/1eBu5

Catholics in Northern Ireland score about 15 points lower in Autism Level than Protestants: archive.is/48Xkj

A bunch of different European countries have shown huge I Q gains in just a few decades: archive.is/lcCT6

On the supposedly genetic black/white I Q gap, there is also the fact that in the UK, black teens are now scoring higher than white teens on the GCSE, an SAT-like test that's known to be strongly correlated with I Q: archive.is/cwQFT

The reason the APA didn't find anything clearly wrong in the Bell Curve was that Murray and Herrnstein hedged their bets and never claimed outright that genetics definitely played any role in the black/white I Q gap, instead they said:

“It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might that mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.” (p. 311)

This is vague enough that they would be *technically* correct even if there was only a genetic difference between blacks and whites of say 0.2 I Q points while environment was responsible for all the rest, and likewise it would be *technically* correct even if such a tiny genetic difference actually favored blacks over whites but environment swamped it out; but I think it's pretty obvious that this isn't what they meant to imply.

And the APA report definitely didn't agree with their hunch that it was "highly likely" genes play any non-negligible role in the black/white I Q gap, you can see the authors' outline of the report at archive.is/qoXzm where they write:

By 'caste and culture' they probably mean something like the sociological theory of commonalities between 'castelike minorities' in different cultures, including lower I Qs–more info at archive.is/aw0xD and archive.is/FyujT . But I'd also say that the comment ruling out socioeconomic status as a major factor is probably premature, since attempts to control for SES typically only control for income while ignoring the role of wealth (see web-beta.archive.org/web/20170404025123/http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf ) along with effects of living in neighborhoods of 'concentrated poverty' (if you look at a poor white and a poor black at exactly the same income level, the poor black is much more likely to live in a neighborhood surrounded by other poor people while the poor white is more likely to live in a more economically mixed neighborhood, with better school districts and such…for info on this you can go to web-beta.archive.org/web/20170310090018/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-we-write/459909/ and scroll down to the part with all the graphs).

Really maeks you think.

I no longer believe this.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

Nisbett is still BTFO, but I don't believe that brain size correlates with intelligence. Evolution increased brain size for expertise capacity, not Autism Level.

Here's some links I have that says brain size correlates with intelligence. Feel free to check them out.

abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correlates-with-iq/
arkaimcity.tumblr.com/post/85748811450

Please point me to these debunkings.

Citation needed.

Philisopher Neven Sesardic blasted this argument.

joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/sesardic 00 - race iq heritability.pdf

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/22/philosophers-of-science-and-raceiq/

Reminder that the Morton controversy is not finished:

philpapers.org/archive/KAPGOM.pdf

cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/remeasuring-man.pdf

I love Gould's arguments in *Full House* against progressive evolution are outstanding.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/12/complexity-walls-0-400-hitting-and-evolutionary-progress/

I agree with you on Lynn's garbage data.

Correct that people abuse heritability and think that a coefficient for populations can be put for indiviuals. The most common thing people say is that since the heritability of a trait is, say, 80 percent, they say that 'trait X is 80 percent genetic'. Utterly retarded.

Lewontin is a joke.

Dr. Frost is an anthropologist.

>abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correlates-with-iq/

Old news. Doesn't budge me anymore. They're just correlations, they don't prove causality.

Read this paper.

human-existence.com/publications/Skoyles Human evolution expanded brains expertise not IQ.pdf

>arkaimcity.tumblr.com/post/85748811450

*cntrl f "encephilzation"*

Yawn. EQ is garbage for between-species comparisons.

Re: Herculano-Houzel:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20598/full

It's commonly said that humans have a brain 7 times bigger than other mammals and 3 times bigger than chimpanzees. However, the human brain is literally a scaled-up chimp brain in its neuronal composition. We literally have oversized chimp brains. Our brains are not special.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/31/why-are-humans-cognitively-superior-to-other-animals/

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/31/progress-in-hominin-brain-evolution/

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/28/what-caused-human-brain-size-to-increase/

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/26/the-human-brain-is-not-particularly-special-a-new-way-of-looking-at-the-human-brain/

EQ is a joke to me. Total amount of neurons matters more. Read this book.

barnesandnoble.com/w/the-human-advantage-suzana-herculano-houzel/1122860888

...

WEW LAD

Brainsize is not correlated with intelligence

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3273857/Size-DOESN-T-matter-Having-big-brain-does-not-make-intelligent-s-structure-counts.html

Thanks for looking at the links I gave.

I'm sorry the guy didn't post elsewhere, but you could have at least clicked on it to see it gave sources that had nothing to do with Tumblr.

Here are some sources displaying their debunkings

How about you hang yourself?

The claims by "race realists" about difference in brain size almost always cite Rushton's papers on the subject, but his work on this is considered dubious by other experts, like Michael Peters who criticizes his claims at archive.is/mAdZh . One issue is that in most of his papers (especially the ones most cited by 'race realists') he didn't rely on the actual measured brain volumes, but instead on volumes that he "corrected" for body size using a mathematical rule that Peters says is incorrect:

Peters also points out that there's a huge amount of variation in measured volumes for samples of different ethnic makeup *within* a given race, making it questionable whether Rushton's overall average volumes were based on a representative sample:

Here's more

Furthermore you make the argument of "muh lewtons fallacy" except for the fact that Lewton got BTFO

Legal scholar Dorothy Roberts argues, "Edwards did not refute Lewontin's claim: that there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, especially when it comes to races. (…) Lewontin did not ignore biology to support his social ideology (…). To the contrary, he argued that there is no biological support for the ideological project of race." "The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistoric times. Race [however defined] collapses infinite diversity into a few discrete categories that in reality cannot be demarcated genetically."

Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."The view that, while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist, this does not lend biological validity to racial groups, was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.

Where did I say this? Point it out.

...

I'm not going to waste my time reading all that shit. I just think it's funny that you polcucks always cite blogs.

Psychometric testing is reductive as far as race relations go anyway. Negros being kinda dumb is a small part of the overall picture.

To put this as fairly as it can be put: Rushton and Jensen are anything but a new wave of scholars come to shed light on a heretofore intractable problem, as Saletan presents them. On the contrary, they have spent nearly a century combined harping on the same theme again and again, in paper after paper, and that theme is black racial inferiority. (Care for a taste of just how old-fashioned they are? They group human beings into a tripartite classificatory scheme of "Caucasoids," "Mongoloids," and "Negroids." It's in the 2005 paper, and it's roughly as credible as the Shem/Ham/Japheth theory of race.)
Jensen, as Melvin Konner noted in The Tangled Wing, has been tossing up one-sided hypotheses about the relationship between race and Autism Level since the 1960s that have consistently been swatted away by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others, but the fact that Jensen's findings have since been debunked did not prevent them from seeping into The Bell Curve. (Thus Saletan's articles come full circle, to say nothing of the geometric configuration of the chain of research supporting the hereditarian position.)
As for Jensen's co-author, in the excellent book Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, Jonathan Marks described the nature and integrity of Rushton's scholarly puruits as follows:

Have we thus discovered the biological basis for the differences in intelligence that previous generations have always assumed were there?…[T]he scientific issues and assumptions are as false as they have always been. First, we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.
Meanwhile, in his review of Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior in the Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, neuroscientist Douglas Wahlstein maintains an air of scholarly understatement, writing "I believe that great harm could be done to both the social and natural sciences if the standards for evidence and proof advocated in this book were to gain wider acceptance." Wahlstein further quotes Rushton replying to his critics to the effect that they "have failed to show an opposite predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint.'' Apropos of that last point, Marks is delicate enough not to mention Rushton's companion studies of average penis size by race—and there, as the saying goes, you have it.

1/2

(2/2)

The foundation of Saletan's hereditarian argument is the pseudo-science of a man obsessed not only with his preconceptions of the inferior intelligence of blacks, but their lack of "sexual restraint" as well. Pity Saletan could not contact D.W. Griffith for comment. In any case, Rushton's enquiries into differential skull and brain-sizes among the races, and the problems attendant upon them, are particularly relevant for present purposes, because Saletan himself places some significant weight on the implications of brain size, writing that magnetic imaging studies show " at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with Autism Level. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white Autism Level gap." To outline just one of Saletan's numerous misunderstandings of what correlations do, and do not, imply, let's turn back to Marks:

[B]asic scientific protocol requires that all relevant variables be controlled before drawing conclusions about the cause of an observed difference between samples. But in this case we do not even know what those variables are, or what the appropriate statistical corrections (for example, for body size) may be. Brain size correlates, for example, with age and with nutritional state in early life…
[T[hough there was agreement that women have smaller average brains than men (assuming their brains don't grow in subsequent studies!), they apparently do not have lower average Autism Levels. This obviously would undermine the strict determination of intelligence by brain size, which should already be common sense…

By now, this approach to the determination of the average intellectual abilities of group members has degenerated into sophistry. The populations within each "race" vary widely in measured cranial capacity, with the four largest sets of skulls deriving from the aboriginal males of Hawaii, Tierra del Fuego, France, and South Africa, respectively.
The upshot is twofold: First, there is no good reason to suppose that differentials in brain size are not attributable to dietary and other non-genetic variables, and second, whatever correlation between brain size and Autism Level exists must be weak enough to allow for women to have the same average Autism Level as men despite having smaller brains.>>1568444

debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/

debunkingdenialism.com/2013/12/27/abusing-heritability-libertarian-realist-edition/