Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Today, The New York Times and NewsOne (“For Black America”) are shocked — shocked — to find that Blacks and Hispanics still lag academically compared to Whites and Asians, after the College Board released a report entitled “The Educational Experience of Young Men of Color: A Review of Research, Pathways, and Progress” (.pdf version available here — at 96 pages, it’s not worth reading).

Of course, as we should all know by now, the achievement gap is the product of innate race differences in intelligence: Whites and Asians have superior mean cognitive abilities to Hispanics and (especially) Blacks, and the differences are largely genetic.

The intelligence gap is not my opinion. It is a scientific fact. Forget “The Bell Curve” (not that there’s anything wrong with it): you can read this in standard first-year college textbooks. And the data support a 50–80 percent genetic component to that gap.

The College Board report is just another example of how false assumptions about human nature, particularly race (specifically, that Blacks and Hispanics are just as smart as Whites and Asians) can create “racism” out of thin air.

1. False assumptions and unfounded conclusions

Of the College Board’s 2010 report “The Educational Crisis Facing Young Men of Color,” the author of the new report writes that after

two years of qualitative research into the issue of the comparative and, indeed, in some cases, the absolute lack of success that males of color are experiencing traversing the education pipeline… the findings in themselves were powerful reminders of the disparate opportunities available to different groups in the United States.

Of course, they did not actually find any evidence of “disparate opportunities,” meaning systemic White racism. They found evidence of disparate outcomes, and, assuming the non-existence of race differences in intelligence, pronounced them the product of malicious Whites keeping poor innocent minorities down.

Except Asians, of course, with their suspicious immunity to racism. Oh, and European Jews.

By “qualitative research,” they mean that they talked to some minorities:

These conversations, which we called Dialogue Days, engaged members of four groups — African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Native Americans and Asian Americans — in a series of discourses designed to get at the issues confronting these young men as they followed or dropped out of the education pipeline.

There is no way this “qualitative research” could have told them anything about race differences in intelligence (or a lack thereof): the researchers didn’t administer intelligence tests, and they had an obvious sample bias, in that Black and Hispanic students who are willing to participate in “Dialogue Days” with education researchers are unlikely to be representative of Black and Hispanic students. This, however, does not stop the College Board from declaring that

[t]he conversations we held in 2008 and 2009 on this issue clearly showed one thing: There is no lack of talent in communities of color or among the young men in these communities.

Wishful thinking.

2. Comparisons are racist

It seems White intellectual superiority is fostering the perception of White intellectual superiority:

… although the notion of the “achievement gap” — particularly as it pertains to African American and white students — is prominently featured on all sides of mainstream education reform debates, some scholars argue that this framing of the problem is itself problematic (Perry, Steele et al. 2003; Love 2004). In a critical race theory analysis, Love (2004) posits that the achievement gap is a form of “majoritarian” storytelling that fosters the perception of white intellectual superiority. She notes, for example, that even though students of certain Asian ethnicities consistently outperform whites on various achievement measures, such disparities are never couched in terms of an achievement gap (Love 2004).

The reason why the East Asian-White achievement gap does not have to be “couched in terms of an achievement gap” is that Whites are not whiny little bitches, they are at least dimly aware of the staggering accomplishments of the White race, and they are capable of understanding concepts like averages. That is (roughly speaking) why, unlike Blacks and Hispanics, Whites don’t break down crying (or rioting) when you point out that East Asians are slightly more intelligent than they are, on average.

Perry, Steele and Hilliard (2003) suggest that the standard against which achievement disparities are assessed should be some measure of excellence for which all students should be striving rather than the performance of a norm group, which may in fact be mediocre.

So instead of comparing Blacks and Hispanics to Whites (the superior “norm group”), we are supposed to compare all races to “some measure of excellence” and see who’s the farthest from it, without ever comparing the groups to each. Brilliant.

If the performance of Whites is “mediocre,” what does that make Blacks and Hispanics? Abject failures?

3. The Asian sensation

The New York Times article on Asians:

The data about Asian/Pacific Islander men is particularly noteworthy. The authors cite the “model minority myth” — the assumption that a minority group is the superior, or “model,” group — and then challenge it, emphasizing that Asian men face problems similar to those of other minorities.

Actually, what the report has finally, sort-of discovered is that some Asians, like East Asians (mean IQ 105 at home, 101 in the USA), are smarter than other Asians, like Southeast Asians (mean IQ 87, 93 in the USA), Pacific Islanders (mean IQ 85), and South Asians (mean IQ 84) (source: Richard Lynn’s “Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis”).

Next, the New York Times is surprised to discover that affirmative action is working as intended, filling our schools with unqualified Blacks and American Indians, and keeping out smart Asians:

Perhaps one of the most surprising statistics is that Asian male enrollment over the last two decades (1990-2008) dropped by 9 percentage points. In comparison, African-American enrollment increased by 15 percent, while Native American enrollment increased by over 120 percent.

4. The cure for mythical White racism: a lot more anti-White racism

First among the College Board’s six uniformly idiotic and hopeless recommendations on how to fix tens of thousands of years of human evolution:

Policymakers must make improving outcomes for young men of color a national priority.

More affirmative action! More race quotas! More criminally inept Hispanic lawyers! More fatally incompetent Black doctors!

Merit? Fairness? Equality under the law? Forget it, White people. It’s Black-Run America.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

From Psychology Today, six days ago (H/T Sofia): “Want to know what ‘race’ is or isn’t? Don’t ask the dictionary!” by Dr. Mikhail Lyubansky, a psychology professor at the publicly funded University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The article is about what you would expect from the author of “A Manifesto Against Truth.” (For my take on that, consult the comments.)

Lyubansky does not seem to know very much about race and genetics. As a result, his analysis is completely, irredeemably wrong.

[T]he genetic data suggest that there is no biological evidence for human subspecies (what we might call racial groups). To the contrary, all people are about 99.5% similar genetically, and the genetic variability that does exist (the remaining .5%) tends to be greater within ethnic groups than between them…

This is a form of “Lewontin’s Fallacy” and again, it’s simply wrong. A complete rebuttal may be found in Neven Sesardic’s 2010 paper “Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept” (Biology and Philosophy 25 p. 143-162), available in .pdf format here. At twenty pages, it is well worth reading in its entirety, but the sections “Genetic differences” and “Morphological differences” are most relevant.

Since I have little to add to Sesardic’s analysis, I’ll just note here that two people of the same race are always more similar genetically than two people of different races (Sesardic, p. 150–154). The problem is, Lewontin and Lyubansky measure genetic variation by looking at each genetic indicator separately, and thus fail to account for genetic clustering. When you take a less simple-minded approach, what do you find?

  1. a 2002 paper in Science showed that people cluster genetically according to major geographic regions (in other words, races)
  2. genetic clusters match self-reported race (White, Black, Hispanic, East Asian) 99.9 percent of the time (Sesardic’s source here)
  3. you can literally see the races when you graph the principal components of genetic variation, as in this figure from Tishkoff et al.’s 2009 paper “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” (Science 22 p. 1035–1044)

The only real questions are: why does Psychology Today pay Lyubansky to write about race, a subject in which he clearly has no expertise? And why does his university pay him to expose impressionable college students to already-refuted race-denying radical pseudoscience?

We’ve separated Church and State, but religious fundamentalism is harmless compared to the politicized science of such hopelessly biased “experts” as S.J. Gould, L. Kamin, R.C. Lewontin, P.Z. Myers, and of course M. Lyubansky. What we desperately need to do is separate science from the State.

Or at least separate Lyubansky from his students.

Read Full Post »

I am reminded of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s line from the classic film Commando (1985). As I recall, he was eating breakfast with a very young Alyssa Milano:

Why don’t they just call him Girl George? It would cut down on the confusion.

Wait, that’s not right.

The man is serious about cutting down on confusion.

No, he had just shot Sharon Stone in the head on Mars while trying to reach a telepathic mutant rebel leader to recover memories of a terraforming alien artifact while unwittingly acting out the plans of his evil pre-memory-wipe self:

Consider that a divorce.

Wait, that was the markedly superior Total Recall (1990).

Fans of the film will recognize this as one of former Governor Schwarzenegger's least ridiculous facial expressions.

Now I’ve got it: he was dangling a man over a cliff with the aid of a clearly visible wire.

Remember when I promised to kill you last?

I lied.

Remember when I promised to stop arguing with Stupid, Liberal, Anti-White Bigots?

I lied.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to drop you off a cliff. Yet.

I’m happy — no, that’s not right either. I’m angry to inform you that I am now restarting the destructive side of ‘Park operations. The constructive side, which includes our awesome flyers, will continue as planned; in fact, will probably accelerate, since our operations are powered by burning racial hatred, and arguing with race denialists is an excellent (and renewable) source of fuel.

Why am I doing this? Same reasons I’ve always done it. It’s fun. It’s relaxing. And I want more people to know we’re out there, we who don’t buy into the race-denialist BS. I want our enemies to know it, and I especially want our allies to know it.

Let us begin.

Attraction

Sofia — whose personal motto is not, but probably ought to be, “a lightning bolt of knowledge blowing out the fuse of ignorance in the shitty old house of our liberal dystopia” — has directed me to another great bastion of social-scientific liberal lunacy: Sociological Images. Recently I’ve been having a blast in the comments over there, and I wanted to let you know.

Sofiastry is your source for... I dunno, fingers? Slightly sticky fingers.

A recent article, “Race and the Problems with Measuring Beauty ‘Objectively'” (note the relativist scare quotes) is a predictable attack on evolutionary psychology Satoshi Kanazawa’s research on the inferior attractiveness of Black women. There are two components to this supposed counter-argument. The first is that Black women are only less attractive because of evil White men; specifically,

the global history of slavery, colonialism, and race-based systems of domination that make it impossible to separate out our perceptions of what is beautiful and sexually appealing from historical ideologies that insisted that non-White peoples were unattractive.

… Given that history, it’s not shocking that White women would be rated most attractive and Black women least… the outcome of constant, long-standing cultural messages about attractiveness that resulted from efforts to legitimize and justify social and political inequalities.

In other words — and I’m not going to set up a straw man; this is actually what they’re saying — in other words, you may think you find Black women less attractive than White and Asian women, but you don’t. You actually find them just as attractive. You love their skin tone and their hair texture — can’t get enough of it! However, we’re all the unwitting victims of an historical ideology (that’s a set of ideas about history) that insists that non-White women are unattractive — er, except Asians and Native Americans, who score much higher than Blacks and quite close to Whites. Hispanics too, probably. Somehow we avoided that part of the historical ideology.

It might not be an "historical legacy," but something is definitely turning me on right now.

The author, Gwen Sharp (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Nevada State College), leaves several things unexplained.

  1. Like many conspiracy theorists, she doesn’t explain who, exactly, is transmitting these “constant, long-standing cultural messages” — though it’s not hard to guess — or how they accomplish it.
  2. She doesn’t explain constant, long-standing pro-Black cultural messages, such as the “Black Is Beautiful” movement, which even has its own TV show now.
  3. She doesn’t explain why, when a qualified scientist actually attempts to transmit a cultural message about attractiveness that disfavors Black women (which happens to match the data), he sets off a “firestorm” (Huffington Post), an “international race row,” and “international outrage” (Daily Mail); the article is promptly removed (along with the author’s biography) and an apology issued by the publisher; his institution begins an internal investigation; and fellow academics call for his dismissal in the name of their “multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution” (Daily Mail again).
  4. She doesn’t explain the statistics on interracial marriage.

That last one isn’t really Sharp’s fault. We can hardly expect her to examine the world she inhabits (i.e., the “objective” “facts”) before blaming all our problems on (I can only assume) rich White heterosexual men. She’s not some nerd scientist, for crying out loud — she’s a radical social scientist! And she’s very busy with her extremely important work on — um…

She will soon begin a research project interviewing water diviners, and focus on the way diviners and government hydrologists use scientific/rational language to validate their belief systems while disparaging each other. [Source: Nevada State College.]

Sharp’s theories don’t deserve a rigorous rebuttal. They deserve to be briefly mocked and promptly forgotten. So if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to erase my memories of the last two days and replace them with a tropical vacation on Mars.

Race

Before that, I should discuss the second component.

[Kanazawa] treats race like a real, biological, meaningful entity. But race is socially constructed; there is no clear biological dividing line that would allow us to put every person on the planet into racial categories [claim #1], since societies differ in the racial categories they recognize [claim #2] and “race” doesn’t map along unique sets of genes [claim #3] — there is more genetic variation among members of a so-called race as there are between members of different races [claim #4].

This is radical pseudoscience, plain and simple, and any college professor who claims to buy into it is willfully ignorant, promoting a radical political agenda, or both. That’s why claim #2, that “societies differ in the racial categories they recognize,” is inane: societies are not made up of experts on race, and even the people society considers “experts on race,” like Gwen Sharp, aren’t experts on race.

It’s also why so many of my comments have disappeared in “moderation,” including my very first: a detailed, documented explanation of why race is biological, which thoroughly debunks claim #3. See sections 2 and 4 of “Black and White,” supplemented with two rebuttals of race denialism: “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science (part 2)” and “Debunking race denialism 2: Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.”

If you’d rather just read it here, I don’t mind repeating myself. (I know, I know: you’re tired of the same old links. I’ll dig up some new ones just as soon as someone actually argues against the ones I have.)

Let’s start with the basics. Human beings are scientifically divided up into races (and subraces) according to exactly one criterion: ancestral geography. Blacks (comprising more than one race) came from sub-Saharan Africa, Whites came from Europe (basically), Asians (also comprising more than one race) came from… I forget where, and so on.

Anyway, the races evolved in virtual reproductive isolation for tens of thousands of years, except possibly the last few hundred years. Put together four evolutionary forces — founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation — and what do you get? Genetic differences. That’s why you can tell someone’s self-reported race from their genes with 99.86 percent accuracy just from looking at a few hundred genetic markers (American Journal of Human Genetics).

I brought pictures. From Tishkoff et al.’s 2009 paper “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” (Science 324(5930) 1035–1044):

Genetic variation all around the world. See the races there?

From Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza’s “The History and Geography of Human Genes” (1994):

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the world. Clearly, races do not exist.

Claim #4 is simply wrong, as Chuck pointed out in the comments on “Black and White.” From Neven Sesardic’s 2010 “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept” (Biology and Philosophy 25:143–162), citing Witherspoon et al.’s 2007 “Genetic similarities within and between human populations” (Genetics 176: 351–359):

A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: “How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: “Never.”

Any two White (i.e., European) people are always more similar genetically than any White person is to any Black (i.e., sub-Saharan African). Of course, thanks to miscegenation, there now exist people who are 50 percent Black (or White, or Asian…), 90 percent Black, 1 percent Black, and so on. Claim #1 demands a “clear biological dividing line,” but that’s fallacious reasoning that can also be used to “prove” that height doesn’t exist.

Go ahead, draw a clear dividing line (one nanometer thick, say) between short and tall. Try it with slow and fast, big and small, or food and poison. You can’t do it — at least, you can’t do it in a meaningful way. Do you nevertheless learn something useful from statements like the following?

  1. “The robbery suspect is tall.”
  2. “You’re driving too fast.”
  3. “The chances of decapitation are not small.”
  4. “I’ve replaced all the food with poison.”
  5. “Your new high school is full of Black kids.”

It gets worse. Sharp links another article for support, this one by Sociological Images co-author Lisa Wade (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Occidental College), entitled “A Simple Lesson on the Social Construction of Race.” A very simple lesson indeed: the entire article can be summed up as follows.

There are people of all different skin colors. Therefore race doesn’t exist.

That’s it. That’s all. These women have deluded themselves into thinking race is nothing more than the color of your skin. They should look up “Black albinos” sometime. (No, it’s not an oxymoron.) They should consult a forensic anthropologist like George Gill, who can determine the race of a skeleton (PBS Nova). They should ask a geneticist, a medical doctor, and a statistician why an “epidemiologic perspective” (that’s with regard to the spread of disease) “strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity” (Genome Biology). Since they’re so concerned with telling Blacks they’re beautiful, they should also check up on how acknowledging those fictitious “real, biological, meaningful” racial differences can help doctors treat patients. I think fatal cardiac arrest has been conclusively linked to low self-esteem.

Discussion

I mentioned I’ve been having fun in the comments at Sociological Images. In the beginning, I was quite polite and reasonable, but I began to lose patience around the time I posted the following, for reasons which will soon become obvious.

UNAMUSED: For anyone not keeping up with this (rather pathetic and off-topic) debate about race differences in intelligence, or just race differences period: my opponents are unable to cite even one source to back up their opinions about race differences in intelligence. There are also unwilling to read and understand my sources (see above).

Instead, they use insults (“troll,” “white supremacist”), accusations of “racism” (a word which is now meaningless, thanks to people like them), outright lies (like the claim that I haven’t cited my sources), unsubstantiated assertions (everywhere), appeals to emotion, appeals to popularity, and of course their perfect ignorance of intelligence research.

Don’t be fooled.

Please ask yourself: why would two reproductively isolated populations of an animal species, evolving independently for tens of thousands of years, subject to all the usual natural forces (founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation), somehow come out with
(a) different skin and hair,
(b) different bone structure,
(c) different blood antibodies,
(d) different disease susceptibilities,
(e) different athletic strengths and weaknesses (watch the Olympics), and yet
(f) IDENTICAL BRAINS?

Evolution does not stop at the neck. And science is not concerned with your hurt feelings nor with your “progressive” politics.

A representative response (note the total lack of substance):

JUAN: Tough to decide which is worst and unamusing from you: Your faulty rhetoric or your faulty science. Now, provide some real evidence and cited that isn’t debunked eugenics or pseudo-science.

UNAMUSED: It’s like… it’s like you see the words I’ve written, which are all true, and then your brain just rejects them. Graft versus host, only the graft is REAL SCIENCE.

From that point on, my new comments mostly disappeared into “moderation,” meaning my distinguished opponents’ nasty, ignorant, insubstantial, promptly approved remarks went unchallenged. This displeased me, with predictable results. (I am, after all, the most hateful man on the Internet.) In the end, the thought-crime spree got so out of control, the entire discussion had to be put on hold pending a purge of hate facts, including my first (and least confrontational) comment, which explained why race is biological, not social.

UPDATE 2: The comments section has largely devolved into a flame war with lots of insults flying around, so I’m closing comments since I won’t be around to moderate them [i.e., delete only the ones I don’t agree with] for the next week. I will go in and clean out the comments threads [ditto] when I get a chance.

Therefore I will reproduce some of my exchanges here, before they get deleted.

Statistics

SYD: Plus, what about those of us who ARE significantly and predominantly mixed race? I am half black and half white. I have some distinctly “black” features, and some distinctly “European” ones. Am I “objectively” only half attractive? Or am I just deluded because my black brain-failings have tricked me into thinking I’m any attractive at all?

UNAMUSED: Yes. That’s exactly right. You haven’t misinterpreted at all.

If the average Black woman is less attractive than the average White woman, that means all Black women everywhere are ugly. Thus you are objectively half beautiful, half ugly.

If the average Black person is less intelligent than the average White person (they are), that means all Black people are stupid. Thus you are stupid.

You must have aced Stats 101.

We continued in this vein for some time.

White Supremacy

LETA: I see you like to flaunt your white-supremacy flag. I don’t see you giving intelligence tests to populations that do better than the average white (like Asians).

UNAMUSED: Yes, yes, white supremacy, “sieg heil” and such and such.

Anyway [table-drawing fail]:

group approx. mean IQ
European Jews 110
East Asians 105
Whites 100
Hispanics 90 ya they’re a race
Blacks 85 in America
70 in Africa

The Legend of Colonialism: Ocarina of Hatred

SIMONE LOVELACE: … Even if you could make a real case that certain features common in people of African descent were “objectively” unattractive (spoiler alert: you can’t!), culture bias is clearly a huge factor. …

UNAMUSED: Dark skin is a feature common in people of African descent which is “objectively” unattractive, in that all races prefer lighter skin, in general.

KJ: And might the legendary of colonialism have something to do with that?

UNAMUSED: Explain exactly what the “legacy” (I assume you meant that) of colonialism is, and precisely how it is causing e.g. Black Haitian girls to prefer White Barbie dolls to Black ones.

Or did you think you could just go “colonialism slavery imperialism white people did it lololz,” and everyone would just solemnly nod and go about their business?

MOLLY: Wait, you’re using *Haiti* as an example? … Because it’s not possible colonialism could’ve had ANY impact on Haiti (a nation founded when slaves rebelled against French colonial rule)? …

UNAMUSED: Listen to yourself: you’re claiming that centuries-old colonialism is making modern-day Haitian girls like White Barbie dolls better than Black Barbie dolls.

It’s just… retarded.

Concise

SCOTT: [a whole bunch of crap about the relationship between attraction, sex, reproduction, and evolution]

UNAMUSED: One big straw man argument. No point even addressing this nonsense.

Insecurity

ALIX: People who are insecure about their own intelligence/beauty/other factor always seem to want to demonstrate that some other group is inferior.

I’ve never really been sure why some people are so intent on proving that their group is *superior* to other groups (especially when those groups are more of a continuum than an actual delineated group). Life isn’t a football game. We all benefit if we are all appreciated for our contributions, and our strengths are utilized appropriately. By writing off an entire group, we are ALL weakened.

UNAMUSED: Gee, thank you for that amateur psychoanalysis.

Look, Alix: the reason why I think Blacks are innately less intelligent is because they score lower on intelligence tests, which are not culturally biased; and further research supports a 50–80% genetic explanation. I am not insecure about my own intelligence, and Kanazawa is not insecure about his attractiveness.

I might as well say “you’re only disagreeing with me because you’re agoraphobic.”

The tests are not culturally biased. [You] have no reason to believe they are — I mean, it’s not like you can find any ACTUAL examples of ACTUAL cultural bias on the WAIS. You’re just speculating because you don’t like the findings.

You don’t understand anything about statistics. No one is claiming IQ tests (or better yet g tests) predict your success in life with 100% accuracy (duh). They do, however, predict group outcomes. In particular, they predict Black failure.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I am so intent on proving that Whites are cognitively superior to Blacks is that (1) they are, and (2) shrieking harpies like the ones in the thread above can’t seem to grasp that simple fact, and their ignorance and bias are interesting to me.

We should be “writing off” Blacks as a group, because they are innately incapable of achieving the same success as other groups. That means stopping absurd discriminatory policies like AA and racial quotas.

This “writing off” is not discrimination. It has nothing to do with race. (Watch the race denialists fail to grasp this point.) It is a logical consequence of treating everyone as individuals without regard for race. Since Blacks are generally less intelligent, if you treat them like everyone else — as individuals — it’s going to look like discrimination.

PS Asians are cognitively superior to Whites.

Projection

An anonymous commenter succumbs to projection, but replacing “Unamused” by “a race denialist” yields perfection. I swear that wasn’t supposed to rhyme.

ANON: [A race denialist] will always double-down on the crazy, because he truly and solemnly believes in what he’s saying. A failure on his part to continue to believe in the truth of his and his sources claims will mean that he will have to do a full re-analysis of himself, his morals, his world-view, etc. in addition (most likely) to those of his friends and colleagues (and possibly his family and community members). It’s a truly scary thing to admit that something fundamental to how you perceive the world is absolutely wrong.

This is why you can’t reason with conspiracy theorists who believe what they do, and [a race denialist] is just like the conspiracy theorist whose life is consumed with uncovering the government plot that George W. Bush caused 9/11 or the other conspiracy theorist who believes that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.

Arguing with facts won’t help, either, since it’s likely that — like many conspiracy theorists — he’s incapable of understanding where his logic is faulty: conspiracy justification has become an unconscious reaction to dissonant stimuli that affects him at a level more basic than rational thought. Indeed, it hijacks rational thought and leads to rationalizing thought (of the type that either explains away the potential dissonance or builds a wall of denial against it), instead.

In short, he’s a person that doesn’t understand why the majority of people don’t understand the truth that is so clearly in front of them, and no amount of argumentation is going to change his mind about the truth he sees (let alone the intelligence of the people who can’t see it).

Other Highlights

  1. Commenter Bah wonders if I might be Kanazawa himself.
  2. Commenter Alix thinks Sofia and I are the same person. (We’re not… as far as I know.)
  3. No one — no one at all — bothers to address the information I presented. Oh well.

Anyway, I had a blast! Expect more. Now where did I put that memory modifier…

"Stop struggling. You're just making it worse." "Worse than getting my mind erased?" "Well... you're not helping!"

Read Full Post »

By now, you are probably aware of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s latest thought-crime, “Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women” (May 15, since retitled and deleted).

The reaction to Kanazawa’s research has been generally idiotic. Consider the Daily Mail’s pathetic coverage in “‘Black women are less attractive than others’: Controversial LSE psychologist sparks backlash with his ‘scientific’ findings” (May 19). (Note the obligatory scare quotes around “scientific.”) The caption to the second photograph is representative.

According to Satoshi Kanazawal [sic], ‘science’ would suggest Naomi Campbell [who is Black] is less attractive than fellow supermodel Elle Macpherson [who is White].

If the error isn’t obvious, here it is in another context: “According to ‘science’ that claims the average man is taller than the average woman, that man” — pointing to a short man — “is taller than that woman” — pointing to a tall woman.

It is not the first time that Dr Kanazawa, 48, a lecturer within the department of management at the LSE, has been accused of peddling racist theories.

In 2006 he published a paper suggesting the poor health of some sub-Saharan Africans is the result of low IQ, not poverty.

Professor Paul Gilroy, a sociology lecturer at the LSE, said: ‘Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution.

‘If he announces that he thinks sub-Saharan Africans are less intelligent than other people, what happens when they arrive in his classroom?’

Answer: they fail, because they’re just affirmative-action admissions.

The innately inferior intelligence of sub-Saharan Africans (as a group), and Blacks in general, is a scientific fact and should not be controversial; see my flyer on the subject of race differences in intelligence in America. Yet the sociologist Paul Gilroy wants Kanazawa fired, and his research suppressed, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism. It’s James Watson all over again.

OkCupid

The inferior attractiveness of Black women should not be a controversial finding either. I suspect many readers have personally noticed the VERY OBVIOUS phenomena of racial preferences in dating. For example, White men are preferable to Black men, who are preferable to Asian men (on average), and White and Asian women are much preferable to Black women. Still, we should be able to do better than anecdotal evidence.

We, after all, are not the sort of people who cry “racism” every time a Black man gets pulled over by the cops.

The dating website OkCupid has published a study, “How Your Race Affects The Messages You Get” (October 5, 2009) on the racial dating preferences of over a million users. This is particularly good data for two reasons.

First, these aren’t college student volunteers sitting in a lab, ranking photographs for some professor. They’re real people trying to start real relationships (or at least get real laid). After all, attractiveness is more than just a pretty face (e.g., mine).

Second, online dating minimizes several factors not directly related to attraction, which would otherwise favor same-race relationships. On the Internet, it doesn’t matter if you’re Asian and live uptown with your all-Asian friends who frown on mixed-race relationships, while the person you find most attractive is Indian and lives downtown, and the two of you would never ordinarily meet. That can’t stop you from messaging her, can it?

Nevertheless, it turns out that Black men are 13 percentage points more likely to respond to Asian women than one would expect if race were not a factor, while Asian women are 10 points less likely than expected to respond to Black men. White men disfavor Black women by 10 points. Indian women disfavor Indian men by 9 points. But White women respond to White men at exactly the expected rate.

The overall findings are not surprising, provided you know more than a few people of other races.

  • “Black women write back the most.”
  • “White men get more responses.”
  • “White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else — and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively.”
  • “Men don’t write black women back.”
  • “White guys respond less overall.”

The article concludes:

It’s surely not just OkCupid users that are like this. In fact, [any] dating site (and indeed any collection of people) would likely exhibit messaging biases similar to what I’ve written up. Any dating site probably has these biases. According to our internal metrics, at least, OkCupid’s users are better-educated, younger, and far more progressive than the norm, so I can imagine that many sites would actually have worse race stats.

Note that racial preferences, which we all have (no exceptions), are to be considered bad — at least, they are when they disfavor certain minorities. I can only speculate that “better” race stats would show that people ignore race when choosing a partner, which would be dangerous and stupid; or that people actually prefer those Designated Victim Groups, e.g. choosing Black men over those awful, nasty Whites, which would be even more dangerous and stupid.

Objective Beauty

Four points:

  1. Evolution favors reproductive fitness.
  2. Human reproduction is accomplished through sex.
  3. Sex is driven by sexual attraction. That is, attraction is the proximate cause of sex. (“Why did you sleep with her?” “Because she was hot.”) The ultimate cause is evolution. (“Why did you find her hot?” “Because I evolved that way.”) Radical pseudoscientists like Hank Campbell don’t understand the difference, which is why they reject Kanazawa’s findings.
  4. Sexual attraction is the basis for beauty.

As a result of 1–4, we have evolved a universal ideal of beauty, like not being fat. Someone who prefers fat people for sex is abnormal, just like someone who prefers infants for sex, or inanimate objects; or someone who prefers to wash his hands until they bleed, ten times a day.

Certain characteristically White traits, including skin tone and hair texture, appear to be part of the universal ideal of beauty. I invite the skeptic to consider this fat Black chick.

Obligatory Hot White Girl

You can’t seriously be disappointed by the lack of pictures of hot white girls in this post. You’re on the Internet, for crying out loud. Exert yourself.

Alright, fine. In honor of Norway, here is a hot Norwegian girl.

She is indeed a hot Norwegian girl.

In retrospect, that was a really good idea.

Read Full Post »

I have previously noted that should you choose the path of compassionate reactionism and take this conversation off the Internet, it might help to have a few relevant fact sheets (like, say, “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People”) written by someone else, on whom the liberal rage and malice and cries of racism can be dumped, i.e. me.

To that end, I have prepared a second flyer, entitled “There Are Innate Racial Differences in Intelligence.” I had some help from Chuck at Occidentalist, but any outrageous errors or unsubstantiated opinions are all mine. A .pdf version is available here, and a .jpeg version is available below (click for the full-size image). Links to my sources (or equivalent) appear below.

I encourage you to share this flyer with anyone, anywhere. I hope you find it useful. Let me know if you find any mistakes, or if you would prefer a version with minor modifications of your choosing, such as a less outrageous title.

Sources

The statement “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” is available here.

Linda Gottfredson has plenty of papers on the general mental ability factor g. Hunter & Schmidt’s 2004 article “General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance” is available for purchase here; Chuck sent me a copy (available on request).

The IQ gap (and the 80% heritability statistic for adults) are widely known; you can start with the American Renaissance guide. Find “Human Biological Variation” at your local library or college campus.

Roth et al.’s (in)famous 2001 meta-study “Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability and Educational Setting” is available in .pdf form here. You can read about the Kansas City desegregation experiment here. (The term “epic fail” springs to mind.)

Here is the source of Steven Pinker’s quotation. His dangerous idea (answer to the 2006 annual Edge question) is that “groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments.”

Chuck at Occidentalist can tell you all about race, income, and SAT scores.

The Rushton and Jensen article “Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy” (2005) is available in .pdf form here. The paper “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies” in The American Journal of Human Genetics, available here, shows a 99.86 percent success rate matching self-reported race to genetic clusters. I wrote about the failure of studies claiming the gap is environmental without controlling for genes in my post “Income and IQ.”

Jared Taylor briefly discusses regression to the mean, in the context of Jensen’s research, in this issue of American Renaissance.

You can read about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study on Wikipedia, for instance.

Here is Jensen (1994) talking about 1 in 4 Blacks having an IQ less than 75. Gottfredson’s “g: Highly General and Highly Practical” (2002) is available here. American Renaissance profiles Levin (1997) in this issue.

Read Full Post »

My series of short essays debunking race denialism continues. Hopefully you’re not bored of this exercise yet. Someone’s got to answer their arguments, no matter how weak, in case there’s some race denialist or race agnostic out there who’s following the debate and keeping an open mind. Even slightly open. Ajar.

Frankly I’d settle for a race denialist mind that hasn’t been shut, locked, bolted, and sealed up with concrete.

Today I present my final, comprehensive remarks on the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza controversy. Here is a summary of said controversy, according to race denialists.

  1. Evil racists claim Cavalli-Sforza is secretly on their side.
  2. Race denialists refute these claims by quoting recent books by Cavalli-Sforza.
  3. Return to step 1.

This, on the other hand, is a summary of the actual controversy.

  1. Race denialists claim Cavalli-Sforza is openly on their side by quoting his recent books.
  2. Race realists point out that Cavalli-Sforza’s work on human genetics is clearly race realist in nature. However, his recent books contain a perfunctory section or two stating that classifying people by race is impossible, useless, arbitrary, and/or racist. These statements are (a) contradicted by Cavalli-Sforza’s own research and/or (b) just plain silly. This suggests that he includes them to fool race denialists — who can be counted on to stop reading as soon as they find a quote that supports their beliefs — so that they leave him alone.
  3. Return to step 1.

One example is more than sufficient.

Step 1, or: The Usual Suspects

Zek J Evets: “[Race realists] pretend that science is divided on the issue, and try to undermine the research done on the subject, portraying people’s work as quite the opposite of what they say it is. And the whole time, yelling, raving, that the establishment is trying to cover it up! … They talk of conspiracy theories like a crazy person.” (Source: Zek’s vile rant.)

Abagond (dutifully “summarizing” Zek by completely rewriting his rant): “The reason scientific racists give for trusting, say, Steve Sailer, a computer salesman, over Cavalli-Sforza, a professor of human genetics who has, like, studied race, is, wait for it, that people like Cavalli-Sforza secretly agree with them but are too afraid to say so in public! Have they gone mad?” (Source: Abagond’s racist cult.)

Have we, indeed, gone mad?

Step 2, or: Madness? THIS. IS. SFORZA.

In my reply to the attacks above, I linked an article by Steve Sailer that explains quite clearly the “politically-correct smoke screen that Cavalli-Sforza regularly pumps out to keep his life’s work — distinguishing the races of mankind and compiling their genealogies — from being defunded.” In Cavalli-Sforza’s own words, direct from his unabridged 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes (HGHG, written with Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza), which I have open on the desk beside me:

The [genetic] color map of the world [see below] shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids… (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia” [Source: HGHG, p. 136]

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the world, from HGHG. He even put the damn thing on the cover.

Sailer goes on to explain that

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the ‘genetic distances’ separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danes, and the Japanese 59 times. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish. (The genetic distance between Japanese and Bantus is even greater.) [Source: Steve Sailer]

Neither Zek nor Abagond can refute any of this. Unfortunately, that does not stop them from disagreeing, with predictably incoherent results.

Back to step 1

Zek J Evets, who does not know when to quit:

Originally convinced that human races were subspecies… Cavalli [sic] changed his position after investing himself in research on the issue. (See [HGHG] p. 19) … This is called “learning”, but scientific racists like to quote him from 1994 (during the time he was still learning) when he said, “The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans” but not more recently when he published a book in 2000 entitled, Genes, Peoples, and Languages… that, according to The Economist (Vol. 356, no. 8177, pg. 11) “challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that ‘race’ has any useful biological meaning at all”. [Source: more of Zek’s vileness]

The History and Geography of Human Genes

Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza’s The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) is the culmination of Cavalli-Sforza’s five-decade career up to that point. Zek cites it twice. The first time it is to prove Cavalli-Sforza has “changed his position [by the time he wrote HGHG] after investing himself in research.” The second time it is to prove he was “still learning [when he wrote HGHG].” Yes, the quote about “[t]he most important difference in the human gene pool” is from HGHG (p. 93). Of course, both cannot be true. Zek doesn’t know what source he’s citing, let alone its contents.

Page 19 and the very top of page 20 of HGHG (which Zek has not read) do indeed contain all of Cavalli-Sforza’s reservations about racial classification. All of them are addressed in this article by Steve Sailer (which Zek has not read). The other 533.9 pages of the text (which Zek has not read) explain how Cavalli-Sforza produced the following 518 pages of genetic maps (which Zek has not looked at). Those maps, again, “[show] very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids… (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red)” (HGHG, p. 136).

One particularly silly objection by Cavalli-Sforza is that “[h]uman races are still extremely unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 or more races… [T]he level at which we stop our classification is completely arbitrary.” (HGHG, p. 19). This philosophical fallacy also “proves” that height, weight, motion, and food do not exist, since there is no non-arbitrary dividing line between short and tall or thin and fat; nor is there a consensus on what the highway speed limit should be or what kinds of food taste good.

Despite the alleged arbitrariness of races, Cavalli-Sforza’s six genetic color maps (the world, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Oceania) clearly depict black Africans, Khoisans (Bushmen and Hottentots), East Asians, south-west Asians, white Europeans similar to north Africans, native North Americans, native South Americans, and native Australians (HGHG, color section, Figures 1-6). To be precise, they clearly depict these races according to Cavalli-Sforza’s own captions. In fact, the only races from Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence which are not clearly depicted are

  1. Arctic Peoples as clearly distinct from native North Americans — Cavalli-Sforza’s caption to Figure 5 suggests this is “probably because [Eskimos] inhabit a very thin area on the coast,”
  2. south-east Asians as clearly distinct from East Asians” — his caption to Figure 3 notes the “extremely dark color that makes Southeast Asia almost invisible,” and
  3. Pacific Islanders, who occupy an even tinier area, as clearly distinct from native Australians — the map of Australia shows four major regions, one of which is present in Australia but not New Guinea.

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the Americas, from HGHG.

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of Africa, from HGHG.

Genes, Peoples, and Languages

Finally, we have Cavalli-Sforza’s 2000 book Genes, Peoples, and Languages (GPL), which I also have open on the desk beside me as I type this. Cavalli-Sforza reiterates his reservations about racial classification on pages 25-31. Then, knowing that any race denialist readers have already put down the book, satisfied — if they even bothered to pick it up in the first place — he gets back to the business of mapping human genes, in a way that happens to match up almost exactly with the everyday, hopelessly arbitrary racial classification scheme we all use (black, white, East Asian, and so on). His theories about human genetics have not changed significantly since he co-authored HGHG in 1994.

It is clear that Zek has not read GPL either, because instead of quoting it to support his case, he quotes an article in the Economist. This neatly illustrates Steve Sailer’s point: “What’s striking is how the press falls for his squid ink — even though Cavalli-Sforza can’t resist proudly putting this genetic map showing the main human races right on the cover” of HGHG. In fact, Zek appears to be quoting, not the Economist directly, but rather Wikipedia’s article on Cavalli-Sforza.

According to an article published in The Economist, the work of Cavalli-Sforza “challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that ‘race’ has any useful biological meaning at all”. [Source: Wikipedia]

That article cites “Geoffrey Carr, ‘Survey: The proper study of mankind’, The Economist Vol. 356, no. 8177, pg. 11. (1 July 2000).” Compare Zek’s version:

according to The Economist (Vol. 356, no. 8177, pg. 11) [GPL] “challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that ‘race’ has any useful biological meaning at all”. [Source: the world’s laziest researcher]

The find feature of any Internet browser will show that this is the only place Zek uses the abbreviation “pg.” for “page” (that is, the abbreviation used in the Wikipedia article), rather than his usual “p.” This tiny detail proves that the closest Zek came to reading his source, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, was copying and pasting from a Wikipedia article about the author that quotes an article in the Economist that interprets pages 25-31 of the actual source’s 228 pages as challenging the following:

  1. the existence of “significant genetic differences between human races,” which is demonstrated in HGHG
  2. “the idea that ‘race’ has any useful biological meaning at all,” which is validated by this video

Also note that Zek had previously written: “Apparently you [Unamused] never went to college since you still use [Wikipedia as a source]” (source). (Context: Zek was asserting that idiom is a synonym for rule of thumb. I provided the relevant Wikipedia pages for his edification.) Shortly before that, he wrote a post in which 80 percent of the citations were Wikipedia pages.

I leave it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to the quality — and honesty — of Zek J Evets’ scholarship.

Read Full Post »

Today I begin a new series of short essays debunking race denialism. This series is distinguished by its eclectic approach: for each essay, I will analyze one major or recurring error, rather than picking apart every fabrication and fallacy in one text (as I did in this post, this post, and this post). This approach avoids a common annoyance in race denialist debunking: the constant need to point out the two most common errors, which are unsubstantiated assertions (claims without evidence or citation) and misrepresentations of the race realist position (straw man fallacies). A single text often contains dozens of these.

The subject of today’s essay will be familiar to many readers. I know I said you’d never see him on this blog again, but race denialist Zek J Evet’s latest attempt to refute race realism (ZSA, found here) is so dishonest and incompetent, I could not in good conscience ignore it. Furthermore, his post was written as a direct response to my criticisms; specifically, “in response to (certain criticisms) that [Zek has] not cited enough source material properly, particularly from experts in the field, nor engaged with sufficiently recent research contrary to the opposition’s position” (ZSA). This was indeed one of my criticisms. However, the problem persists in ZSA; two examples are sufficient.

Repeatability

Consider Zek’s claim that IQ measurements have low repeatability. For now, I will ignore all errors except the improper citing of sources.

Now, the assertion that IQ is overwhelmingly heritable is false. How do we know this? Because when measuring IQ we get different results with each test. Unlike when measuring someone’s height multiple times in a row, an IQ test score changes constantly. (It changes based on mood), (it changes based on diet). (it even changes when testing the same person twice in a row!) This leads to IQ having a low heritability when plugged into narrow-sense and broad-sense heritability equations due to having a low repeatability. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if it is heritable, and to what degree. [Source: ZSA]

Zek’s first source is a 1992 study in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, “Effects of major depression on estimates of intelligence.” The authors found that “depressed patients had a pronounced deficit in performance IQ” but “were equivalent in verbal IQ” to the control group. It is not clear how the effects of major depressive disorder support the claim that IQ “changes based on mood.” Nor is this study relevant to the repeatability of IQ, which refers to “whether or not a trait varies when it is measured multiple times,” according to Zek’s own source, Mielke, Konigsberg, and Relethford’s Human Biological Variation (HBV, p. 242).

Finally, the authors of the cited study clearly believe their results are valid, which requires their IQ tests to be accurate and reliable; otherwise, they could not conclude that major depression affects IQ. The authors even believe IQ scores measure intelligence!

Zek’s second source is a 2011 story in the Daily Mail, “Danger of a junk food diet for children.” The story refers to a study by Pauline Emmett and Kate Northstone in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. There are two obvious problems with the study. First, the subjects were tested at age eight. As children age, IQ heritability increases and the effects of shared environment (including home diet) decrease (easily verified in the literature). Second, although the authors claim the IQ difference is environmental, they did not account for the effects of genes. It is perfectly plausible that more intelligent parents feed their children more nutritious food, especially since IQ correlates with socioeconomic status (SES) and low-SES families tend to have less nutritious diets (both also easily verified in the literature).

Again, the story and the study it cites are not relevant to the repeatability of IQ measurements. Again, the authors of the study clearly believe their results are valid, which requires their IQ tests to be accurate and reliable; otherwise, they could not conclude that poor diet affects IQ. The Daily Mail story even identifies IQ with “brainpower”!

Zek’s third source is a 2001 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology, “Stability and Change in Children’s Intelligence Quotient Scores: A Comparison of Two Socioeconomically Disparate Communities.” This is supposed to support the claim that IQ scores change “when testing the same person twice in a row.” This claim is not precise, nor is it relevant to IQ heritability. No race realist claims (or believes) that an intelligence test — or any other kind of test — is 100 percent repeatable, nor is 100 percent repeatability necessary to study IQ heritability. Even human body weight fluctuates measurably over the course of any given day; are we to believe our bathroom scale provides no information about our health?

The only relevant part of the study is the following statement: “repeated IQ testing during childhood reveals considerable change within individuals.” This does not support the claim that IQ tests have low repeatability, only that they do not have an unattainable 100 percent reliability. Again, the authors clearly believe IQ tests accurately and reliably measure something important: “[d]espite controversies about the meaning and nature of general intelligence, few would dispute the claim that scores on standardized intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are strong predictors of important outcomes for members of both majority and minority groups.”

Thus all of Zek’s sources contradict rather than support his argument.

Human Biological Variation

In the next paragraph, Zek cites Human Biological Variation (HBV), although he refers to it incorrectly as “Human Variation” and neglects to mention the third author, John H. Relethford. Again, I will ignore all errors except for improper citing of sources.

Where am I getting this from? James H Mielke, and Lyle Konigsberg, two bio-anthropologists who wrote (along with other scientists) a basic introductory textbook entitled (Human Variation) [sic]. (Among others) this text is used in virtually every physical anthropology class for undergraduate students in America, and all of them contain the same/similar information regarding heritability. Feel free to pick up a copy of the book and flip over to page 60-ish to read the section on this subject yourself if you’re curious. [Source: ZSA]

Only one edition of HBV, the first, has anything relevant to IQ or heritability on page 60. In that edition (HBV1), the only reference to IQ between pages 55 and 65 (inclusive) is the following sentence.

Assortative mating does to some extent occur for quantitative traits such as stature and intelligence quotient (IQ) (Spuhler 1968, Vandenberg 1972), but the evidence for assortative mating for simple genetic loci is less substantial. [Source: HBV1, p. 60]

There is no reference to heritability between pages 55 and 65. Page 60 itself belongs to a section on assortative mating, in which “genotypes are more (or less) likely to mate than we would expect at random” (HBV1, p. 59). Thus the sentence quoted from page 60 essentially states that higher-IQ people tend to mate with higher-IQ people. It is not clear how this is relevant to the heritability of IQ. (If tall, slender people were more likely to mate with tall, slender people, would that mean height and weight are less heritable?) The authors certainly do not claim it is (HBV1, pp. 343-344). In fact, their statements imply that IQ is a quantitative trait at least partly determined by genotype (HBV1, pp. 60-61).

Interestingly enough, HBV (“used in virtually every physical anthropology class for undergraduate students in America” according to ZSA) has the following to say about race differences in intelligence.

There is little debate over the average 15-point difference [in IQ] between American blacks and whites. What is less clear, and vigorously debated, is the meaning of this difference. Is the black-white difference genetic, environmental, or both? [Source: HBV1, p. 347]

The authors clearly believe that IQ tests are accurate and reliable enough that a 15-point IQ gap must be accounted for. They also state that “[t]he available evidence suggests that IQ, like many complex traits, is affected by both genetics and environment and that a simple debate over nature versus nurture is useless” (HBV, p. 347). This is entirely consistent with the race realist theory, since race realists do not claim (or believe) that IQ is 100 percent genetic.

Thus, again, Zek’s source contradicts rather than supports his argument. I conclude that Zek has not actually read the literature he cites. This makes some of his statements quite embarrassing for him.

… I’ve finally completed this final round of sources and citations regarding the heritability of IQ…

These scholars [including L. Konigsberg of HBV] will be my main sources for the following discussion, along with other articles from less preeminent researchers in the field. …

Where am I getting this [i.e., low repeatability and low heritability of IQ] from? … a basic introductory textbook entitled (Human Variation) [sic]. … Feel free to pick up a copy of the book and flip over to page 60-ish to read the section on this subject yourself if you’re curious.

… I know! So amazing! My references include actual books, than you can hold in your hands and turn the pages, instead of another URL to nowhere. …

READ A BOOK! It ain’t that hard… for most people. [Source: ZSA]

Indeed, reading a book is not that hard for most people. For Zek J Evets, it evidently is.

Update: I attempted to notify Zek of this rebuttal on his blog, but he chose to delete the comment rather than respond.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: