Immigration and the Unmentionable Question

Post Reply New Topic

i never said it was not a reasonable topic for discussion, merely that the page you cited seems largely dismissive of the idea in general.



before i begin, i would like to point out that natural selection is not a scientific fact, it is a biological theory, yes, and perhaps the most plausible explanation behind the evolution of life, but it is by no means scientific fact.

ok. firstly, the book that you mentioned uses questionable data on which to base its assumptions. the average national iq figures on which the premise is based were largely estimated by the authors. from the wikipedia page you cited:

and


secondly, many would dispute the validity of iq as a means of testing cognitive ability.

thirdly, even if there is a statistical link between the average iq of populations and the afluence of that nation, there is little or nothing to suggest that this difference in iq score results from genetics, and not cultural, social or other factors.

to sum up, i don't think i ever said that the point wasn't a valid topic for discussion, as you claim, however the above noted points are the reasons why i think the assumption is largely baseless.

the suggestion would therefore be that debating the subject is somewhat futile, bearing in mind that with a lack of reasonably sound research, the argument is groundless, and people are generally just going to follow their own agenda and belief system rather than pondering the idea with an open mind. being that you are a racist person, then obviously you would jump on the idea that members of certain other races are somehow intelectually inferior to yourself.

Good! Glad we cleared that one up.


There were arguments both ways, I recall. Wikipedia gives you a taste of the variety of opinions on controversial subjects, but it's not always possible to know which is the current mainstream scientific one.


It's about as much a fact as you can get in science. So let's not get pedantic, peebo. Anyway, you agree it's the most plausible explanation, and that will suffice for now.




Like I said, there are arguments both ways. You've just selected two sections that suit your opinions. You can read on and find details of studies that go counter to those.


Not many. Anyway, for the purposes of this exercise shall we agree that it is a measure of cognitive ability? You might say that it doesn't measure every cognitive function, but it's a measure of some — I really don't see how it can't be.


But I could turn that around and say there is little or nothing to suggest that this difference in IQ score results from cultural, social or other factors, and not genetics, couldn't I? Perhaps it's just one of the factors?



No. We can still make an informed assessment. Like I said, populations that live nearer the equator have darker skin than those who live in cooler regions. They also have different physiques. As we've agreed that natural selection is the best explanation for evolution, can we agree that these differences are attributable to natural selection? If we can, it's not a huge leap to figure that natural selection could have influenced the cognitive attributes of different populations, is it? In fact, it would seem quite strange if it hadn't!


Well, I don't know about that! I believe there are differences between populations from different parts of the world, just as there are differences between sexes. Is that racist in the UK these days? Is it sexist to say women have big breasts compared to men?


But my argument contains the acknowledgement that white northern Europeans aren't, on average, the smartest. I think that honour goes to certain eastern Asians. Anyway, as codarac pointed out we are talking averages: there are plenty of very smart people from Africa, and plenty of not-so-smart ones from Europe, but that doesn't invalidate the argument.

but i think the most important point is that the book in question, which as far as i am aware is the main, or perhaps only piece of purported scientific literature on the subject, is fatally flawed, since the data that was used was estimatede by the authors and was therefore unreliable. you seem to have sidestepped addressing that specific point.

anyway i am pressed for time at the moment, but i may have more to say on this topic tomorrow.

I think some estimates were used, but that doesn't invalidate the results. They just need to be read with regard to how those estimates were made and applied. Anyway, take a look at the Templer and Arikawa(2006) link on that wikipedia page in the references. I can't link to it here because it's long and messes up the page format.



And here's another Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence

hmm i find it difficult to take this seriously when it transpires that the writer receives funding
for his research from an organisation with strong links to the fascist movement. it would seem
likely to me then has his work is clearly likely to be biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_fund

You're not addressing the points I made, peebo. You're just trying to discredit one set of studies by claiming they're financed by "fascists", whilst ignoring other studies that support them. "Fascist" in this context is just another spurious label like "racist" and "troll" that reflects the inability, or unwillingness, of a person to engage in meaningful dialogue. I found this on those you claim are "fascists":

http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html

To be honest, I am open minded on this, but the more I read, the more it seems perfectly reasonable that there could be a correlation between IQ and other factors like race. If you can give a credible argument as to why there shouldn't I'd be very interested to hear, especially as I've cited other genetically controlled factors that can correlated with race like skin colour and physique.

what points specifically have you made that i did not address in my previous reply? if you list them for me i'll address them one by one for you.

both of the books that you have linked us to on this matter seem to court controversy in one way or another, either based upon substandard data or funded by a fascist organisation. and obviously the pioneer fund's own website is not the place to go for unbiased information regarding their agenda, now is it?

for example, i could post a link to this page, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/022.html which cites a close connection between the pioneer fund and nazi germany...

furthermore, it strikes me as somewhat peculiar that a person claiming to have a neurological condition such as asperger's syndrome would be trying to defend an organisation that was founded by people with an interest in eugenics in general, and particularly in forcibly sterilising "the mentally ill and mentally ret*d"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Draper

Read through the last few posts of mine and that should be clear. Anyway, what that boils down to is why you seem so opposed to accepting there could be a genetically determined correlation between race and IQ. Why shouldn't there be? What's wrong with people carrying out research to ascertain that?


Well, it's a controversial subject, what do you expect? That's why we're discussing it. I've also directed you at another source that supports some of their findings.




Scientific work is always scrutinised then criticised; it's part of the process. I don't believe there's a consensus that it is substandard, but nobody would argue that it's perfect.


Where do you suggest we get unbiased information? It's necessary to get information from a variety of sources in order to form an opinion, and an opinion formed without visiting their website would be seriously lacking, wouldn't it? Why are they fascist? Because they don't agree with your marxist beliefs, maybe? (Conjecture on my part). Lots (perhaps most, I'm not sure) of scientific research is funded by organisations with some form of political agenda, for example oil and pharmaceutical companies.

ascan, they are clearly a fascist organisation. the founders of the pioneer fund were undeniably fascists. read the wikipedia article on wickliffe draper. and also, can you respond to my last post?

and for your information, i would certainly not consider myself a marxist. i am sure we've had this discussion before.

Wow becafefull bringing up "big oil" and "big pharma" they will
make you swim with cement shoes. Your allready going to have a hard time swimming with an Iron Cross around your neck.

You could. And I could say that lots of US organisations had links with Nazi Germany before the war. So what?

Why can't you tackle the argument, and not keep attempting to discredit sources?



We're talking here and now. Not so long ago a large part of the US treated black people like second class citizens — even ones that fought in the war. I can't use that to discredit anything that comes out of the South of that country now, can I?

Lots of people did unpleasant things in the past. For example:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/euge-19m.shtml

So, explain why there shouldn't be a correlation between race and IQ?

ascan, i have not stated that there is categorically no relationship. i am just maintaining that any sources you produce that suggest a correlation are flawed in that they use unreliable data and are connected to fascist organisations. and besides, it is impossible to prove a negative. it is up to you to prove to us that there is a relationship, since it is you who asserts that there is one.

What's your problem, TheMachine1? Do you ever read any books? You can find plenty of scientific papers that discuss the kind of thing I'm talking about. For example, the Ashkenazi jews have very high average IQs.

Here's an abstract from a paper that examines that:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&list_uids=16867211&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google

Rarely. I tend to use refrences books on things I'm interested in
like Chemistry.

My problem with the disscussion is I think its routed in racism and
not the love of truth. Because those that love truth are focus on important things that can make a difference for all people.