• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

Step back and think this through for a moment. Let's grant you the bolded red text. Let's say that intervention improves IQ. Secondly there is the more universal phenomenon of IQ in young children being somewhat responsive to the heavy control adults have over their environment and so we see slight improvement as the children age, but that process reverses itself as the children begin to assert their own individuality more.

Now, if you tailor your intervention within the window of time where IQ can be raised and before it begins to recede, then your intervention will show success. Your control group is also showing success from normal parental, teacher, involvement. The way you phrased your question appears like you don't credit the children in the intervention group with aging, and so also enhancing their IQ via this normal process, but you grant that the children in the control group get this benefit.

What has really happened is that the gap that was there in the beginning remained fairly steady over the 5 years of the study. If the intervention was successful then we would expect the gap that was recorded at the onset of the experiment to grow over time, thus showing the effects of the intervention.

Well, you have a lot of hypotheticals in there that aren't actually necessary to the discussion, because the actual experiment included monitoring of the subject children up to age 21. The bottom line is that they effectively proved that intensive, high-qualit child care from infancy can and does improve cognitive ability and it also has a number of quantifiable benefits, e.g.:

"Follow-up assessment of the participants involved in the project has been completed. Progress was monitored at ages 3, 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 12, 15 and 21.[5] The areas covered were cognitive functioning, academic skills, educational attainment, employment, parenthood, and social adjustment. The significant findings of the experiment were as follows:[6][7]

Impact of child care/preschool on reading and math achievement, and cognitive ability, at age 21:

An increase of 1.8 grade levels in reading achievement
An increase of 1.3 grade levels in math achievement
A modest increase in Full-Scale IQ (4.4 points), and in Verbal IQ (4.2 points).

Impact of child care/preschool on life outcomes at age 21:

Completion of a half-year more of education
Much higher percentage enrolled in school at age 21 (42 percent vs. 20 percent)
Much higher percentage attended, or still attending, a 4-year college (36 percent vs. 14 percent)
Much higher percentage engaged in skilled jobs (47 percent vs. 27 percent)
Much lower percentage of teen-aged parents (26 percent vs. 45 percent)
Reduction of criminal activity"

The project concluded that high quality, educational child care from early infancy was therefore of utmost importance."

Abecedarian Early Intervention Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you have a rational critique of the experiment I haven't been able to identify it.
 
Last edited:
While life has resurged after mass extinctions, there hasn't been any evolution of intelligent life except us

If evolution of intelligent life was so easy a process, why don't we see human equivalent birds, reptiles, cetaceans, felines, etc?

The mistake you're making is assuming intelligence is an end unto itself, that intelligence is the apex of evolution. It's an easy mistake to make: humans are intelligent and we tend to think of ourselves as the planet's dominant species. Problem is, "dominant" is a somewhat subjective term and evolution doesn't have a particular "goal" in mind. The goal of evolution, if there could be said to be one, is survival. Not cities, music, art, or space travel. Living and reproducing.

Dolphins are smart, but being smart doesn't make them capable of dominating the planet. An octopus is smart too. So are crows, I remember watching a youtube video about some crows in England who figured out traffic signals. They found nuts that are too hard for them to crack, so they put them on the street for cars to run over and crack them. Of course, being in traffic is dangerous... unless you wait for the crosswalk light to turn green. They ****ing figured out crosswalks. Smart, right? So why don't crows dominate the planet? Because they weigh like three pounds and can't make a spear, let alone hold one.

Humans, physically speaking, are really kinda pathetic. But our particular combination of intelligence, communication skills, and manual dexterity allowed us to figure out tools. We're the right size to both need weapons and be able to use them. To use the extreme example, of what use would tool-using intelligence be to a Tyrannosaur? It wouldn't provide much of a survival advantage because that creature is already quite survivable. (asteroids not included)

Of course, "why" is a pretty tricky question right from the start when you're talking about evolution.
 
nijato said:
However, you have not yet provided a reference which supports your average racial IQs you posted earlier.

RiverDad said:
The IQ literature shows the following for group mean IQ: Ashkenazi Jew, 115; Northeast Asian., 105; Whites, 100; Hispanic, 89; African-American, 85.
I feel that providing a scientific reference for this rather extraordinary claim is crucial to your credibility.
Do you really need citations of Racial IQ differences?
The internet and last century are replete with such.
Surely you can't pretend/posit you are not aware of the wealth of it.
Even deniers can only make up apologies for those Acknowledged differences.
(socio-economic, nutrition, blah, etc)

You might want to start with a post of mine in This very string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warming-call-me-crazy-20.html#post1059741795

Amazingly the data is more difficult to find now than 5 or 10 years ago as sites like Wikipedia have become utterly PC and deleted large amounts of info. This is true about so Many sensitive entries on Wiki.
ie, A Large version of this used to be on Race and intelligence - Wikipedia page:

401px-IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

No more. The link no longer exists.

Richard Lynn's table USED to be on the same. Found it in a 3 year old post of mine From that site.
(the same post which contained the graph above http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/31673-race-iq.html#post474169 )

Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" 2006 Table 16.2 (indigenous populations)

Estimated average IQ

Arctic Peoples ---------------- ------------ 91
East Asians -------------------- ---------- 105
Europeans ------------------- - ---------- 100
Native Americans (north & south) ------ 86
Southern Asian & Northern Africans ---- 84
Bushmen (southern Africa) -------------- 54
Africans (subsaharan) -------------------- 67
Native Australians (aboriginals) --------- 62
Southeast Asians ------------------------- 87
Pacific Islanders -------------------------- 85
No longer. Though he is mentioned.
 
Last edited:
While life has resurged after mass extinctions, there hasn't been any evolution of intelligent life except us

If evolution of intelligent life was so easy a process, why don't we see human equivalent birds, reptiles, cetaceans, felines, etc?

Because intelligence takes many forms. Dolphins, as I'm sure you know have a well documented ability to communicate with complex vocalizations. If we consider the degree of folding of their brains, it is possible that bottle-nose dolphins have a processing capacity on par with humans.

Also, all of the primates are rather intelligent. Apes are all capable of what is called domain-general cognition, or in more common parlance, the ability to learn problem-solving techniques and apply them to different settings. There is a good paper about this here.

Also, one of the most interesting phenomenon is how some echinoderms use a nerve net lacking any central brain to produce highly complex camouflage that mimics the specific surroundings of their environment. Unfortunately, after a few minutes of searching I couldn't find something I remember reading years ago that said by some measure they were the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth due to the sheer number and frequency of nerve signals they produce.

Finally, evolution theory is not made to answer "why not" questions. Natural selection can only act on what is available - and what is available may not be what's "best." There are certainly pigments that are better at capturing light energy than chlorophyll, yet almost all plants use it. Why? Because they are descended from ancient ancestors that contained chlorophyll and managed to do the only things that matter in evolution: survive and reproduce.

The "why not" line of reasoning is actually a good piece of evidence in favor of evolution theory - any designer that came up with the inefficient, impractical organisms we see around us should be ashamed of themselves! Check out the "laryngeal nerve" as an example.

RECURRENT_LARYNGEAL_2.jpg


Finally, I think you had a question about the evolution of baleen whales. Wikipedia has a good piece on it here, the basic point of which is that the intermediate ancestor between ancient toothed whales and modern baleens had both teeth and baleens. One of the best pieces of evidence for this is Janjucetus, a fossil species that has both and lived about 25 million years ago.
 
The mistake you're making is assuming intelligence is an end unto itself, that intelligence is the apex of evolution. It's an easy mistake to make: humans are intelligent and we tend to think of ourselves as the planet's dominant species. Problem is, "dominant" is a somewhat subjective term and evolution doesn't have a particular "goal" in mind. The goal of evolution, if there could be said to be one, is survival. Not cities, music, art, or space travel. Living and reproducing.

Dolphins are smart, but being smart doesn't make them capable of dominating the planet. An octopus is smart too. So are crows, I remember watching a youtube video about some crows in England who figured out traffic signals. They found nuts that are too hard for them to crack, so they put them on the street for cars to run over and crack them. Of course, being in traffic is dangerous... unless you wait for the crosswalk light to turn green. They ****ing figured out crosswalks. Smart, right? So why don't crows dominate the planet? Because they weigh like three pounds and can't make a spear, let alone hold one.

Humans, physically speaking, are really kinda pathetic. But our particular combination of intelligence, communication skills, and manual dexterity allowed us to figure out tools. We're the right size to both need weapons and be able to use them. To use the extreme example, of what use would tool-using intelligence be to a Tyrannosaur? It wouldn't provide much of a survival advantage because that creature is already quite survivable. (asteroids not included)

Of course, "why" is a pretty tricky question right from the start when you're talking about evolution.

Right, and we don't generally think of ants, termites, or roaches as being smart, but they are incredibly successful species in terms of survival and reproduction.
 
Of course, "why" is a pretty tricky question right from the start when you're talking about evolution.

Lets put "why" aside for the time being and focus on "how"

There are lots of very complex structures in humans, insects, animals, fish, etc. According to evolutionary theory, they evolved from less complex structures and survived in the species because they offered a survival advantage.

How can evolution be tested???? Some scientists think the ear evolved from a breathing tube that allowed ancient fish to take an occasional breath of air through the top of their head. First of all, at some point, the fish never had a breathing tube. How did it spontaneously develop? I can see an advantage to a shallow water fish to be able to breath air as well as water, but the fish couldn't decide it wanted to do that and spontaneously alter its structure to do so. Even if countless generations are struggling along breathing just water, how do they suddenly start growing a tube? Was there some spontaneous mutation of on fish and it had a freaking hole in its head that connected to lungs/gills and allowed it to breath air?
 
Do you really need citations of Racial IQ differences?
The internet and last century are replete with such.
Surely you can't pretend/posit you are not aware of the wealth of it.
Even deniers can only make up apologies for those Acknowledged differences.
(socio-economic, nutrition, blah, etc)

You might want to start with a post of mine in This very string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warming-call-me-crazy-20.html#post1059741795

Amazingly the data is more difficult to find now than 5 or 10 years ago as sites like Wikipedia have become utterly PC and deleted large amounts of info. This is true about so Many sensitive entries on Wiki.
ie, A Large version of this used to be on Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia page:

401px-IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

No more. The link no longer exists.

Richard Lynn's table USED to be on Wiki: Found it in a 3 year old post of mine From that site.
(the same post which contained the graph above Race and IQ. - Political Forum )


No longer. Though he is mentioned.

Some of this data has been found to be spurious:

"Data showing that the Japanese had higher I.Q.s than people of European descent, for example, prompted the British psychometrician and eugenicist Richard Lynn to concoct an elaborate evolutionary explanation involving the Himalayas, really cold weather, premodern hunting practices, brain size, and specialized vowel sounds. The fact that the I.Q.s of Chinese-Americans also seemed to be elevated has led I.Q. fundamentalists to posit the existence of an international I.Q. pyramid, with Asians at the top, European whites next, and Hispanics and blacks at the bottom.

Here was a question tailor-made for James Flynn's accounting skills. He looked first at Lynn's data, and realized that the comparison was skewed. Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at 99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates. They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco's Chinatown using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal. Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans. (Gladwell 2007)"

IQ and race - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

I think the bottom line is that intelligence obviously has genetic and behavioral components. Throughout the history of man various groups have concocted bogus tests and measurements to explain why THEIR group was fundamentally superior to that/those other groups.
 
Some of this data has been found to be spurious:

"Data showing that the Japanese had higher I.Q.s than people of European descent, for example, prompted the British psychometrician and eugenicist Richard Lynn to concoct an elaborate evolutionary explanation involving the Himalayas, really cold weather, premodern hunting practices, brain size, and specialized vowel sounds. The fact that the I.Q.s of Chinese-Americans also seemed to be elevated has led I.Q. fundamentalists to posit the existence of an international I.Q. pyramid, with Asians at the top, European whites next, and Hispanics and blacks at the bottom.
.....

IQ and race - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
.....
That's just more skepDICK apologetics.
njato had asked for data, not SkepDicks excuses/rationalizations.

And YOU have -0- Credibility with me since your Underhanded stunt of last night here.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warming-call-me-crazy-27.html#post1059742583
but thanks for at least posting the link this time.
You've shown you can Google if (and) nothing else.
Goodbye.
 
Last edited:
Lets put "why" aside for the time being and focus on "how"

There are lots of very complex structures in humans, insects, animals, fish, etc. According to evolutionary theory, they evolved from less complex structures and survived in the species because they offered a survival advantage.

How can evolution be tested???? Some scientists think the ear evolved from a breathing tube that allowed ancient fish to take an occasional breath of air through the top of their head. First of all, at some point, the fish never had a breathing tube. How did it spontaneously develop? I can see an advantage to a shallow water fish to be able to breath air as well as water, but the fish couldn't decide it wanted to do that and spontaneously alter its structure to do so. Even if countless generations are struggling along breathing just water, how do they suddenly start growing a tube? Was there some spontaneous mutation of on fish and it had a freaking hole in its head that connected to lungs/gills and allowed it to breath air?

Again, nothing happens suddenly in evolution and these examples you keep raising are nothing more than conjecture. If you want proof of evolution it is available in great abundance. It can even be seen in microorganisms where it occurs rapidly due to their short life cycles. Thus we invent anti-bacterial soap, only to discover that in a few short years, bacteria have evolved that can survive the anti-bacterial chemicals.
 
That's just moree "skepDICK apologetics.

And YOU have -0- Credibility with me since your Underhanded stunt of last night.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warming-call-me-crazy-27.html#post1059742583
(but thanks for at least posting the link this time)

Your criticism is quite bizarre. As I pointed out last night, a) I misread your original post, but in any case, b) nothing that followed what I quoted contradicted what I said/quoted.

And for the record, if you want to stand on a credibility high horse, I suggest you ride in on something other than ad hominem argument.
 
Do you really need citations of Racial IQ differences?
Yes.
The internet and last century are replete with such.
Surely you can't pretend/posit you are not aware of the wealth of it.
Even deniers can only make up apologies for those Acknowledged differences.
(socio-economic, nutrition, blah, etc)

Ok. There's lots of BS on the internet, and the last century is also replete with BS... and I fully acknowledge that intelligence (as measured by IQ) is somewhere between 50 and 90% heritable, because there's peer-reviewed research to support that, even though it is admittedly difficult to isolate genetics as an independent variable.

As for the last part, all those "blah-blah socio-economic" factors also play a significant role, by ANY measure. No rational person would argue they don't have a significant impact.

You might want to start with a post of mine in This very string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warming-call-me-crazy-20.html#post1059741795

Amazingly the data is more difficult to find now than 5 or 10 years ago as sites like Wikipedia have become utterly PC and deleted large amounts of info. This is true about so Many sensitive entries on Wiki.
ie, A Large version of this used to be on Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia page:

401px-IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

No more. The link no longer exists.

Richard Lynn's table USED to be on Wiki: Found it in a 3 year old post of mine From that site.
(the same post which contained the graph above Race and IQ. - Political Forum )


No longer. Though he is mentioned.

Can't I just get a link to an article in Science, Nature,or evenIntelligence (The Journal of the International Society of Intelligence Research?

You make very great claims, then back them up with links to blog posts and books of dubious reputation. I need data! What are the sample sizes? What are the standard deviations? I'll keep my mind open. If you should find something a little more reliable, please do post it. For now however, I'm going to have to say your claims are unsubstantiated.
 
Your criticism is quite bizarre. As I pointed out last night, a) I misread your original post, but in any case, b) nothing that followed what I quoted contradicted what I said/quoted.

And for the record, if you want to stand on a credibility high horse, I suggest you ride in on something other than ad hominem argument.
That's a Raging LIE.
A Repeated Raging Lie.

The sequence explained here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warming-call-me-crazy-27.html#post1059742583

You Withheld the Link to hide the fact it actually Contradicted you after the first sentence.
The second going on to explain that all dogs descended from ONE grey wolf specie and that the 2 species names were, IN FACT, viewed a Synonyms, NOT 2 different species.

I'm not sure what to do at this point except keep exposing your Dishonest tactics and Denial. I view what you did, and now again Lie about, as Beneath Contempt.
But I won't preempt myself from busting your Crap in the future by necessarily ignoring your posts.
Fini.
 
Last edited:
That's a Raging LIE.
A Repeated Raging Lie.

The sequence explained here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warming-call-me-crazy-27.html#post1059742583

You Withheld the Link to hide the fact it actually Contradicted you after the first sentence.
The second going on to explain that all dogs descended from ONE grey wolf specie and that the 2 species names were, IN FACT, viewed a Synonyms, NOT 2 different species.

I'm not sure what to do at this point except keep exposing your Dishonest tactics and Denial. I view what you did, and now again Lie about, as Beneath Contempt.
But I won't preempt myself from busting your Crap in the future by using 'ignore'.

Don't give yourself an aneurysm, there, junior. You don't know what you're talking about. The point I was making with the quote was that all dogs ARE one species. As I explained (when I APOLOGIZED for misreading your original post), I thought you were arguing that all breeds are separate species. Thus, the rest of the quote only reinforced the quote that I posted.
 
.........

You make very great claims, then back them up with links to blog posts and books of dubious reputation. I need data! What are the sample sizes? What are the standard deviations? I'll keep my mind open. If you should find something a little more reliable, please do post it. For now however, I'm going to have to say your claims are unsubstantiated.
There's Plenty posted in my last and the previous post of mine in this string (you necessarily Ignored) linked to in it.

And one could post infinitely more.
But I see you want to play word/mb games, when again, even IQ deniers acknowledge the difference, only challenge the reasons for them.

Somewhat like the GW debate debate is basically unchallenged, just the AGW part.
Similarly Racial IQ is also not really challenged, just the reasons for the differences.
But you want to Bust Balls by Burden shifting where there is No debate.

-
 
Last edited:
Lets put "why" aside for the time being and focus on "how"

There are lots of very complex structures in humans, insects, animals, fish, etc. According to evolutionary theory, they evolved from less complex structures and survived in the species because they offered a survival advantage.

How can evolution be tested????

Here's my ALL-TIME favorite experiment EVER: Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

To keep it short and sweet, this team developed pairs of RNA sequences that could catalyze their own construction from RNA nucleotides. The amazing part is this - after allowing this to occur for a sufficient number of cycles, an entire NEW SET of molecules was in their test tubes. These new, mutant versions were much better at reproducing than the original sequences, which had gone completely extinct. Here's an article about it from Science Daily

Also, another point is generation times are too long for complex organisms to see meaningful changes. That's why evolutionary biologists often study bacterial or viral systems that reproduce much more quickly. Here's an example: About 30,000 generations separate humans and the most recent common ancestor shared with chimps. That took about 6,000,000 years to happen. A fast reproducing bacteria dividing every 30 minutes can go through 30,000 generations in about 2 years.
 
You're conditions aren't fair: you tell me I must find a drug that works ONLY for people whose names begin with the letter A, yet your task is only to find a drug that works "especially well" for African Americans. I posit that it is entirely possible that a drug could be more effective for people with only A names. Just because of the stochastic nature of population genetics, as well as ethno-cultural naming patterns, I bet significant genetic differences could be found among groups of people based solely on name. Obviously, this is just a conjecture, but it would make for an interesting study.

It's not a fair bet because with only a few exceptions the correlation between family name (Cohen, Wong) and identifiable genetic structure is going to be about 0.0. Race isn't just about skin color or hair texture or just a few distinct facial features - the meaning of race is hidden within the correlational structure of the genome. This wasn't really understood until only a few decades ago but now with a better understanding of the principles, more sophisticated hardware, and powerful statistical analysis, all sorts of goodies are being uncovered.

Your gambit is similar to what Jared Diamond tried to push with his inane suggestion that we could socially construct a "lactose intolerant" race. He argued that you could find lactose intolerance in many different population groups and so, if lactose intolerance was deemed socially significant, a new race of people would be recognized. This is a pretty laughable proposition because it isolates race down to only one attribute and that's not what race is about. You don't see people with ancestry in East Africa being black, but with red hair, blue eyes, shovel shaped incisors, nordic nasal features, Sami cheekbones, straight black hair as seen in Asians, etc.

What I did above was identify features that mark appearance, but race goes deeper that just appearance. We see different disease dispositions, different distributions of breast cancers for instance, black woman tending to get the more aggressive type, Asians having a greater risk of acquired severe aplastic anaemia, and so on. Incidentally, it is precisely because race is so salient to social outcomes that most international comparisons which don't control for the racial variance across populations are worthless, studies like those which compare longevity, health outcomes, infant mortality, as well as education, wealth, income, income inequality.

Anyways, when I take the side of the bet that there useful correlations associated with race, I've got a whole lot of interrelated factors moving together where you, having picked names, really don't. That was a sucker bet. If you don't like the angle I took by referencing pharmaceuticals tailored to race, I'm more than happy to take subjects like infant mortality against your grouping of names beginning with any letter you chose.

However, you have not yet provided a reference which supports your average racial IQs you posted earlier.

This is actually the least controversial point I've made in this entire discussion. Those numbers are seen all throughout the literature. No one is disputing them. The dispute, as it is, centers on whether the numbers arise from genes, environment or a combination of both factors. The extremist creationists argue for environment, the moderates argue for genes and environment. No one argues for genes alone.

Here is a task-force report that was put together 15 years ago by the American Psychological Association in response to the best selling book The Bell Curve and all of the controversy it caused. The task-force has representation from all sides of the debate and this report was a statement that they all agreed to. Keep in mind that this is now 15 years old and science has moved on but the IQ data on groups is still showing the same level of variance.

  • The relatively low mean of the distribution of African American intelligence test scores has been discussed for many years. Although studies
    using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites.
  • In the United States, the mean intelligence test scores of Hispanics typically lie between those of Blacks and Whites.
  • It may be worth noting that the interpretation of test scores obtained by Asians in Asia has been controversial in its own right. Lynn (1982) reported a mean Japanese IQ of 111 while Flynn (1991) estimated it to be between 101 and 105. . . . . A similar calculation for Japanese Americans shows that their level of achievement matched that of Whites averaging 110.

I feel that providing a scientific reference for this rather extraordinary claim is crucial to your credibility.

You're being unintentionally funny here. That was not an extraordinary claim. These IQ gaps are the underlying basis for policies like No Child Left Behind, Affirmative Action, and they form the basis for how we look at Jewish achievement, the theme of Asians being the model minority.
 
You don't have to bend reality or reject science to have faith.

You don't. I agree. The fellow is also right that you can't read the bible literally, accept that, and believe in science. Those who interpret the bible literally should question their believes more IMHO.
 
You're being unintentionally funny here. That was not an extraordinary claim. These IQ gaps are the underlying basis for policies like No Child Left Behind, Affirmative Action, and they form the basis for how we look at Jewish achievement, the theme of Asians being the model minority.

That's an absurd statement. These distinctions are based on statistical differences in achievement, not an artificial benchmark.
 
Here is a task-force report that was put together 15 years ago by the American Psychological Association in response to the best selling book The Bell Curve and all of the controversy it caused. The task-force has representation from all sides of the debate and this report was a statement that they all agreed to. Keep in mind that this is now 15 years old and science has moved on but the IQ data on groups is still showing the same level of variance.

  • The relatively low mean of the distribution of African American intelligence test scores has been discussed for many years. Although studies
    using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites.
  • In the United States, the mean intelligence test scores of Hispanics typically lie between those of Blacks and Whites.
  • It may be worth noting that the interpretation of test scores obtained by Asians in Asia has been controversial in its own right. Lynn (1982) reported a mean Japanese IQ of 111 while Flynn (1991) estimated it to be between 101 and 105. . . . . A similar calculation for Japanese Americans shows that their level of achievement matched that of Whites averaging 110.



You're being unintentionally funny here. That was not an extraordinary claim. These IQ gaps are the underlying basis for policies like No Child Left Behind, Affirmative Action, and they form the basis for how we look at Jewish achievement, the theme of Asians being the model minority.

IN a clear statement, what do you attribute to be the cause for the deviation?
 
There's Plenty posted in my last and the previous post of mine in this string (you necessarily Ignored) linked to in it.

And one could post infinitely more.
But I see you want to play word/mb games, when again, even IQ deniers acknowledge the difference, only challenge the reasons for them.

Somewhat like the GW debate debate is basically unchallenged, just the AGW part.
Similarly Racial IQ is also not really challenged, just the reasons for the differences.
But you want to Bust Balls by Burden shifting where there is no debate.

-

It would seem you aren't interested in figuring out the real causes behind the differences you purport.
 
If you have a rational critique of the experiment I haven't been able to identify it.

That's because debating you when the issue is science is like talking to a wall. I gave you a link to a critique of the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project study which demonstrated that the intervention cohort was stacked. Here, I'll quote it directly:


Four cohorts were recruited over a 5-year period, but the experimental group in Cohorts 3 and 4 produced unusually high scores on the Bayley MDI. Differences between experimental and control groups at 60 months of age were comparable to differences at 6 months of age.


What you're seeing at age 21 was also seen at ages 5 and 12 and also at the beginning of the study.

The bottom line is that they effectively proved that intensive, high-qualit child care from infancy can and does improve cognitive ability and it also has a number of quantifiable benefits

Let's toss this around for a bit. For the sake of this discussion I'll pretend that what you want to be true is indeed true. OK, let's say that early intervention works. Let's also pretend that this study wasn't focused on borderline retarded children but children in the normal cognitive range.

Here's my question to you - If Early Childhood Education effectively improves outcomes during childhood and those outcomes are stable into adulthood, then what? Tell me what you propose if this magic world could be brought about. Give me your policy wishlist.
 
mbig said:
There's Plenty posted in my last and the previous post of mine in this string (you necessarily Ignored) linked to in it.

And one could post infinitely more.
But I see you want to play word/mb games, when again, even IQ deniers acknowledge the difference, only challenge the reasons for them.

Somewhat like the GW debate debate is basically unchallenged, just the AGW part.
Similarly Racial IQ is also not really challenged, just the reasons for the differences.
But you want to Bust Balls by Burden shifting where there is no debate.
It would seem you aren't interested in figuring out the real causes behind the differences you purport.

It would seem you are no longer contesting my point after what you were really doing was exposed in my last.
Not that your Burden wasn't Already met by me in This string and last few posts.
ie MANY studies cited in the Wiki Link I gave, in addition to the now deleted data I posted... as well as my previous Jensen/Rushton post in THIS string. I linked back to.

Wiki 'Race and IQ' previously Linked; Footnotes ARE Studies/references said:
US test scores

Rushton and Jensen (2005 and 2010) write that in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They state that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs). 15% to 20% of the black IQ distribution exceeds the white median IQ, so many blacks obtain scores above the white average. The black-white IQ difference is largest on those tests that best represent the general intelligence factor g.[19][23] The 1996 APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and the 1994 statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less Similar estimates.[4][59]

Roth et al. (2001) in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude found a black-white gap of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[60]

A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the black-white gap closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002,[61] which would be a reduction by about one-third. However this was challenged by Rushton & Jensen who claim the gap remains stable.[62] Murray in a 2006 study agree with Dickens and Flynn that there has been a narrowing of the gap, "Dickens' and Flynn's estimate of 3–6 IQ points from a base of about 16–18 points is a useful, though provisional, starting point". But he argues that this has stalled and that there has been no further narrowing for people born after the late 1970s.[63] He found similar results in a 2007 study.[64]

The IQ distributions of other racial and ethnic groups in the United States are less well-studied. The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian 106, and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse on average than white populations but better on average than black populations.[60]

According to several studies, Ashkenazi Jews score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviation above the general European average. This corresponds to an IQ of 112–115. Other studies have found somewhat lower values. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US science Nobel Prizes and 25% of the Turing Awards. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about one half standard deviation, than the European average.[65] See also Ashkenazi intelligence. The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not necessarily a random sample of the populations in other parts of the world. Therefore, results from data in the US and Europe do not necessarily apply to the rest of the world.
ALL studies have found there is a Gap.
From 3-6 pts to 15-18 pts between Blacks and Whites. (That would be even Larger/Wider between Asians/Jews and Blacks; 2 SDs?!)
The sample wide/extensive.
But nijato wants to play Games here on whether they even exist.
 
Last edited:
Any noted differences at any testing or study are meaningless without an explanation as to why the difference is there.
 
RD, A few points...
1. There are OF COURSE haplotypes, especially microsatellite ones that are identifiable by race - we've done that. And I'll even grant that my proposition about aggregating genetic differences based on name is far less likely to come to anything meaningful than by classifying them by race. It was a point of limited use.

2. Your specific chart was identified by mbig as a part of Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis by Richard Lynn. Is that the case?

3. It seems that if we accept a heritability of 0.5 to 0.9, there is MORE than adequate environmental influence to account for the deviations given (i.e. 1 SD black:white)
 
Last edited:
That's because debating you when the issue is science is like talking to a wall. I gave you a link to a critique of the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project study which demonstrated that the intervention cohort was stacked. Here, I'll quote it directly:


Four cohorts were recruited over a 5-year period, but the experimental group in Cohorts 3 and 4 produced unusually high scores on the Bayley MDI. Differences between experimental and control groups at 60 months of age were comparable to differences at 6 months of age.

Let's toss this around for a bit. For the sake of this discussion I'll pretend that what you want to be true is indeed true. OK, let's say that early intervention works. Let's also pretend that this study wasn't focused on borderline retarded children but children in the normal cognitive range.

Yes, I saw your earlier post and I acknowledge that the experiment has been criticized. However, the critique of the experiment has also been criticized and there was then a response to that critique and I have not been able to read all of the relevent papers.

Ramey, C. T. (1993). A rejoinder to Spitz's critique of the Abecedarian experiment. Intelligence, 17, 25-30.
Spitz, H. H. (1993a). Spitz's reply to Ramey's response to Spitz's first reply to Ramey's first response to Spitz's critique of the Abecedarian project. Intelligence, 17, 31-35.
Spitz, H. H. (1993b). When prophecy fails: On Ramey's response to Spitz's critique of the Abecedarian project. Intelligence, 17, 17-23.

So I think it's a bit premature to imagine that your cited paper is necessarily the last word on the subject.

I think you also overstate the case that a link between IQ and race is generally accepted.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser2.html#c19

Here's my question to you - If Early Childhood Education effectively improves outcomes during childhood and those outcomes are stable into adulthood, then what? Tell me what you propose if this magic world could be brought about. Give me your policy wishlist.

I should think that would be fairly obvious. If it proves out then we should invest more in early child education.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom