• 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!

Hi, everyone.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wicked_SFG said:
What, exactly, do you want me to cite? If we're talking about cultural bias in tests, then I've given you the names of two books where intelligence researchers explain why tests aren't biased.

If we're talking about the mere existence of differences between groups, then this is just not seriously contested by anyone active in relevant fields. I don't know what I can possibly cite here. The debate is about the causes of the differences, with people like Nisbett (environmentalists) who maintain that the cause is environmental and people like Jensen (hereditarians) who maintain that genetic factors play an important role. No one that I know of disputes that the explanandum is race differences.
Click to expand...

This is getting pathetic. Cite something we can read that supports your claim of racial differences in IQ. If I really have transported to bizarro world, and what you claim is scientific consensus, then you should have no problem; it should be in wikipedia.


Are you desperately searching a 'race and IQ' file dump for a citation that's not a hate website? You're not gonna find one. But do show us what you have.
 
Last edited:
When folks get feisty in their own welcome thread I can be pretty sure that we are in for a treat.

:thumbs:
 
ecofarm said:
This is getting pathetic. Cite something we can read that supports your claim of racial differences in IQ. If I really have transported to bizarro world, and what you claim is scientific consensus, then you should have no problem. It should be in wikipedia.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight: The fact that there's no scholar active in the contemporary debate who disputes this, and that the debate (i.e: exchanges in journals) focuses exclusively on how to explain the differences between groups, isn't good enough for you? You need a link to Wikipedia? That's some standard you've got there.

Anyway, here's a link to the report by a task force created by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the APA, where different group means are discussed: https://www.mensa.ch/sites/default/files/Intelligence_Neisser1996.pdf

That differences exist is simply undeniable. The only real question is how to explain them. (This, in fact, is precisely what bias claims are supposed to do!)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom