Fighting racism

[Fadix]

Since my interlocutors have done everything to change the subject, I was inclined to start a new thread, where I shall demonstrate that every recent controlled studies demonstrate that the difference of IQ between black and whites is caused by environmental reasons and not racial. Later on, I shall provide other studies demonstrating that the higher level of violence among blacks correlate with the lower IQ among blacks (which is environmental based) rather than their “races.” And to finish, I shall return to the other thread and answer to our two racist members.

To start with, I shall post an article written by Dr. Richard E. Nisbett whom present the old studies and compare them with the newest ones and is inclined to conclude that studies demonstrate that it is the environment which is responsible of the lower IQ. (note, I realise that I may have made a mistake with the study of adopted children, the total number of children in the study was 100, and not 100 black children, only about 20 or so were black, this fact discredit further the study in question.)


First evidences to the court of this board against the other party consisting of two racists.

-----
The article has been published in the work C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.) Black-White Test Score Differences. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution. The article has been published in the work C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.) Black-White Test Score Differences. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution. Another version of this article(a less recent one) appeared in the work: The Bell Curve Wars (1995), edited by Steven Fraser.



RACE, GENETICS, AND IQ
Richard E. Nisbett

The question of whether IQ differences between blacks and whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe. The Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought. But by the 19th century most Europeans probably believed that they were congenitally superior to Africans in intellectual skills. The IQ test, developed early in the 20th century, re-enforced this view, since whites scored higher then blacks. (Northern Europeans also outscored southern and eastern Europeans, as well as Jews.) Many psychologists assumed that these group differences were genetic in origin. Some U. S. psychologists also argued that continued immigration by low-scoring groups posed severe economic and social risks. Yet by the last quarter of the twentieth century Jews and many of the other European groups initially found wanting in intelligence had higher average IQ scores and higher average incomes than northern Europeans in the United States.

Unlike the differences among European ethnic groups, the IQ difference between European and African Americans persisted throughout the twentieth century, and many Americans continue to believe that a substantial portion of the difference is genetic in origin. For decades, whites scored about 15 points higher than blacks on IQ test. If such a difference were wholly or substantially genetic in origin, the implications for American society would be dire. It would mean that even if the environmental playing field were leveled, a much higher proportion of blacks than whites would have trouble supporting themselves, and a much lower proportion of blacks than whites would be professionals and successful business people. A recent example of this claim can be found in the phenomenally successful book The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray.

In this chapter I review the evidence on whether the black-white IQ difference (which I refer to as the B/W IQ gap) is wholly or in substantial part due to genetic factors (other than obvious ones like skin color, which affect the way Americans treat each other.) Because The Bell Curve has played such a central role in recent discussions of this issue, I often focus on its claims. For this purpose I will accept the mainstream view on IQ tests and their correlates, including the following assumptions.

1) IQ tests measure something real about intelligence as defined in the modern West.

2) Children's IQ scores predict important life outcomes such as success in school, delinquency and crime, and productive economic behavior. This relationship persists even when we control family background and other social correlates of IQ.

3) Among whites, variation in IQ is to some extent heritable. That is to say, IQ scores vary independently of environmental conditions. Expert estimates suggest that anywhere between 30 and 80 percent of the variation in IQ scores is determined by genetic factors, with 50 to 60 percent being the most commonly accepted range.

4) Estimates of heritability within a given population tell us nothing about the degree to which differences between populations are genetically determined. The classic example is an
experiment in which a random mix of wheat seeds is grown on two different plots of land. Within either plot, the environment is kept uniform, so the height of the different plants is largely or entirely genetically-determined. Yet the average difference between the two plots is still entirely environmental, because the mix of genotypes in each plot is identical. (For a particularly lucid account of heritability and genetic determination in relation to IQ, see Block, 1995).

Despite the fact that the heritability of a characteristic within a population has no necessary relationship to the heritability of differences between populations, many people believe that the large IQ difference between blacks and whites "must" be partly genetic in origin. They argue that if the heritability of IQ within populations is high (especially if it is as high as .8), and if the B/W IQ gap is as large as one standard deviation, the one must assume implausibly large environmental differences between blacks and whites to explain the B/W IQ gap in exclusively environmental terms.

Evidence bearing on the heritability of the B/W IQ gap is of two broad types.

1) Studies of African Americans that correlate their IQ scores with the percentage of their genes that are "European". These are by far the most relevant studies. They are also relatively easy to do in the United States because America classifies individuals as "black" even when they have a very large percentage of "white" ancestors. As much as 30 percent of the "black" American gene pool consists of "European" genes. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that blacks with more European genes should have higher IQ scores. Of course, such a correlation could also arise for environmental reasons. Blacks with lighter skins and more Caucasian features might have social and economic advantages that would make it more likely that they would have high IQs. As a consequence, if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeanness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging to the genetic hypothesis.

2) Studies examining the effect of the family environment in which black children are raised. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that rearing blacks in family environments like those of whites should result in little or no gain for blacks. (Of course, even when black children reared in white homes they would be subject to other cultural and social influences that might well depress their IQ scores.)

Despite the assertions of some scholars, including Herrnstein and Murray, a review of the evidence in each of these areas provides almost no support for genetic explanations of the B/W gap.

Studies Directly Assessing Heritability

Five types of studies can make some claim to studying heritability directly. Three types estimate the Europeanness of the genetic heritage of individual blacks — by assessing skin color, by examining blood groups, and by simply asking individuals about their parents and grandparents.

Studies of skin color. Studies relating darkness of skin color and IQ are easy to do and many have been reported over the years. This literature consistently shows that the correlation of IQ with skin color in the black population is quite low. Even Audrey Shuey (1966), one of the most vehement supporters of the view that the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin, reached the conclusion that IQ is only weakly associated with skin color. Typical correlations are in the range of .15 (and are even less with degree to which facial features are rated as "Negroid"). Even if we ignore the advantages that might accrue to "blacks" with light skin, a correlation of 0.15 does not suggest that European ancestry exerts a strong genetic influence on IQ. On the other hand, many of the studies reviewed by Shuey had small samples and dubious sampling procedures, and moreover the . 15 estimate could be low due to error of measurement. Both skin color and IQ are measured with high reliability, but a major problem with these studies is that while skin color may seem to be a straightforward indicator of degree of European ancestry, it is not. Skin color varies substantially in Sub-Saharan African populations. As a result, some Africans have relatively light skin for reasons that have nothing to do with European ancestry. A strong test of the "European ancestry" hypothesis therefore requires a more reliable indicator.

Studies measuring European ancestry via blood group indicators. Fortunately there are data available that reinforce the null implications of the skin color studies. The frequency of different blood groups varies by race. Under the genetic hypothesis, blacks with mor "European" blood types should have more European genes and hence higher IQs. But Sandra Scarr and her colleagues (Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1977) found that the correlation between IQ and "European" heritage among blacks was only 0.05 in a sample of 144 black adolescent twin pairs. When skin color and socio-economic status were controlled, the correlation dropped slightly to - .02. Importantly, although they found the typical correlation of. 15 between skin color and IQ, suggesting that the comparable correlations in other studies are due not to Europeanness of genes but to some other factor associated with skin color in the black population.

Loehlin and colleagues (1973) also correlated the estimated Europeanness of blood groups (rather than the Europeanness of individuals, estimated from their blood groups) with IQ in two different small samples of blacks. They found a .01 correlation in one sample and a nonsignificant -.38 correlation in the other sample, with the more African blood groups having higher IQ.

Reported white ancestry. A third approach to estimating blacks' white ancestry is to ask them. Imagine a 15 point B/W IQ difference that is fully genetic in origin. Then think of two groups of blacks: one has only African genes and one has 30 percent European genes. According to the pure genetic model, the first group would be expected to have an IQ 4.5 points lower than the second. If we singled out everyone who had an extremely high IQ — say of 140 — we would expect to find several times as many individuals in the group with 30 percent European genes as in the pure-African gene group.

A study by Witty and Jenkins (1934) identified 63 children in a sample of black Chicago schoolchildren with IQs of 125 or above and 28 with IQs of 140 or above. On the basis of their self reports about ancestry, the investigators classified the children into several categories of Europeanness. The children with IQs of 125 or above, as well as those with IQs of 140 or above, had slightly less European ancestry than the best estimate for the American black population at the time. This study is not ideal. It would have been better to compare the degree of European ancestry of high IQ Chicago children to that of other black Chicago children rather than to the entire black population. But once again, the results are consistent with a model of zero genetic contribution to the B/W gap or, perhaps, a slight genetic advantage for Africans.

Children born to black and white American soldiers in World War II. Eyferth (1961) [ADD UMLAUT TO FURS] examined the IQs of several hundred German children fathered by black American GIs during the post-1945 occupation were compared to those fathered by white GIs. The children fathered by black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5 and the children fathered by white GIs had an average IQ of 97. Inasmuch as the (phenotypic) B/W gap in the military as a whole was close to that in the general population, these data imply that the B/W gap in the U.S. population as a whole is not genetic in origin (Flynn, 1980, pp. 87-88). Note also that the children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs even though common sense would suggest that environmental conditions were probably inferior for black children.

Mixed race children born to white vs. black mothers. If the black-white IQ gap is entirely genetic, children of mixed parentage should have the same average IQ regardless of which parent was black. If mothers are more important than fathers to the intellectual socialization of their children, and if the socialization practices of whites favor the acquisition of skills that result in high IQ scores, children of white mothers and black fathers should score higher than children of black mothers and white fathers. In fact, [(Willerman et al., 1974) children of white mothers and black fathers have a nine point IQ advantage over those with black mothers and white fathers. This result suggests that most, but perhaps not all of the B/W IQ gap is environmental.

[Fadix]

(rest of the article)


All of these studies are subject to alternative interpretations. Most importantly, whites who mate with blacks may have lower IQs than whites in general. Blacks who mate with whites may have higher IQs than blacks in general. If whites who mate with blacks were substantially less intelligent than whites in general, for example, their European genes would convey relatively little IQ advantage. Yet the degree of self-selection would have to be extreme to produce no phenotypic difference at all between children of purely African heritage and those of partially European origin. Self-selection by IQ was probably not very great during slavery; it is unlikely, for example, that the white males who mated with black females had lower IQs than other white males. Indeed, if such unions mostly involved male slave owners, and if economic status was positively related to IQ (as it is now), these whites probably had above average IQs. But even if self-selection were substantial in the 18th and 19th centuries, the effects of regression toward the population mean would reveal genetic differences if they were present. Flynn's (1980) also shows that self-selection is a highly unlikely explanation of IQ pavity between children of black and white GIs. (p. 94) and that the assumption of zero heritability of the U. S. B/W IQ gap best fits the data. Flynn's analysis of mixed race children also suggests that the IQ difference between black versus white mothers cannot be accounted for by an reasonable assumptions about selective mating and parental IQ (p. 180).

Studies Examining the Effect of Family Environment

Experiments or quasi-experiments that place black children in different environments avoid the self-selection problem to some degree.

Random assignment of black children to black vs. white adoptive families. In one true experiment, Moore (19[xx]) randomly assigned black children to be raised in adoptive families that were either black or white. Under the assumption that black families would be less likely to instill the orientations that would lead to the sorts of skills that IQ tests tap, she predicted that children raised by white adoptive parents would have higher IQs than those raised by black adoptive parents. This was indeed the case. [more more more]

Rearing of black and white infants in the same environment. An experiment by Tizard and colleagues compared black and white orphans who had all been raised in the same highly enriched institutional environment. At four or five years of age, white children had IQs of 103, black children had IQs of 108, and children of mixed race had IQs of 106. On their face, these results are most compatible with the assumption of a slight genetic advantage for blacks. The black children in this experiment were West Indian and the white children were English. While it is possible that the black parents had unusually high IQs, Flynn (1980) argues that selective migration of West Indians to Britain could not have raised IQ scores by more than a few points.

Adoption of black and white infants into white families. A well-known adoption study by Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinburg and their colleagues (1983) compared the IQs of adopted children from different racial backgrounds. Some of the adopted children had two white biological parents, some had two black biological parents, and some had one black and one white biological parent. Under the simplest model of pure genetic determination of the B/W IQ gap, the white adoptees should have had IQs 15 points or so higher than the black adoptees. Mixed race adoptees should fall in the middle. When the children were about seven years old, their IQs were most consistent with a model of partial genetic contribution to the gap. When they were adolescents, their IQs suggested a larger genetic contribution.

Scarr and Weinberg identified several factors that they thought made it a weak test of the genetic hypothesis. First, the number of children they studied was small (only 25 white children, 29 black children, and xx mixed-race children); Second, agencies may have engaged in selective placement, which would...; Third, the adoptive families were recruited on a voluntary basis, which could have introduced a "self-selection" problem into the sample if...; Fourth, since the natural parents' IQs were not known, it is possible that the white parents could have had higher (genotypic) IQs than the black parents, which by itself could explain why the white adoptees had higher IQs than the black adoptees; Fifth, the black children were adopted at a substantially later age than the white children (although the mixed-race children were adopted earlier than either the black or white children). Consequently, the authors caution against any conclusion at all with respect to the role of heredity.

Suppose we simply look at all the available evidence — the many different types of evidence and the dozens of different studies — on their face. The Scarr and Weinberg evidence is consistent with a large genetic contribution to the B/W IQ gap. But all of the other evidence is most consistent with a zero or near-zero genetic contribution to the gap. The skin color, facial feature, and blood group studies, the European heritage study, the study of World War II children fathered by black vs. white soldiers, the study of mixed-race children born either to black or to white mothers, the experiment assigning black children to black vs. white adoptive families, and the study of the orphanage with an enriched environment all suggest genetic equality between the races or very small genetic differences.

Advocates of the genetic hypothesis can always invent the equivalent of Ptolemaic "epicycles" to explain these results. But there would have to be a good many such convolutions to make much headway. It would have to the case either that whites in the past who contributed European genes to the contemporary black gene pool had extremely low IQs or that blacks who mated with whites in the past had extremely high IQs and that either the black GIs who mated with German women in World War II had extremely high IQs or the white GIs had extremely low IQs or both and that, in the study of children born to unions of blacks and whites, either the white mothers had IQs much higher than the black mothers or the black fathers had much higher IQs than the white fathers and that, in the study of the enriched orphanage environment, the black Caribbean children had unusually high IQs while or the white English children had unusually low ones, or both. That this would be a heroic effort has been demonstrated by Flynn=s (1980) analysis that systematically showed that most of these alternative explanations are highly implausible each one taken by itself, let alone trying to weave a coherent theory for the ensemble of alternatives. theories could be correct. But all these explanations are conjectural.

Herrnstein and Murray (1994), it is important to note, made no serious effort to propound any alternative explanations for the near total absence of positive direct evidence for the genetic hypothesis. What they do instead is to spend a great deal of time discussing the single study that is consistent with a strong genetic interpretation favoring whites - the Scarr and Weinberg study — and then mention only a few of the negative studies, dismissing them with ad hoc self-selection explanations without any mention of the fact that the Scarr and Weinberg study is subject to at least as severe reservations as any of the studies having negative findings that they choose to mention. They also ignore the most comprehensive and sophisticated treatment of the genetic explanation for the B/W gap and alternatives — that of Flynn (1980). By conventional academic standards, the Herrnstein and Murray review of the evidence on the heritability of the B/W gap is shockingly incomplete and biased.

Indirect Arguments for Genetic Determination of the B/W Difference in IQ.

If my summary of the direct genetic evidence is correct, why does anyone pay any attention to the possibility of genetic determination of the B/W gap? There are three main reasons in my view (and in Herrnstein and Murray's view as well, judging by the amount of space they devote to them).

(1) Blacks at every level of socioeconomic status (SES) have lower IQs than whites of the same status. Hence it is difficult to argue that poor socioeconomic conditions alone account
for black's low scores.

(2) Blacks and whites have different ability profiles. Low SES whites with an overall IQ score of, say, 105, show the same average ability pattern as high-SES whites with scores of 105.
But this is not the case for blacks (cites). For example, blacks at a given IQ level are likely to have relatively high ability to recall digit strings but relatively low ability to solve mazes as compared to whites with the same IQ.

(3) Blacks and whites differ most on the "g-loaded" tasks. "G" is the term for the general intelligence factor that some psychologists believe permeates all abilities, but some more than others. Blacks do as well or better than whites on tasks involving simple memory or reaction-time. Blacks are slower than whites on tasks involving complex memory or reaction-time. These latter tasks are more "g-loaded" in that they predict overall IQ scores better.

Let us consider each of these points in turn.

(1) Blacks have lower IQs at every socioeconomic level. On its face, this finding is hard to reconcile with the notion that it is merely poor opportunity that causes blacks to have lower IQs. It is somewhat misleading, however, to compare the IQs of blacks in the higher socioeconomic ranges with those of whites. A white in the top socioeconomic quintile based on income has more than twice the wealth of a black in the top quintile (Smith, in press). More importantly, statistically equating blacks and whites on measures of the environment that include not only traditional indicators of SES but also measures of family and neighborhood quality virtually eliminates the B/W IQ gap (Brooks-Gunn & colleagues, in chapter xx). Such a result could simply mean that less intelligent parents provide their children with less intellectually stimulating environments. Yet, statistically equating mother's IQs does not change these results. Thus, the data are more consistent with a purely environmental interpretation of the B/W gap than with a genetic one.

(2) Blacks and whites have different ability profiles. Such differences hardly seem a strong argument for genetic determination of overall IQ. Systematic differences in the
socialization of black and white children begin in the cradle (e.g., Heath, 1983). If such difference affect overall scores, one would expect them to affect some test more than others. We know that purely social factors can indeed affect ability patterns. A natural experiment produced by World War II illustrates the potential affect of socialization on ability patterns. During the war, fathers in the Armed Forces were absent at different points in their childrens' lives for differing periods of time. Harvard students whose fathers had been in the Army for a long time when they were quite young had verbal Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores that were dramatically higher than average (Carlsmith, 1983).

(3) Blacks and whites differ most on the most "g-loaded" tests. Jensen and others have argued that the black-white gap on complex reaction-time tasks, can not be explained by motivational differences between blacks and whites. But this is merely a hypothesis. In informal work conducted many years ago, I found that white college students with high achievement motivation had faster complex reaction times, but not faster simple reaction times, than those with low achievement motivation. Consequently, I do not regard the motivation hypothesis as at all improbable.

Jensen's "g-loading" point also obtains for tasks that we think of as genuinely intellectual ones. For skills such a spatial reasoning and form perception, the g-loading is relatively low and the B/W gap relatively low. For the even more important and general skills of reading comprehension, mathematics, vocabulary and information tests, the g-loading is high and the B/W gap is high.

One would assume that these more important, and more "g-loaded," skills are the most modifiable. Are they?

[Fadix]

(conclusion of the article)

Conclusion

The studies most directly relevant to the question of whether the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin provide no evidence for a correlation between IQ and African (rather than European) ancestry. A few older studies of skin color are consistent with European superiority but most are not. The best modern study indicates little relation between skin color and IQ. One modern study of blood types weakly suggests African superiority; the other two suggest no difference between the races.

Of the studies that control for home environment, all indicate strong environmental effects. One of these studies is consistent with moderate African genetic superiority and one is consistent with substantial European genetic superiority. Thus, the most relevant studies provide no evidence for genetic superiority for one race or the other while providing strong evidence for a substantial environmental contribution to the B/W IQ gap. Almost equally important, rigorous interventions effect IQ and cognitive skills at every stage of the life course, and the evidence on convergence clearly shows that the B/W IQ gap has narrowed in recent decades.

The question "What portion of the 15 point IQ difference between blacks and whites is genetic?" simply makes no sense. To begin with, the empirical gap is currently substantially less than that. Moreover, with the exception of Herrnstein and Murray, few investigators have ever suggested that the entire gap might be genetic in nature. Jensen, one of the best-known proponents of the view of European genetic superiority, estimates that the genetic gap is about seven points [ref.]. As Block (1995) has suggested, the reference point should not be a gap of 15 points or any other specific figure. Rather, it makes more sense to ask how far, and in what direction, the genetically-based difference between the races differs from zero.

If in fact it makes sense to ask the genetic question at all. All evidence points to two extraordinarily important conclusions. First, if there are genetically-determined differences between the races in IQ, they are not sufficiently large to show up with any regularity in studies with a wide range of methodologies. Second, interventions designed to reduce the difference between blacks and whites are effective at every age level. Surely research efforts are best directed at improving these interventions rather than trying to wring blood from a genetic turnip.

[Anonymouse]

You could have posted this in the other thread, but to somehow show you are the wise savior of egalitarianism, you had to make a new thread. This belongs in the thread under "race", and the moderators should move it to it's rightful place. You attempting to blame the "racist" for "diverting" the intention of the thread in order to create another thread is again unfounded. If you cannot offer rebuttals of the points raised then you run away, to a new thread. I assure you every thing in that thread is on topic, aside from your insults and ad homenim attacks. Stop using that as an excuse for what is initially your inability to keep up and remain cordial. So moderator, move this back to the "race" thread.

Your assertion that I am a "racist" has no basis, other than a smear label, but I know it is the last refuge of the pointles, since you cannot offer anything in the realm of evidence to show that the races are equal, you must naturally de-evolve to such a position. Now you offer a possible counter to the idea that races are just hallucinations. Now that you cannot contend the claim that blacks are more violent than say, whites, you will focus in on this last one issue of intelligence, to try to redeem egalitarianism.

I, nonetheless, found your article interesting, albeit lacking substance in making a case for racial equality ( for the idea of "equality" itself is against nature ). While the author attempts to give an "objective view" as you suggested by comparing studies of yore, to studies of today, he nonetheless makes fatal assumptions about race. Nor does the author take into account studies that are recent as already presented. His first assumption is that race is just "skin color" and throughout his article that is what pervades. From that he is able to deduce everything else for his central point that "race is just environmental hallucinations".

Such quotes in the article:

...studies reviewed by Shuey had small samples and dubious sampling procedures, and moreover the . 15 estimate could be low due to error of measurement.

are highly questionable for what does the author seek to prove? That the .15 could be low due to error of measurement? Did the author or anyone demonstrate it is an error of measurement? Furthermore, is .15 still not a difference? You can call it .15 or .03, a difference is a difference.

These are by far the most relevant studies. They are also relatively easy to do in the United States because America classifies individuals as "black" even when they have a very large percentage of "white" ancestors. As much as 30 percent of the "black" American gene pool consists of "European" genes. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that blacks with more European genes should have higher IQ scores. Of course, such a correlation could also arise for environmental reasons. Blacks with lighter skins and more Caucasian features might have social and economic advantages that would make it more likely that they would have high IQs. As a consequence, if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeanness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging to the genetic hypothesis.

Notice the words "could also arise from environmental reasons" or even below in the paragraph, "if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeannness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging". The words "could" and "if", don't suggest anything.

These are by far the most relevant studies. They are also relatively easy to do in the United States because America classifies individuals as "black" even when they have a very large percentage of "white" ancestors. As much as 30 percent of the "black" American gene pool consists of "European" genes. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that blacks with more European genes should have higher IQ scores. Of course, such a correlation could also arise for environmental reasons. Blacks with lighter skins and more Caucasian features might have social and economic advantages that would make it more likely that they would have high IQs. As a consequence, if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeanness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging to the genetic hypothesis.

It is a common fact that blacks in the United States, for the most part are a result of mixtures. Look at this globally, all civilizations rise and fall based on race and mixing. Societies that mix exponentially never come out. You can look at all mixed societies such as the Middle East, or North Africa, Central and South America, and you can see why those areas are poor, crime ridden, and breed exponentially. All civilizations rise and fall based on this model of mixing, and you can follow this pattern all throughout history.

For example

This literature consistently shows that the correlation of IQ with skin color in the black population is quite low. Even Audrey Shuey (1966), one of the most vehement supporters of the view that the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin, reached the conclusion that IQ is only weakly associated with skin color.

This assumes all IQ and therefore race is just a result of "skin color" when many other factors go into this, such as cranio-morphology and brain size. Just looking at someone who has Negroid features one can see a difference, in head shape, nostrils, forehead, neck, jaw, etc.

But Sandra Scarr and her colleagues (Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1977) found that the correlation between IQ and "European" heritage among blacks was only 0.05 in a sample of 144 black adolescent twin pairs. When skin color and socio-economic status were controlled, the correlation dropped slightly to - .02.

How were they "controlled"? They were the same? It is stated and not defined. There are exceptions to the rule. No one says all blacks are unintelligent or will score low on IQ, some will definitely be exceptions to the rule. Just like genetic studies, and how genetic frequencies can be manipulated to get results of how we are "similar" and not "different", this could be a result of that. It could be that the authors' study had results that proved this notion wrong, and they simply ignored those and cherry picked only those that agreed with the notion that the results represent equality. In my other excerpt from Richard Lynn, in the other thread which you chose to ignore in fact showed that despite same socio-economic backgrounds, blacks still proved to be more violent. So much for 'controlled' studies.

Children born to black and white American soldiers in World War II. Eyferth (1961) [ADD UMLAUT TO FURS] examined the IQs of several hundred German children fathered by black American GIs during the post-1945 occupation were compared to those fathered by white GIs. The children fathered by black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5 and the children fathered by white GIs had an average IQ of 97. Inasmuch as the (phenotypic) B/W gap in the military as a whole was close to that in the general population, these data imply that the B/W gap in the U.S. population as a whole is not genetic in origin (Flynn, 1980, pp. 87-88). Note also that the children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs even though common sense would suggest that environmental conditions were probably inferior for black children.

I love this particular segment of the article. When results do show differences, they must be the result of "inferior conditions". Do you know what Japan did after WWII when black American GIs had mixed with Japanese and produced mixed babies? They bundled them up and sent them to Brazil. By your standards I guess Japan would be racist for trying to preserve homogneity.

Lastly, I would like to close this with a historical review, of looking at civilizations throughout history, and how this corroborates to the intelligence of given peoples. It is a fact that no society in sub-Saharn black Africa ever produced any high civilization, no written language, no concept of the wheel. On the other hand, civilizations in Europe and Asia flourished. There is an obvious "environmental" rebuttal to this, but I will prove the illogicistics of that as soon as it is asserted. The most common Afrocentric defense is to somehow claim Egypt as a "black civilization", which only mixed with Nubians, and was one of the results of why it fell.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Jensen, one of the best-known proponents of the view of European genetic superiority

I was unaware that Jensen expressed such views. I was under the impression that he stated Asians have higher IQs, than whites, who in turn were higher than blacks. Not that I don't believe you, but can you source that? Pardon my skepticism.

[Anonymouse]

Ironic that the same Fadix whined about me posting articles is doing the same thing. What a strange world we live in when only those that disagree can do wrong?

[Fadix]

No ! My thread should be left here, both of you have changed the subject, I already told that I will be returning in that thread to answer both of you, but this thread is independent, given that you have sabotaged your own thread.

Rebuttal you say? What kind of logic is that? It is for you to bring valid evidences to support your claim, you did not do such. Let me remind you what I asked from your part, I asked you to provide any recent controlled studies to demonstrate that the differences of IQ is attributed to race differences rather than being environmental. You have preferred ignoring my demand, and what you did was posting unrelated trash which had nothing to do with what I asked. I repeated and challenged you and Dan to present me any recent controlled serious studies, and have received NADA. What Dan has done best was to question what “serious” means, but of course if he were to study in a scientific field he would know what serious means… or better yet! The guy had to introduce the subject of the Shoah, something that has nothing to do with what we were discussing about. He still believe that the fact that I ignore him and refuse to discuss about the Shoah would somehow “prove” that what he claims is the truth. While I have done two statistical analyses of the Jewish numbers of victims and one critics of Rassinier methodology of over 20 pages introduced in my work regarding McCarthy, and an essay of complete rebuttal of revisionism, I have researched war crimes for 5 years and been banned from a Shoah revisionist site few years ago, because the idiots there were unable to confront me. Do you think I will even bother discussing the matter with someone that passes his days and nights on revisionist sites and think he has “discovered” something…, I do not have the time to answer to everyones barks?

And yes! You are a racist, check the definition of the word “racism” you fit in that definition.

1. Racism: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”

Is that not what you are doing? Or perhaps will you hide yourself behind the banner of the so-called “racialism” to not be labelled for what you are?

And the rest of your reply show us that you have no any logical thinking, neither have no knowledge of statistical analysis. But still for the benefit of the readers I shall still answer you.

The first point you raise is the .15 correlation factor, here you made a fool of yourself by exposing your ignorance of basic statistics. The reason why he claimed that it might be low is because it is too low to support a direct genetic factor. Read one more time you’ll see what I mean. Since the previous theories were claiming that genetic factors was responsible of the differences and that after this study they found out a correlation of only .15, he concluded that the low correlation could have been attributed to the errors of measurement which would explain why it did not support the genetic theses. This means that the author still kept an open mind and supposed that a better study could have supported more a genetic factor… but the better the study the lower the correlation... this was the whole point here.

Now, the error in the measurement, you have no clue of what you are talking about, the reason this was brought is because of the small sample in the study… more small is the sample, more you will have a higher margin of error, and even more, there is the fact that measurement errors (which are caused by the sampling procedures or other factors etc…) most of the time are even not included in the margin of errors. This is quite known in the pharmaceutical industry and drug trials, this is why new procedures like the cross over trials added to the double blind placebo and the Meta analysis are now used in order to measure the efficiencies of drugs.

This means that when you have small differences that are higher than the error margins, you can not consider the results to draw any conclusions, your results must show differences higher than the range where the error margin is situated in. Any correlation of under 0.20, due to the low samples can not be used to draw any conclusions, only an ignorant like you would claim that a “.03” correlation is a difference, because it is not, when considering the “correlative” margin of error would be in the range of the .1, .2, etc… in most cases in such small sample studies.

There is another thing which must be taken in consideration; the correlation table shows that higher the sample lower it takes as a correlation value to asses to a correlation, the lower the sample, the higher it takes, this is only basic statistics. But as expected, you ignore that as well. But your ignorance could be expected here, as I am starting to be quite habituated reading you write about things which you have no knowledge of, or like the last time about a book which you did even not read. But that you even question the word “controlled” this is beyond belief. Dude, go take some basic statistic courses and come later, I do not have the time to waste with someone that start interpreting and questioning the usage of this word. Before even trying to answer here only to show me you have something to say, at least run a search on google and try to learn what “controlled” means in the statistical world.

Later on, on your empty post, filled with text which means absolutely nothing. As usual you change the subject and quote the author to try to fool both of us into thinking that you wrote anything relevant. Obviously you did not, and finally, you exposed yourself again as someone whom does even not try to understand what he answer.

You write: “When results do show differences, they must be the result of “inferior conditions.”” If you bothered even reading what you try to answer, the author writes: “children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs…” The word is even not powerful enough, as it was not only similar but could be considered as identical, the difference between 96.5 and 97, when the error margin is above 3 times the differences of 0.5 is considered to not be a difference at all. So no, the results DID NOT shows any differences, so the argument you provide to discredit here the author is just a cheap attempt from your part.

The rest of the trash you wrote is irrelevant to the discussion, as for Lynn, I have already answered that in the other thread, Lynn studies are not credible.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix No ! My thread should be left here, both of you have changed the subject, I already told that I will be returning in that thread to answer both of you, but this thread is independent, given that you have sabotaged your own thread.

This is not independent, and I don't know if anileve will move this thread to the other thread simply because she agrees with you. I see no reason to claim that this, because it is posted by you, the wisest of the wise, who does "research", should be a separate thread, when it is in reality discussing the same topic. How did I sabotage my thread you say? I made the thread regarding race, and many things are about race, this is about race.

Originally posted by Fadix Rebuttal you say? What kind of logic is that? It is for you to bring valid evidences to support your claim, you did not do such. Let me remind you what I asked from your part, I asked you to provide any recent controlled studies to demonstrate that the differences of IQ is attributed to race differences rather than being environmental. You have preferred ignoring my demand, and what you did was posting unrelated trash which had nothing to do with what I asked. I repeated and challenged you and Dan to present me any recent controlled serious studies, and have received NADA.

I already addressed your assertion on "controlled studies". The "controlled studies" can obviously show both similarities and differences, as any study can, if you cherry pick. Only a study that takes into account every thing without cherry picking certain "controlled" groups or not, will determine a general rule. Thus, I made a point that it could be that the "controlled study", could yield results counter to what the author tries to claim, and he will ignore those and include only that give "similar" results. Let's not forget how scientists, before they become, are social beings, therefore influenced by whatever ideology is present in society, in this case the aroma of egalitarianism. This is akin to genetic studies that ignore all allele patterns that show differentiation, and include only those that show similarities. There are no "pure" races, but only seperated by degrees, and not in kind. Your assertion of "controlled studies" is akin to the studies done by geniticists. If information indicates much more genetic variation within a race than between them, it could be a result of error as well, because many of the egalitarian scientists can measure gene frequencies or allele patterns that are similar in all races, and not measure those that differ between races. Thus with your approach you prove everything and you prove nothing.

Originally posted by Fadix [B]What Dan has done best was to question what “serious” means...B]

This whole paragraph is a non-issue and inconsequential. You whined about how I "diverted from the topic", yet you just posted a paragraph of "trash", as you say.

Originally posted by Fadix And yes! You are a racist, check the definition of the word “racism” you fit in that definition.

Really? Thanks for that enlightening remark! Does this have anything to do with the discussion? Apparently not. It is indeed an ad homenim attack. Does this take anything away from the obvious facts? No it doesn't.

Originally posted by Fadix 1. Racism: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”

If the facts point to differences in races, does this make me a racist? It appears so. Did I say that all people are bound by race? Apparently not, for there are exceptions to the rule, which I have repeated many times, which means that many blacks are intelligent, and many more do end up successfuly, such as Booker T. Washington. However, when we compare historically, differing civilizations, one is sueprior to another. If you can discredit this please do so because it begs to be discredited. If Europeans subjugated other peoples, were they superior or not? It is only a matter of obviousness. One doesn't have to agree with racism to see the obvious historical fact. Do I like imperialists? No, but you didn't take the time to ask me because you have preconceived views. Do I like governments? Obviously not, but this doesn't deter the local egalitarian from making more gibes.

Originally posted by Fadix Is that not what you are doing? Or perhaps will you hide yourself behind the banner of the so-called “racialism” to not be labelled for what you are?”

I never said I am a "racialist". But that, once again, didn't deter you from making another jeer. I thought I clarifed my position in my thread, which apparently you chose to ignore again, because its much easier to label people names than to look at all the facts, right? Isn't that what you are accusing me of?

Originally posted by Fadix And the rest of your reply show us that you have no any logical thinking, neither have no knowledge of statistical analysis. But still for the benefit of the readers I shall still answer you.?

That is a very fine way of putting it. If you look at my thread it was initially you that came in with a negative manner starting the ad homenim attacks, and no one else; since it was obviously a "sensitive issue" to you, because it threatened to crack your edifice of thought, and when we need to reinforce our "world views" we have to project our fears onto scapegoats in order to reinforce the doctrines that we have been fed, since birth, from every orifice of communication, namely that we are all "equal". I could have just done the same and said, "the rest of your reply show us that you have no any logical thinking", and just refuse to respond. Instead I tried to address you.

Originally posted by Fadix The first point you raise is the .15 correlation factor, here you made a fool of yourself by exposing your ignorance of basic statistics. The reason why he claimed that it might be low is because it is too low to support a direct genetic factor. Read one more time you’ll see what I mean. Since the previous theories were claiming that genetic factors was responsible of the differences and that after this study they found out a correlation of only .15, he concluded that the low correlation could have been attributed to the errors of measurement which would explain why it did not support the genetic theses. This means that the author still kept an open mind and supposed that a better study could have supported more a genetic factor… but the better the study the lower the correlation... this was the whole point here.

The claim itself that "it is too low to support a direct genetic factor" is itself exposing your ignorance. On what evidence does the author base such an assertion? You immediately begin your treatise on this by your first ad homemim response, then taking it from there. The low correlation he says could have been attributed to the errors of measurement, when how do we know that he himself is not committing an error of measurement in his so called "controlled study", by measuring the data of one group that shows similarities, and ignoring the data of another that would obviously show differences? The whole point rests on the two words "could" and "if".

Originally posted by Fadix Now, the error in the measurement, you have no clue of what you are talking about, the reason this was brought is because of the small sample in the study… more small is the sample, more you will have a higher margin of error, and even more, there is the fact that measurement errors (which are caused by the sampling procedures or other factors etc…) most of the time are even not included in the margin of errors. This is quite known in the pharmaceutical industry and drug trials, this is why new procedures like the cross over trials added to the double blind placebo and the Meta analysis are now used in order to measure the efficiencies of drugs.

That is so academic and cordial of you. I should begin my responses with "you have no clue of what you are talking about". If that doesn't highlight frustration, I don't know what does. Even regarding controlled studies with low margin of errors, are we to assume that the data that reflects the view that the tests show similar IQ were not chosen over those that would obviously show differences? It could very well be, that he measures the similarities in one sector, and ignored differences in another. This is a common accusation towards geneticists that claim race is real, by being accused of measuring only the genetic frequences that show differences among races, and ignoring similarities in between races. The same assertion could be made vice versa. You prove everything and you prove nothing.

Originally posted by Fadix This means that when you have small differences that are higher than the error margins, you can not consider the results to draw any conclusions,

Why not may I ask?

Originally posted by Fadix your results must show differences higher than the range where the error margin is situated in. Any correlation of under 0.20, due to the low samples can not be used to draw any conclusions, only an ignorant like you would claim that a “.03” correlation is a difference, because it is not, when considering the “correlative” margin of error would be in the range of the .1, .2, etc… in most cases in such small sample studies.

And what about the margin of error, which itself is just arbitrary, based on different number of trials, and errors. Is there one holy set of margin of error? I've seen margins of error that are +/- 2, or +/-.04, or +/- 5, or +/- 4 percent in anther case. In this case the margin of error is obviously a certain number, and when you expose all results that do not agree with that, then they are "inconsequential", and you will then result with "only an ignorant like you". The margin of error, in other words, is totally arbitrary based on a given study. Maybe you should go back to statistics 101 and review how to make a survey.

Originally posted by Fadix There is another thing which must be taken in consideration; the correlation table suggest that higher the sample lower it takes as a correlation value to asses to a correlation, this is only basic statistics. But as expected, you ignore that as well. But your ignorance could be expected here, as I am starting to be quite habituated reading you write about things which you have no knowledge of, or like the last time about a book which you did even not read. But that you even question the word “controlled” this is beyond belief. Dude, go take some basic statistic courses and come later, I do not have the time to waste with someone that start interpreting and questioning the usage of this word. Before even trying to answer here only to show me you have something to say, at least run a search on google and try to learn what “controlled” means in the statistical world.

If I have no knowledge of anything why are you so perturbed by my presence both here and on the other forum? What's the matter? If you are that intellectual beast that loves never having to resort to frustrations, why the need to even bother? If I have no "knowledge of anything", why respond? You shouldn't even respond. I can say the same thing "Go take some statistics courses and come back, as I do not have time for you". You really only show your desperation. I never questioned your intellect Fadix, I just questioned your humility, and moreover, your inability to remain cordial, calm, and collected when confronted with a differing viewpoint. Just like in the other forum, when someone chiseled a different viewpoint, it automatically threatened the matrix of your mind, so you immediately, just like here, and the other forum, resort to childishness.

Originally posted by Fadix Later on, on your empty post, filled with text which means absolutely nothing. As usual you change the subject and quote the author to try to fool both of us into thinking that you wrote anything relevant. Obviously you did not, and finally, you exposed yourself again as someone whom does even not try to understand what he answer.

You write: “When results do show differences, they must be the result of “inferior conditions.”” If you bothered even reading what you try to answer, the author writes: “children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs…” The word is even not powerful enough, as it was not only similar but could be considered as identical, the difference between 96.5 and 97, when the error margin is above 3 times the differences of 0.5 is considered to not be a difference at all. So no, the results DID NOT shows any differences, so the argument you provide to discredit here the author is just a cheap attempt from your part.

The fact that I quoted the author of the article to make my point, means nothing, it only means I am making a point, which you choose to dismiss simply because, well, you don't like to be shown differing viewpoints, hence respond with childish invectives. That you are defending the dogma of colorblindness, due to race, and preach the dogma of "tolerance", but only with those whom you agree, means that you didn't take too kind on my thread about race, which was on topic, and was not in anyway "racist", or "hate condoning", other than trying to make an objective discussion which you had to turn into personal attacks. That margin of error itself is arbitrary based on the given study, doesn't mean anything. It only means the researcher was confining his findings, to yield to that given margin of error, which means that he was restricting his research only to certain structure. If you are looking for a 95 percent confidence interval, obviously your margin of error would differ from one that is 90 percent, or what have you. So therefore your argument that because at that given margin of error the results show no difference, holds no weight. Thus when differences are found they are blamed on "inferior conditions".

Originally posted by Fadix The rest of the trash you wrote is irrelevant to the discussion, as for Lynn, I have already answered that in the other thread, Lynn studies are not credible.

Really? What have you demosntrated? I can state "Nisbett studies are not credible". Your point?

[Fadix]

Here we go again, the never ending cycle of the know it alls never will end. I ask you to return to the thread in question, take off your blinders and read the last two pages, don’t come here and answer how you were right in topic just because you want to write and “prove” me false. I asked a SIMPLE!!! Question, a SIMPLE!!! little question, you and Dan just started posting materials that had NOTHING!!! to do with what I asked; mind you here that when you started your thread you asked others (more particularly anileve) to “prove” your point wrong. Not only was your thread based on assumptions, but what you asked was against any logical rules. You can not start a thread make assumptions that are questionable and then ask people to prove you wrong. It is for you to provide valid evidences for what you affirm, you have not done so, I repeat, you have NOT done so. You failed right away when you started your thread. So, what later I did was to give some sense to your thread, I asked a simple question which would validate your thread. And what have I received as answers? NOTHING!!! Like I said, go at that thread reread your replies and those of Dan and try to find ANYTHING that could be considered as an answer to my simple question. Now, don’t try answering me by telling that you did not need to answer my question, the thread was on topic, because it will invalidate the whole purposes of the thread, which was to ask others to discredit what you presented; when you provided no any clear evidences which will support your claim.

So yes, you have sabotated your own thread, your thread lost any possible value when you ignored to answer me, so the only thing that was left for me was to start a new thread that would deviate from the other one, there was nothing that could be done that could save the other thread, unless a newer one was started and things placed like they should, and THEN! for me to return on the other thread and ask again the same question to expect an answer.

Coming to your answer, as usual, nothing relevant, I am not attacking you here Anon, so stop this kind of intimidations, yes, it is a waste of time to answer you, but I still do it, it is stupid, but I still do it still… and still. On your last reply Anon you bring arguments which are against your own logic, you just again, again and again jump from A to B, without paying attention that the arguments you bring to support B reject A. This is in my sense one of the two major reasons why you make no sense. For instance, you attempt to discuss about “controlled studies” and tell us how searchers will purposely ignore some results or measure others to support their possible biased view, because as humans they can not be totally impartial. I concede you this. But!!! I was NOT the one presenting a proposition or the first theses, you were. So your argument regarding “selectiveness” brought by searchers undermine your own claims. Let me tell you how. You Anon are the one making the proposition; your proposition being that “race” is responsible of the differences of IQ between whites and blacks, so it is to you to bring evidences to support your view, you have to bring evidences which would convince the reader. You and Dan posted some materials, and now you claim that scientists can be biased, so their researches may be influenced by this. Here, you brought a critic of your own materials, because now you shall explain us why this new theses of yours do not apply to the “evidences” you tried to bring. Case in point, Lynn selectively did not include in his publications one of the studies giving an advantages on the Reven test to blacks over whites. I shall return to this later on in my post and provide other examples.

So, I am exposing my ignorance? How come he himself is not making measurement errors? With such arguments, there is absolutely no way to answer you back; you are making no sense at all. The author is not the one conducting those studies, he refer to those studies, he is using every major studies in the article including those that are used on the g- factor(posted by Dan), so he is NOT ignoring any other datas, there is no other datas. And again, you fail to understand why the author brought it up, for the last time I will try to explain it to you. When he says it might have been low, he means that the poor measurement could have been responsible of the low correlation between European ancestry and IQ; he is not trying to justify or say that a correlation was probably found because of mismeasurement. If he were to do that your argument might have some weight, but he says quite the opposite, this is why on the next argument he provide the blood test study as an evaluation to see if a higher correlation could be found with a better sample and a better marker, and as a result we find out an even lower correlation. So again, you are just trying to write to show that you have something to say.

Now, regarding margin of errors, once more you have no clue of what you are talking about. Margin of errors are not arbitrary (and this might be considered by some as unfortunate because of other factors). Margin of errors in statistics are calculated based on the sample compared to the total, in other cases it is some other mathematical formulas, but still they are not arbitrary. In election polls for instance, the usual margin of errors is 19 time on 20, about 2 or 3%, and this is calculated based on the sample and the total population. They are fixed based on mathematical formulas, from it, you add other error factors due to manipulations of instruments, each instruments have their precisions that are measured by the manufacturer… the rest is human measurement errors which in this cases is the major problem, some add it to the error margin, some bring an independent “error factor” independently to be able to calculate a correction value. So I shall say it again, go study some statistics courses and come back to discuss about statistics, this is not a diversion from my part, you obviously don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.

I shall now answer your question regarding differences in race. What you believe makes you a racist, the definition of racism is quite clear, it has nothing to do with if the claim is false or true, you do believe a race classification, and it makes you a racist. Call that truth, observation or what ever other things, you may even do like you do presently by claiming that you do not deny that intelligent blacks exist… you still believe that whites are more intelligent because of their race, this IS a race classification; therefore racism. Having said that, there is your other argument which does not make sense at all. You use ancient civilisation to “prove” your claim. This is a very poor indicator, because the correlation might be environment based it could target one race over the other, for many reasons such as geographical situations etc… and there is even more. If you were to use a computer simulation program based on the best types of computer random generators, a program in which a world is simulated, in this world you select 4 races, with equal mental capabilities, and you place them in different geographical and bio systems situations. What happens? From those 4, there are practically no chances that 2 of them evolve exactly at the same speed, the minute one will evolve, the evolution will become exponential. Now let the simulation to simulate in few thousands of years, some of those civilisations will be more evolved than the others, and still when I have placed those 4, they were all programmed to have the same capacities. In these cases, environmental reasons explain alone the difference between those 4 races. Environmental causes are measurable and any recent datas support it, on the other hand racial reasons for blacks lower IQ is NOT supported by any recent controlled studies. And here again, you can not use civilisations as bases to support your view, because environment alone could explain those differences.

So, where are we now? What evidences have you provided? On one side I have specifically referred to the manipulations by Lynn and others, while you have tried to discredit the author of the article I presented by providing arguments which does not make any senses. I have brought evidences of the exact manipulations, while you started assuming and made some suppositions by giving to your text some pseudo-scientifical taste.

I repost my other post destinated to Dan, where I show where Lynn has manipulated his studies.

So, here is the repost.

Dan, don’t start that s!.t with me, go try to sell your nonsense elsewhere. The g-factor is a joke; the references used are all pass dated uncontrolled studies and known to have been manipulated. The references used as “Lynn” comes from a known misinterpreted and manipulated study by a racist professor living in Ireland calling his research as “Negroid Intelligence.” There is hardly any sane person whom would use this man as reference. His “best study” which he refers uses black students from South Africa who knew a little of English, to pass the test written in English. And more so, one of the studies that were done, the black students scored higher in the Raven test, still Lynn ignored them and decided to not include it. In another study, he used a thousand Zambian miners without any scholarity… While on the other hand, he used for the white population for the comparison, British students or graduates. One wonder how do you ask those Zambian miners who could barely talk English to pass a test to measure their intelligence. And the results were even not on papers, but were reported orally… I can provide a lot of example, such as his other claim regarding Arabs having 75 as IQ, a flawed test, like all his other ones. Murray and Herrnstein Bell Curves uses Lynn works(by the intermediary of the magazine he was associated Editor of “Mankind Quarterly”) 24 times, practically the major bases of the work regarding the blacks IQ. The design of the studies that Lynn himself manipulated was actually from Dr. Ken Owen whom said that the poorer results of those studies had all to do with the fact that blacks had a poorer education under the racist apartheid system without denying the poor quality of those same studies.

Like the reader can realise, I provide concrete examples of manipulations from the part of Lynn, while you on the other hand assume and suppose that the studies supporting environmental causes over racial might be biased, but without actual concrete examples.

As the rest of your post, regarding my activities on other forums etc… or your insulations, not worth any replies. I shall maybe add more to this post later.

[Darorinag]

1. Racism: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”

So how is that bad? How is racism bad then?

I think you mean racialist, not racist.

And no, the two are not the same. For more, check out your dictionary.

I am a racialist in that I strongly believe in bringing racial differences into determining national policies, such as immigration (or anti-immigration), "equality," etc.

Fadix,

racist

adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

The above is a modern definition of the term "racist." Racist in the scientific sense is not racist in the modern sense of the word.