David Mendlesohn
Registered Member
Gotta love that language: "Exposed to this technology".
Same answer as before: read, learn, Diamond is a good place to start.
And still waiting for the answer to this:
This is a non answer.
Gotta love that language: "Exposed to this technology".
Same answer as before: read, learn, Diamond is a good place to start.
And still waiting for the answer to this:
2} There is no "the black community". Violent crime in most communities - black and other - has been decreasing lately, starting about 18 years after the abolition of leaded gasoline in the US (at the same time, and this is a correlation with a mechanism right at hand, the IQ gap between blacks and whites in the US has closed by about four points).
Chapters and excerpts. The basic structures of the arguments are not that complex, or technically deep - they don't, for example, justify their assumptions rigorously, and they haven't got a mechanism in sight, so the invalidity of the whole mess is right there in the open. The book is not meant for experts, but the less easily you are bamboozled by sciencey looking stuff the better.
None of their IQ test correlations are corrected for lead exposure, epigenetic effects of gestational stress, diet and vitamin D issues, stereotype threat, any of that stuff. They offer no mechanism whereby this or that genetic factor influences IQ (via lead exposure?). And so forth. The whole thing is slipshod.
And the big problem is not that the arguments are wrong, though they are - the problem is that they are making wrong and invalid arguments in an area where there is no excuse for doing so, where even if they were right about stuff they would have to be careful to explicitly and in detail forestall misuse of their findings. IQ alone is bad enough, enough of a quagmire - combine it with race? Lord.
They weren't. That's not just slipshod - that's injury. Malpractice.
You should.Would you like to check whether the same pattern exists in China and the Congo?
What is laughable and frankly repulsive, is the general gist of white supremacism in your post and writings, David. You should be aware that it is not tolerated on this site. So watch yourself. And that is not a friendly request, but a direct warning.
It's a bit dishonest to only mention Gould and Diamond. What about Rushton, Sesardic, Gottfredson, Jensen, Lynn etc.
If you really want to be partisan you could list Franz Boas, Jared Diamond, Alan Goodman, Steven Gould, Melville Herskovits, Max Horkheimer, Leon Kamin, Otto Klineberg, Richard Lewontin, Leonard Lieberman, Jonathan Marks, Barry Mehler, Ashley Montagu, Steven Rose, Edward Sapir, Robert Sussman, and Gene Weltfish. Any idea what they all have in common?
Your suggestion that superiority is dependent on the level of melanin is ridiculous.I'll gladly come back to the "lead exposure causes murder rates" hypothesis that seems popular on this forum, but what you've written here seems more concerning. What I've done is argue that racial differences in behavior are significantly the result of genetic differences. I'm in the process of picking apart shoddy arguments by the members of this board. Indeed, my position would indicate that Whites and Asians are superior to Blacks on some traits, on average.
You want an example or a definition of white supremacism?Is that "White supremacism"? If not, could you clearly define White supremacism so I can avoid being banned, since you do not tolerate it.
Hope that clears it up for you.Indeed, my position would indicate that Whites and Asians are superior to Blacks on some traits, on average.
Ah, behavioural genetics..Is it White supremacism to not assume a priori and without evidence or reasoning that Blacks and Whites (and indeed Asians) are "equal" in terms of behavioral genetics? Looking forward to your clarification.
You want an example or a definition of white supremacism?
Sure... Here is a prime example:
Indeed, my position would indicate that Whites and Asians are superior to Blacks on some traits, on average.
Hope that clears it up for you.
In combination with your earlier listing of some of those traits - yes. The argument of the white supremacist for centuries has been "whites are inherently superior to blacks due to their heritage." Hence the name.Indeed, my position would indicate that Whites and Asians are superior to Blacks on some traits, on average. Is that "White supremacism"?
You are overlooking one word in the phrase "white supremacism." I will let you figure out which word you are overlooking.You are saying that if anyone posits a genetic difference in any behavioral trait between races that's "White supremacism" and not allowed on this board?
You are overlooking one word in the phrase "white supremacism." I will let you figure out which word you are overlooking.
White supremacism is the believe that whites are superior to blacks (and other races.)I modified my post to include "valuable" traits. If there is a genetic difference in say, IQ, that would be "White supremacism", ergo there is no genetic difference in IQ? This is your argument?
White supremacism is the believe that whites are superior to blacks (and other races.)
I will leave you to your word games.
You want an example or a definition of white supremacism?
Sure... Here is a prime example:
Indeed, my position would indicate that Whites and Asians are superior to Blacks on some traits, on average.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Is it White supremacism to not assume a priori and without evidence or reasoning that Blacks and Whites (and indeed Asians) are "equal" in terms of behavioral genetics? Looking forward to your clarification.
...To answer your question, David.. Yes it is.
No, she didn't define it. She gave an example. Definitions and examples are different.But your moderator Bells who's threatening to ban me for White supremacism defined it differently:
No, it's a science board. As a consequence, white supremacists/climate change deniers/creationists/anti-vaxxers are generally going to be called out on their false claims.Well, it's quite refereshing that you at least admit that this is a falsely named pseudoscientific religious-egalitarian board.
What colour are your eyes?If there is a genetic difference in say, IQ, that would be "White supremacism", ergo there is no genetic difference in IQ?
If not, could you clearly define White supremacism so I can avoid being banned, since you do not tolerate it.
You want an example or a definition of white supremacism?
Sure... Here is a prime example:
No, she didn't define it. She gave an example. Definitions and examples are different.
"White supremacists believe that whites are superior to other races" - a definition of white supremacism.
"Whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, that's just a fact!" - an example of a white supremacist belief.
No, it's a science board. As a consequence, white supremacists/climate change deniers/creationists/anti-vaxxers are generally going to be called out on their false claims.
I am sure there are many white supremacist/right wing boards that you would enjoy, and where you would find the support you desire for your beliefs.