I'm not going to feed any gossip about users on this site. I just address the ideas and content.
Political weapons dripping with slanderous vitriol.
he's a shit-poster who often just posts one-liner hyperlinks.
This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've implied that because it's possible to place all races into a broad category of "African descent" (which is debatable anyway), then there are no phenotypical distinctions if we sub-divided into "race". This fallacy is best understood by the layman when it is compared to colours. Sure, red, blue, green, orange etc. can be broadly defined as "colours" (the human race), but that doesn't mean we are not able to divide them into smaller groups of shades of the same colour (races). Similar to how it makes no sense to say there are distinctions between colours therefore we can't divide them, the same logic can be applied to human races.
Whether I.Q. is a psychometric
whether it's a hard science or not,
isn't particularly relevant.
There is no doubt that the science shows us I.Q. isn't a perfect measurement of intelligence, but that's besides the point.
The question then becomes how accurate is I.Q. is in determining that. Whilst you've failed to reference any scientific material, I've already written an OP on covering the correlation between "success" and I.Q. On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence (debateart.com) . Depending on what you define as success (education level, job title, income level etc.), the correlate varies and isn't a static "0.3" as you've asserted without a shred of evidence.
I.Q. correlates even better with what we colloquially define as intelligent.
Antecedents and consequences of peer‐rated intelligence - Denissen - 2011 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library Interpersonal Perceptions of Intelligence in Late Childhood and Early Adolescent Friendships: The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Vol 135, No 1 (tandfonline.com) PERCEIVED INTELLIGENCE IN MARRIED PARTNERS: Ingenta Connect (PDF) Self-Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? (researchgate.net) Gender differences in self-estimated IQ: The need for care in interpreting group data - ScienceDirect
Clearly, despite there not being a perfect causal link
I.Q. most likely measures intelligence
Thus, what is more "reckless" is to ignore statistical probability.
No such fallacy was imputed. You never read a statement on my part which stated race does not exist. I stated, "'Black' is not a race." If you're going to associate the term "Black" with those of "African descent," then everyone would be "Black."
I.Q. is a pyschometric, which once again is an oxymoron. There's no "whether" about it. It isn't a hard science; there's no "whether" about that either. Yes it is. You claim that differences in particular I.Q.'s are a "scientifically verifiable fact." So what is it you're "scientifically verifying"? Assumptions based on, at best, ecological inferences. It isn't a measure of intelligence. It's being "perfect" is besides the point. In (hard) science, there's no such thing as "most likely measures." It either does or it doesn't.
No, I did not "assert"; I "cited." It's not a debate. Feel free to confirm at your leisure.
And if you look into the history of I.Q. you'd discover that what was once colloquially defined as "intelligent" was physical strength. So what does that indicate about the attempted measures of the I.Q.? Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?)
Psychology is a soft science which doesn't conduct experiments with controls nor does it replicate its results.
All of which [the studies MgtowDemon referenced] mean nothing. You can throw as many links as you want. Unless you can demonstrate an understanding of I.Q. and that which it attempts to measure, then your links will only inform the assumptions of those who are no more "authorities" on the topic than you or I.
"ecological inference"
It either does or it doesn't. Not a statistical probability.
You have damages. Perhaps you should whine to the mods. Tell them that you were innocently reading the forum, posting your raging incel bigot bullshit when the big bad Death posted a transracial adoption study. Keep saying “whilst” or hurling insults, perhaps if there’s someone as stupid and ignorant as you in the audience they may be convinced by appealing to intellectual snobbery and ad hominem attacks.
Unfortunately, African Americans are far more likely to be disadvantaged than Whites because there is a large, negative genetic component (i.e. not racism). In essence, African Americans create their own disadvantage, and thus that doesn't need to be controlled for. If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap would disappear entirely, because you would be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place. Genetic components such as lower I.Q [1][2], poor delayed gratification propensity [3], presence of the 'warrior gene' [4] etc. create this gene differential between African American and White populations, and thus one group, on average, becomes more "disadvantaged".
a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief.
the belief that some races are better than others, or the unfair treatment of someone because of his or her race
the theory or opinion that a certain race is superior to another or others because of certain inborn characteristics.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement
Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.
the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
Make a case against them.
You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:"This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it."Now, using data-based arguments like this above, is it unreasonable to assume that 'Black' could easily be replaced with 'African', given that African Americans and Africans use the term to describe themselves? I didn't think so, and so becoming hung up on this semantic is unwise.As for the latter part of this comment, again, the research I provided showed that we can sub-divide people into other categories other than "African descent" (Asian and European), all the whilst retaining the category of "African descent". Hence, if we use the term Black/African, not everyone would have to be racially classified as of "African descent".
These objections all fall under the broad category of "I.Q. calculation is a soft science",
I.Q. calculation is a soft science that relies on correlation instead causation -- I agree. It relies on correlation because, currently, science is not able to determine all the genes which generate the 'g' factor (which is intelligence).
Are we then to say that intelligence is a myth that doesn't exist?
Or, using the strong correlations which are produced in I.Q. calculations, could we determine that despite not knowing for sure (a casual link), we can say that I.Q. *probably* measures intelligence?
Which of those seems more reasonable to you?
You did not, at any stage, cite your claim that "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) . Hence, it was an assertion.
Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to cite the claims you're making,
asking me to "confirm" your uncited claims isn't reasonable.
Believe it or not, we are not living in the past, and hence we don't have primitive conceptions of intelligence (if that was even true, since you haven't cited anything you claimed, let alone this claim). It would be appreciated if you started to cite even the odd thing you say.
You're incorrect because these studies did replicate the results with near unerring accuracy. This is what happens when you get hung up on word games about terms like "soft science": this science is conducted, the results show strong correlation which is replicated across all studies, and you no longer have a leg to stand on. Studies cited are re-posted below:
The fact that you think a collection of studies, of which use the scientific method showing their methodologies, all amount to meaning "nothing", is ridiculous.
If you have an anti-science stance that prohibits you from engaging with scientific research, then you are not fit for debate.
These "authorities" have shown their workings.
This is not a case wherein the studies are behind a paywall and I've said 'just believe me', or I blankly assert that 'the authorities agree with me on this'.
You are able to verify the veracity of the claims made, analysing their methodologies and logical conclusions. That is what you should do.
This is a word game that is actually meaningful and would give a lot of credence to your argument. Unfortunately, it misaligns with the data I've provided.I typed this into Google and found this definition: "drawing conclusions about individual-level behavior from aggregate-level data." If there is an issue with this, let me know.Anyway, if I were to cite research that had the methodology of 'people looked at other people and determined how smart they were.", this would precisely be the ecological inference that you refer to. However, there was an extra step involving an I.Q. tests, of which was then compared to these ecological inferences. *That* is the crucial step because now we can see if these "ecological inferences" have rhyme and reason backed by I.Q, and the answer is that they do. Hence, the studies I provided are not purely "ecological inferences", in fact they are testing to see if the ecological inferences have any merit. Thus, no fallacy was committed.
Is correlation a completely worthless metric? You are arguing that it is. Do I need to explain why that isn't correct?
No, I disregarded it. But after perusing the study, I've come to the conclusion that you haven't read the entirety of your study, much less pay attention to the language used.
So how do you justify asserting that I.Q. differentials are a "scientifically verifiable fact?"
Non sequitur. I never stated or insinuated that intelligence didn't exist.
It's not that we don't know "for sure." We don't know. And once again, "probably measures" is not part of (hard) scientific lexicon.
I don't have to provide you a link, nor will I.
Firstly, why did you disregard it? You haven't at all explained why. You simply ignored it and moved onto other parts of the post.
You're only addressing it now because I am holding you accountable.
Secondly, how do you know I haven't read the entirety of the study or paid attention to the language used? Again, no explanation of a pretty sizeable claim.
Membership in these groups is commonly inferred by use of a proxy such as place-of-origin or ethnic affiliation. These inferences are frequently weakened, however, by use of surrogates, such as skin color, for these proxies, the distribution of which bears little resemblance to the distribution of neutral genetic variation. Consequently, it has become increasingly controversial whether proxies are sufficient and accurate representations of groups inferred from neutral genetic variation.
Historically, proxies such as skin color, race, and ethnic label have been used to make inferences about population structure, even in the absence of corroborative genetic data (Cooper 1994; Laveist 1997; Williams 1997; Aspinall 1998). As a result, there is a large body of literature comparing phenotypes between cohorts defined, for example, as “blacks” and “whites.” In recent years, the validity of this classification scheme has been criticized for its weak conceptual underpinnings and its strong assumptions about underlying biology (Lee et al. 2001; Wilson et al. 2001; Foster and Sharp 2002). Given the growing availability of large collections of human genetic data from populations throughout the world, it was anticipated that the reliability of such proxies would be resolved via empirical testing (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Rannala and Mountain 1997; Shriver et al. 1997). Instead, recent, well-publicized studies have led to disparate and sometimes contradictory conclusions (Wilson et al. 2001; Risch et al. 2002). The result has been increased polarization about the nature of human population structure and a widespread belief that all commonly used proxies correspond poorly to genetically inferred clusters (Witzig 1996; Goodman 2000; Schwartz 2001). However, contrasting interpretations of the same set of data (Wilson et al. 2001) suggest that the signal from these data is too weak to justify such strong inferences (Risch et al. 2002).
To determine the amount of data needed to identify population structure and assign membership accurately, we used a data set of 60 microsatellites and 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms (hereafter referred to as “Alu markers”) to infer genetic clusters in a heterogeneous sample of >500 individuals from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, southern Asia, and Europe. We found that substantial genetic structure exists among samples from different continents, with samples from sub-Saharan Africa falling into two separate African-specific genetic clusters. Second, the geographic origin of individual samples, even from an admixed population, can be assigned with a moderate level of accuracy. Third, Alu markers and microsatellites have comparable power to detect population structure and assign origin, although accurate cluster assignment requires substantially more markers than have typically been tested. Fourth, the proxies associated with the samples used in this analysis were sometimes, though not always, sufficient representations of the inferred genetic clusters, reflecting the complex and interwoven history of the human species.
For the power analysis, we genotyped 100 Alu polymorphisms and 60 tetranucleotide microsatellites in 206 individuals in 20 ethnic groups from sub-Saharan Africa (58), East Asia (67), and Europe (81). The Alu polymorphisms were also genotyped in 55 individuals from these groups who lacked microsatellite data, including 33 additional Mbuti pygmies from the Ituri forest, 41 sub-Saharan Africans from another three ethnic groups, and 263 individuals in various caste populations from the subcontinent of India. Thus, a total of 565 individuals from 23 ethnic groups and southern India were used in subsequent tests of sample assignment to inferred genetic clusters.
We found that substantial genetic structure exists among samples from different continents, with samples from sub-Saharan Africa falling into two separate African-specific genetic clusters. Second, the geographic origin of individual samples, even from an admixed population, can be assigned with a moderate level of accuracy.
Thirdly, why would the second point even matter? Are you going to address the conclusions I make from the study or not?
Again, you really need to stop blindly asserting things. No reasonable person is going to accept that.
We are using science to verify it. Why is this even a question?
It's good that you agree intelligence exists.
Thus, we can delve into how to measure it (and I'd argue through I.Q.).
Similar to how "we don't know for sure" whether we will win the lottery or not, we can guess that we are not going to, based on the probability.
No reasonable person, as you're doing here, will hammer on about "we don't know for sure", and refuse to guess.
"we don't know for sure" doesn't mean "we have absolutely no idea and cannot make guesses which are probably true"
Since you refuse to provide links/data to support your claims, you're no longer capable of discussing this with me.Goodbye.
If someone said, "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites", some people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Now, unfortunately, this is a scientifically verifiable fact
No one charged you with the responsibility of "citing my claims." I stated you were free to confirm at your own leisure.
A conception no less, which by your description is malleable contingent on our "colloquial" understanding. So once again, what does that indicate about I.Q.'s attempted measure? And again, introduce yourself to the definitions of "cite."
Assumptions and arbitrary "quantification" based on correlations aren't "replicable results."
The scientific method is a set of principles, the subject of which doesn't fall under my criticism. I have no intention on reading material about assumptions based on impressions of abstracts which can't be quantified.
I'm not the one pedaling "psychometrics."
Who is disputing this? What does that matter? No, I'm able to verify their conclusions. "Veracity" is different.
Because I've read extensively on the I.Q. born from a fervor in my youth. Furthermore, your data does not rebut, refute, contradict, or even "counterargue" that "Black is not a race." Hence, I disregarded it.
Accountable for what?
Membership in these groups is commonly inferred by use of a proxy such as place-of-origin or ethnic affiliation. These inferences are frequently weakened, however, by use of surrogates, such as skin color, for these proxies, the distribution of which bears little resemblance to the distribution of neutral genetic variation. Consequently, it has become increasingly controversial whether proxies are sufficient and accurate representations of groups inferred from neutral genetic variation.
Historically, proxies such as skin color, race, and ethnic label have been used to make inferences about population structure, even in the absence of corroborative genetic data (Cooper 1994; Laveist 1997; Williams 1997; Aspinall 1998). As a result, there is a large body of literature comparing phenotypes between cohorts defined, for example, as “blacks” and “whites.” In recent years, the validity of this classification scheme has been criticized for its weak conceptual underpinnings and its strong assumptions about underlying biology (Lee et al. 2001; Wilson et al. 2001; Foster and Sharp 2002). Given the growing availability of large collections of human genetic data from populations throughout the world, it was anticipated that the reliability of such proxies would be resolved via empirical testing (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Rannala and Mountain 1997; Shriver et al. 1997). Instead, recent, well-publicized studies have led to disparate and sometimes contradictory conclusions (Wilson et al. 2001; Risch et al. 2002). The result has been increased polarization about the nature of human population structure and a widespread belief that all commonly used proxies correspond poorly to genetically inferred clusters (Witzig 1996; Goodman 2000; Schwartz 2001). However, contrasting interpretations of the same set of data (Wilson et al. 2001) suggest that the signal from these data is too weak to justify such strong inferences (Risch et al. 2002).
Third, Alu markers and microsatellites have comparable power to detect population structure and assign origin, although accurate cluster assignment requires substantially more markers than have typically been tested.
Fourth, the proxies associated with the samples used in this analysis were sometimes, though not always, sufficient representations of the inferred genetic clusters, reflecting the complex and interwoven history of the human species.
206 individuals in 20 ethnic groups from sub-Saharan Africa (58), East Asia (67), and Europe (81). The Alu polymorphisms were also genotyped in 55 individuals from these groups who lacked microsatellite data, including 33 additional Mbuti pygmies from the Ituri forest, 41 sub-Saharan Africans from another three ethnic groups, and 263 individuals in various caste populations from the subcontinent of India. Thus, a total of 565 individuals from 23 ethnic groups and southern India were used in subsequent tests of sample assignment to inferred genetic clusters.
Second, the geographic origin of individual samples, even from an admixed population, can be assigned with a moderate level of accuracy.
How is this analogy applicable at all? With the lottery, you win or you don't win. You can reduce it by analyzing the probability of determining a series of numbers within the domain, and the allotted amount of selections. But how does that at all reflect the methodology in "calculating" the I.Q.? You're randomly taking the notion of "probability" and citing it without context."Probably true" is irrational language. Here let me try:The illuminati "probably" exists.Sugar-free ice cream is "probably" real.JFK was "probably" murdered by the mafia.You'll "probably" die from smoking cigarettes.Your marriage will "probably" end in divorce.You'll "probably" die from a car accident.Etcetera, Etcetera.Having an "idea" in the context of scientific metrics is not the same as "knowing." And attempts to equate the two especially in language which qualifies the extent of knowledge, i.e. "don't know for sure," is purposefully misleading.
Where is your source for this?
It's a well-established fact that's likely caused by disadvantageous environmental conditions, and perhaps to some extent a lesser cultural emphasis on academics in the black community for the older children.
You still need to cite this claim: "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." Again, it is not the responsibility of the person you're talking to.
If you are unable to cite your claims,
your claims are bare assertions, which are logical fallacies.
Firstly, you never cited this claim: "And if you look into the history of I.Q. you'd discover that what was once colloquially defined as "intelligent" was physical strength."
you are not fit for this discussion.
Secondly, I assume you mean 'mealleably contingent', as opposed to "malleable contingent", because I've never seen the latter which is implied as noun (correct me if I'm wrong).
So, our "colloquial understanding" is being tested against I.Q. tests. This colloquial understanding isn't changing across studies. The fact that this colloquial understanding remains consistent, involves results which is replicable, and coincides with I.Q. test findings, shows that there is something real being measured here. Thus, this indicates this indicates that I.Q's attempted measure coincides with colloquial undertandings of intelligence.
Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?)
Thirdly, since I think I need to be plainly said (since you miss the inference every time), these studies aren't the only studies required to prove that I.Q. is a valid metric of intelligence. These studies were used to counter-act your original claim of: "At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance."" Thus, I presented these studies that show that general conceptions of intelligence (i.e. NOT classroom discipline, and not something as nebulous as "dancing skills") correlate with I.Q. test scores. That's all the studies were meant to do.
Fourthly, you still haven't cited this claim: "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3." This isn't a verbal debate where you can use sophistry, deflects and pivots to escape. Everyone can go back and see you didn't cite this claim.
Finally, I cited all the studies multiple times, of which you proceeded to say all "meant nothing" lol.
At this point you're arguing that the "abstract" of intelligence doesn't exist.
So you're arguing that psychometrics are completely worthless. LOL.
So you are able to verify their "veracity", hence I am not merely "appealing to authorities".
LOL so now you're appealing to authority, something which you accused me of, and better yet you've made yourself the authority xD
You are so obtuse lol.
Okay so you've probably read only the abstract of the study lol (and then complained I hadn't read all of the study hahaha).
Anyway, what this is saying is that the colour of your skin isn't sufficient to correctly group you in terms of race, in all cases.
Now, I showed you data which suggested that despite this shortcoming, even if we used the super-broad term of African, we get very good race distribution of people into African, European and Asian (so long as the loci/SNPs are high enough).
I would contend that we shouldn't use super-broad, K=3 categorisation of humans in place of better categorisations, and hence, if you actually read the study (instead of complaining that I haven't read it), it goes on to break down humans into far more appropriate categories wherein races (shown in figure 4).
However, what I showed is that even if we use a super-broad term like African (which was implied when I used the term "black", we can genetically divide most of humanity incredibly well.
Finally, again, "black" is typically referred to as meaning "African", or in the United States (which was implied in my OP), to mean African American. No one refers to Australian Aboriginals as being black, despite having black skin.
Firstly, you've literally copy-pasted all of this from this paper: doi:10.1086/368061 (cell.com) . It's amusing that you'd try to play this off as you painstakingly looking through all these studies yourself, you plagiarist dickhead. I have no idea why you thought you get away with this.
Thirdly, I think if we referred to "black" as in "African American", as most African Americans like to do, then we'd be even more accurate racial grouping.
So this is referring to, "skin color, race, and ethnic". Again, as I demonstrated using Lynn's I.Q. data above, 'skin color' isn't necessarily accurate, so I'd agree with that. However, we can only infer what the study meant here, as it doesn't appear to detail which specifically it meant, but its results shows that 'race' is a very good proxy.
In previous studies of human population structure, samples from several admixed populations defined by proxy (e.g., Ethiopian, Afro-Caribbean) were assigned to two or more genetically inferred clusters (Wilson et al. 2001; Romualdi et al. 2002). This was interpreted as evidence that proxies inaccurately reflect population structure. The results of our analysis indicate that the resolution at which human population structure can be detected is dependent on the number of loci tested, the amount of differentiation among populations, the sample size of each population, and the attempted level of resolution of population structure. Thus, only weak inferences can be drawn from the failure to detect population structure when a small number of genetic markers or a small sample size of individuals is used.Our analysis is based on samples from regions of Africa, Asia, and Europe that are widely separated from one another. Accordingly, these samples also maximize the degree of genetic variation among populations. The performance (and, hence, the power) of these markers to differentiate among populations from these continents would be reduced if samples were included from regions geographically intermediate between the regions sampled here (e.g., the Middle East, Central Asia). Indeed, detection of population structure and assignment of samples to the correct genetically inferred cluster was less accurate for samples from geographically intermediate southern India. Importantly, the inclusion of such samples demonstrates geographic continuity in the distribution of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race. The results of our power calculations, however, are important because they set a minimum for the number of markers that must be tested to make strong inferences about detecting population structure when groups are widely dispersed.Group membership has commonly been assigned by place of birth (e.g., Africa, Japan), religious belief (e.g., Amish, Jewish, Hindu), language (e.g., Amerind, Khoisan), or physical traits (e.g., skin color). These proxies vary in the extent to which they reflect demographic trends or evolutionary forces that affect the distribution of neutral genetic variation. As a result, the concordance of each of these proxies to population structure inferred from neutral genetic data also varies. For example, an ethnic label such as “Mbuti” is an accurate guide to population structure, because it delimits a group that has differentiated from others as a result of reproductive isolation and genetic drift. In contrast, a proxy such as skin color is inaccurate, because it delimits a group (e.g., sub-Saharan Africans, New Guinea highlanders, and Australian aborigines) whose members are similar, vis-a-vis this trait, as a result of convergent natural selection. The situation is likely to be similar at many loci influencing disease susceptibility or drug response, highlighting the need to base inferences of population assignment on explicit genetic information. However, there are also notable examples in which disease alleles closely parallel population boundaries defined by a proxy (Splawski et al. 2002). A more balanced interpretation of human population genetics data is that a proxy is sometimes, but not always, an accurate guide to population structure.
Yes, you can sub-divide these groups into categories that are no longer "African". Again, that doesn't mean you have to, and if you don't, you still get meaningful racial groups.
It's saying that race-mixed people don't fit racial groups as easily because they have genetics from multiple races. What did you expect?
Yes, we don't know for sure,
but that doesn't mean something highly probably
If your doctor told you, "if you continue to eat this much food, you will probably die", would anyone ever respond, "hurrrr that is IRRATIONAL LANGUAGE.
Do you understand how ridiculous you look?
First, it is not a "claim." And as I've already informed you, I do not have any intention of providing you a link. Confirm at your own leisure. Or block me again at your own leisure. Unable has nothing to do with it. I do not have any intention of getting into a contest over links. No one has asked you to "trust me." Besides, it would be counterintuitive since I've already told you to "confirm at your leisure." Once again, not a claim. I made reference to the information. If you require confirmation from another party or source, then you can confirm at your leisure.
No. That would suggest that malleable is qualifying contingent. I meant "malleable contingent." And no, the syntax does not imply a noun. Here let me put in layman's:"An [idea] no less, which by your description is [subject to change] [depending] on our [understanding of the language's ordinary use.] Does that help?
Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?) How have any of your studies made a distinction between the methodology of I.Q. and classroom discipline?
I never employ sophistry, nor do I try to "escape." You're pushing an exchange where we exchange sources to supplement our statements. I refuse. You're using my refusal to inform an alleged incapacity to inform claims with sources. Can't and won't are two different things.And "everyone" is irrelevant. I'm not concerned with them, only that which you offer in this exchange.
Yes, you've demonstrated a capacity to make reference to the rationalizations of others with the help of "links." Now, where's your actual argument?
Non sequitur. I stated that it can't be quantified. Not that it doesn't exist.
Not completely. They're entertaining.
No, I've been able to verify that they've made conclusions. Veracity is different.
No. You asked me to explain the reason I disregarded your citation. I told you the reason. Had I qualified the conclusion of an argument using myself as an "authority," then I would've been appealing to authority.
Not an argument.
No, I read the whole thing. The information presented in the abstract and introduction explicitly provided the information I needed for my rebuttal.
So, Black is NOT a race. What are you arguing?
No, you showed information which showed incidence of discovery of particular genetic structures in assigned geographic locations.
No, it doesn't. It does break these samples down into categories. "Appropriate" has not been substantiated.
You've shown no such thing.
What you "imply" has nothing to do with addressing my statement that "Black is not a race."
Furthermore, there's has been no plagiarism. Not only did I quote the information, but also I told you where I got it. Hence, there's no need for me to "get away with this."
You don't know what "they like to do."
And note that your study never defines race by geographic location.
"Meaningful" racial groups? Define racial group.
No, that's not what it is stating. It's stating that those of admix populations can have their genetic structure assigned to a geographic location with "some" level of accuracy.
You don't know.
Meaningless impression.
Another inept analogy. If a doctor analyzed my blood and determined that my pancreatic and/or liver enzyme levels were dangerously elevated, and (over)eating would "likely" result in my death, that would be one thing. If a doctor told me that my pancreatic and/or liver enzyme levels were disparate from those with whom they'd categorize as belonging to same demographic as me, and that (over)eating would likely result in my death, then I'd seek a second opinion. Only after that, I'd yell, "hurrr that is IRRATIONAL LANGUAGE." The I.Q. reflects the latter, and is informed by no more than an ecological inference.
You don't know how I look. If you intend to submit your impressions, then if you haven't gathered this so far, they don't concern me.And for future reference, spare the fits of rage and respond at your leisure. You don't need to "block" me. Say the word, and I'll do you the courtesy of never responding to you again.
What's stupid is that a debate on racism had one vote, and it wasn't any of the dozen-plus of you on this string. That's stupid. Sorry to interrupt.
If you refuse to cite your claims, then you retract the point and concede the argument.
That helps in the sense that I can now understand your grammatically incorrect sentence. This is what you originally wrote: "A conception no less, which by your description is malleable contingent on our "colloquial" understanding". It needs a comma between malleable and contingent, or else 'malleable contingent' becomes, functionally, a noun (which renders it void of sense).
All of the variables required for "classroom discipline" (e.g. work ethic, punctuality, persistence etc.) are not bundled into the term 'intelligence'.
Thus, the distinction is naturally assumed.
Conscious recognition isn't a prerequisite for allegations of attempting to escape.
I will continue to push for your sources.
It is absolutely necessary to use data, the scientific method and qualitative analysis of sources.
If you refuse, then one of these things is true: (1) your claims are not backed by any source, or (2) you are too lazy to source your claims.
In either case, you are at fault, and in every instance you fault here, you concede the point.
The capacity for everyone to check your previous posts is important. It allows inconsistencies, gish gallops, red herrings etc. to be weeded out by an attentive audience. This is often the function of a moderator in a debate.
It also allows for objectivity.
seeing that we can refer to something everyone is privy to. Hence, "everyone" is very relevant and certainly not irrelevant.
My comments on race-related topics are all backed and informed by scientific research, not the other way around. Arguments made independent of such rigour are your uncited blurts.
My apologies for misconstruing your position, but this position is actually worse than what I thought you argued, and hence I thought you weren't arguing it.To say that intelligence "cannot be quantified", which implies into the future indefinitely, is pure arrogance and astronomically unlikely.
even in the near future, as science begins to 'find the genes' for various human traits, you will be proven wrong
the intelligence-generating genes are found.
The whole scientific world disagrees with you. Psychometrics, including I.Q, are valid.
You purported yourself to be an authority on the topic, and thus you claimed you didn't need to cite sources to back your claims. That is a unique variation on an appeal to authority, but one nonetheless.
You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:
No, I disregarded it. But after perusing the study, I've come to the conclusion that you haven't read the entirety of your study, much less pay attention to the language used.
Firstly, why did you disregard it? You haven't at all explained why. You simply ignored it and moved onto other parts of the post. You're only addressing it now because I am holding you accountable.
Because I've read extensively on the I.Q. born from a fervor in my youth. Furthermore, your data does not rebut, refute, contradict, or even "counterargue" that "Black is not a race." Hence, I disregarded it.
Incorrect. "Black" can be a race, if given sufficiently low K in population divisions.
What I attempted to convey to you is that skin colour alone doesn't determine race all that well. It's fine for Europeans and Africans. It's not fine for Africans and Australian Aboriginals.
This is precisely how we determine race (assuming the person hasn't migrated there recently. e.g. a Swedish person living in Turkey for a week).
Appropriate is substantiated in that, for example, lumping all Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans etc. into Asian, isn't as accurate as dividing them further. Of course, there is infinite regression until the individual has his/her group, but the same logic applies to colours, and we take no issue calling things red, orange, yellow etc. (i.e. what is considered to be appropriate).
I must be typing to Stevie Wonder.
African Americans frequently refer to themselves at 'black'.
I have heard other Africans make identical references.
On the contrary, I have never heard Australian Aboriginals refer to themselves as black (they do say 'black fella', though, black fella =/= black).
You provided a direct quote from a source without giving credit to the author.Therefore, you plagiarised.
The study demonstrates that genetic divisions fits ancestral geographic locations extremely well, virtually at a 1-to-1 ratio when sufficient genetic markers are used (160+). If you disagree, you haven't read the study properly (but at least you're reading it).
Populations of humans geographically separated who also interbred, and hence are physically and genetically distinguishable.
Clearly, for people to become admixed, there needs to have been race-mixing.
Nobody knows, including you.
Nope. You simply failed to derive meaning from it.
Lol racial I.Q. is an average, not a calculation of the individual's I.Qs. You don't seriously think I'm arguing that all African Americans have an I.Q of 85?
