A Scientific Debate on Race and Intelligence Part 6 of 11

[SomeUser9753]

What about mixed. I believe it's a conspiracy against USA because they have a lot of mixed. They inspire contrary to america idea.

[gmccall22]

Really no need to see more after this. Rushton was made to look very inept. What a lopsided debate

[PiotrThePrimate]

If a large set of variables (IIRC Rushton listed 60) group together between 3 categories then that suggests that latent taxa exist. It would be possible to start of with a "variable soup" and using taximetric analysis arrive at the three taxa. If these taxa were arbitrary then the distribution of values for the variables would be entirely random. Graves doesn't explain why the variables group into three categories. 

[EgalitarianJay]

@PiotrThePrimate What Graves explained in the video was that because the modes of selection for phenotypic correlations are not testable in humans it doesn't matter how many variables you use to attempt to support your theories on Human Life History Variation. Basically Rushton's variables are inadequate for testing his hypothesis. Graves explains this in more detail in his "Tangled Web" article. Rushton data for his listed variables is tainted and of poor quality.

[PiotrThePrimate]

@EgalitarianJay Both you and Graves are conflating the two distinct components of Rushtons work. (1) There is the data itself which results from the collation of hundreds of studies. (2) There is Rushton's explanatory effort in relation to that data. Each has to be discussed on its own merits. Even if (2) is completely flawed (1) still shows that there are 3 latent taxa amongst humans. Graves didn't even try and address this.

[PiotrThePrimate]

@EgalitarianJay "Rushton data for his listed variables is tainted and of poor quality." That has to be demonstrated for each case, it can't be merely assumed.

[PiotrThePrimate]

@EgalitarianJay I just finished reading Graves paper "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory". With the exception of the vestigial section d the entire paper is concerned with criticising Rushton's application of r- and K-selection theory to life history evolution. Graves doesn't address why the data suggest that 3 human taxa exist. Even if Rushton's explanation is flawed the taximetric component of his work remains.

[PiotrThePrimate]

@EgalitarianJay In case what I am saying is unclear I'll try a different way of presentation. You can throw away all of Rushton's work re r/K selection and life history but you will still have remaining the results of what can be described as a raximetric analysis which indicates that there are three latent human taxa. Even if you throw away the word "race" these taxa remain. Graves doesn't even attempt to refute the apparent existence of 3 human taxa.

[EgalitarianJay]

@PiotrThePrimate Graves explains why Rushton's theory is invalid and why his data is both flawed and unreliable. I can provide you a link where I have discussed this elsewhere and provided Graves more detailed critiques of Rushton. He did in fact refute the racial pattern Rushton claims exists citing empirical evidence.

[PiotrThePrimate]

@EgalitarianJay Please do. Thanks.

[EgalitarianJay]

@PiotrThePrimate I was reading over the comments and noticed that you never replied to the link I sent you (on 01/06/12). The link contains Graves answers to the problems with Rushton's work. Rushton is advancing a theory based on research. For his theory to be correct he must make a positive argument. He has not done so. His argument is based on a discredited theory and unreliable data that cannot test his hypothesis.

[Maxantium]

I WOULD HAVE GIVEN anything to be in that room during Dr. Graves presentation to Dr. Rushton's argument . Wow ! Dr. Rushton was WRONG all along 

[thespacialone]

Okay, I notice the Dr Graves blurb is actually in all your video descriptions. Unless I've gone mad, I think his BA should be changed to BSc.

[PiotrThePrimate]

@thespacialone No that is correct, Dr Graves has a BA in biology from Oberlin College In his CV he writes it as "A.B." which must be the convention at his college.

[thespacialone]

WTF! EgalitarianJay is a LUNATIC! In what sense don't races exist? Do ethnicities not exist? Do no measurable human differences exist?

If they do exist, within individuals, why not within groups? Does EgalitarianJay not understand the concept of heritability?

Do dog breeds not "exist"? How on earth can she claim the concept of race/breed/ethnicity CANNOT exist in humans?

Rushton ONLY needs evolved differences to exist, which they do. You can call them what you want, race, breed, whatever!

[EgalitarianJay]

@thespacialone Why don't you calm down and stop acting like a nut? Race does not equal human genetic variation. Race = subspecies. The classification of subspecies requires the identification of notable genetic subdivisions within a species. Typically this is done by analyzing within and between group variations. There are populations that vary in the inheritance of certain traits but must genetic variation is within these populations not between them.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay I understand what a race is. So your problem with "race" is a taxonomic one. I thought it might be. And your argument is that variations within the caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid classifications are so broad as to make them arbitrary. I figured you'd say that too.

I am significantly more genetically similar to my sister than to a sub-Saharan male. I am male. Two complete strangers of indigenous British origin are as similar as siblings when compared with a sub-Saharan population.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay "There are populations that vary in the inheritance of certain traits but must [most] genetic variation is within these populations not between them."

I'm going to have to get back to you to provide a full rebuttal, but this argument has been totally debunked. It will be my pleasure to set your straight on a few of these issues.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay Dr Graves is not a very good communicator. But the gist of what he seemed to be saying was (I had half an ear on him) that evolutionary biology, as a science, had a hard time accounting for the kinds of evolved differences Rushton argues for. Again, I wasn't really listening.

If I was Dr Graves, I would be looking to the flaws in my science/scientific understanding. We know that the "groups" "black American", "brown American", "white American", and "yellow American"

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay perform very differently on IQ tests.This data attests to observable and measurable group difference. This has been observed and measured, ad infinitum.

Perhaps what Dr Graves should be doing is taking the data and seeking to extrapolate from them our likely human past. What might have lead to these differences? The data is incontrovertible. If timescales are too short for such differences to have evolved naturally, some outside influence perhaps, Some non-evolutionary cause?

[EgalitarianJay]

@thespacialone Also you should note that Graves himself says in his presentation that even if races didn't exist you could still argue that some populations were more intelligent than others. I recommend that you do some research on population genetic theory and the social construction of race. Here's a good article:

- Conceptualizing Human Variation

Oh and I am not a woman just so you know.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay Right, so we've established that groups vary in intelligence. Men and women, Turks and Mongols, Vikings and Samurai etc etc. You just don't like the term race.

I'm left puzzled, though. If we were to take 100 people from each of a half dozen sub-Saharan African countries and 100 people from each of a half dozen North East Asian countries and have a bet as to which group would score return the highest aggregate IQ score, your money would be on the North East Asians every time.

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone Groups may vary in IQ scores, but there's no evidence of genetic superiority/inferiority in group intelligence. IQ tests do not adequately capture human intelligence as they have myriad flaws which invalidate them.

People who are properly acculturated in the values the IQ test is designed to reward and who are properly motivated will do well on IQ tests, those that aren't won't do well. Proper motivation alone is worth at least on standard deviation (a recent study confirms).

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone Given your postulate, my money wouldn't necessarily be on the Northeast Asians. Do you really expect Chinese and North Korean peasants to score higher on IQ tests than an urbanized, English-speaking Nigerians and Kenyans? Not likely. So it depends on which Northeast Asians and which Africans you pick, doesn't it? And it depends on which ones have undergone the kind of conditioning and acculturation the IQ test is designed to reward. Increasingly, sub-Saharans will have the edge.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 "Do you really expect Chinese and North Korean peasants to score higher on IQ tests than an urbanized, English-speaking Nigerians and Kenyans?"

Yes, i do. The North East Asians populations would outperform the sub-Saharan African populations every time, and by a distance. The question, for interested observers like me, is why.

All legitimate IQ testing focuses on trend and pattern recognition. "English speaking" is utterly irrelevant.

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone You're an idiot if you expect a bunch of Asian peasants to out-perform on IQ tests multi-lingual, urbanized, sophisticated, educated, overseas traveling sub-Saharan Africans. I'm afraid your own intelligence seems to be well below average. Sort of ironic, isn't it?

IQ tests for acculturation. That's why gaps close as low performers become more acculturated and conditioned. That's why even Jews flunked IQ tests in this country, but within a generation became high scorers.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 Being multi-lingual isn't a proxy for either intelligence or the ability to score highly on an IQ test. And being "urbanized" and "traveled" seem very strange things to propose as potential indicators of intelligence. As for being "sophisticated", you really want to check what that actually means; again, same comments.

I'd be willing to bet (a lot of money) that I would outperform you hands down on an IQ test, however "sophisticated" my indomitable opponent thinks he is.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 Acculturation has little bearing on differing population groups' ability to score well. Anecdotal, yet convincing, evidence for arises from the observation that, as Rushton acknowledges earlier in the presentation, test designers have been unable to boost scores for fellow "group" members.

The only "conditioning" that is going to substantively aid a testee is practicing IQ tests.

The extent to which one becomes familiarized with the concepts they employ through incidental work...

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 ...and study seems to help, but not as much as you might imagine, due in part to the fact that people operating in those jobs or areas of study would already tend to be high IQ individuals.

For whatever reason, sub-Saharan Africans tend to very much struggle with written pattern recognition. I keep highlighting "written", because anyone who watches NBA is going to acknowledge that their are certain spheres of pattern recognition in which people of African descent excel.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 I hold to Rushton, that the shortfall is predominantly a result of the lack of selection pressures favoring those strong in planning skill traits to enable them to survive winters for those operating within more temperate climes.

I do not think African's general limited propensity for recognizing written patterns, a vital component of intelligence but a million miles from the whole picture, need be the insurmountable obstacle and source of discouragement some are convinced it is.

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone "Africans limited propensity for recognizing written patterns"? Am I supposed to take you seriously or are you just trolling?

Your nonsensical gibberish notwithstanding, you and Rushton are both wrong with respect to your cold weather hypothesis. Civilization radiated from the warmer, more southerly regions to the north. It was the dark-skinned Southerners, who often went shirtless due to the temperate weather, that brought advanced technology and civilization to the cold north.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 Lol. Why so combative? Unable to refute the myriad data, you go to attack mode. Yup, that's what normally happens.

I'm really struggling with the whole shirtless dark-skinned southerners thing. Colorful imagery, but do you have a point?

"Even Jews flunked tests." Oh, that high IQ test scoring group which doesn't have higher IQ than anyone else and which doesn't exist. Or is it okay for Jews to be "a bit smarter", but not okay for there to be any other group intelligence variables?

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 "Africans limited propensity for recognizing written patterns."

You're right, "capacity" would have been less awkward. But you really don't want to get into "grammar wars" with me, especially given your mediocre English usage.

"Civilization radiated from the warmer, more southerly regions to the north." Give this fella a gold star lmao!

"you and Rushton are both wrong with respect to your [the] cold weather hypothesis." It's HIS cold weather hypothesis, moron, not his and mine!

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone Where's your data on Africans not recognizing written patterns? Ironic how stunningly stupid you are. Rather awkward for you to call into question the intelligence of your superiors.

You have no rebuttal for my historically accurate assertion that it was dark-skinned Southerners who dragged Northerners out of their caves, hence your cold weather hypothesis is plain dumb.

Your usage of English is subpar. The objective is lucid verbiage that people can understand, not your drivel.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 p.1 Do you honestly contend the following is anything but a bloody murder of the English language?

"Where's your data on Africans not recognizing written patterns? Ironic how stunningly stupid you are. Rather awkward for you to call into question the intelligence of your superiors."

Here's how an English speaker might have phrased it:

"What evidence are you able to posit to substantiate your assertion that Africans are unable to recognize written patterns?"

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 p.2 I didn't assert that, but never mind.

I'll try to explain, so you won't look quite as ignorant in future. Data substantiate a case. They do not "make" a case. For that one requires inference upon which to base conjecture. Data are translated into information, which is translated into argument. I'd posit my argument based on information gleaned via logical deduction of what the data seemed to be suggesting.

Did you even finish high school? Continuing.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 p3. "Ironic how stunningly stupid you are." Again, here's how an English speaker might have phrased it:

"The great irony in all of this is your own stupidity."

Okay, you didn't even say what you thought you were saying in the next sentence, when you said:

"Rather awkward for you to call into question the intelligence of your superiors."

I infer what you meant to say was:

"How awkward for you to have to defer to the superior intellect of your opponent."

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 p.4 What, in effect, you said was (I'll phrase it in the declarative, but it's so poorly worded I've actually struggled to form a coherent sentence):

"It's irksome for you to doubt the veracity of the claims of your esteemed opponent." Something like that.

You see the point is I do "call into question" everything you say, because everything you say appears to be the product of a feeble-minded dolt.

You should really at least attempt to engage your brain before typing.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 p.5 Anyway, continuing.

"You have no rebuttal for my historically accurate assertion that it was dark-skinned Southerners who dragged Northerners out of their caves, hence your cold weather hypothesis is plain dumb."

This is nails-on-a-chalk-board bad!

"You are unable to refute my historically substantiated assertion... that it was dark-skinned Southerners who dragged Northerners out of their caves, hence your cold weather hypothesis is plain dumb."

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 p.6 Thing is, I didn't realize that dark skinned (shirtless?) Southerners dragging Northerners out of caves was something one might ordinarily consider "historical fact". Perhaps the academic scrutiny to which your works are submitted is different than mine?

It is also customary during such discourse to refrain from delineating one's opponent's position as "plain dumb". Furthermore, I thought we had already established that it is not my "cold weather hypothesis", but Dr Rushton's?

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 p.7 "The objective is lucid verbiage that people can understand."

"Lucid verbiage" is borderline oxymoronic. "Verbiage" primarily refers to excessively wordy writing or speech. Using the term in conjunction with “medical” or “military”, as in medical verbiage, to reference a specific nomenclature of terms is commonplace, but could be considered poor use when coupled with the wholly contradictory "lucid", which means easily understood, clear, transparent.

You, sir, FAIL HARD!

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone So instead of refuting or rebutting my arguments you're attempting to critique my English, and laughably doing so in a sort of gobbledygook broken English.

You must be some kind of escapee from a mental institution.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 I'm taking you to school, son. When you're up and running with your ABC, we can look to more "grown up" matters.

Till then, SUCK IT UP!

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone I am 100% black without even a hint of white DNA. I'm kicking your lily white ass all over YouTube on every video that I find you spewing your unintelligible junk.

I am smart and you are dumb. There goes your "theories" on race and intelligence.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 Now we get to the crux of the matter. You're 100% black, but "black" doesn't exist. There's no such thing as "race" except when it suits your purpose. And who said I'm "white"? You're so damn racist.

What you're doing is providing facepalmage every "argument". You're being thoroughly humiliated. And so now you're chimping out.

"I am smart and you are dumb." Are you for real? Am I back in 3rd grade? Oh no, it's just business as usual in racially egalitarian youtube land.

[EgalitarianJay]

@thespacialone I thought you were done on my channel and here I find you picking fights with other posters.You won't assume your ethnic background. If you'd like to share it that's your choice but your language is suspicious. White racists with a fixation of Race and IQ often use the phrase "chimp out" so if you're not one this suggests you at least hang out with them and share your views. I have one question for you. What flaws do you see in Graves argument?

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay When I said I was "done", it followed that I was done with that discussion thread. I did not intimate, "I'm done with this channel, this topic" etc., so your inference is illogical.

I can confirm, however, that I am now done with sethaus75.

I'd just like you to present some studies which refute the idea of a black-white-yellow performance disparity in IQ testing. I've never read anything that does. Mostly what I read is how horrible people who acknowledge such gaps are.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay "You won't assume your ethnic background."

Did you mean to say, you won't state your ethnic background? Why should I? I would never presume to ask another, and I don't think it's relevant.

I am unable to comment on Dr Graves. I feel his presentation was something of a monologue, and I lack the expertise in biology or evolutionary biology to comment on the findings he presents.

What I can't ignore is the irrefutable evidence for disparity in group IQ performance.

[EgalitarianJay]

@thespacialone I meant to say I won't assume your background. Noone is saying ignore disparities in group performance on IQ. What is being debated is Rushton's strong hereditarian explanation for the cause of these group differences. He has gone the route of advancing a primarily genetic cause and even claiming IQ scores

correlate with racially ordained behaviors. Surely you can understand why experts on biology would challenge his assertions if the science was not valid.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay "intelligence". It gets bandied about too readily as though it's some be all and end all of human potentiality.

Again, I'm talking about a specific function of intelligence, abstract thought, that has come to assume great import, perhaps far more than is its due. By certain groups perceiving an advantage in this regard and seeking to channel intellectual endeavor through this "world lens", other groups may indeed have been "unfairly" disadvantaged.

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone What you're attributing to group genetic differences are really nothing more than group cultural differences. There is no gene for "abstract thought." If it exists then it is a learned behavior, a cultural endowment passed on and inculcated within the group. The U.S. is the perfect petri dish to test this hypothesis. People of disparate cultural backgrounds blend into Americana, regardless of race or ethnicity.

We come into the world a blank slate. It's culture that shapes us.

[PiotrThePrimate]

@sethaus75 And you evidence for any of your claims is where?

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay I suspect what Rushton claims can be empirically tested for in the WORLD AS WE FIND IT. The reason I think, however, the world we find it is the way it is is because of a half century of racial egalitarianism. The destruction of the family unit will have accounted for more of the crime than all other factors combined, in the same way that pseudo-egalitarianism is the source of the vast majority of today's social discord.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay The truth that no one dare speak, that we're all very different and to deny these differences is to send us collectively to Hades, is the tail that's wagging this dog. Rather than enabling different groups to address their strengths and weaknesses and come to rational conclusions about their futures, the arbiters of the over-bearing nanny state shriek equality and universality while amateurishly plugging gaps in a leaking citizen-ship that is increasingly their own doing.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay You are indeed lolworthy. Perhaps you might address your "chimp out" observation to race realists who are actually well versed in these matters; youtube users like MrHerrIQ2, Fringeelements and HeyRuka? The chance they've ever uttered such a phrase in slim to none.

And I'm sure you will admit the guy was chimping out? "I am 100% black without even a hint of white DNA," and, "I am smart and you are dumb."

I mean, come on! The guy went totally non-linear!

[EgalitarianJay]

@thespacialone I can provide you with Graves own simplistic summary of his arguments against Rushton as well as his articles where he critiques Rushton's research via PM if it is hard to follow his presentation. I debated HeyRuka, FringeElements and MrHerrIQ back when Ruka's videos were getting alot of attention. Some in the race-realist crowd try hard not to come off as venomously racist but the racist ideas are still there.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay I have taken enough of your time already. But any links you can comment post to such video debates would be warmly welcome.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay Oh, actually if it is simply a case of posting a link to an article, yes, thank you, that would be great! I feel the good doctor is on to something, I'm just not sure what :)

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone The only one chimping out on this thread is you. Your first post here was a massive chimpout, and you've gone downhill ever since. Reading your tripe, it's almost as if someone sat a chimpanzee down at a computer, logged on to YouTube and had him bang away at the keyboard.

Remember, you look a hell of a lot more like a chimp than I do. You have the same hair type and the same predisposition to excessive body hair. Black men don't have hair on their backs, necks and shoulders.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay I note your bigotry toward race realists in terming them "white racists". Again, they only ever seem to be "white" when they are to be blamed for something, in your case by their pointing out the absurdities of racial egalitarianism.

For the record, I am a free-association nationalist.

As someone who clearly does have a brain, what you should do is watch the Racism Is Natural series. You will not turn from the light once you have.

/watch?v=bTHTi6Wu1Mg

/watch?v=jb1-VZ4zWe8

[EgalitarianJay]

@thespacialone I've watched it. You should watch my Race: The Power of an Illusion series. I will have the second episode up soon. Speaking of HeyRuka I recommend watching xxxthepeachxxx's demolition of HeyRuka's arguments.

/watch?v=A8RefZ1Hcvo

EvoGen made some good videos in response to FringeElements as well.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay Thank you, I shall. I trust you will do a better job than the lamentable efforts of others.

[EgalitarianJay]

@thespacialone While you're coming up with an answer to that I'm going to upload more of Race: The Power of an Illusion.

[thespacialone]

@sethaus75 My "junk" is unintelligible to you because you don't possess the requisite intelligence to comprehend it. You understand neither what constitutes an argument nor how an argument is constructed. You can't even form grammatically correct simple sentences.

You are a vacuous dullard, a waste of oxygen, and a waste of my time.

So sayonara, sethaus75. I wish I could say it has been anything other than thoroughly disappointing.

[sethaus75]

@thespacialone This is YouTube, you imbecile. I and many others often write in shorthand in order to fit everything into one post. This is not an essay contest. Objective is to be brief and concise, while making your point with precision.

Your writing is chicken scratch even as you attempt to string the same nonsensical gibberish into multiple posts. I prefer to convey a thought in a single post and to truncate my text fit within the character guidelines. Besides, I'm not writing a novel.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay By betting on the N.E. Asians every time, diverse people spread throughout diverse climes to be sure, you would be signalling that you thought this race-breed-ethnicity-people was more intelligent* than their sub-Saharan race-breed-ethnicity-people counterpart.

* In so far as IQ tests are able to accurately measure intelligence.

In the UK, males are named Jaye and females are named Jay, which is why I assumed you were female. Just so you know.

[Wanda7771]

This sounds like gobldy gook. "That's a scientific observation y'all.

[EgalitarianJay]

@Wanda7771 Cliffnotes: 1. Rushton used an invalid theory as his explanation for racial differences he alleges exist 2. Rushton applied the theory backwards so he'd be wrong even if the theory were correct. 3. Rushton's data is tainted and of poor quality. 4. Rushton needs biological races to exist in humans for his theory to be valid. They don't exist.

Rushton has no rebuttal to any of Graves arguments. He was refuted by a real expert on biology.

[thespacialone]

@EgalitarianJay I'm no scientist, but when saying the word "data" in scientific circles, does one not usually use the traditional plural form? This would render "data are tainted," rather than "data is tainted" (the datum is tainted).

Hope this helps. Of course I'm probably just a dinosaur.

[Wanda7771]

NEWS FLASH!!!! Its not just brain size that determines intelligence. Its also how many DENDRITES that brain has and NEWSFLASH! Jews claim that Jews have the most DENDRITES! Surprize surprize. Who would've guessed! (I believe it!)

[retrogamerist]

Interesting.

[nutsinthecoco]

thanks for uploading this series, and Dr. Graves is brilliant!

[EgalitarianJay]

@nutsinthecoco You're welcome. I thought Graves presentation was great as well.

[strong8action]

So is it true that the black race has smaller brains than asians, on an average basis? I didn't hear a refutation Dr Rushton's data in this regard. A simple "true" or "false", followed by an explanation would've sufficed.

[EgalitarianJay]

@strong8action That claim is false. Rushton's claims were refuted by Leonard Lieberman. Google:

- How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank: from Morton to Rushton

[timothy51886]

@EgalitarianJay wut? Even Stephen Jay Gould got pwned by the reality of Morton's skulls

[EgalitarianJay]

@timothy51886 There are some scholars disputing Gould's measurements of Morton's skulls after his death but their conclusions are debatable. 

[1big2boy31]

@EgalitarianJay

Gould was clearly wrong and arguably biased in his claims about Morton's study. Morton's claim that African skulls are smaller than Caucasian skulls is accurate.

nytimes

.

com/2011/06/14/science/14skull

.

html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=stephen%20j­.%20gould&st=cse

[EgalitarianJay]

@1big2boy31 Those racial hierarchy claims were debunked in the following article:

How Caucasoids got such big crania and why they shrank from Morton to Rushton

[1big2boy31]

@EgalitarianJay

The article I cited is from this year, and it was published in the New York Times of all places. I trust its reporting more than I do the arguments of a professor at a third tier state university who produced his work over a decade ago.

The fact is that brain size does vary by race, with blacks at the bottom. If you want to argue that this correlation doesn't affect intelligence, then fine, but when you deny the existence of this difference you lose all credibility.

[EgalitarianJay]

@1big2boy31 I emailed the lead authors of that study after a debate I had fairly recently and they hold the position that there are not racial differences in intelligence. If you like I can forward the exchanges.

[EgalitarianJay]

@1big2boy31 Also Lieberman's arguments still stand today. They aren't even disputed by the authors of that study who are specifically critiquing Gould's analysis of Morton's skulls and even claim Morton didn't make that statement that his research supported racial differences in intelligence at all. The details of their study are highly disputed but even if you read it it doesn't make or support the claims you think it does.

[diyonisha]

I love this videos

Thank you for posting.

[EgalitarianJay]

@diyonisha You're welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed it.