The following is from my recent exchange with professed scientific skeptic sofiarune. I'm not going to make this post unduly long by also including her replies to me. If you know who she is, you can pretty well guess what she says. If you don't know who she is, it doesn't matter what she says -- because, as I suggest, she's rendered herself irrelevant in the race and IQ debate.
...it's sad that you think it's the job of scientists to keep people ignorant of the findings of racial science. I seem to recall you allying with the forces of suppression in advocating that Rushton be fired for his research.
This is the epitome of the anti-scientific mindset:
I thought Rushton's argument that darker pigmentation helps explain higher rates of aggression in blacks was a bit of stretch. I also found it curious that he used surveys of public perceptions as evidence.
But Nisbett's failings in pursuit of his egalitarian thesis are far more obvious, egregious, numerous, and systematic:
Nisbett refuses to believe that SSAs have IQs of 70.
Maybe more complete, more reliable data for some of these countries
would show that their IQs are actually higher. Maybe not.
people who assert that Rushton and Lynn come up with these IQ figures
because they are biased reveal just how clueless they are about the
hereditarian case. It would be a lot easier for us to make if we could
assign all SSAs IQs of 85. [That way, even the huge environmental differences between Africa and the U.S. could be shown to have no effect on black IQs.]
The issue isn't whether you cite Nisbett, but whether he
should be stripped of his academic credentials because of his biased
and shoddy research. That's why I brought him up, and you changed the
subject instead of addressing the issue. Same goes for L. Lieberman and
these other unscientific social activists that your friends on YouTube
(Hannibal, et. al.) cite as if they were doing science.
I am not convinced that Rushton and Lynn were "frauds." Did Lynn
ever claim that his IQ estimate for Equatorial Guinea was based on IQ
tests administered directly to Equatorial Guineans?
I can roughly
estimate the IQ average of any city in the world if you tell me its per
capita GDP and its racial makeup. It's not fraud; it's just a rough
estimate that stands to be refined if actual, reliable testing data
What about all the academics who arbitrarily assert as fact that
there's no genetic basis for racial IQ differences? They're saying 0%
without any basis for such a figure other than their opposition to
It's not even a rough estimate. It's just scriptural dogma
masquerading as a claim about reality. Egalitarians are no more
reliable than young earth creationists at explaining human evolution.
They come to the table with certain sacred notions that bias everything
And if you won't call for any of these egalitarian social
activists who are corrupting science to be fired, then your claim that
calling for Rushton and Lynn to be fired was just about scientific rigor
If you have an argument for an actual, substantive
position in this debate, I'm open to it. So far, all you've done is
critique one side of the debate while advocating that its most prominent
exponents be excommunicated from academia.
Calling them "frauds"
doesn't disprove their heritability estimates. If you have an estimate
for gene/environment apportionment that explains the IQ gaps better than
Rushton and Jensen's 80/20 model, then let's hear it.
The last time I asked you to make a substantive argument, you said
you had bowed out of the race debate and were no longer interested. If
you have no argument, then you're irrelevant.
"I don't know" isn't an
argument in this debate anymore than it would be in the debate over what
proportion of the observed global temperature increases over the past
100 years is due to human activity. Of course, no one knows precisely.
But you'd still argue, I presume, that it's greater than 0%. I would.
You think that just because I'm more open about my political views
than you are, that I'm more biased in my assessment of facts. That's
not the case. I wouldn't care if it was discovered that there was some
population of blacks somewhere in the world with IQs of 100. I don't
hold any particular race gap to be sacred.
"Racist" scientists (such as S.G. Morton) tend not to be as biased
in their actual handling of data as their impassioned critics. It is
because Racists don't care about the social taboo against Racism that
they are able to mentally free themselves to go where the data leads
You've got self-imposed constraints on what you're willing to
acknowledge. And no amount of evidence for the role of biology in
shaping non-superficial racial differences would cause you to break out
of them. It's not about the evidence. It's about the barriers you've
erected to taking in the evidence objectively -- double standards,
raising the bar to unreasonable heights, etc.
You're just as guilty as a
cruder, more overt social activist, of bias. And just as guilty of
endorsing the use of bully tactics against advocates of politically incorrect viewpoints to try to silence them.