tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post2797341967782541613..comments2024-01-12T00:33:18.854-08:00Comments on anthropomics: Wade, weighedJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18140836427889800046noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-26241101905916479282016-07-19T14:58:13.957-07:002016-07-19T14:58:13.957-07:00"Nobody denies that there is geographic struc..."Nobody denies that there is geographic structure in the human gene pool. But if you call that 'race' then you are using the word 'race' in a new and heretofore unprecedented way."<br /><br />No, it really is the same way evolutionary biologists have used the word "race" for hundreds of years for any species: no discrete divisions, but fuzzy boundaries among populations in a species with differing frequencies of genetic variants and phenotypes due to differing ancestral geography. It is the thing that makes speciation possible. It is groups of organisms within a species somewhere between homogeneous genetic distribution and two different species. With an Fst of 0.12, yes, human "races" really are races.<br /><br /><br />"try to make itself look like science"<br />"bullshit from top to bottom."<br />"belongs in the genre of racist sci-fi."<br />"nested set of falsehoods"<br />"intellectual racist ghetto"<br />"new scientific racist on the block"<br />"white supremacists"<br />"Wade did not know what he was talking about"<br />"a couple of graduate students in evolutionary psychology who will probably be wishing they had known a lot more about the subject before posting that review, when they eventually hit the job market"<br />"political extremists, of the sort that you wouldn’t want to invite to family reunions."<br />"Makes me wonder whether his claim to political neutrality is just amazingly stupid, or a simple lie."<br />"mistake their feelings and prejudices for thoughts."<br />"some snot-nosed evolutionary psychology students"<br /><br />And then you claim that the only reason the taboo exists is because of the scientific problems, like the taboo against creationism, nothing to do with excessive over-the-top ideological hatred, much like you have shamelessly expressed as though nothing was holding you back? You cited position papers of the AAA and the AAPA, both of which rely on the continuum fallacy, as though the only concept of "race" that's important is one that would make the theory of evolution impossible, and the AAA also relies on Lewontin's fallacy. Your morals, not your science, prevent you from any kind of fair look at these matters, true for you and so many others in your field. American anthropology would be more correctly called a church, not a science.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04427504231849677226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-88078422526256041342014-11-15T16:49:56.887-08:002014-11-15T16:49:56.887-08:00I beg to differ. All the main players on the hered...I beg to differ. All the main players on the hereditarian side in the race/iq debate have made policy proposals and related their findings directly to issues in society. They will of course very quickly back away from those proposals when called out, and then they will take a "dont shoot the messenger" or "I am just a scientist" stance. Gottfredsson may have been one of those who try to keep the two separate, but she would be just about the only one then. <br /><br />I just came back to the page here and saw your reply, and had to reply again. Nothing going on.<br /><br />Incidentally I dont think social scientists argue that IQ is unrelated to success. I think they basically believe that "success" is what IQ tests measure, not mental ability.Magnus Pharao Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15904103274303918066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-64705533400716495322014-09-27T16:27:33.155-07:002014-09-27T16:27:33.155-07:00I think you're confusing two different things ...I think you're confusing two different things here. Most psychologists who study human intelligence don't make policy proposals, and in some of Gottfredson's papers she's talked about why they shouldn't. They shouldn't because social policy is determined in part by what our goals are, and it isn't up to psychologists to determine that. The same goes for every area of science--it's the duty of scientists to provide descriptions, not prescriptions. The only intelligence researcher I'm aware of who consistently tries to make policy prescriptions based on his research is Richard Lynn, and I agree he doesn't have any authority to be doing that.<br /><br />But with respect to the distinction between "hard science" and "soft science", I don't think this distinction is a meaningless one. In every other area of science, the ultimate test as to whether someone is using the scientific method is whether their theories are testable; and if they are, whether the results of tests are consistent with them. For example, during the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover trial, this was one of the most important reasons given for why "Intelligent design" isn't real science: no matter how sophisticated its arguments are, most of its claims are inherently untestable.<br /><br />You're probably familiar with the Trzaskowki et al. GWAS from earlier this year, which identified specific alleles that account for at least 18% of families' socio-economic status, and found that most of these genes also are associated with IQ. Whatever you think of this study, you can't deny that its authors were using the scientific method--they formulated a hypothesis, tested it, and found a result that was consistent with their hypothesis. But social-science writers like Malcolm Gladwell, who argue that IQ is unrelated to real-life success, generally don't express much interest in empirically testing their ideas. They pick out research that they think supports their conclusions, but they don't devise studies to test them directly, nor do they suggest such studies should be done.<br /><br />Incidentally, I'm not arguing that social science researchers never use the scientific method. James Flynn is a political scientist, but many of his studies documenting the Flynn Effect meet all the necessary criteria to qualify. But have any of the social scientists who argue that IQ is unrelated to success made any attempt to empirically test that idea? I don't think they have.<br /><br />This discussion is more than three months old. What is it that's made you think of it again? Is there something going on related to this at Wikipedia?Microraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112897425656822699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-34028937088699181082014-09-26T18:17:21.961-07:002014-09-26T18:17:21.961-07:00For one because there is a lot more genetic divers...For one because there is a lot more genetic diversity in Canis familiaris than there is in Homo sapiens. Secondly because canine breeds have arisen through artificial selection, whereas human biogreographic genetic diversity has arisen naturally through migration and mixing. <br /><br />Although in this blog post I compare artificial selection of dog breeds to the process of selective mating resulting from culturally enforced segregation. http://thenatureofnurture.blogspot.com/2014/05/human-biodiversity-new-name-for-old_8380.htmlMagnus Pharao Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15904103274303918066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-9309209759037696762014-09-26T18:11:37.925-07:002014-09-26T18:11:37.925-07:00But they are not making arguments about how to mea...But they are not making arguments about how to measure human mental faculties, but about how to understand sociopolitical processes in human society, the possible relation of genetics to ethnicity and, the possibility that IQ is biological and the the possible relations of innate intelligence to social inequality. Those are social science topics that most psychometricians simply do not have the empirical or theoretical background to be making bold claims about. The only reason they still think they can reasonably do so without having read basic social science literature is because they think of themselves as "real scientists" and of social sciences as "soft sciences" that they dont really have to read because they are all nonsensical anyways. If psychometricians were only sitting around arguing about Spearman's hypothesis noone would have a problem with them, but rather they insist on making "hypotheses" about how society and biology works, and make policy proposals based on them. And they do so without having a minimum of background knowledge in the sciences that study society and biology. So if you want people to stick to what they know, then please psychometricians - stop talking about society and politics.Magnus Pharao Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15904103274303918066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-50979597644219562912014-06-10T13:28:51.651-07:002014-06-10T13:28:51.651-07:00(Writing from Cameroon at this point...) Fair enou...(Writing from Cameroon at this point...) Fair enough - but this is an issue that has been abused for political ends for a very, very long time, and almost entirely from the right. And (contra Wade) that hasn't changed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02596635403065182569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-15744962202562297742014-06-06T15:24:41.970-07:002014-06-06T15:24:41.970-07:00I'm not sure why this is, but it seems that ra...I'm not sure why this is, but it seems that race and intelligence as a topic of scientific inquiry is mostly limited to the field of psychometrics. What I mean isn't that nobody else writes about it--there are plenty of people in other fields like Kinchloe, who write books that are angry and polemical, or like Marks, who dismiss the entire area of study as invalid. But it's usually only in psychometrics that you find the technical arguments and counter-arguments, such as about whether group differences in mental chronometry support Spearman's Hypothesis, or whether the Flynn Effect is evidence for the existence of between-group X-factors. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as James Flynn and Henry Harpending, but psychometrics is where at least three-quarters of the technical debate happens.<br /><br />A few years ago, Emily took a microbiology course where the professor was talking about this topic, and she ended up getting into a debate with him. Even though the professor had very strong opinions about it, there were a lot of basic things he wasn't aware of, and talking to Emily ended up making him more open-minded. For example, before talking to her he'd believed that the only reason the black/white IQ gap exists was because IQ tests are culturally biased against blacks. He hadn't been aware that this possibility was regarded as unlikely in the APA report, because IQ tests predict scholastic achievement and job performance about as well for both black and white Americans. I think this is an example of how without any background in psychometrics, people discussing race and intelligence can easily be missing some essential and basic information about it.<br /><br />That isn't to say the other topics you mentioned aren't relevant also, but psychometrics seems to have a central importance that isn't the case (at least not to the same extent) for any other field.Microraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112897425656822699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-83094804631602686152014-06-06T13:50:39.292-07:002014-06-06T13:50:39.292-07:00I think your frustration about people being out of...I think your frustration about people being out of their area of expertise applies very well to people who havent studied genetics or race, the processes that produce social inequality, like Herrnstein, Murray, Rushton, Lynn, Gottfredsson, Hunt, start making claims about these large areas of study based on their knowledge of the "science" of psychometrics (hardly a "hard science").Magnus Pharao Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15904103274303918066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-16173466069707112722014-06-05T16:13:32.131-07:002014-06-05T16:13:32.131-07:00I respect your view and that you presented it in a...I respect your view and that you presented it in a civil minded way. I disagree but I do understand where you are coming from. I have little tolerance for people who abuse what should be scientific issues for political ends (either on the right or the left). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15400774890970867926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-43247571618942356372014-06-04T15:28:42.481-07:002014-06-04T15:28:42.481-07:00In the first place, I don't think that politic...In the first place, I don't think that politics actually is divorced from the actual science here, and I have some specific background for saying that. I was without my agreement subscribed to Steve Sailer's h-bd list back about 14 years ago, which gave me the opportunity to see a lot of the principals in this racialist work in action - not Wade, but Lynn, Rushton, Murray, Ed Miller, John Deryshire, Chris Brand, Henry Harpending, Gregory Cochran, Vince Sarich et al. I can assure you that racialist politics were certainly a big part of discussions on that list, and particularly an assumption of African cultural and intellectual inferiority. That was the bedrock, in fact.<br />And, in the second place and as I said before, the political coverage in your review of Wade's book was entirely one-sided in any case. To be as balanced as you claim you want to be, you needed to consider why, for example, American Renaissance and VDARE are salivating over Wade's book. You didn't provide that balance, though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02596635403065182569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-66226374508323062622014-06-04T10:04:11.476-07:002014-06-04T10:04:11.476-07:00http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1609http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1609Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18140836427889800046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-40606262122416912352014-06-03T19:46:24.851-07:002014-06-03T19:46:24.851-07:00"...one can do the same to assign humans to r..."...one can do the same to assign humans to racial (or population) groups..." <br /><br />And that causes a bit of a problem: if one throws enough alleles at the human genome, it's possible to to all kinds of population identifications for humans as well, which rather raises the questions of why 'races' are supposed to be so historically fundamental. The list of American Kennel Club breeds is available at https://www.akc.org/breeds/complete_breed_list.cfm; I'd be interested in seeing a comparably precise list of races for humans, as well.<br /><br />In general, and despite your claim in that review, the Big Question in all of this is to identify some biological justifications for claiming that the lesser breeds - and especially people of African descent - are intellectually and culturally inferior to other humans. In fact, the extension of models of recent human evolutionary change into racialist discourse was undertaken by folks - Cochran and Harpending, for example - for whom assumptions of African intellectual inferiority were antecedent to their evolutionary claims: it was a move toward saving racist models, nothing else. You can do a little polite hand-waving in _EvPsych_, just as Wade does, but in fact everyone knows that that's what's going on here. (And it's how Wade's book is immediately picked up by racists worldwide.) You're enamored of Lynn and Vanhaenen, but Richard Lynn has been coming up with specious evolutionary accounts of African inferiority for the last 30 years or so: 'national IQ' was merely the last in a long line of GIGO analyses that Lynn has undertaken.<br /><br />"My values and political views are not derived from nature. I couldn't care less if human races vary on this or that trait or not."<br /><br />On the other hand, the ethical poverty of your viewpoint is very well demonstrated by the one-sidedness of the political coverage in your review of Wade's book. Why don't you spend some time talking about who the true believers are for these racialist models?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02596635403065182569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-47418362030283429142014-06-03T13:55:32.028-07:002014-06-03T13:55:32.028-07:00I'll continue our conversation on email then. ...I'll continue our conversation on email then. Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12331932836124299747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-37078457325881154182014-06-03T13:46:39.699-07:002014-06-03T13:46:39.699-07:00Yeah, Captain Occam is me. I sometimes write about...Yeah, Captain Occam is me. I sometimes write about R&I related topics at the Domain of Darwin blog that I linked to, although we also cover a lot of other evolution-related topics there. In the post that I linked you to, there's link to an obituary I wrote for Arthur Jensen in November 2012, if you're interested in reading that.<br /><br />Jensen is a lot more mainstream than Rushton, judging by how much he's cited in textbooks. Hunt's and Mackintosh's books cite Rushton a moderate amount, but nowhere close to how many times they cite Jensen. I talk a little about how Rushton's work has been received in the obituary that I wrote for him: http://domain-of-darwin.deviantart.com/journal/Featured-Topic-10-12-J-P-Rushton-1943-2012-331002085<br />He isn't mainstream, but mainstream sources have cited him often enough that he can't really be considered "fringe", either.<br /><br />I'm not sure how to answer your question about Wikipedia. The biggest problem affecting these articles there is that there's almost nobody left who cares about them being encyclopedic, so when the articles are vandalized the vandalism often doesn't get undone. I described one of the worst examples of this in a post at the Wikipediocracy forum, although it's an article that relates only tangentially to race and intelligence: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25688#p25688<br /><br />If you care about these articles being in good condition, the most useful thing you could do is just pay attention to them and try to prevent them from falling apart the way that one did. A second thing it's worth doing is getting to know some of the other people there who care about this. I think there are more people who care about that than there might appear, but these people often get demoralized when they assume they're alone. I don't think I should post other people's Wikipedia usernames in public, but you can e-mail me at microraptor at gmail dot com if you'd like more details, or any other advice about this.Microraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112897425656822699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-50534298979240041252014-06-03T13:44:54.447-07:002014-06-03T13:44:54.447-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Microraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112897425656822699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-89383141832159036632014-06-03T11:36:09.205-07:002014-06-03T11:36:09.205-07:00Oh wait, you're that 'Captain Occam' a...Oh wait, you're that 'Captain Occam' aren't you? I used to follow you actually back when you actually edited wikipedia. It may not seem like it but I actually consider myself a more moderate hereditarian (mostly because I couldn't counter the arguments that Rushton, Jensen, Murray etc. were fringe.) Now I'm interested, I've always wanted to represented hereditarianism on R&I article, do you have any tips for good sources and such? I believed too that the textbooks above were critical of Rushton too... Say, do you still write about R&I or something somewhere? A certain paradigm has definitely overtaken the wiki, I'd like your advice on how to combat that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12331932836124299747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-63167067964949293562014-06-03T10:59:25.038-07:002014-06-03T10:59:25.038-07:00You should be specific what you mean by "disc...You should be specific what you mean by "discredit". What Hunt's book states is that Jensen and Rushton's hypothesis that the gaps are 80% genetic is far too precise, because it assumes racial IQ gaps have exactly the same composition as within-group IQ variation. However, he also says Jensen and Rushton are correct that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. As I said, this intermediate perpsective is basically the same as the one that Herrnstein & Murray took.<br /><br />Your saying that Hunt discredits the hereditarians by pointing out that IQ variance can't be linked to specific genes is also obfuscating what he actually he says. In the chapter titled "The genetic basis for intelligence", he states that it's incontrovertible that human intelligence is heavily influenced by genetics. Because the variance is caused by so many genes with such tiny effects, at the beginning of 2011 we didn't have the technology to identify them, but Hunt expected that this would eventually change.<br /><br />Incidentally, this has begun to change in the time since the book's publication. I've written a post here summarizing some of the new research which has been done in this area beginning in October 2011: http://domain-of-darwin.deviantart.com/journal/Uncovering-the-genetics-of-mental-ability-437286688<br />The last paper I mentioned there, the one by Davide Piffer, is (I think) the first study that's produced a statistically significant link between specific genes and racial IQ gaps.<br /><br />Whenever people claim that Hunt's book or Mackintosh's book shows that Arthur Jensen is fringe, something I ask them to do is look at the "Author index" at the end, and see which author is cited the greatest number of times in both books. In Mackintosh's book, the answer is Jensen, by a wide margin. (At least that's the case in the 2011 edition, which is the one that I own.) In Earl Hunt's book, the number of citations to Hunt's own research comes close, but Jensen is the only author who's cited more times than Hunt's own research is cited. Is this something you'd ever see for an actual fringe author? For example, if you were to look at the author index of a mainstream evolutionary biology textbooks, would you see that the most-cited author in both of them is a creationist?Microraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112897425656822699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-11595970116129098862014-06-03T09:19:21.224-07:002014-06-03T09:19:21.224-07:00Earl Hunt's book clearly discredits the heredi...Earl Hunt's book clearly discredits the hereditarian hypothesis as championed by the likes of Rushton and Jensen, "entertaining" such ideas doesn' mean agreement, so Rushton and Jensen remain just as fringe as they deserve to be. Hunt also points out that no set of genes have been found to affect "intelligence" on any significant scale, further discrediting the hereditarian camp. Another mainstream textbook with similar opinions is Mackintosh, N. J. 2011 IQ and Human Intelligence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12331932836124299747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-31657207557336151112014-06-02T22:23:10.821-07:002014-06-02T22:23:10.821-07:00I find it significant that you're linking to J...I find it significant that you're linking to Joe Kinchloe's "Measured Lies" in order to support your argument. How desperate to you have to be to be support yourself with a book like that? You can get an idea how seriously the rest of the world takes this book from the majority of its reviews at the Amazon.com page you linked to. (Among other things, this is a book that claims modern society wants to replace women with robots.)<br /><br />But as long as we're bringing up books, there's one I'd like to bring up.<br />http://www.amazon.com/Human-Intelligence-Earl-Hunt/dp/0521707811/<br />Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt was published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press, and is the most commonly-used textbook in college psychology courses that focus on intelligence. (Amazon.com says it was published in 2010, but I own a copy, and the publication year in the book itself is 2011.) This book also contains almost all of the same ideas that The Bell Curve was attacked for. These include that IQ tests are good predictors of success in the real world; that IQ is highly heritable; that racial IQ gaps are reflected in achievement gaps in areas like academic success and job performance; and that these gaps probably involve both environmental and genetic factors. Like Herrnstein & Murray, Hunt's perspective is that there's too little data to attribute a specific percentage of the gaps to genetics, but that there's also virtually no chance of them being 100% environmental.<br /><br />However, unlike The Bell Curve, Earl Hunt's book has never attracted a significant amount of controversy. Judging by its prevalence as a textbook and the number of other books/papers that cite it, it's the most widely-respected book about human intelligence that's currently in print. What do you think is the reason for the difference between how these two books have been received? The difference is that The Bell Curve was written for the general public, while Human Intelligence is an academic book intended for psychologists and psychology students. And among people who study intelligence in an academic context, most of these ideas aren't all that controversial anymore. When you referred to a "racist ghetto" that entertains these ideas, instead of "racist ghetto" you could have just said "psychologists who study intelligence", because it sounds as though that's what you meant.<br /><br />I always find it strange when people who've never studied a field are trusted over major textbooks written by specialists in it. On the topic of global warming, most educated people understand that the scientific consensus is represented by the opinions of climatologists, and not by the opinions of political pundits or politicians. Or on the topic of evolution, they usually know to trust biologists rather than pastors. The same principle applies to the question of who's an authority on intelligence and IQ testing, but people like you seem to have trouble understanding that. If you believe Kinchloe's book is a more reliable source on this topic than Hunt's is, you're doing essentially the same thing as people who claim global warming isn't real because their favorite politician says that it isn't.Microraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112897425656822699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-14367335351160665662014-06-02T19:57:29.328-07:002014-06-02T19:57:29.328-07:00http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/06/02/nicholas-wa...http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/06/02/nicholas-wades-troublesome-approach-to-scientific-critiques/Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18140836427889800046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-32241486395480527852014-06-02T09:19:23.997-07:002014-06-02T09:19:23.997-07:00http://ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-visible...http://ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-visible-colors-and-falseness-of.htmlJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18140836427889800046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-64399158744595197792014-06-02T09:16:03.354-07:002014-06-02T09:16:03.354-07:00I linked above to many of the extensive criticisms...I linked above to many of the extensive criticisms of The Bell Curve, which has receded from memory as just a bit of old right-wing pseudoscience, except to those already ideologically committed to its conclusions. There are also extensive critiques of the value of twin studies, beginning with The Jim Twins, who inspired the Minnesota Study.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18140836427889800046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-15049958738125725672014-06-01T15:26:52.673-07:002014-06-01T15:26:52.673-07:00The Bell Curve is "bullshit from top to botto...The Bell Curve is "bullshit from top to bottom"? The APA would disagree with that statement as would many of the authors of the works you cited. The book has one chapter on race and ethnicity. Most of the book is about how IQ tests are very accurate at predicting not just academic success but also success in life as well -- higher IQ means less likely to use drugs, less likely to break the law in general, more committed to good child rearing, less violent, and many more. Lower IQ correlates with high crime and social deviancy in general.<br /><br />The APA says that race is the "least likely" explanation for IQ gaps among races but also rejects claims of test bias. The NLYA survey heavily cited in The Bell Curve shows high IQ African Americans are even more successful than white peers on educational attainment and job productivity. At least say that the idea widespread racism as the primary source of African American social problems is not is contradicted by at least some of the data out there. It's anything but a given that only racism is the problem. Europe and Canada have much the same problems assimilating Africans as we do. And we have IQ tests from those countries as well that show IQ gaps among races.<br />Authorities agree almost unanimously that the gap exists but no one knows for sure why. That's mainstream agreement on IQ and the book does cite several IQ studies showing no gap, such as the study in post war Germany of the children of black servicemen and German women being almost exactly equal in their scores as whites. <br /><br />And the data on IQ and twins is mentioned throughout the book. You can't refute that I don't think. There's too many studies showing close correlations.Tom519https://www.blogger.com/profile/14324807029274380472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-30811009356986447822014-06-01T08:51:04.027-07:002014-06-01T08:51:04.027-07:00"visual taxonomy"?
oy vey"visual taxonomy"? <br />oy veyBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06948078362926035217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296902161996746404.post-77951385037564242542014-06-01T06:01:34.304-07:002014-06-01T06:01:34.304-07:00http://www.huffingtonpost.com/agustin-fuentes/a-tr...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/agustin-fuentes/a-troublesome-response-ni_b_5419505.htmlJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18140836427889800046noreply@blogger.com