Race and IQs

[Angrboda]

So basically what you're stating that even though the methods the research is based upon has been proven to be flawed, it still has to be proven that there are no differences in IQ racially?

That's not how it works.

Actually that is how it works, unless you have good reason for considering the neutral stance to be the null condition, which is essentially the same thing.

Have you proven there is no God?

Are you disputing the disparity between the evidence for naturalism and that for the supernatural?

I've shown you that the methods used in the 'bell curve' has been thoroughly debunked.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge it, and better yet, you refuse to post any contradicting evidence to support you position.

What fucking position have I expressed on the issue?!?! I said explicitly both that I was agnostic concerning the hypothesis as well as pointing out that I haven't studied the issue and so don't have an adequate basis on which to form an opinion. That you continue to misrepresent me in this way simply makes you out to be a fucking liar.

I'm looking at you sideways right now...

And this means what exactly?

[Huggy Bear]

I've shown you that the methods used in the 'bell curve' has been thoroughly debunked.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge it, and better yet, you refuse to post any contradicting evidence to support you position.

What fucking position have I expressed on the issue?!?!  I said explicitly both that I was agnostic concerning the hypothesis as well as pointing out that I haven't studied the issue and so don't have an adequate basis on which to form an opinion.  That you continue to misrepresent me in this way simply makes you out to be a fucking liar.

You've been given more than enough information to conclude the information the 'Bell Curve' is based upon cannot in anyway be construed as scientific evidence, therefore you cannot possibly remain neutral unless you're purposefully being obtuse.

If you are purposefully ignoring the information, that IS NOT being neutral because you are clearly opposed to one side of the argument, going so far as to claim that even though all the "research" of racial IQ has been debunked the theory still has to be proven wrong. If the so-called experts the OP cited as sources had their "research" debunked upon peer review, then there is no basis for their theory.

The fact that you still claim neutrality in the face of this is rather appalling.

There's also the fact that you refused to acknowledge the rest of my post which shows you're not interested in any sort of honest debate.

I'm looking at you sideways right now...

And this means what exactly?

It means, based upon our interaction, I suspect you just may be a white supremacist.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Are you asking if I think there are inherent differences in intelligence between the races? If so, my answer is I don't know. I'm inclined to be skeptical of the claim that there are inherent differences in intelligence, but not having studied the subject in any depth, I must acknowledge that my opinion is not an informed one. If you're asking me if I think there are measurable differences between the intelligence of different races, that's a different question, but one to which I again must answer that I don't know, though I would be more hesitant to jump to conclusions about the latter rather than the former.

What fucking position have I expressed on the issue?!?!  I said explicitly both that I was agnostic concerning the hypothesis as well as pointing out that I haven't studied the issue and so don't have an adequate basis on which to form an opinion.  That you continue to misrepresent me in this way simply makes you out to be a fucking liar.

It means, based upon our interaction, I suspect you just may be a white supremacist.

Evidence that Huggy doesn't actually read what people say but just assumes that he is reading what he has already anticipated them to say.

[Huggy Bear]

Yeah just ignore all the information between those quotes that show the context.
Not dishonest at all.

More than enough information has been presented so Jormungandr can no longer claim ignorance.

If he had objections to the information then he had plenty of chances to post contradicting evidence. He has not done this.


Answer this Mathilda.

If Jormungandr is "skeptical of the claim that there are inherent differences in intelligence", what exactly is he objecting to?

[ignoramus]

He?

Yeah Jor, grow some cahunas and answer him!

[Edwardo Piet]

If Jormungandr is "skeptical of the claim that there are inherent differences in intelligence", what exactly is he objecting to?

What does differences between races have to do with racism?

P.S. Jor is a she.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Answer this Mathilda.

If Jormungandr is "skeptical of the claim that there are inherent differences in intelligence", what exactly is he objecting to?

As far as I can tell she was pointing out that the basis of your argument in post #31 tried to discredit the researchers rather than point out the flaws in the research. This was a little unfair of her because you did also put in bold sentences such as how the research was not properly peer reviewed and lacked scientific rigour. But I think she can be excused because no one actually expects you to make good points so it is easy to miss when you do.

I personally feel that it is worthwhile considering the bias of the researchers but it only serves as a hint as to what they are deliberately ignoring if they are clearly biased. The bias is not itself reason to dismiss the evidence and I think that was Jor's point. Science works by providing evidence. And if you suspect that a study is biased then you have good reason to look for and expect to find counter-evidence to refute it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Racism is something different to recognizing difference between races. Huggy's white supremacist charge is absurd.

[Homeless Nutter]

[Angrboda]

I personally feel that it is worthwhile considering the bias of the researchers but it only serves as a hint as to what they are deliberately ignoring if they are  clearly biased. The bias is not itself reason to dismiss the evidence and I think that was Jor's point. Science works by providing evidence. And if you suspect that a study is biased then you have good reason to look for and expect to find counter-evidence to refute it.

Actually, I was defending myself against CapnAwesome's counterpoint, and put my mouth in motion before putting my brain in gear. I do however hold to my second point that Huggy is effectively trying to kill the message -- meaning the hypothesis that there are inherent differences -- by shooting the messenger -- the advocates and research of those supporting the hypothesis. If I had not been kneejerk reacting to CapnAwesome's challenge, that would have been the point I should have made. That being said, I still hold to that second point. As a matter of logic, refuting the evidence for A is not evidence for its opposite B. That is a classic argument from ignorance, and unless B is independently supported, we have no reason to conclude B based upon the refutation of a particular argument or piece of evidence for A. Tuskegee airmen and the intelligence of African immigrants doesn't do it for me. If Huggy's contention is that the races are inherently equal in intelligence, I've yet to see good evidence for that. So the question is, Huggy, are you saying that you believe the inherent intelligence of the races is equal, and if so, what justification do you have for that belief?