Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[bennyboy]

You argue shittily, Khemikal

Here, I'll help you:
1. have a point
2. back it up with facts

[The Grand Nudger]

-and that's why it's pointless to link dump you.  I already have, you didn't take the time then, why would you take the time now?

I gave you all the information you'd need so that you wouldn't have to take my word for anything, but you're obsessed with an argument that you're only having with yourself.

I have explained to you that complaints of white victimization and some imaginary cryptomarxist end of the western world are batshit crazy rightwing talking points. This is not an argument, it is a statement of fact. It it's modern incarnation, both tunes go back as far as 1970...and yet here we still are, rights and all. Whites still haven't been rounded up by their black oppressors. What..about that, should I have to argue in, for you?

[bennyboy]

I have explained to you that complaints of white victimization and some imaginary cryptomarxist end of the western world are batshit crazy rightwing talking points.  This is not an argument, it is a statement of fact.  It it's modern incarnation, both tunes go back as far as 1970...and yet here we still are, rights and all.  Whites still haven't been rounded up by their black oppressors.  What..about that, should I have to argue in, for you?

This is you:
1)  Claim that any white guy who discusses any aspect of race relations "complains of white victimization."
2)  Argue that white victimization isn't a thing.

I say I don't like the race card being pulled out as a substitute for actual responsibility in the work place.  You call this "complaints of white victimization."
I say that IQ, race, and income are strongly correlated.  You rant on about white victimization.
I say I will actually donate money to a charity if you will cite your sources.  You somehow. . . quite miraculously. . . have managed to avoid citing the sources, and gotten right back on track with the crowing about white victimization.

Here's what I think.  I think I'm a proxy for your father (I think that's who you said it was), and you're arguing against his positions, rather than mine.  It's like that time I asked my wife to put on a Wonder Woman costume, I guess.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you should take the time to read the links I gave you, Benny? I', not claiming that any white guy who discusses aspects of race relations complains of white victimization. Mostly, because it's possible to do that without complaining of white victimization. I'm noting that -you-, specifically and explicitly, hit 4 of 5 on the white victimization narrative. You're only missing white elimination.....though soviet breadlines seem to be standing in for that in your case.

(-and nah, not my dad, lol. My granddad, but why would I need a proxy to argue against? I love that guy, he's self aware and openly bigtoed...and doesn't imagine that he's being victimized, lol. But thx anyway, Mr Daddy Issues.)

---

Lets start with the enterprise institute, from none other than charles murray, so that you can't imagine some crypomarxist conspiracy against truth, here, too.

http://www.aei.org/publication/how-can-i...poor-kids/

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/ses-and-he...elligence/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40063922?se...b_contents

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3270016/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641149/

https://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/st..._10-16.pdf

http://www.geneticshumanagency.org/gha/a...elligence/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...018-1142-z

http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologi...we1999.pdf

-and end with a wapo article, for the lulz.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/p...1597cd37f5



The boards will appreciate your donation.

[bennyboy]

Okay, first of all, there are some great articles in there. I look forward to reading them all.

But giving a bunch of links, and supporting the factual assertions you made about heritability, are not the same thing. Show me where any of them actually say what you said, and we're done here-- I'll talk to Tiberius about how to get this deal done, and happily so.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd tell you that I was surprised, but I'd be lying.

[bennyboy]

I'd tell you that I was surprised, but I'd be lying.

?

I'm not going to read through about a hundred pages of documents in order to find your facts.  That's not how it works.

Cite your claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why don't you just reread the thread?  You might notice that "my claims" are in the -title- of every single link I gave you.  I couldn't have made it easier or more obvious, and that's a fraction of the links I -could- have dumped on you.  

Frankly, I -am- surprised that you threw this hissy fit in the first place.  I do this to our resident low information apologists with regularity.

Your donation offer is looking like another foolish million dollar bet.

---

Would you like me to relink the info I gave you on the categorization and study of the white victimization narrative as it relates to the normalization of white supremacy and it's adoption in conservative politics as a counterpoint for the disaffected liberal white male through skeptic channels and social media, now?  Or the general history of the adoption of scientific racism by progressives in the twentieth century, it's abandonment, and subsequent reassumption by conservatives as opposition to civil rights, desegregation, and affirmative action? Or perhaps the increasing prevalence of those views (and in turn general racial apathy as a replacement for antipathy) in your demographic as a result of that disinformation campaign?

Or maybe we could discuss why it might be, pursuant to all of those links above..that the disparity (and correlations) between income, race ( a sociological construct, not a genetic one), SES, and IQ might be more pronounced in the US than other parts of the world? Why, in short, relative poverty and intelligence by specific metrics seems to be more heritable in the united states in context of minority populations and even more specifically in light of the reality of continued de facto segregation?

[bennyboy]

--edit--

In this post, I explained why you, Khemikal, should cite your own claims instead of making me read through all those articles. That's super-shitty argumentation, and it's rude.

But I changed my mind. I'll go through ALL your sources, and we'll see what's up.

[bennyboy]

Okay, let's start digging through your sources.  It's Saturday, and I've got nothing better to do.  We'll start with the quote that I wanted you to provide a citation for.

I'll give you an example, from the thread.  The heritability of IQ.  The claim that genetics (race, in a racists eyes) account for 70-80% of differences on IQ scores, the remainder being environmental (15%ish) and unquantified.  That's true..but it's selectively mined.  Its true -within- a control group called High-SES.  High socioeconomic status.  The same study, in the Low-SES control group, found a direct inversion of the relationship.  Estimated heritability was only 10%.  

Scientific racism points to the first half of their finding, omits the other, and uses that as a justification for an argument known as "the inevitability of black poverty".  The notion that a "difference" between the races, in this case iq, leads to a pronounced demographic trend in poverty.  It does this..because it's not science, it's just racism.  

Bold mine, because I'm calling bullshit on this statement-- not that there's no such thing as racists using science dishonestly, but the idea that anything happening in this thread is that.

Now, first of all, please understand what a "control group" is.  In experimentation, it's a group which is NOT put through an experimental procedure, but is otherwise identical.  For example, in testing a drug, one group is given a drug, and the other is given a placebo.  The idea is that if the two groups are the same, then it must be the drug which is causing any observed effects. There's no such thing, at least in statistical analyses of demographic groups, as a "High-SES control group" and a "Low-SES control group."

Okay, I will now link the entire first source you provided.

---

How Can IQ Be Heritable for Rich Kids and Not for Poor Kids?
Society and Culture

A new article has been published with more evidence that there is an interaction effect between genes and socioeconomic status (SES) on IQ, but only for children from low-SES homes (one of the coauthors, Eric Turkheimer, has been making this case since about 2003). From the abstract: “At age 2 years, genes accounted for nearly 50% of the variation in mental ability of children raised in high-SES homes, but genes continued to account for negligible variation in mental ability of children raised in low-SES homes.”

What can that mean? That somehow IQ is not heritable for poor children but is heritable for rich children? That’s impossible, surely. Kids are kids; if IQ is (let’s say) 50 percent heritable for human beings, doesn’t that have to mean that it is 50 percent heritable for rich and poor alike?

The confusion arises partly from the difference between the underlying heritability of IQ and its measurement over the life span. The correlation between the midpoint of parental IQ and the child’s IQ starts fairly small in early childhood and continues to increase. In the best review of twin studies, genes accounted for only about 22 percent of the variance at age 5, 40 percent at age 7, and a whopping 82 percent at age 18. So there’s lots of room to push and pull mental ability in infants and toddlers. It doesn’t mean that the reshaped mental ability will stay that way, but it will certainly produce changes in the measurement of it while the children are young.

The confusion also arises partly from the asymmetrical way in which good and bad environments affect IQ. Super-enriched environments don’t have much effect. That wonderful mobile you bought to put over your baby’s crib won’t make much difference, nor will playing Mozart while the child is in the womb, nor will any of the other ingenious ways in which ambitious upper-middle-class parents try to whip every neuron in their child’s cerebral cortex into tip-top shape. The things that such parents normally do will provide a “good enough” environment.

But never talking to an infant at all, except to scold it? Leaving an infant in an environment that is devoid of stimulation? Or in cases of blatant abuse, locking a toddler in a closet for long periods of time? You certainly can have a major negative effect on mental ability if you do those kinds of things. That’s the parsimonious explanation for Turkheimer’s findings. We know from other studies that low-SES mothers (in low-SES circles, fewer and fewer fathers are part of the picture these days) often don’t talk much to their children, often leave them in low-stimulation environments—often, not to mince words, have terrible parenting practices. That indeed will produce a big environmental effect on low-SES infants that has no counterpart among high-SES children.

The obvious next question: Can outside interventions do much to help children facing that kind of incompetent parenting? But that’s a big topic, completely separate, that I’ll leave for another time.

---

So your first source says exactly what I had already said before you went off on your rant about those dodgy racists hiding half the truth and so on, and it pretty much exactly mirrors what I had already said:

With regard to (2), it's shown that while childhood boosts can be gotten by environment, heritability after puberty is at about 75% - 80%.  It's a monster.  So even though we create special programs and so on (and we should, if just for the enrichment of those children's lives), the effect on IQ in adulthood is going to be fairly negligible.  What are we left with?  Eugenics?  I'm quite depressed about it actually-- I literally don't see a practical way out of this situation.

Now here's another of your sources:

The notion that heritability may be lower in lower-SES families is appealing, in part because of its environmental implications: If heritability is lower in lower-SES families, it suggests that environmental interventions might be more effective in boosting cognitive development for children in lower-SES families. The present study, which is based on a large UK-representative sample of children followed longitudinally, leads to a similar implication. Although the genetic influence on IQ is the same in lower-SES families, shared environmental influence appears to be greater in lower-SES families, suggesting that family-based environmental interventions might be more effective in these families. However, two further aspects of the results temper the policy implications of this finding. First, shared environmental influence is found in both lower- and higher-SES families and the difference in shared environmental influence between them is modest.  Second, shared environmental influences on IQ decline from childhood to adulthood so that these influences might not have an impact in the long run.

So, unless you linked all those sources because you are accusing science itself of being intrinsically racist, and everyone who's edited the wikipedia page from which I got the original info of being racist, I'm gonna say:

(1)  You clearly haven't read the things you've linked
(2)  They don't support your position of scientific racism

Now, I think you COULD find a study showing 10% difference due to heritability in like 2 year-olds under very extreme conditions of deprivation or something.  But since we were talking about wage disparity and its high correlation to IQ, since 2 year-olds are not part of the work force yet, and since I had already said that childhood boosts can be gotten by environment, your massive claim of dishonesty in "scientific racism" doesn't hold water.  Nobody is refusing to produce any data.  The data just doesn't say what you want it to say.

This is what I think.  I think you cannot show ANY source showing 10% heritability at working age.  I think you deliberately misrepresented the data to enforce your claim of racism.

That being said, I didn't say you had to use the data honestly.  I just said you had to show where you got the 10% figure from.  So go ahead and do that-- give a quote from one of those studies, where it mentions that the heritability of IQ in children locked in a shack for 5 years or whatever is 10%, and I'll go ahead and work out the details of the donation.