>science shows there are complicating factors and the real results can't be broken down into one-line statements about race
>deny the science
where have I seen this before?


There is also a wealth of peer-reviewed studies that don't come to those simple conclusions based on race.

I'll go ahead and leave off here because you just launched like ten strawmen in that last line which shows you aren't willing to engage honestly after complicating factors to your simple worldview are brought up. We could have gone over the literature, but you just showed you haven't actually read any of it and aren't willing to engage with somebody who has.

Oh, and in case you're wondering how I know you haven't actually gone over the literature in any significant depth I'll tell you.


"The literature" is not a unified body. There are contradicting opinions all over. To portray virtually any scientific body as unified is dishonest, and this one is no different. There are plenty of dissenting opinions on the subject of IQ and race in "the literature", and they are commonly discussed. You could say "the majority say", but then you're getting into scenarios where you need specific citations and also to specifically discuss dissenting opinions, which I know you aren't capable of because you haven't done the legwork to actually discuss those opinions.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 05:58am

All the quotes I copy/pasted onto the previous page were right from The Mainstream Science on Intelligence;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
Which is as reasonably unified as any body of thought can be.


You're no different than the climate change denialists. Reproducible studies conducted by quite serious and accomplished scientists who bother to control for all the external variables as best as possible, all converge to a same general consensus. And I literally have a chart sitting next to me in this room showing the great disparity in flow forecasts based on many different models all in slight disagreement over global warming, but all of them agree its ticking upwards. Should I quote one or two pseudoscientists or complete quacks motivated by blatant political agendas who disagree with that outcome? Or should I accept the simple scientific truth that can be so easily demonstrated.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 24 2018 06:04am

"Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors – the white admixture is about 20% ... research on intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial categories"
"There is no definitive answer as to why bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group"

Wow, literally took me two minutes of skimming from your own article to point out why the racist interpretations of these findings are incorrect. Deleted only the two that I like the most though.





Dude, this is from 1994. TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO. This is not current science.






I'm actually not. You're the one quoting data from two and a half decades ago to support your conclusions. I'm the one willing to review the current literature with you to show why your interpretations are correct.

Thing is, there are plenty of facts that without the proper context seem to support racist conclusions you try to draw. I'm not denying the observations, I'm denying your interpretations of the observations because your interpretations aren't based on the full body of facts.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 06:10am

do you realize that neither of those statements is mutually exclusive with their other statement;
"The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered"
the racial disparities in IQ are well established, supported by cold scientific fact.

When NOAA says that there is no definitive answer to how climate change will affect frequency of tropical storm formation, and that the mechanics may be markedly different from storm severity trends- that doesn't suddenly go and invalidate the premise that the earth is getting hotter due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses. You're just rattling off a list of fallacies.

I've never denied that there have been observed differences between racial groups in IQ as measured by IQ testing.

The bolded is important because there's a big difference between "IQ difference" and "IQ difference according to results on IQ tests".



You've been putting words in my mouth because you are getting triggered that I would dissent from your opinion.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 06:13am

Anyway, I actually have real science to do. Writing a thesis is a bitch.


I'll just leave off with what I usually say to ofthevoid.

We are both aware of the facts, and you aren't presenting any facts that are new to me. I have a different interpretation of the facts based on a more complete knowledge of the material. Instead of listening you are assuming that I am denying observations, when I haven't denied any observations you've made so far. I've denied interpretations based on incomplete descriptions of those observations.

Don't confuse a fact (there are racial discrepancies in results of IQ tests) with interpretations of those facts (There are IQ differences between races). Hell, I don't even necessarily deny the latter interpretation depending on how you elaborate on the exact difference.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 06:21am

yeah all you're doing is denying the science, like any global warming denialist.
You seem to think that WAIS, WISC, WPPSI, Stanford-Binet, DAS, WJ, RPM, Kohs Block, MAB II, Leiter, MAT, OLSAT and WCAT were all developed by psychologists who somehow all uniformly failed to account for the noodly appendage of racial psychosis altering their results in a uniform manner. Because even though many of these tests are modernized and take great pains to try to account for cultural differences and control external factors- controlling environment and stress factors, being available in many languages, having nonverbal components- they all converge to those same results. And if that doesn't work, you want to brush it aside as too old, never mind that WAIS-4 was released in 2008 and WAIS-5 in 2016, like many of the other tests being tweaked every few years and still producing the same general results.

You're just doing the tired old anti-science routine I could get from a dozen other guys on PARD who make spam topics with a 40 minute video of a guy narrating pseudoscience up until he claims that the gas lobby is holding back the water-powered-car.
The science is there, its agreed upon by the mainstream consensus, and you reject it. Its reproducible and objective, not culturally derived or subjective. The facts are the facts, and you reject the facts.


"Don't confuse a fact (NOAA's ocean bouys are recording higher sea water temperatures) with interpretations of those facts (The sea water temperatures are rising). I'm just saying that every ocean bouy was calibrated wrong and is being manipulated by the flying spaghetti monster"

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 24 2018 06:29am

People doing a racial disparity on IQ are really... 2 x Stupid lol.
Ignoring the social aspect, and associated "unfavorized" minorities.
IQ differences between races is like comparing cars with like 5% speed difference, while the goal in 99% of cases is to go to the shop at 10 km distance...

Really, people arguing about this are just... Inferiors ?

Yawn, more straw-men from Goom because he can't handle an opinion that dissents from his 25 year old psychology article written for the general public.


Funny thing is, there was A LOT of global warming debates on how to properly correct satellite data that took place in the literature. If it had turned out the satellite data was corrected according to Berekely lab working on the subject then it would have actually overturned global warming as a scientific consensus almost overnight. Current intelligence theory in psychologist isn't anywhere near as united as he would have you believe.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 06:51am