- #106
BlackVision
- 28
- 1
Such studies have shown slight IQ improvements but nothing drastic.Concept said:one of the sites YOU posted cites a study that says blacks adopted by white families don't show real IQ difference.
Such studies have shown slight IQ improvements but nothing drastic.Concept said:one of the sites YOU posted cites a study that says blacks adopted by white families don't show real IQ difference.
PubMed returns 47 citations for bouchard+tj+twin:Evo said:Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things.
OVID PsycINFO returns 54 citations for (bouchard t j or bouchard thomas j or bouchard thomas j jr).au. and (twin or twins).mp:Evo said:Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review
hitssquad said:OVID PsycINFO returns 54 citations for (bouchard t j or bouchard thomas j or bouchard thomas j jr).au. and (twin or twins).mp:
- 1. Johnson, Wendy; McGue, Matt; Krueger, Robert F; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 86(2) Feb 2004, 285-294. American Psychological Assn, US[\QUOTE]
hitssquad, this is meaningless, this isn't peer review of the study. This is just a listing of articles where Bouchard was mentioned.
"And yet, Bouchard's twin studies, which are now in their second decade, have still NEVER been published in a scholarly journal or monograph, nor have they been subjected to peer review by other researchers, nor have other scientists replicated them. Although Bouchard promised to publish a full-length study by 1987, he has failed to do so. (Mehler 1997) Since then he has refused to let any other researcher examine the case histories he claims to have studied."
"Bouchard's group promised a book length study a decade ago, but it never appeared. The Human Genome Issue of Science published a review article by Bouchard covering research that Science's peer reviewers had earlier rejected."
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/matfem/current/msg00173.html
Evo said:hitssquad said:OVID PsycINFO returns 54 citations for (bouchard t j or bouchard thomas j or bouchard thomas j jr).au. and (twin or twins).mp:
- 1. Johnson, Wendy; McGue, Matt; Krueger, Robert F; Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 86(2) Feb 2004, 285-294. American Psychological Assn, US
- hitssquad, this is meaningless, this isn't peer review of the study. This is just a listing of articles where Bouchard was mentioned.
The Human Genome Issue of Science was dated 16 February 2001 Volume 291 Number 5507. Bouchard published his complete article on his twin study, Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, in the Oct 12, 1990 issue of Science. You can read the PDF of that article http://www.jstor.org/browse/00368075/di002138/00p0025p/0 (click DOWNLOAD). Since then more findings have been published by Bouchard in peer-reviewed journals. His latest article on his findings from his twin study is Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis, published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol 86(2) Feb 2004."And yet, Bouchard's twin studies, which are now in their second decade, have still NEVER been published in a scholarly journal or monograph, nor have they been subjected to peer review by other researchers, nor have other scientists replicated them. Although Bouchard promised to publish a full-length study by 1987, he has failed to do so. (Mehler 1997) Since then he has refused to let any other researcher examine the case histories he claims to have studied."
"Bouchard's group promised a book length study a decade ago, but it never appeared. The Human Genome Issue of Science published a review article by Bouchard covering research that Science's peer reviewers had earlier rejected."
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/matfem/current/msg00173.html
Being an "author" doesn't mean didly squat.hitssquad said:None of these are articles mentioning Bouchard (except where he refers to his own publications). Every one of these citations lists Bouchard as an author. In OVID PsycINFO, .au means author. In PubMed, any letter string followed by exactly one or two letters is parsed as author.
Meaningless again. I don't care that he had an article published. Having snippets of articles posted here & there doesn't validate his research. As I posted, he has published a LOT of stuff, none of it validated. Show me the findings of other legitimate researchers that have examined the case histories he claims to have studied and have validated Bouchard's "eerie anecdotes" as they're jokingly referred to.hitssquad said:All of these publications mention twins. Some of these publications are reviews of twin studies in general or summaries of Bouchard's own findings. Some of these publications are replies to comments. The rest of these publications are of initial findings or of methods and findings from Bouchard's Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart in the Oct 12, 1990 issue of Science. You can read the PDF of that article here (click DOWNLOAD). Since then more findings have been published by Bouchard in peer-reviewed journals. His latest article on his findings from his twin study is Marriage and Personality: A Genetic Analysis, published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol 86(2) Feb 2004.
Evo said:hitssquad said:Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, in the Oct 12, 1990 issue of Science. You can read the PDF of that article http://www.jstor.org/browse/00368075/di002138/00p0025p/0:
- Research Articles (up to ~4500 words or ~5 journal pages) are expected to present a major advance. Research Articles include an abstract, an introduction, up to 6 figures or tables, sections with brief subheadings, and a maximum of 40 references. Materials and Methods should usually be included in supporting online material, which should also include information needed to support the paper's conclusions.
Bouchard's October 1990 Science Magazine article was six pages, so it qualifies under Science Magazine's guidelines as a Research Article since that is the longest manuscript type Science Magazine accepts save for Reviews.
Further on, Science's guidelines say:
- Most submitted papers are rated for suitability by members of Science's Board of Reviewing Editors. The editors at Science consider this advice in selecting papers for in-depth review; priority is given to papers that reveal novel concepts of broad interest. Authors of papers that are not highly rated are notified promptly, within about 1 to 2 weeks. Authors are notified of decisions by e-mail only. Membership in AAAS is not a factor in selection of manuscripts for publication.
Papers are reviewed in depth by two or more outside referees. It is the policy of Science that reviewers are anonymous. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and asked to return comments within 1 week to 10 days for most papers. We are able to expedite the review process significantly for papers that require rapid assessment. Selected papers are edited to improve accuracy and clarity and to shorten, if necessary. Papers cannot be resubmitted over a disagreement on interest or relative merit. If a paper was rejected on the basis of serious reviewer error, resubmission will be considered.
Conditions of Acceptance
When a paper is accepted for publication in Science, it is understood that:
- Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.
- Authors agree to disclose all affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias, as defined by Science's conflict of interest policy.
Additionally, correspondence regarding Bouchard's 1990 Science Magazine article took place within the pages of Science Magazine between Bouchard and respondents to the article. Potential faults were pointed out and Bouchard responded to those criticisms. Correspondence also took place within the pages of the Journal of Applied Psychology regarding another publication of findings from the twin study published there. And finally, response to criticism was published in Sternberg's 1997 Intelligence, heredity, and environment.
- 3. Bouchard, Thomas J; Lykken, David T; McGue, Matthew; Segal, Nancy L; et al. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Response. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191-192. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27358-001.
• •
Responds to criticism by R. M. Dudley (see record 1991-27363-001) and J. Beckwith et al (see record 1991-27352-001) of studies by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). In response to Dudley, it is argued that the heritability of IQ in the reported sample could be high, and the correlation between co-twin differences and a feature of the environment could also be high. Beckwith et al's complaint that the similarities between monozygotic twins reared apart might be explained by unreported environmental similarities is considered highly unlikely.
- 18. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. IQ similarity in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed); Grigorenko, Elena L. (Ed). (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. (pp. 126-160). xvii, 608pp.
AN: Chapter: 1997-97582-005.
• •
(from the chapter) Bouchard considers the findings of his and others' twin studies and also critiques of these studies. Bouchard concludes that there is no plausible alternative to genetic influence for explaining the similarities in IQ in monozygotic twins reared apart. Bouchard notes that results from these studies are consistent with the results of other kinds of behavior-genetic studies, such as of adult kinships, and also concludes that genetics predominates over environment in the transmission of human intelligence, at least in modern Western societies.
- 36. Bouchard, Thomas J; Arvey, Richard D; Keller, Lauren M; Segal, Nancy L. Genetic influences on job satisfaction: A reply to Cropanzano and James. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 77(1) Feb 1992, 89-93. American Psychological Assn, US
AN: Journal Article: 1992-18811-001.
• •
Responds to the points made by R. Cropanzano and K. James (see record 1991-00462-001) concerning the article by R. D. Arvey et al (1989). The authors acknowledge that the Arvey et al study is based on a single design, makes use of a small and special sample, and, as such, is vulnerable to threats of internal and external validity. Nevertheless, after providing a more comprehensive conceptual and empirical context for the study, and after reviewing a number of the issues raised by Cropanzano and James, the authors conclude that it is not premature to accept the idea that work attitudes are partially genetically influenced. Indeed, the authors use behavioral genetic theory, together with data gathered in the Arvey et al study, to make specific point predictions regarding the outcomes of an array of studies that easily can be undertaken. Finally, the authors acknowledge that the comments and issues raised by Cropanzano and James, along with the interchange, can offer directions for future research in this important area.
- Dudley, Richard M. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27363-001.
• •
Criticizes the use of IQ score correlation of monozygotic twins reared apart as an estimate of IQ heritability in the population at large as reported by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). It is argued that Bouchard et al erroneously assumed no environmental similarity for co-twins.
- Beckwith, Jonathan; Geller, Lisa; Sarkar, Sahotra. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Journal Article: 1991-27352-001.
• •
Criticizes the claim of T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001) that several psychological traits are highly heritable and therefore genetic in origin. It is argued that some of their data have not been published in a format that permits independent scrutiny. Bouchard et al also fail to cite articles containing case studies of the impact of environment on twins.
The first item you referenced above, BlackVision, is a January 11, 1998 article published in the Washington Post. The second item you referenced, "http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/wsj.htm," is a December 13, 1994 advertisement taken out in the Wall Street Journal. While the first item is genuinely an article, the second is merely a collective position statement. Being a paid advertisement, it does not necessarily represent the views of the Wall Street Journal, its owners, its staff, its editors, or its patrons. Calling it an "article from 'Wall Street Journal'" is a stretch.BlackVision said:"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm
want me to post the article from "Wall Street Journal" Here. I'd like to you try and attempt and say Wall Street Journal is racist.
Mainstream Science on Intelligence
The Wall Street Journal
December 13, 1994
Ok, I will accept this as a peer reviewed article. Based on this Bouchard was discredited. He refused to adhere to conditions listed above. Bouchard has refused to allow anyone access to any of the above.hitssquad said:Conditions of Acceptance
When a paper is accepted for publication in Science, it is understood that:
[*]Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.
And we know about the Pioneer Fund paying for this.hitssquad said:[*]Authors agree to disclose all affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias, as defined by Science's conflict of interest policy.[/list]
LOL. Yes he responded by saying he was "right", but failed to provide any information that answered any of the questions or would prove he was right.hitssquad said:Additionally, correspondence regarding Bouchard's 1990 Science Magazine article took place within the pages of Science Magazine between Bouchard and respondents to the article. Potential faults were pointed out and Bouchard responded to those criticisms.
See, this is exactly what I am talking about. He offers no proof. This is meaningless.hitssquad said:[*]18. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. IQ similarity in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed); Grigorenko, Elena L. (Ed). (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. (pp. 126-160). xvii, 608pp.
AN: Chapter: 1997-97582-005.
• •
(from the chapter) Bouchard considers the findings of his and others' twin studies and also critiques of these studies. Bouchard concludes that there is no plausible alternative to genetic influence for explaining the similarities in IQ in monozygotic twins reared apart. Bouchard notes that results from these studies are consistent with the results of other kinds of behavior-genetic studies, such as of adult kinships, and also concludes that genetics predominates over environment in the transmission of human intelligence, at least in modern Western societies.
hitssquad said:[*]Dudley, Richard M. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 1991-27363-001.
• •
Criticizes the use of IQ score correlation of monozygotic twins reared apart as an estimate of IQ heritability in the population at large as reported by T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001). It is argued that Bouchard et al erroneously assumed no environmental similarity for co-twins.
[*]Beckwith, Jonathan; Geller, Lisa; Sarkar, Sahotra. "Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart": Comment. Science. Vol 252(5003) Apr 1991, 191. American Assn for the Advancement of Science, US
AN: Journal Article: 1991-27352-001.
• •
Criticizes the claim of T. J. Bouchard et al (see record 1991-21275-001) that several psychological traits are highly heritable and therefore genetic in origin. It is argued that some of their data have not been published in a format that permits independent scrutiny. Bouchard et al also fail to cite articles containing case studies of the impact of environment on twins.[/list]
You used Bouchard as your source, I showed he was wrong. You have yet to show me that I am wrong. So, either show me the studies done by other researchers that Bouchard allowed access to his data and proved his study to be sound, or stop beating a dead horse.BlackVision said:What the hell are you talking about? You're the one constantly trying to discredit 80 years of consistent psychology research by pointing out the "supposed" flaws of one guy.
This is the information from the actual research that was used by Rushton for that debunked study *you* cited stating Asians and whites had higher IQ's. You don't know about the supposed correlation of brain size to IQ? It's all part of the same argument.BlackVision said:This is your best source? Could of at least attempted to find a reliable source with doctors and bibliographical notes. What is this?
Also note that I never even brought up brain size so not sure why you brought it up. We were discussing IQ weren't we??
I am not aware of any others that once they were presented with additional information continued with the debate. I have a lot of respect for hitssquad. He and I obviously see things differently, but he backs up his arguments with facts. Usually not facts I agree with, but he's a tough adversary, something you are not.BlackVision said:How long have you been here? I'd been here for like a week and I'd read more support than just those 2. Simply naming the two most vocal ones doesn't mean those are the only ones.
Yes, I will win because when you are presented with information that debunks something you have stated, you are consistently incapable of responding with valid new information to support your position.BlackVision said:You think you've debated this a lot? You have any idea how much I have? You and I both know how it'll end up.
Well, you should have no problem posting a few of those studies here as I previously requested, which you have failed to do.BlackVision said:Seeing how there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures, I would say that it's quite substantiated. Did your bias just have a tendency to simply skip over each and every single one of them in your so called "researches"?
Did you even READ all the articles I posted? Obviously not. First read them, and then come back.Evo said:You used Bouchard as your source, I showed he was wrong. You have yet to show me that I am wrong. So, either show me the studies done by other researchers that Bouchard allowed access to his data and proved his study to be sound, or stop beating a dead horse.
Do you have ANY idea how many researches came up with Asians and Jews with the highest IQ? Let's see...Pretty much every single research done on the taboo subject of race and intelligence. Arthur Jensen for example decades ago but also even before him. What is your constant fixation with one person? You fail to discredit a person but you act like if you do, that every other study on the matter for the past 80 years somehow gets discredited.This is the information from the actual research that was used by Rushton for that debunked study *you* cited stating Asians and whites had higher IQ's. You don't know about the supposed correlation of brain size to IQ? It's all part of the same argument.
And you're so tough. Oh no. Pioneer Fund. Whenever you mention it, I already know you have no argument. Either that or you completely blow off my questions. Let's see. How many questions so far have you ignored of mine?I am not aware of any others that once they were presented with additional information continued with the debate. I have a lot of respect for hitssquad. He and I obviously see things differently, but he backs up his arguments with facts. Usually not facts I agree with, but he's a tough adversary, something you are not.
Incapable of responding with valid new information? Hmmm. Let's see. I think what you mean is all the times you refused to answer my question except go "I will answer later when I have time" Right...later...sure you will.Yes, I will win because when you are presented with information that debunks something you have stated, you are consistently incapable of responding with valid new information to support your position.
Hmmm funny it seems I already posted 4. Would you like to me post another 10?Evo said:Well, you should have no problem posting a few of those studies here as I previously requested, which you have failed to do.
Seems you have no more credibility to even lose. Putting political correctness and your own political motives before science.BlackVision, you will find that when you start making things up like your above statement "there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures" you will immediately lose your credibility here.
I only responded to the Bouchard post. Since you have failed repeatedly to respond to my debunking of it, it is obvious you have nothing to prove me wrong. I have won this one. If you bring up this topic again without providing evidence to support your claims I will not respond as I have no time to deal with an idiot.BlackVision said:Did you even READ all the articles I posted? Obviously not. First read them, and then come back.
Why don't you post a few?BlackVision said:Do you have ANY idea how many researches came up with Asians and Jews with the highest IQ? Let's see...Pretty much every single research done on the taboo subject of race and intelligence. Arthur Jensen for example decades ago but also even before him.
Again, I don't have a fixation, *you* are the one that keeps bringing Bouchard up, why, I have no idea.BlackVision said:What is your constant fixation with one person? You fail to discredit a person but you act like if you do, that every other study on the matter for the past 80 years somehow gets discredited.
Because Bouchard, Rushton, Lynn, Jenson, etc... are all affiliated with the Pioneer Fund, see some connection here?BlackVision said:And you're so tough. Oh no. Pioneer Fund. Whenever you mention it, I already know you have no argument. Either that or you completely blow off my questions. Let's see. How many questions so far have you ignored of mine?
I have yet to see you post one single thing that can refute anything I've said.BlackVision said:Incapable of responding with valid new information?
I've answered all of your questions that were on the topic we were discussing. I have a lot of posts to make, I have to get the information off another laptop and I simply haven't had the time. Since I am still waiting for you to respond to my first request, I didn't feel any urgency.BlackVision said:Hmmm. Let's see. I think what you mean is all the times you refused to answer my question except go "I will answer later when I have time" Right...later...sure you will.
The Bell Curve is flawed. Read this.Perhaps while you answer those "later", you should also write a letter to all the academics in elite universities and also tell them they are wrong. You've got to be kidding yourself if you don't think this viewpoint isn't a popular one in the academic circles. The Bell Curve information was general knowledge in the science community far before the book was published. It proved nothing new. Why such a support in academic circles for something that's "debunked"
You have posted 0 in reponse to MY request. Please post them in reponse to this request, or admit you don't have anything to post. I'm waiting.BlackVision said:Hmmm funny it seems I already posted 4. Would you like to me post another 10?
Evo said:BlackVision, you will find that when you start making things up like your above statement "there's probably well over 50,000 sources that will give you the 70% and 80% figures" you will immediately lose your credibility here.
Again you have failed to respond with anything more than gibberish. I asked you to substantiate your claim by posting a few of these "50,000 sources" you claim knowledge of. Yes, it's a made up statement. BlackVision, you are a flake. Until you can post something that can back up your claims or admit you can't dispute my posts, I really don't have time for you. I have wasted a lot of time repeatedly asking you for the same information, which not only do you NOT provide, you ask totally unrelated questions seemingly in an ill disguised attempt to get away from something you can't answer.BlackVision said:Seems you have no more credibility to even lose. Putting political correctness and your own political motives before science.
And that's a made up statement? Right...cause the majority of sources don't state that number. Is this you trying to kid yourself again? Continue to have your fingers stuck to your ears.
Hasn't hitssquad already debunked your Bouchard comments? Enough said.I only responded to the Bouchard post. Since you have failed repeatedly to respond to my debunking of it, it is obvious you have nothing to prove me wrong. I have won this one. If you bring up this topic again without providing evidence to support your claims I will not respond as I have no time to deal with an idiot.
What the hell? Didn't I just say Arthur Jensen. Can you read. What do you think about Thomas Sowell, PhD. One of the most respected black academics. Graduate of Harvard University. Who agrees with Arthur Jensen on the consensus that part of the white-black IQ gap is genetically based.Why don't you post a few?
This isn't about Bouchard. You bring up Rushton. There certainly is far more in the field than just Rushton.Again, I don't have a fixation, *you* are the one that keeps bringing Bouchard up, why, I have no idea.
What did I tell you about funding? Look up "irrelevance" in your dictionary. An alien word to you. This is like saying any politician that accepts funding from Microsoft is tainted. Let's see who Microsoft donated to in the last election. Oh yes that's right both Bush AND gore. And pretty much funds any politician that runs every election.Because Bouchard, Rushton, Lynn, Jenson, etc... are all affiliated with the Pioneer Fund, see some connection here?
Funny how this is how I think about you.I have yet to see you post one single thing that can refute anything I've said.
What first request? And you've avoided my questions from the way beginning. Don't give me that BS. I asked for actual evidence that refutes the Bell Curve. The only thing you did was whine about the Pioneer Fund. This is your defense? Really?I've answered all of your questions that were on the topic we were discussing. I have a lot of posts to make, I have to get the information off another laptop and I simply haven't had the time. Since I am still waiting for you to respond to my first request, I didn't feel any urgency.
You know you might want to try finding better sources that ones that go "date unknown by Tim Wise" Tim Wise? What is this? Not Dr. Tim Wise. Not Professor Tim Wise. But plain old Tim Wise. Oh I didn't know that just anybody had the ability to speak on this matter. Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein are PhDs out of Harvard and MIT. Richard Herrnstein holds the most respected chair in psychology at Harvard University. The Edgar Pierce Chair. The most respected chair, in the most repected university. And the person you come up with to try to refute this is Tim Wise?? Jesus Christ.The Bell Curve is flawed. Read this.
Sloppy Statistics, Bogus Science and the Assault on Racial Equity
"The "science" of books like The Bell Curve is inherently flawed, mostly because the concept of distinct biological "races" that can be studied, compared and found to be "superior" or "inferior" is itself a misnomer."
http://www.raceandhistory.com/histo...iews/ukwise.htm
I already posted 4. If you're too blind to see them then that's your own problem. And what request?Evo said:You have posted 0 in reponse to MY request. Please post them in reponse to this request, or admit you don't have anything to post. I'm waiting.
How blind are you really? Does your brain just ignore information that it doesn't want to input? I already posted 4. Do you want me to simply post them again? You might want to go get that neurological disorder checked out.Again you have failed to respond with anything more than gibberish. I asked you to substantiate your claim by posting a few of these "50,000 sources" you claim knowledge of. Yes, it's a made up statement. BlackVision, you are a flake. Until you can post something that can back up your claims or admit you can't dispute my posts, I really don't have time for you. I have wasted a lot of time repeatedly asking you for the same information, which not only do you NOT provide, you ask totally unrelated questions seemingly in an ill disguised attempt to get away from something you can't answer.
No, he hasn't yet, but he is doing a great job of finding items to prove my previous article wrong. Something you are incapable of.BlackVision said:Hasn't hitssquad already debunked your Bouchard comments? Enough said.
Making more money than you will ever hope to.BlackVision said:And this idiot is getting high honors in one of the most prestigious universities so And where exactly are you in life?
ROFLMAO! You think a name, without providing any information whatsoever, is a way to substantiate a claim you are making?BlackVision said:What the hell? Didn't I just say Arthur Jensen.
And yet you fail to prove me wrong. Still fail to provide any shred of evidence.Evo said:No, he hasn't yet, but he is doing a great job of finding items to prove my previous article wrong. Something you are incapable of.
And you live in the MIDDLE of America? Kansas? Oklahoma? Oh cause we all know the richest people live in Middle America right? You're obviously not rich enough to live by the coast. I live in the hills of Brentwood in Los Angeles. The average house here goes for over $1 million here. Not that it makes me a better person or anything but it is you that brought up money into this.Making more money than you will ever hope to.
Wasn't it you that kept saying to provide names? I provided one and you completely ignored it. And do I really have to bother providing and explaining Arthur Jensen's work? Who's pretty much the most famous psychologist of all time? If you don't know his work, if I actually have to explain to you what he does, then that's quite sad.ROFLMAO! You think a name, without providing any information whatsoever, is a way to substantiate a claim you are making?
Do us both a favor and don't waste my time. When you try to refute something, you have to actually say something that goes against the data, the statistics. Pioneer Fund. Well it just shows you have nothing.I'm not wasting anymore time with you, you can't even debate.
I loved it when you kept telling me that I can't read and I didn't post a Washington Post article only to prove you wrong. (that's me laughing at you)Oh, I loved where hitssquad showed that the "article" you said was in The Wall Street Journal, that you were throwing around to try to prove your point turned out to be an advertisement! HAHAHAHAHA! (that's my Nachtwolf imitation)
Because you are so dense, I will do this one last time. An intelligent person usually is able to respond with fewer words. I've only refused to be sidetracked and chosen not to answer questions that were unrelated to our discussion.BlackVision said:What is this? Again with the avoiding of questions. Notice how short your replies are to in comparsion to my responses.
On the contrary, I proved YOU wrong in my first post, and you have yet to disprove me. End of discussion.BlackVision said:And yet you fail to prove me wrong. Still fail to provide any shred of evidence.
If you live in LA and your house only costs $1 million, you're barely middle class dear.BlackVision said:And you live in the MIDDLE of America? Kansas? Oklahoma? Oh cause we all know the richest people live in Middle America right? You're obviously not rich enough to live by the coast. I live in the hills of Brentwood in Los Angeles. The average house here goes for over $1 million here. Not that it makes me a better person or anything but it is you that brought up money into this.
Nope, I never asked for a name.BlackVision said:Wasn't it you that kept saying to provide names?
Oh, I am quite familiar with Jensen, he is a well known racist. I have quite a bit of information on him.BlackVision said:I provided one and you completely ignored it. And do I really have to bother providing and explaining Arthur Jensen's work? Who's pretty much the most famous psychologist of all time? If you don't know his work, if I actually have to explain to you what he does, then that's quite sad.
No, it is you that has proven you have nothing. Anyone reading this thread can see this for themselves. Alright, let me come down to your level so you can understand why the ties the researchers have to Pioneer Fund and Pioneer Fund's involvement in these studies has to be brought up. Let's call the Pioneer Fund the Ku Klux Klan, both are racist organizations, Pioneer Fund members don't wear white sheets though. Ok, a Ku Klux Klan member does a study to show that blacks are less intelligent than other races, his study is paid for by the Ku Klux Klan. You don't think it's important to mention the KKK when these so called "studies" are mentioned? Ok, now replace Ku Klux Klan with Pioneer Fund and we will have the answer to why the studies and researchers you refer to are not to be depended on as an unbiased source of information. Got it now?BlackVision said:Do us both a favor and don't waste my time. When you try to refute something, you have to actually say something that goes against the data, the statistics. Pioneer Fund. Well it just shows you have nothing.
Uhm, you obviously can't read because I have NEVER said that you didn't post a Washington Post article. Go back, read all the posts then tuck your tail between your legs and admit you don't know what you are talking about.BlackVision said:I loved it when you kept telling me that I can't read and I didn't post a Washington Post article only to prove you wrong. (that's me laughing at you)
Ah so Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein wrote a 850 page book cause they're unintelligent. Alright. I always thought thoroughness was a good thing. Guess I'm wrong.Evo said:Because you are so dense, I will do this one last time. An intelligent person usually is able to respond with fewer words. I've only refused to be sidetracked and chosen not to answer questions that were unrelated to our discussion.
Well you can keep thinking that but your lack of ability to answer any of my questions is proof in itself.On the contrary, I proved YOU wrong in my first post, and you have yet to disprove me. End of discussion.
Los Angeles County: $209,300 median house valueIf you live in LA and your house only costs $1 million, you're barely middle class dear.
Yes yes cause anyone that doesn't agree with you is of course racist. No matter how much science and facts are behind it. Funny how Thomas Sowell, a black academic, has strong support for Arthur Jensen, this so called "racist"Nope, I never asked for a name. Oh, I am quite familiar with Jensen, he is a well known racist. I have quite a bit of information on him.
Again your decision to focus on funding shows the weakness of your case. Like I said, it doesn't matter if Hitler himself funds a project. That itself doesn't disprove anything. If you want to begin refuting something, you refute the facts. Since you are unable to do this, you choose to attack funding. Again very weak.No, it is you that has proven you have nothing. Anyone reading this thread can see this for themselves. Alright, let me come down to your level so you can understand why the ties the researchers have to Pioneer Fund and Pioneer Fund's involvement in these studies has to be brought up. Let's call the Pioneer Fund the Ku Klux Klan, both are racist organizations, Pioneer Fund members don't wear white sheets though. Ok, a Ku Klux Klan member does a study to show that blacks are less intelligent than other races, his study is paid for by the Ku Klux Klan. You don't think it's important to mention the KKK when these so called "studies" are mentioned? Ok, now replace Ku Klux Klan with Pioneer Fund and we will have the answer to why the studies and researchers you refer to are not to be depended on as an unbiased source of information. Got it now?
"My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted."--BlackVisionUhm, you obviously can't read because I have NEVER said that you didn't post a Washington Post article. Go back, read all the posts then tuck your tail between your legs and admit you don't know what you are talking about.
Murray & Herrnstein have both been debunked.BlackVision said:Ah so Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein wrote a 850 page book cause they're unintelligent. Alright. I always thought thoroughness was a good thing. Guess I'm wrong.
Yeah, including the ghettos. Homes where I live start at $2 million, they would be 10 times that on the west or east coast.BlackVision said:Los Angeles County: $209,300 median house value
Go back and read, you wrongly thought I was referring to your previous post, I corrected you and showed you I was referring to your links.BlackVision said:"My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted."--BlackVision
Simply saying it doesn't make it so.Evo said:Murray & Herrnstein have both been debunked.
Yeah, including the ghettos. Homes where I live start at $2 million, they would be 10 times that on the west or east coast.
Um Washington Post WAS one of my links. I think you're getting deeper and deeper.Go back and read, you wrongly thought I was referring to your previous post, I corrected you and showed you I was referring to your links.
You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
BlackVision said:But if that article wasn't good enough for you, here you go.
"Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation."
Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html
"Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart"
Source: http://danny.oz.au/communities/anthro-l/debates/race-iq/
"Monozygotic Twins raised apart had a 74% correlation in IQ. Adopted childs had a 20% correlation in IQ"
Source: http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem992/unit4311/Lecture5.html
Of these links provided, the last two are just someone's lecture material, which may or may not be citing the studies correctly. The first is at least somewhat written up as a research report, but none of the tables or figures are included, so it's impossible to determine from that whether the claims are valid. The study does seem to be lacking proper controls. How does one determine the degree that IQ is associated with genetics when there is no comparison of the twins with non-related individuals? Indeed, the authors cite that the standard deviation of IQs for the group studied was lower than for the general population, suggesting even the non-related twins in the study were similar in IQ (meaning, if you paired the IQ results of one twin randomly with another person in the study who is not their twin, what is the likelihood of coming up with the same correlation?). The only conclusion those authors seem to be making is that there is no difference in the similarity of IQ between twins raised together vs raised apart. That still doesn't make it a genetic link, but just means other environmental factors could be similar even with the adopted families. From the description provided, the adoptive families sound quite similar...similar education and socioeconomic status of the adoptive parents. These alone could contribute to the similarities in IQ of the twins. Also, how do the population means compare between twins raised apart and twins raised together? Could it be that twins raised apart seem to have similar IQs because the stress of being separated from their twin at a young age has an overall suppressive effect on learning and development such that this masks any potential for differences had circumstances been different?
It is also relevant if these studies are all funded by a group with a specific agenda. It is called "conflict of interest" and is a valid concern related to scientific bias, which is why journals require disclosure of funding sources. Bias can work in more than one way. Even if you try to be unbiased, if you have a particular outcome in mind, it can be more difficult to notice the design flaws in a study and to more quickly accept the outcome when it fits with the preconcieved ideas of that outcome. This can happen in any area of science, even seemingly objective studies, and is the reason for analyzing data blind to the "treatment" groups and need for showing the results can be replicated.
The last couple of entries are Dudley's and Beckwith's separate criticisms of Bouchard's October 1990 Science article. Here again are those criticisms published in the April 12th, 1991 issue of Science:Evo said:I don't even see responses from Bouchard on the last couple of entries disputing Bouchard's validity.
I was referring to my neighborhood, since you mentioned your neighborhood, I don't see where I said that was the starting price for homes in town. Obviously you think a neighborhood is a town.BlackVision said:How odd that the median house value of your neighborhood is higher than the richest town in America. And the only 2 towns here that could even be considered Middle America is Aspen, CO and Snowmass Village, CO. Are you going to tell me you live in either of these towns?
I love it, the more you write the more you show your lack of intelligence. LA is overpopulated, of course there is more demand for housing, this is why I choose to live here.BlackVision said:And homes in LA would cost more...really...I wonder why. Ever hear of supply and demand? And yet here you are trying to state that where you live, is richer than the richest town in Los Angeles. Hell richer than any town in California. No no. Richer than the richest town in America. Geez I wonder why I nor anyone else is going to believe you.
Uhm, no it wasn't. Here is your post, gee I don't see a link to the Washington Post, do you? You are the stupidist person I have ever run across.BlackVision said:Um Washington Post WAS one of my links. I think you're getting deeper and deeper.
BlackVision said:But if that article wasn't good enough for you, here you go.
"Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation."
Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html
"Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart"
Source: http://danny.oz.au/communities/anth...ebates/race-iq/
"Monozygotic Twins raised apart had a 74% correlation in IQ. Adopted childs had a 20% correlation in IQ"
Source: http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectu...1/Lecture5.html
Here's the CURRENT Pioneer Fund, a RACIST organization.BlackVision said:Evo tries to pass off Pioneer Fund as racist. Which it's not. The relation of Pioneer Fund of decades ago to today is like the relation of Volkswagen of decades ago to today. It's like saying if a group gets funding from Volkswagen, that it's racially bias against Jews cause Volkswagen is after all a company founded by Adolf Hitler.
Q&A of the Pioneer Fund:
http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html
Also even if you do think funding is suspicious, you nonetheless have to point out the flaws of the studies itself. Otherwise, as I've said, it doesn't matter who funds it. "The Bell Curve" "The g Factor" "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" were all peer reviewed. Cross examined by thousands before it was released.
Believe it or not, each neighborhood has a name. I know this may come as a shock to you, but it's true. That listing was for the top neighborhoods/towns. Brentwood IS the name of the neighborhood I live in. It's also listed in the full version of the Richest neighborhood/town in America list. This "neighborhood" is part of Los Angeles the city. Among other celebrities, it's where Kobe Bryant lives.Evo said:I was referring to my neighborhood, since you mentioned your neighborhood, I don't see where I said that was the starting price for homes in town. Obviously you think a neighborhood is a town.
Overpopulated. Kinda the wrong word. I would say where you live is underpopulated. Awww no one wants to live in your town. How sad :(I love it, the more you write the more you show your lack of intelligence. LA is overpopulated, of course there is more demand for housing, this is why I choose to live here.
Uhm, no it wasn't. Here is your post, gee I don't see a link to the Washington Post, do you? You are the stupidist person I have ever run across.
LOL. You sure aren't too bright are you? You make yourself look dumber and dumber.IQ is about 80% genetic, 20% environment. These figures can accurately be drawn by studying identical twins raised in different environments.
"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."
"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm