The Art of Nonsense, Pathology or Con-Artistry?

[Gandalf]

They are very different issues for sure. One can be controlled, but the other, like you say, is likely mostly genetic. Like I say, though I have no qualms about differences between races and there will always be exceptions. You are going to get stupid Asian people and highly intelligent black people too of course. However, I guess my point is that I don't see how Molyneux is scientifically wrong on these issues. I hear a lot of words against Molyneux from Beanz and how much he knows about cults because apparently he was 'raised in a cult', but I don't actually see many arguments to tell anyone how or why Molyneux is wrong. I have highlighted one clear example of how I think Molyneux is wrong and that is in my belief that freemarkets are not always a solution and I could illustrate the UK property market of today as a prime example of how this hasn't worked, but all I see is 'He asks for donations, he has twisted words, he leads a cult' and this is rather bankrupt stuff.

[TitoFan]

Ok so you don't see how Molyneux is scientifically wrong on issues of race, but I on the other hand haven't seen any scientific evidence on his part to back up his outlandish claims. It so happens National Geographic came out with an issue devoted entirely to race this month. Now like any other publication, NG is given to slanted coverage on some issues.... but they also can't be merely dismissed on every topic. This particular issue is quite good, as it explores the notion of race from different angles. Part of the message is that it is us human beings who are too willing to cubbyhole ourselves into different groups, or "races". The reality is that nowadays the vast majority of people have quite a mix of ethnicities in their DNA. Pure breeds are for dogs. Most of us can claim heritage characteristics from several origins. As time goes by, this becomes even more pronounced. So to hear IQ claims based on race or ethnicity sounds hollow to me.

Molyneux is opinionated. The only difference between him and most of us is that he's gone through the trouble of setting up and maintaining a YouTube platform. He's neither the world's most educated person, nor the most knowledgeable on many of the topics of which he speaks. Again, I'm not saying he's wrong about everything..... only that too many people substitute listening (and watching) the Molyneux's of the cyber world for their own original thoughts and ideas. That, my friend, is dangerous.

[Gandalf]

I object to that as the highest IQ nations in the world tend to be very homogeneous societies. Sure there are different tribal elements at work within those societies and there is overlap, but it seems pretty clear that East Asian nations produce the most intelligent people along with also the Ashkenazi Jews too who produce very high IQ results.

[TitoFan]

You are completely entitled to your opinion, of course. However, there are plenty of articles out there by very intelligent people that point out the flaws in IQ tests, their design, their administration, and their interpretation..... and dismiss the notion that IQ is related to race, ethnicity, or any such factors. So your assertions sound rather wild to me. I've read your broad generalizations for some time now, and usually I don't comment. But I couldn't be more in disagreement with them. There are many, many factors that come into play and should not be ignored when attempting to pigeonhole races and ethnicities into IQ categories. All this does is promote bigotry, separatism, general resentment between groups of people. In fact it seems sort of medieval, given the globalization we've experienced across society in the past couple of decades. You speak of "scientific proof", yet have never once provided a shred of scientific evidence to prove these sweeping generalizations. Yet I'm positive that there are true scientists out there, much better prepared than you or I, who would debunk these myths in a New York minute.

[Gandalf]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

[Gandalf]

Also, I had no idea about this, but apparently the research on race and IQ has led to problems for Asian students. At Harvard Asian students have to meet higher criteria than white people to get onto courses. That's pretty astonishing. In some ways we are now discriminating against intelligence based upon race. That's what I find wrong.

[Beanz]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

Before you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote it


Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.

[Beanz]

Peterson, Murray, Molyneaux, Harris are of course in love with the idea that they got their privileged position thru merit but it is the same pseudo science used to justify slavery.



https://medium.com/@justinward/debun...n-56e4192b39f0

[Gandalf]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

Before you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote it


Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.

How does any of that refute the research which they are citing? Tito said there were no studies shown and you can read about numerous studies in the first few pages of that article. Your last post in this thread is utterly unhinged.

[El Kabong]

Alright, well if IQ is not at least partially genetic then can anyone explain the IQ's of Ashkenazi Jews? And I do not bring them up for any other reason than the fact that they are a small population but have extremely high IQ's (for the most part). I am sure you could find an Ashkenazi Jew who is an idiot, but you also wouldn't have to search very far to find one who is brilliant.


It's a nature vs nurture issue at the core of it and you can find people on both sides.

[TitoFan]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

Before you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote it


Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.

How does any of that refute the research which they are citing? Tito said there were no studies shown and you can read about numerous studies in the first few pages of that article. Your last post in this thread is utterly unhinged.

I don't think I said there were no studies. What I said was that Molyneux himself hadn't presented any hard, scientific evidence to back up his outlandish claims. "Hard, scientific evidence" is a phrase thrown around too loosely by many who don't know the meaning or scope of the phrase, so I raise that caution flag right off the bat. I also said there were numerous articles out there, well written and presented by people who have obviously done their research, which put into doubt the very essence of the design, implementation, and interpretation of these IQ tests, particularly across different cultures and ethnicities. Invariably, as Beanz points out, many of the people who push this agenda do so with ulterior motives that have little to do with science, and everything to do with furthering their own beliefs of superiority and feelings of resentment and hatred. It's been my experience throughout life that you can justify just about anything in the name of "science" with a little creativity, persuasiveness, and a knowledge on how to jumble up and play with statistics.

[Beanz]

Alright, well if IQ is not at least partially genetic then can anyone explain the IQ's of Ashkenazi Jews? And I do not bring them up for any other reason than the fact that they are a small population but have extremely high IQ's (for the most part). I am sure you could find an Ashkenazi Jew who is an idiot, but you also wouldn't have to search very far to find one who is brilliant.


It's a nature vs nurture issue at the core of it and you can find people on both sides.

The majority of the science is overwhelmingly on the side of nurture. Wade, Murray, Peterson, Molyneux it is not surprise that they have all appeared on each others shows and bought into an idea that justifies their own political stance. I don't know if you or Miles would ever be able to bring yourself to contemplate it but please at least consider this.

For the people mentioned above it is very convenient to latch onto an idea that would seemingly justify their own beliefs that social inequality and social outcomes are nothing to do with nurture or circumstance, and are really just a natural outcome dictated by genetic apptitude and difference. They wholeheartedly want to believe that human equality is a fairy tale made up by wishy washy liberals. It means they can present themselves as brave outsiders with the moral and scientific integrity to face up to difficult facts. It means they can brand their opponents as IQ deniers and lend credence to their own wacky pseudo science self help babble.


Science does not back them up. Their is no identifiable gene for intelligence and things like the Ashkenazi question are quite simply answered by culture. Even among Sephardic Jews like my Grandparents and their ancestors , literacy is highly prized and important. Not just religious literature but the study and practice of music at a much higher level than many other populations at the time all help to increase the ability to complete IQ test well. Remember that all populations get better at IQ tests with just simple training within decades which would never work on a genetic level.


Even the studies carried out by racists seeking confirmation of their race/IQ link claim have returned difficult answers for them. When they studied identical twins those adopted by families form different social classes often had a 29 point IQ difference.The genetic claim is not only untrue it is indicative of people who want to find anything to justify their own prejudices. ( not Lyle and Miles the Peterson, Molyneux crew etc)

[El Kabong]

"The genetic claim is not only untrue it is indicative of people who want to find anything to justify their own prejudices."

Well if everyone has the very same ability to grow their minds and obtain high IQ's then what is stopping other people from achieving higher IQ's? The Dutch are quite tall, why are the Japanese allowing the Dutch to out height them....same kind of reasoning on display.

Nurture is a PART, Nature is a PART the question is "To what extent?"

[Master]

"The genetic claim is not only untrue it is indicative of people who want to find anything to justify their own prejudices."

Well if everyone has the very same ability to grow their minds and obtain high IQ's then what is stopping other people from achieving higher IQ's? The Dutch are quite tall, why are the Japanese allowing the Dutch to out height them....same kind of reasoning on display.

Nurture is a PART, Nature is a PART the question is "To what extent?"

Even height and other physiology can be linked to the environment that people live in.

[TitoFan]

Physical differences..... black vs white..... tall vs short..... straight hair vs curly hair...... round eyes vs slanted eyes..... even facial contours and other characteristics, have been developed over ages and ages of evolution, and most likely in answer to necessities borne from living environments. Native cultures at high altitudes develop the ability to breathe and perform with less oxygen than those at coastal regions. To stretch that to the IQ realm is pushing an agenda, IMO. The "so-called" scientific evidence mentioned so many times by those who wish badly to push that agenda is nothing more than ill-conceived conclusions from "studies" based on flawed premises and sometimes manipulated statistics. But this is nothing new, really. The same thing applies to other issues where it suits particular interests to "prove" something, regardless of the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

So let's for a minute entertain the ridiculous notion that somehow IQ is linked to race and/or ethnicities. Why is it that in this age of unbridled scientific discoveries and advances..... why is it that we haven't found the magic DNA key to this disparity in intelligence between races? Not regurgitated and/or manipulated stats. Not snakeoil salesmen pitches like the Molyneux's of the world. Clear and unadulterated fact. Where is it?

Frankly, it's a shame that in the 21st century, we're still pushing such absurd agendas.