That is one of many possible reasons - but it is no surprise that you've chosen to make it the only reason

My experience with you is that you ignore refutations completely - and move on to another thread where you essentially re-post comparably unsupportable opinion.

Just because you ignore a refutation doesn't mean it didn't occur, silly.

 

Yelling "Racist!" at me does not refute my arguments. Saying that my arguments have been discredited without demonstrating how does not discredit them.

When a number of internet tough guys line up to throw insults at me all they prove is that they cannot argue rationally. Those insults are only impressive to those who share the prejudices I expose with my well documented facts.

 

Point out where that happened. Name the thread.

 

You got it . . . you'll allow me some time to gather the data, yes? Hate to have you crowing that you have remain unrefuted in internet-land because I was too slow for you :-|

 

I'm timing you. Keep in mind that insults do not count. I want facts and logic that prove that I am wrong about something.

 

People, including myself, have gone to great lengths to show that your "well-documented facts" do not prove your case, and that your conclusions are based on faulty and fallacious logic. Just this morning, you postulated that scientists will someday discover an "intelligence gene" that will explain what you consider to be differences in intelligence among races. I pointed out that you obviously reached your conclusion IN THE ABSENCE of such scientific confirmation, and that your expectation that science would vindicate you is simply a leap of faith.

 

That's not what you asked for, silly - you asked for me to show you where you ignored a refutation . . . right?

 

Distant Lover, I most certainly not only answered your arguments I proved them false, right here:



http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_sale...ndalous_source

You proved yourself that you're a racist by saying that if the false conclusions you posted were examples of racism than you were a racist.

You have consistently maintained there was "scientific evidence" that blacks were mentally inferior to whites due to genetics, and that evidence has been proven for what it is, white supremacist bought and paid for propaganda with no scientific value at all.

In fact, racial genetic inferiority or superiority has been proven false in numerous studies that are credible.


http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_sale...ndalous_source

Distant Lover I have done nothing of the kind. I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that your contention that blacks are genetically mentally inferior to whites is false, and the sources you've used to base that conclusion on has been thoroughly discredited.

http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_sale...ndalous_source

This alleged insulter has most definitely not only answered your arguments as far as whites being genetically mentally superior to blacks, I've proven it false beyond reasonable doubt and proven your source; The Bell Curve, has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than white supremacist propaganda.

So you are as refuted as refuted gets. In fact your the one crying and carrying because YOU can't answer the arguments and you're just trying to hide the truth and change the subject.

 

Namely, the principal study on which Saletan rests his case is a two-year old paper by J. Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen...

There are several tangled logical threads upon which Saletan's argument precariously hangs, including a barely questioned assumption that IQ is a reasonable approximation of intelligence...

Saletan's reliance on differential brain size stands in direct contradiction to his take on another of his data points, a study of children born in post-war Germany showing that children of white GIs had the same average IQ as children of black GIs...

Saletan explains this finding away by noting that military recruits are already pre-screened for intelligence. The trouble is that the very same brain-size data Saletan uses to bolster his hereditary interpretation of the IQ gap is originally based on measurements of soldiers, hence the fact that the offspring of black and white soldiers have the same average IQ implies that brain size differentials are either not genetically-determined, or else can be positively ruled out as explaining the black-white IQ gap...

Never mind the fact that the black-white gap used to be greater than it is now..

In other words, in periods of time so short as to beggar any suggestion that they contained evolutionary augmentations of innate intelligence, average IQ scores of numerous groups improved by well more than the current 15-point gap between whites and blacks...

-----

Most of this I have already refuted. The validity of IQ tests can be demonstrated that the U.S. military has been solidly committed to them since the were developed. Increasingly employers give them to job applicants.

He does not clearly explain how Arthur Jensen has ever been wrong. He simply assumes that the reader will be hostile to Jensen.

He ridicules the belief that there is a correlation between brain size without proving that it is wrong. He points out that women tend to have smaller brains than men. They also tend to have less mathematical aptitude. Lawrence Summers lost his position as the President of Harvard for saying that, but it is still true.

He acknowledges that there is still a fifteen point gap in average IQ scores between blacks and whites. He claims that the gap has been declining, but it was fifteen points in 1971 when Richard Herrnstein anticipated the arguments he later presented with Charles Murray in The Bell Curve in an article he wrote for The Atlantic Monthly.

An argument against the importance of racial differences is that in a study of children by American servicemen and German women, where the children were raised exclusively by the mothers, the IQ's were equivalent. The argument against that argument is that men in the military are screened for intelligence. Daniel Koffler acknowledges that argument, and then changes the subject to ridicule the assertion there is a relationship between brain size and intelligence. I have also read that 20% of those American servicemen claimed to be "black" were not Negroes, but Arabs from northern Africa.

 

I would like to make one more point, stumbler. When I link to an article I use it to substantiate facts I use in my own arguments. I do not simply link to it and say, "Here's the truth. Read this."

 

I picked this paragraph out because it's a perfect example of the kind of fallacious reasoning I'm talking about, DL. The widespread use of IQ tests in no way demonstrates that they are valid or without bias. It may demonstrate nothing more than that some people THINK they are valid, or it may demonstrate that the agency is entirely comfortable with whatever bias they may contain.

I'll leave out, for the moment, the question of whether or not the U.S. military can be shown to be a good judge of intelligence.

 

I did not postulate an intelligence gene, but intelligence genes. It should be obvious that intelligence is too complex to be determined by a single gene. There is no such thing as a single appearance gene, but it is obvious that children resemble their parents.

I postulate a genetic basis for intelligence differences in order to explain these facts:

"Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century."
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

Those on the left like to claim that these differences would disappear under a just society, which presumably would be one where they have the political power. They are not disappearing now.

 

Oh DL you racist you. You never give up trying to spread your racist propaganda no matter how many times its been proven to be false. So now you quote the very author that is so thoroughly deg\unked right here.

It would not, absent relevant information about absolute changes in the average scores of blacks and whites in the same period. Only if blacks and whites not only maintained a nearly constant difference in scores relative to each other, but a nearly constant average score as well, would data about black and white IQ scores begin to support the case that IQ is in part racially determined

http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_sale...ndalous_source

 

You do not strengthen your argument by increasing the print size and changing the print color to red any more than you strengthen your argument with the insults you direct against anyone who disagrees with you about anything. The IQ gap was 15 points 39 years ago. It is still 15 points.

Changes in absolute scores since the IQ tests were first introduced can be explained by the fact that the tests have become more refined in measuring innate intelligence rather than learning.

 

So I clicked on that slate.com link, and then clicked on a link within that story to find the source of the IQ data you just cited. And guess what that source was?

THE BELL CURVE!

I guess that's where all roads lead, as far as you're concerned.

 

If you check The Bell Curve, you will find that it has been adequately documented.

Actually, he does not name his source, but his findings have been reported by many other sources.

 

And yet, studies have shown that the gap between black and white IQ scores was reduced by roughly 1/3 over the course of the 20th century. Others have shown that twins raised in poverty display lower IQs than those raised in affluent homes. How could THAT happen, if the differential is attributable to genetic factors?

 

Where are those studies? Daniel Koffler acknowledges a 15 point gap now. That was mentioned by Richard Herrnstein in his September 1971 article in the Atlantic Monthly. I have pointed out that changes in average scores during the course of the twentieth century can easily be explained by the growing refinement of the tests.

What I have read from various sources is that after school integration there was a slight decline in the racial gap in academic achievement, - as opposed to aptitude - but that the gap has persisted since.

When schools were integrated in Washington, DC white high school graduates were usually two years ahead of black high school graduates. When the schools were integrated whites fled the public school system, including liberal whites living in liberal enclaves like Georgetown. Currently test scores in the DC school system are among the lowest in the country, even though the DC school system is one of the most expensive in the country.

 

I actually have a life apart from XNXX, so I do not read every attempt to refute an argument I post. Also, I often get tired of refuting the same shallow arguments again and again, and reading the same insults from those who clearly cannot present rational arguments.

 

You seem to have an almost religious reverence for The Bell Curve. But surely you must be aware that it was and is extremely controversial, was never subjected to peer review, and that many, many legitimate scientists have disputed its central hypotheses, the supporting data, and the methodology used. It's not enough to say that there were footnotes in the book. There are enough concerns surrounding IQ testing as a measure of intelligence alone to fill very thick volumes.