First and only post on this blog:
This was a blog post I tried to make at the blog of alleged anti-racist Zek Evets (will not link to it; easy to find). He did not read it before deleting it, dismissing it on purely ideological basis. Anyway, for the purpose of demonstrating his one-sidedness, hypocrisy and political bias I publish it here.
Since Zek is not civil or fair to other commenters, I will also not be to him in my post. Let's roll:
First, a kinda non-related objection, intended to prove just how incapable of logical thinking and ready to twist arguments Zek is :
"A favorite of mine was [a recent issue] regarding one blogger's inability to distinguish how [the expression of a "rule of thumb" is in fact an idiom]."
I love how you have deleted the relevant comments from your blog and feel free to misrepresent the actual exchange.
What you actually did was, you contradicted yourself by making two exclusive claims (A and not-A) and when Unamused pointed it out to you, you stated that you were using a rule of thumb. But you were not, not even mentioning the fact that rules of thumb have no place in serious science (and you state that your posts are apparently scientific). Then you somehow managed to divert attention from your logical failure by claiming Unamused does not know what an idiom is. Hipocrisy number 1.
Let's focus on the post now.
First, I love how, after some pathetic and pointless blabbering, you link to bios of several scientists supporting your position. That clearly earns you some sophist points for using an implicit argumentum ad potentiam. Which is also something that has no valid application in science. Hipocrisy number 2. In light of it, I intend to point all the apparent logical holes in your analysis (not the subtle ones, ‘cause I do not have time for that).
"Now, the assertion that IQ is overwhelmingly heritable is false. How do we know this? Because when measuring IQ we get different results with each test. Unlike when measuring someone's height multiple times in a row, an IQ test score changes constantly."
First of all, IQ test results do not differ significantly when the same grown-up individual is tested repeatedly. No one with an IQ of 140 scores 110 unless they suffer permanent brain damage. The differences are small - generally 3-5 points. Your big mistake here is that from the fact that measured IQ is not constant, you infer that it is a flawed metric. Well, IQ tests are just a (very sophisticated) device designed to measure intelligence in the same way that dumbbells are a (very crude) device designed to 'measure' strength. Or 100m running tracks are a device measuring sprinting ability. Yet, from the fact that Bolt does not run 100m for 9,58 sec every time, you do not conclude(unless you are an idiot) that his athletic abilities are not genetic or that 100m sprints are a useless way to measure sprinting ability.
"This leads to IQ having a low heritability when plugged into narrow-sense and broad-sense heritability equations due to having a low repeatability. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if it is heritable, and to what degree."
This is obviously false, even if we assume that IQ variations in testing at different points in time are a lot bigger than they actually are. Neo-Keynesian economic models use the same type of variables with considerable success. And I do not even mention the fact that there are plenty statistical methods that could be used to get rid not only of variation, but also of the alleged 'noise' in the equations. So, your inference is fundamentally wrong. We can and we will determine to what extent intelligence is inherited.
Also, the tremendous logical fallacy here is 'oh,gee, we currently cannot determine just how big the heredetary component is, so we should make judgements as if there isn't any'. Well, we also cannot determine whether we actually have equality of opportunity in the USA, but that does not stop egalitarians like you from advocating policies as if we do not have it. Why the inconsistency? Hipocrisy number 3.
“This evidence demonstrates the variation of IQ heritability proportions, and the flaws in utilizing correlation coefficients -- which are what IQ scores become when applied to heritability proportions among a population -- to make causative claims. Attempting to use IQ like other physiological traits in order to determine its genetic heritability is theoretically limited in this regard, since [correlation coefficients DO NOT indicate causation]. This is a common problem among scientific racists.”
Actually, this is a straw man. Alleged scientific racists use control mechanisms so as to eliminate environmental influences. Unlike people who write papers professing the role of the all-powerful environment who (almost) never use controls eliminating the effects of heredity. For a source – every single study conducted by Nisbett&co.
Also, correlation does not indicate causation, but it requires an explanation. Your camp hasn’t provided a credible and documented one and Occam’s Razor tells us what we are supposed to do in this case.
“However, there are many factors which go into determining IQ, and if we were all brought up in the same environment, then studies would show IQ heritability to be 1.0, which is an absurd 100%. Obviously this is not the case, and as such determining how culture, environment, social class, race, and other defining factors are important when composing an outlook on IQ heritability.”
Of course if we were brought in the exact same environment, the environmental component of IQ differences will be 0%. That’s the point of the exercise. ‘Cause, you know, the rising living standards will lead us to a point when all IQ differences will be solely a product of genetics. And by genetics I do not mean only intelligence, but also inherent time preferences, attitudes and biases. ‘Cause, you know – these thing are, to a large extent, genetic in origin.
“(it happened during slavery) one would expect those with higher percentages of European genes to have higher IQ's -- except they don't.”
Again logical fallacies. You are assuming that the whites that mated with blacks were representative of the white gene pool. However, it was overwhelmingly the lower classes – which are not particularly famous for being highly intelligent – that contributed to the Aftican American gene pool. And here again, we could talk about biases when choosing the population of the IQ tests – Nisbett&co are notorious in this respect, underrepresenting the inner city underclass every single time. And, again, let’s conveniently not mention the fact that it is possible that genes that contribute to intelligence are recessive – which could explain the fact that blacks with more white genes do not score discernibly higher on IQ tests than blacks with less white ancestry.
“Yes, that's right, people are getting smarter all over, despite the racist assertion that your IQ is limited solely by your genes.”
Another straw man. First, your argument would be correct if it was that IQ is determined solely by your genes. However, if there is simply an upper limit that genes place on IQ, then this limit simply is above the gains made by improving living standards (and, again, stop using straw men – no one claims that environment plays no role). Hypocrisy number 4.
Slightly offtopic:
“The Pioneer fund is classified as [a hate group] by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
And the SPLC is a somewhat radical left-wing group with political goals. I would classify them as an idiot group. Again – stop trying to make arguments from authority.
Again, on topic:
“He co-authored a book with Steven Rose and Richard Lewontin entitled [Not in Our Genes] which serves as a response to the creeping of prejudice into scientific research, notably among the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which regularly engaged in reductionism, biological determinism, and other fallacies.”
Again, Zek fails to mention that this book is largely political in nature, embedded in Marxist thought (as are at least half of the people he quotes in his post) and making the following claim: “If biological determinism is a weapon in the struggle between classes, then the universities are weapons factories, and their teaching and research faculties are the engineers, designers, and production workers”. You know, that kind of stuff makes me even more confident in my beliefs. And it constitutes Hypocrisy number 5.
“Also, twin-studies (the Rock of Gibraltar, as it were, of IQ heritability studies) were heavily criticized and found to be almost-universally flawed in their methodologies.”
And you very well know that there has been criticism of the criticism. And that a lot of the arguments of the quoted article have been rebutted (though, I admit, not all). But you do not inform the reader of that. Hypocrisy number 6.
“Now, let's begin in 1951. [UNESCO published a statement entitled "The Race Question"]. In the wake of WWII, and Nazism, the scientific community was willing to take steps to provide an authoritative condemnation of racism. Since then they have revised the document, in 1967, and again in 1978. This treatise drew upon myriad fields, from anthropology to psychology to genetics to biochemistry. A full account of this article's history [may be found here].”
I am actually glad that you cite a political statement here (again highlighting the fact that your argument is largely political in nature) written primarily by sociologists and Boazian anthropologists. Nice.
However, I would very much like it if we simply do as these nice people want us to and “when speaking of human races to drop the term ‘race’ altogether and speak of ethnic groups.” ‘Cause, you know, that is fine with me and we will have almost the same results regarding IQ, time preference, etc. as if we were considering racial groups.
“My own field of anthropology, which includes bio-physical anthropologists, cultural anthropologists, archaeologists, and forensic anthropology [published a statement on race] which directly contradicts any assertion by any scientific racist that race in humans is a valid biological category.”
Again, why don’t you mention the results and contents of the statements and surveys among the biologists, cognitive scientists and physical anthropologists regarding the topic? Hypocrisy number 7.
“See, [people of different races differ less than people of the same race do], comparatively speaking”
There is a reason why this thesis is called a Lewontin’s fallacy. But you would not care to mention Edwards, would you? Hypocrisy number 8.
Also, people like you show consistent lack of general principles in these matters. If we apply the same logic, we could say that differences in income between members of the same racial groups are bigger than those between racial groups. Yet, that does not stop you from professing the need to intervene on behalf of racial egalitarianism– but the very same argument should stop people from holding racists views. Nice and cozy cognitive dissonance.
“Human Genome project [empirically proved] that humans are 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the same. (Okay, maybe not that many 9's. It's only 99.9%. Still very close!)”
Actually, it is not very close. The difference between differences (lol) in the cases of 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% and 99.9% overlap is 1049. This is a huge number. So huge that if you had to write it on a sheet of paper, this very sheet of paper would not fit in the dimensions of the known universe. However, this is just a tease to show you do not understand maths (or, at least, use it carelessly and thus commit logical blunders – in fact your whole position is such a blunder). Which is not surprising for someone of your academic background.
“Despite [the ability for forensic anthropologists to determine race] from skeletal remains, the classification of race [continues to be arbitrary], as there is no allele, no gene, or genes which designated a person to be Black, White or whatever.”
It is not arbitrary (not that people do not debate it, they just debate it based on wrong premises). There is no single allele or gene that codes for height; skin colour; eye colour; hair colour; etc.. And yet, somehow, white people with blue eyes are not an arbitrarily defined group. More logical fallacies from you.
“Despite the fact that racists will attempt to discredit him because he's Black, and therefore not as smart as they are... which leads me to the curious question. If these racists actually believed in this pseudoscience, then wouldn't they trust my opinion that it's false because I'm Jewish and therefore far smarter than they or anyone else? Ah, but I digress. It's a paradox.”
More idiocies. If you were trying to be funny, you fail, just as in your attempt to be logical. If this was serious – well, then you, sir, are severely cognitively challenged.
There are a lot of other things wrong with your argument. However, I do not have the time or the wish to clarify them as I believe this take was enough to demonstrate your hypocrisy, lack of logic and arrogance.
I’m really looking forward to you deleting this post and confirming again that you are actually unable to deal with evidence.
Also, if you are going to respond in the same way you did to Unamused (that is, not addressing his arguments, instead crying “You are racist, you should shut up, fucking bigot”), do not bother.
