Yoooooooouuuuu hooooooooooo AJ, were aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrre Yooooooouuuuu?

Please AJ, please, reply to me. I am really enjoying this. I promise I will be nice. (On second thought, bugger that).

C'mon, boy. I am just getting warmed up.

You know, I have a funny feeling that the bloke who runs this site whistled you up to deal with me. I remember that he decided to respond to me personally, then suddenly he stopped, and you turned up. Did he ring you up and say "AJ. you are a university trained Criminologist, you deal with this racist for me." Show everybody how wrong he is." All you are displaying is how muddle headed anti racists are.

Now, just on IQ alone, your quoteable contradicting positions are....

You admit that criminals have a low IQ. First you have stated that this is a major factor, and later you claimed it is not a major factor.

You accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" when it is applied to criminals, but claim that IQ testing is inaccurate when applied to races.

You admit that intelligence can be derived from genetics, and that genetically derived intelligence is heritable, but then claim that this could not apply to entire races.

You imply that intelligence is primarily derived from psychological and physiological factors, and you completely ignore the genetics side which you have already conceded. You stated that "people don't just develop smart genes because they are doing smart stuff." This ignores natural selection, where the most intelligent (or the most violent) are the most successful, and they in turn attract the most females.

You agree that personality and intelligence are different from race to race, (probably because I have beaten it into your overly thick head and you can no longer deny it) but qualifies it by saying that it is primarily due to sociological, nutritional, and cultural differences. Once again, you pointedly ignore genetics and provides no evidence to support your premise.

Finally, you say you have "never denied" that races have different intelligences. That must be the doozy of the year.

Adler! Adler! Where are you?

Actually the Adler has a long and proud history by all accounts. Their first model was branded 'The Empire' and caused quite a sensation, followed about 12 months later with the Adler mod 7, and again it enjoyed much acclaim. Later, they decided to merge with another company thus renaming itself the 'Triumph - Werke', shortly thereafter they became known; The TA Triumph - Adler Ag Company.

I guess the Company founders did something right, as they've apparently got many folk here in Oz talking about them - nothing like a bit of free advertising eh ?

O sung wu,

Spot on there; Gun Control Australia and the Greens did the importers a big service, without their negative input sales would have dragged along.
One of Tony Abbott's services to industry.

LEGO,

Sorry I haven’t been sitting at my computer clicking refresh every five minutes, but the thought of conversing with someone who can’t even keep track of who’s said what is not very appealing.

<<Oh, so now IQ testing is not accurate, just "accurate enough"?>>

“Now”, as if I’d said anything different in the past.

<<You accept [cognitive metricians’] findings because [they’re] "accurate enough".>>

With what we generally consider intelligence, yes.

<<According to your "reasoning", it is "accurate enough" because the cognitive metricians must have factored in "environmental factors".>>

No, they haven’t.

<<And they must have factored in "different types of intelligence", which they can apparently test for, in their testing>>

No, they can’t. Not much anyway. Where do you get this from?

<<But when the same cognitive metricians spend 100 years proving that certain dysfunctional races generally have a low IQ, it not "accurate enough.">>

You’re going to have to start coming up with some quotes.

<<Your reasoning is, that they must have forgotten to include "environmental factors".>>

How so?

<<If you accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" in regards to criminals, you can hardly claim that IQ testing in not "accurate enough" in regards to races.>>

Agreed.

<<You are clearly implying that the measured difference in IQ's between whites and blacks is a fact which you already appreciated, and that the blacks are closing the gap.>>

Correct.

<<Therefore, you knew all along that whites and blacks have different measured levels of intelligence …>>

Correct.

<<… and for months now, you have dishonestly argued from a position that you already knew was false.>>

How so? Examples please.

<<You have been denying for 500 pages that generally speaking, races have unequal intelligences.>>

Really? Where?

<<You have used every excuse you can dream up to justify that position …>>

No, those factors help explain the differences in IQ test results.

<<Are you now finally prepared to admit that, generally speaking, races have different levels of intelligence?>>

“Finally”, as if I’d ever denied it.

Your manic tone suggests that you’re panicking now, LEGO. You’re becoming paranoid too. Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

AJ wrote

Where do you get this from?

I got it from you. You claimed that IQ testing of races was not "accurate enough" to measure racial IQ's, because the cognitive metricians had not factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligences". So, if you accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" to measure criminal intelligence, then the cognitive metricians must have factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligence." If you have any other explanation as to why you accept that IQ measurement is "accurate enough with criminals IQ's, but not with racial IQ's, then lets hear it.

AJ, you are now rather incredibly claiming that you have always been aware that races have unequal intelligence. Gee that's funny. I have been trying to get that through your overly thick head for around 500 pages, and I have used "The Bell Curve" as one of my sources. "The Bell Curve" collated 100 years of IQ testing in the USA, and it found that African blacks have lower bell curves of intelligence than whites and Asians. This you have never stopped opposing. Your argument has always been, that the IQ testing was not "accurate enough" to make that claim, and therefore "The Bell Curve" was wrong.

AJ wrote

"More that it is extremely unlikely given the evidence we currently have. Intelligence is a polygenetic trait controlled by hundreds or even thousands of genes, and probably just as many combinations of genes. To assert that this number of genes and/or combinations of genes can be shared among large populations is ludicrous, given what we currently know. But we've already been through all this"

We sure have. Your above statement clearly shows that you think that genes for intelligence can not be shared among entire races of people. But if you are now saying that different races have different levels of intelligence, then "the Bell Curve" was right. And you have just contradicted your own above statement.

You have now conceded that races have unequal intelligences. Thank you.