AJ wrote

"Still lean on the quotes I see, LEGO."

Naah, got heaps of quotes.

AJ wrote

"Where did I say this? I will say, however, that IQ tests don't show a complete picture and are therefore problematic."

You obviously don't regard IQ tests as "problematic" if you use them yourself to support your own premises. It is a clear double standard, AJ. Either IQ tests are "accurate enough", or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

AJ wrote

"You’re really struggling with this, aren’t you?"

I have a clear and concise, evidence based reasoned argument to support my premises. These premises are credible, easy to understand, cross connect with each other, and back each other up. Like every ideologue who's ideology has been found wanting, your only "argument" is to just oppose everything I say. I have quotes from you where you have made completely contradictory statements, and the above example displays how you need double standards to even compete. You come up with every abstract, esoteric, and amorphous excuse to support your own unprovable explanations as to why you think I am wrong, then you demand that I prove that you are wrong. And then you wonder why you, a trained (or indoctrinated) criminologist, are losing an argument about crime to an electrician.

AJ wrote

"I know. I’ve since read it"

I doubt it. If you had read it, you would now be admitting I was right. You probably skimmed the 800 or so pages looking for something you could misrepresent. Although, since you are now claiming that races may have unequal intelligences, maybe you did read it and conclude that you could not get away with claiming that other than physical appearances and physical attributes, races are all the same in personality and intelligences.

You knew you could not win that one, so you have fallen back to a more defensible position. You now seem to be saying that whatever differences races have in IQ and personality, is almost entirely caused by environmental factors and nurture.

Just not when you make untrue claims then, eh LEGO?

<<Naah, got heaps of quotes.>>

When will you provide the quotes I requested earlier?

<<You obviously don't regard IQ tests as "problematic" if you use them yourself to support your own premises. It is a clear double standard, AJ. Either IQ tests are "accurate enough", or they are not. You can't have it both ways.>>

Once again, IQ tests are “accurate enough” to measure cognitive abilities, but they say nothing for why those scores are achieved. I’m not having anything both ways.

<<I have a clear and concise, evidence based reasoned argument to support my premises.>>

Then why can’t you address these two problems:

“Firstly, you haven’t controlled for environmental factors, so you can’t know to what degree genetics plays a role (if any at all) on a macro level. Secondly, your scientifically debunked 19th century racial theories don’t address the problem of which came first: low intelligence or disadvantage.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972)

<<These premises are credible, easy to understand, cross connect with each other, and back each other up.>>

No, all they do is “confuse correlation with causation, while failing to control for environmental factors.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331585)

<<Like every ideologue who's ideology has been found wanting, your only "argument" is to just oppose everything I say.>>

No, see above.

<<I have quotes from you where you have made completely contradictory statements …>>

Well then, don’t keep them to yourself. Let’s see them.

<<… and the above example displays how you need double standards to even compete.>>

The quote you provided simply explained that IQ tests don’t give a complete picture. There was no double standard there.

<<You come up with every abstract, esoteric, and amorphous excuse to support your own unprovable explanations as to why you think I am wrong, …>>

“Excuse”. Ding!

No, they’re quite simple. I’m sorry they baffle you. Is that why you don’t address them?

Continued...

…Continued

<<… then you demand that I prove that you are wrong.>>

“Demand”. Ding!

No, I request that you provide evidence for your claims. It’s known as the burden of proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) Confusing correlation with causation, while failing to control for environmental factors, is not evidence.

<<And then you wonder why you, a trained (or indoctrinated) criminologist, are losing an argument about crime to an electrician.>>

"Indoctrinated". Ding!

No, I haven’t wondered that. The way our discussions go on these sorts of topics makes complete sense given our credentials. I address everything you say line by line, while you duck and weave.

<<Although, since you are now claiming that races may have unequal intelligences, …>>

“Now”, as if I’d said anything different before. Still can’t find that quote?

You’re still overlooking the difference between IQ test scores and genetic potential too. That was my main point in my last post and you haven’t even addressed it. You just duck and weave as usual.

<<You now seem to be saying that whatever differences races have in IQ and personality, is almost entirely caused by environmental factors and nurture.>>

“Now”, as if I’d said something different before. But, yes, that’s what the evidence suggests.

Instances of emotive language: 5

o sung wu,

My guess is that it's because we don't have Uniform National Gun laws even though the pollies and the media tell us that we do.

For the same reason that it's a crime in WA to have an empty, fired, inert cartridge case but in the other States it's OK to have a bit of scrap brass.

AJ wrote

"Once again, IQ tests are “accurate enough” to measure cognitive abilities, but they say nothing for why those scores are achieved. I’m not having anything both ways."

You are having it both ways. If you concede that low IQ is a factor in crime, then you are tacitly admitting that IQ tests are accurate. You can't then claim that they are inaccurate when 100 years of IQ testing clearly displays an IQ gap between races.

AJ wrote

"Two factors help shape our mentality - nature and nurture - and the different combinations of the two have a multiplying effect on who we are as individuals."

This has been my position since day 1. Nature (genetics) provides the underlying personality, and nurture builds on that. But just to be sure we were on the same page, I asked you if by "nature" you meant "genetics", and you said

AJ wrote

"Yes, and physiology. That sort of thing."

When asked by me..."Do you agree with your Criminologist peers that genetics and crime are linked?"

Your answer, "With that in mind, I’ll say, yes."

So far, we seem to agree. Genetics, behaviour and crime are linked. But when I point out that the incarceration rates of males and females confirms what now we both agree to, and I say it is "a very strong argument that genetics and behaviour are linked." You say this

AJ wrote

No, it’s not, and you haven’t yet addressed my rebuttal.

That is a clear contradiction. Either genetics, behaviour and crime are linked, or they are not. You can't argue they are linked when it suits you, and then argue the opposite when the wind blows the other way.

continued

continued

Your "rebuttals" concerning the obvious genetic differences in male and female criminal behaviour are laughable. And why you are even doing it, when you have already agreed that genetics and behaviour, which must include criminal behaviour, are linked, is a question that only you can answer.

AJ quotes

"When comparing males and females, it's more useful to talk about sex than genetics."

"Biological sex is a chromosomal difference determined at conception, not a heritable trait."

"No, I’ve always pointed out to you that people don’t inherit sex, it’s determined by chromosomes and hormones at conception."

"I have never mentioned hormones."

"Correct, sex is chromosomal."

"Sex is not the same as race. Gender is a far more reliable predictor of behavioural traits."

"Thanks for pointing out another way that another way biological sex is different. Males and females respond differently to the same environments, while different races don't. Your analogy is invalid.

I do not have a clue what any of this gobbledegook means, but then I don't think you do either. Confronted by a clear example of how genetics, behaviour, and crime are linked, you blather on with complete rubbish, probably because you think it is better to say something totally unintelligible than admit that genetics, behaviour and crime are linked, which you have already agreed to.

That you already know that genetics, behaviour and crime are linked comes from this incredible statement.

AJ wrote

“A genetic disposition for aggressive behaviour, for example, can help one to become a good soldier, a good rugby league player or a good wife beater.

To summarise, your position is, that races are equal and unequal. That genetics and crime are linked, and they are not linked. That people can be genetically violent, but that "crime genes" do not exist. That IQ is "accurate enough" when it suits you, and not "accurate enough" when it does not suit you. And that low IQ is a major factor in crime, and it is not a major factor in crime.

Do you actually call yourself a bloody scientist?