On Jun 4, 2:53 am, drydem
my-deja.com> wrote:> On Jun 3, 12:19 pm,RichAsianKid
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's what science research says. I'm just connecting the dots here
>> so everyone can see the big picture.
>
> Good science is less about connecting "the dots" than
> about investigating the logically related questions
> that are generated with by the resulting data.
>
>
>
>> * * Dark Skin Correlates With Low Economic Growth (and by
>> implication, third world poverty!) * *
>
> The oppression fueled by racism has also correlated with low economic
> growth
> and -by historical accounts- to today's third world poverty.
>
>
>
>
>
>> And it's due to lower IQ and thus lower scholastic achievements!
>
>
>> I bet some black posters will have a fit when they see this. But
>> again, truth hurts. The evidence is all there staring in your face in
>> peer-reviewed journals.
>> -------
>
>> Relevant abstracts:
>
>> (1) Dark Skin correlates with Lower IQ
>
>> Title: Temperature, Skin Color, Per Capita Income, and IQ: An
>> International Perspective
>> Authors: Templer, Donald I.; Arikawa, Hiroko
>
>> Abstract: The impetus for our study was the contention of both
>> Lynn
>> [Lynn, R. (1991) "Race differences in intelligence: A global
>> perspective." "Mankind Quarterly," 31, 255-296] and Rushton [Rushton,
>> J. P. (1995). "Race, evolution and behavior: A life history
>> perspective." New Brunswick, NJ: "Transaction"; Rushton, J. P. (1997).
>> "Race, intelligence, and the brain: The errors and omissions of the
>> revised edition of S.J. Gould's the mismeasurement of man."
>> "Personality and Individual Differences," 23, 169-180; Rushton, J. P.
>> (2000). "Race, evolution, and behavior. A life history
>> perspective" (3rd edition). Port Huron: Charles Darwin Research
>> Institute] that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs
>> than persons in warmer climates. We correlated mean IQ of 129
>> countries with per capita income, skin color, and winter and summer
>> temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational
>> reflection of climate. The highest correlations were -0.92 (rho =
>> -0.91) for skin color, -0.76 (rho = -0.76) for mean high winter
>> temperature, -0.66 (rho = -0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and
>> 0.63 (rho = 0.74) for real gross domestic product per capita.
>
> If colder air temperature makes one smarter -
> wouldn t air conditioning raise a person's IQ
> and a hot sauna lower a person's IQ?
>
> Does a person's IQ drop if they are tested in a very hot room?
> how hot would it have to be for their IQ to drop if it does?
> Does a person's IQ increase if they are tested in a cold room?
> how cold would it have to be for their IQ to increase if it does?
> RFLOL.
>
> but seriously RAK ...
>
> Statistical analysis
> is more useful in formulating questions
> (for a future hypothesis to be tested)
> than it is in asserting or discovering
> a biological fact or conclusion.
>
> Statistics by
> its very nature is probablistic and inductive
> rather than mechanical and deductive.
>
> What you call "connecting the dots" (deductive reasoning)
> using statistics evidence is a foolhardy leap in faith
> for a pet theory --- often called "bad" science. (9_9)
Drydem, at least you didn't say that "IQ doesn't exist" or "races do
not exist" so that's good for you. Moreover, from poster Drydem,
silence is often golden, so thank you for not taking issues with my
other two other abstracts that I presented.
But like I asked "Your Name", chipping at the edges just isn't enough.
Did RichAsianKid post something that's false? Are you hiding data that
lighter skinned people tend to be smarter? Hmmmm...
You can say it's bad data, you can smash it, you can say IQ does not
exist, you can even say races do not exist.
But where's the counterfactual, the counterevidence that shows no
relationship between skin color and intelligence level on an
international basis or global scale?
I work from a very different vantage point. I think the 21st century
paradigm/question is this: why should we expect equality of results
between groups? Equality of outcome was perhaps the 1960s-70s
paradigm, but with so much counter-data (some of which I presented)
staring at your face, new thinking is the rule. Many feminists for
instance have now come to accept, perhaps painfully, in the late 20th
century, that men and women are different afterall. Perhaps we will
soon accept that the races or ethnic groups are not exactly identical.
And relish in our biodiversity....
