No surprise here.

[_Droopy]

You're not intellectually competent to debate me on this issue. No shock here, nor for many in this hellhole of pseudo-discourse.

Bye.

Well, I am educated in psychology, have taken graduate level psychometrics, and have written a research paper in this general area. You, on the other hand are a dry drunk armed with a cursory reading of right-wing blogs. Clearly, I'm the one not competent enough to address this subject. I mean, this can't possibly be you recognizing you are in over your head and trying to find some face-saving out.

You are not competent to debate me on this, or most subjects of salient philosophical or political import, and never have been. This post, above, is the nail in your coffin, among many you have hammered yourself over the years, that closes my case.

[_MeDotOrg]

You're not intellectually competent to debate me on this issue. No shock here, nor for many in this hellhole of pseudo-discourse.

Bye.

Well, I am educated in psychology, have taken graduate level psychometrics, and have written a research paper in this general area. You, on the other hand are a dry drunk armed with a cursory reading of right-wing blogs. Clearly, I'm the one not competent enough to address this subject. I mean, this can't possibly be you recognizing you are in over your head and trying to find some face-saving out.

You are not competent to debate me on this, or most subjects of salient philosophical or political import, and never have been. This post, above, is the nail in your coffin, among many you have hammered yourself over the years, that closes my case.

Droopy, in another life I bet you would have settled this with a demand for satisfaction and a fine pair of dueling pistols.

[_EAllusion]

Droopy didn't have the slightest idea what he was defending. That's why he namechecked Sowell, who has done work on racial biases in IQ testing and ripped to shreds people like Richwine , to respond to someone pointing out the humiliation Heritage suffered by relying on Richwine. That's why when I responded to this in-congruence he curled up into a little ball and declared himself to be too educated and intellectually sophisticated to respond. He doesn't want know what to think, so he has to do a sad pufferfish routine.

[_Brackite]

The Cato Institute strongly disagrees with this recent Heritage Foundation's report that finds that this comprehensive immigration reform bill will cost about 6.3 trillion dollars.

http://www.cato.org/blog/heritages-flaw ... n-analysis

[_Droopy]

Droopy didn't have the slightest idea what he was defending. That's why he namechecked Sowell, who has done work on racial biases in IQ testing and ripped to shreds people like Richwine , to respond to someone pointing out the humiliation Heritage suffered by relying on Richwine. That's why when I responded to this in-congruence he curled up into a little ball and declared himself to be too educated and intellectually sophisticated to respond. He doesn't want know what to think, so he has to do a sad pufferfish routine.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Just fuming, panting, and snorting in writhing fury at an external universe in which you are embedded but refuse to understand.

He's "ripped to shreds" people like Richwine? And what has Richwine actually claimed? Sowell believes that the average IQ differences that have long been known to exist are primarily cultural in nature (a position with which I agree), with genetics in a secondary role.

You will notice (after wiping the thick foam off your computer screen) that I nowhere defended Richwine. I actually know nothing about him, save that he thinks genetics plays some role in IQ differences (and who doesn't accept this, to one degree or another, as a matter of principle?). I've also seen nothing here from anybody actually arguing that Richwine was wrong about average IQ levels among a certain demographic of Hispanic immigrants.

Is he wrong? If not, why all the pawing of the ground? If so, then he's wrong. No internal motives (your favorite cup of tea) can be inferred just from being wrong in an empirical study. Yup, all the usual suspects: the mainstream media, Mother Jones, The Nation, The Daily Kos, the Huffpo etc. are all in a wad over it.

And yet, its the Left who is and remains dedicated to institutional racism and group discrimination, with conservatives/libertarians fighting a long, rear-gaurd action for colorblindness and equality under the law.

[_EAllusion]

He's "ripped to shreds" people like Richwine? And what has Richwine actually claimed? Sowell believes that the average IQ differences that have long been known to exist are primarily cultural in nature (a position with which I agree), with genetics in a secondary role.

One would think I didn't link Sowell harsly criticizing Charles Murray for making arguments not unlike Richwine's. An essay where he explicitly says that there is not evidence to support genetics explaining ethnic intergroup IQ differences while arguing there is strong evidence against it. An essay where the "cultural differences" he speaks to involve how testing is done inside of a cultural context rather than ethnic cultures producing significantly variant intellectual aptittude. One would think.

I actually know nothing about him,

We know.

save that he thinks genetics plays some role in IQ differences [between races] (and who doesn't accept this, to one degree or another, as a matter of principle?).

There's not a sound case for genetics explaining differences in IQ scores among broad ethnic categories and there is substantial reason to think those differences are explained in terms of other factors. This is well known in the field, so to answer your rhetorical question: just about everyone. The reason someone like Murray was regarded as an offensive fringe provocateur is precisely because that is a minority view lacking a sound basis. That's also why you can't fathom what all the hubbub is about with Richwine. You think blacks are intellectually inferior to whites partially as a matter of genetics. Hard as it is for you to fathom, that's not what most people think. And if you want to try and rhetorically tie that albatross to conservatism, then conservatives don't need enemies when they got friends like you.

No internal motives (your favorite cup of tea) can be inferred just from being wrong in an empirical study. Yup, all the usual suspects: the mainstream media, Mother Jones, The Nation, The Daily Kos, the Huffpo etc. are all in a wad over it.

Given how rapidly the Heritage foundation distanced itself from Richwine, downplayed his role with them, and explicitly disassociated itself from his previous work, I think you can add them to this list of "usual suspects." If you don't understand what's especially notable about being wrong about an empirical matter on intelligence and race that has historically been used to suppress racial groups, that's a problem. If you don't see how that's amplified when it comes from a person who has associated with white nationalist groups while advocating against allowing Hispanic immigration in favor of "European" immigrants, then I guess that's that.

[_Bret Ripley]

That's why the Heritage foundation is running as fast as they can from him. You, on the other hand, appear to embrace this. Yes?

I feel more like I do now than I did when I got here!

[Guest]

One would think I didn't link Sowell harsly criticizing Charles Murray for making arguments not unlike Richwine's. An essay where he explicitly says that there is not evidence to support genetics explaining ethnic intergroup IQ differences while arguing there is strong evidence against it. An essay where the "cultural differences" he speaks to involve how testing is done inside of a cultural context rather than ethnic cultures producing significantly variant intellectual aptittude. One would think.

I've read Sowell's criticism's of Murray, and while they were clear and unequivocal, I wouldn't call them "harsh." I saw Murray on Booknotes over 20 years ago where he mentioned to Brian Lamb that he thought the mix of nature to nurture was about 70-30. Sowell wouldn't agree, and neither would I, but that's a matter of conjecture and theory, not hard fact, and the brilliant Dr. Murray is welcome to his honest, thoughtful opinions here.

Snip cretinous blah blah...

...This is well known in the field.

RED SOCIAL SCIENCE FLAG!!!!!!!

so to answer your rhetorical question: just about everyone. The reason someone like Murray was regarded as an offensive fringe provocateur is precisely because that is a minority view lacking a sound basis.

That's not what I've read, nor what Murray has claimed and sourced in his own work, and clearly you have very little idea what The Bell Curve was about if you think it had anything to do with race (there is all of, as I recall, one and a half to two pages in passing about average IQ variations and blacks in The Bell Curve). Do you understand what the main thesis of The Bell Curve was about, Delusion? Did you follow that debate at the time?

That's also why you can't fathom what all the hubbub is about with Richwine. You think blacks are intellectually inferior to whites partially as a matter of genetics.

What I cannot fathom is why I'm here wasting my time attempting to debate a closed-minded, bigoted intellectual snob with an advanced degree that did wonders for his ego but apparently flummoxed his intellectual growth (and the social sciences are open season, theoretically and ideologically, for anyone who wishes to try his hand).

Given how rapidly the Heritage foundation distanced itself from Richwine...

Good for them. Too bad the Left virtually never distances itself from even its most bizarre, overwrought ideologues and foam-flecked neurotics whether in academia or in the political sphere.

[_Droopy]

That's why the Heritage foundation is running as fast as they can from him. You, on the other hand, appear to embrace this. Yes?

I feel more like I do now than I did when I got here!

This kind of thing defines this message board. Good show, Bret.

[_Droopy]

...This is well known in the field.

Is there a "consensus," E?