No surprise here.

[_Droopy]

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.

This is indicative of what I've come to expect in forums such as this among the Anointed. This essentially indicates that E has ignored or disregarded virtually everything I've ever written on racial issues, from an LDS or general conservative standpoint, over the last ten years.

When you're not paying attention to this degree, and/or are knowingly misrepresenting the views of your opponents, you have no intellectual credibility, no matter how you may wish to publicly pad your arguments with reference to our academic background.

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

I think you're giving Droops too much credit.

Besides, didn't someone here challenge Droopy to a debate recently?

[_EAllusion]

This is indicative of what I've come to expect in forums such as this among the Anointed. This essentially indicates that E has ignored or disregarded virtually everything I've ever written on racial issues, from an LDS or general conservative standpoint, over the last ten years.

When you're not paying attention to this degree, and/or are knowingly misrepresenting the views of your opponents, you have no intellectual credibility, no matter how you may wish to publicly pad your arguments with reference to our academic background.

You'll note that my description of what you think is written directly beneath a quote wherein you state that genetics plays some role in intergroup racial differences in IQ scores and rhetorically argue this is an uncontroversial position accepted by almost everyone. It's hard to argue that I'm ignoring what you are saying when I am directly quoting it before talking about it. As a bonus, when it is pointed out that it is accepted by almost no one in the relevant field, thus making you spectacularly wrong, you accuse me of engaging in "red science."

[_EAllusion]

That's not what I've read, nor what Murray has claimed and sourced in his own work,

I own The Bell Curve. Since you likely haven't read it,if you are curious, the central thesis is that class structure in America will be increasingly shaped around IQ given that IQ is predictive of school performance and career attainment. It makes a variety of arguments that float around this thesis, such as IQ actually being a highly valid measure of intelligence which is a controversial position. (It also argues that the US is becoming Idiocracy.) There is a well known class stratification in IQ scores, usually explained in psychometric research on this subject by the environmental advantages of wealth for what those tests measure (though in very complicated, not at all obvious ways). The Bell Curve argues the causal relationship in the reverse. While there are uncontroversial assertions, the work ends up making a series of highly provocative arguments generally not accepted by IQ researchers including racial disparities in IQ being explainable significantly in terms of genetic differences between ethnic populations. The latter is an explosive aspect of the book which you, in one of your more brazen moments, just flat deny.

There's the APA's critique of the work from the time when it was published:

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/rese ... igence.pdf

You'll note that it responds to an argument you are alleging doesn't exist. Beyond that, here you go.

[_Bret Ripley]

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.

Yeah, not the Droop-bot's best effort. I think it hit close to the mark in terms of "fatuous non sequitur", but it is clearly missing a certain something. I probably misspelled the "balmy pomposity" -html tag again.

[_Droopy]

I own The Bell Curve.

So do I, and have for about 17 years or so.

Since you likely haven't read it,if you are curious, the central thesis is that class structure in America will be increasingly shaped around IQ given that IQ is predictive of school performance and career attainment.

Correct.

It makes a variety of arguments that float around this thesis, such as IQ actually being a highly valid measure of intelligence which is a controversial position. (It also argues that the US is becoming Idiocracy.)

I know.

There is a well known class stratification in IQ scores, usually explained in psychometric research on this subject by the environmental advantages of wealth for what those tests measure (though in very complicated, not at all obvious ways).

Which suggests that it is aspects of culture, not genetics, that are more important in determining actual IQ scores.

The Bell Curve argues the causal relationship in the reverse. While there are uncontroversial assertions, the work ends up making a series of highly provocative arguments generally not accepted by IQ researchers including racial disparities in IQ being explainable significantly in terms of genetic differences between ethnic populations. The latter is an explosive aspect of the book which you, in one of your more brazen moments, just flat deny.

I couldn't have ever denied it because I've never discussed The Bell Curve at any length in this forum, and since I'm in substantial agreement with Thomas Sowell on the issue, the likelihood of my agreeing with genetics as the major factor in average IQ levels between any demographic groups involved is zero.

Beyond that, as I said, there are a couple of pages in the book mentioning average IQ differences between races, and it otherwise has nothing to due with the burden of the books main thesis.