Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
17 Oct 1996 16:34:39 -0600
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org.McMaster.CA>,
Laura Finsten <email@example.com> wrote:
>firstname.lastname@example.org () wrote:
>>In article <email@example.com>, Bryant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>[...] A re-remeasurement found that Gould's
>>>errors were larger than Morton's, and that Morton's errors went in the
>>>opposite direction from what Gould had claimed.
>>Thank you for this information. Do you have a cite? Alas, it is page 37
>I too would be most interested in a citation for this.
I did reference it several months ago, here at sci.anthro, so if anybody
kept the ref, I'd appreciate 'lil help.
Alternatively, yesterday I posted a reference to Rushton's recent paper
on brain size and IQ (a review). In that paper, which I think he
co-authored, but don't recall, he cites the reference correcting Gould's
>>>This is mistaken. There is a robust, highly significant relationship
>>>between brain size and IQ within the normal range of cranial capacities.
>I would also be most interested in a citation for the argument that
>there is a highly significant relationship between brain size and IQ
>among members of the modern human species (Homo sapiens sapiens).
How would we get the IQ of anyone but modern humans? :)
If you haven't seen the Rushton reference I posted recently, lemme know
and I'll dig it up again. Please note that Rushton's explanation for the
relationship is not widely accepted amongst neurobiologists or
evolutionists, so far as I can tell, and is not held up here by me as
sound reasoning. I only mean to cite his paper in order to point out a
factual nit: there is a correlation, probably not causal, between brain
size and IQ.