Re: Rushton, why?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Mcreery: "Rushton and Racial Research"
• Previous message: Scott MacEachern: "Race and history"

Well, Mr Rushton, I don't know your specialty and certainly don't share
your experience in this field, but I am quite troubled by the fact that
you plan to proceed examining race as a channel through which genetic
information is spread (and therefore results such as absolute numerical
IQ's) when it is also a scientific fact that there exist in Africa
groups of "blacks" with greater genetic variation between them (and
greater "intra-black race" genetic isolation) than between Africans
and Europeans. With this obvious proof that color doesn't necessarily
reflect any genetic link, how can you possibly try to link an
inherited trait (as you're convinced IQ is) according to an insignificant
category?
Secondly, I will repeat a question I posted some time ago and ask
whether any of the studies concerning brain volume and IQ have managed to
link the supposed correlation on an individual level? In other words, do
both blacks and white with more volumnous noodles have higher IQ? or, do
all blacks have lower IQ and smaller brains and the link is simply infered?
Before I go, I'd just like to say that unless these issues are
resolved, especially the first, this study only remotely resembles
science. Even with a very crude scientific theory background, I
recognize that your studies (as you've presented them) leaves far to many
things open and therefore jeopardizes the foundation of any assertion you
make from your data.

DDR

• Next message: John Mcreery: "Rushton and Racial Research"
• Previous message: Scott MacEachern: "Race and history"