Are Lynn and Rushton racists?
category: general [glöplog]
Professors Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton are writing for http://www.vdare.com/, an openly racist site. Now I have finally lost my trust in their being objective, and I dare to express my doubt that their "scientific" research findings are really grounded on a valid scientific basis.
Rushton's research has never been taken seriously, and in the last couple of years a number of papers have been published that find his studies to have been full of incorrect assumptions, biases etc. etc.
for example - regarding mating strategies (K- versus r- strategies). he makes the assumption that parenting-intensive, low birthing-rate strategies were employed in biomes that were less hazardous (he means europe) - and that this led to higher IQ. that's kind of bollocks because the strategy employed by just about any other species is to maximise birth-rate in making use of times of plenty (i.e. in predictable, easy biomes)
so you should have stopped taking him seriously a long time ago, just based on the fact that his findings mean nothing!
for example - regarding mating strategies (K- versus r- strategies). he makes the assumption that parenting-intensive, low birthing-rate strategies were employed in biomes that were less hazardous (he means europe) - and that this led to higher IQ. that's kind of bollocks because the strategy employed by just about any other species is to maximise birth-rate in making use of times of plenty (i.e. in predictable, easy biomes)
so you should have stopped taking him seriously a long time ago, just based on the fact that his findings mean nothing!
oh, this isn't adok...
nevermind...
nevermind...
http://adokhugi.livejournal.com/77545.html
I've read the interview with Richard Lynn at http://seanbryson.com/downloads/richard_lynn.pdf, which was linked to at Wikipedia. There are some passages I'd like to comment on.
...
"What about the immigration of Indians and Pakistanis into Britain?
These peoples have about the same intelligence level as whites, as would be expected because they are Caucasians. They are not a genetic problem."
Here Lynn contradicts his own research. In "Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations" (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp), Lynn stated that the average IQ in India was 81.
-
Conclusion: Lynn himself seems to care more about whether a person is Caucasian or non-Caucasian than what the IQ of this person is. So obviously, he IS a racist.
I've read the interview with Richard Lynn at http://seanbryson.com/downloads/richard_lynn.pdf, which was linked to at Wikipedia. There are some passages I'd like to comment on.
...
"What about the immigration of Indians and Pakistanis into Britain?
These peoples have about the same intelligence level as whites, as would be expected because they are Caucasians. They are not a genetic problem."
Here Lynn contradicts his own research. In "Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations" (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp), Lynn stated that the average IQ in India was 81.
-
Conclusion: Lynn himself seems to care more about whether a person is Caucasian or non-Caucasian than what the IQ of this person is. So obviously, he IS a racist.
IQ is subjective intelligence anyways
All discrimination is sad, regardless of whatever philosophical retarded reasoning is behind it to back it up with a subverted logic.
All discrimination is sad, regardless of whatever philosophical retarded reasoning is behind it to back it up with a subverted logic.
ps: One thing is clear: IQ is not an instrument to measure TALENT. I know a lot of people with a very high IQ, but hardly any of these people is good at drawing, or designing, or composing music, etc.
what a coincidence, here at the university i know a lot of people with a high IQ as well.. and i threaten them to sick 'em up if they don't gimme their lunch money!
i doubt a high IQ (score) in itself is going to be very useful indicator of a creative human. you probably need developed vision, wisdom, emotions and all other factors of human characteristic to excell in any area (even cold science). the fact that iq tests measure only "measurable traits" necessarily means that it is a measure of mechanical processes - processes which can be formalized. processes desirable and reproducable in robots, but nothing that indicates "superior human abilities".
one thing you can _definitely_ say about people with high iqs is that they'd make the best human robots.
one thing you can _definitely_ say about people with high iqs is that they'd make the best human robots.
Adok, why do you care about all this bullshit?
Who cares about IQ, IQ is a random number...
iq is a person! he has feelings.
LoL!
When you try to draw up anthrophormgic(or something) qualities in DNA you have automaticly failed BIG TIME!
When you try to draw up anthrophormgic(or something) qualities in DNA you have automaticly failed BIG TIME!
Yes iq ia a person, but i'm speaking about IQ, not iq. :P
fart wigger.
