Not interested in debating it. Here's why: @StefanMolyneux is not stupid, but his stated position is. That suggests his purpose is not an analytical one.
The logic is straightforward. His position is nuts. But he might well advance his agenda, and I want no part of that.https://twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/1070357901057843200 …
-
Another way an idea grows is by providing it with legitimacy by pretending it is worthy of debate when it isn't. There's a reason why biologists and geologists don't waste time debating creationists and flat earthers. Some ideas are just insipid nonsense.
Except the ideas I am reporting on our mainstream science, validated by 18 experts I have interviewed in the field – that they would not agree with me on everything I say, of course, but the essentials of racial IQ differences are very clear
-
-
No, they're not. You're taking an objective fact - that IQ is higher among whites, generally - and then asserting that the cause of this is genetic without actually demonstrating any causality. There is no scientific consensus that IQ differences are caused by genetics.
-
Aren’t there studies comparing the IQ of whites to blacks from the Africa continent uncontaminated by European influence? Wouldn’t this show genetics is a contributing factor if there is a difference?
-
I don't know. The claim of a quantifiable portion of Africa that isn't touched by European influence sounds dubious, considering the size/scope of European colonization of Africa However, even if this is the case, it takes more than a few studies to reach a scientific consensus.
-
More than a few studies? There have been dozens! The Bell Curve went over this in detail. The mean IQ difference across multiple studies is around one standard deviation = 15 IQ points.pic.twitter.com/kiWWAb1Pye
-
You just reasserted what I have already acknowledged - there is a general difference in IQ scores among the races. Pointing out that there is a difference does not address the causation of that difference in any way.
-
Oh, and for clarity, a dozen studies also doesn't constitute a scientific consensus.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
The vitriol from social-justice advocates on this angle seems contrary to their wholehearted embrace of every other aspect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The science is overwhelming. Lynn's book about those differences refers over 500 (!) studies. Wake up, science deniers. Biology gives a crap about people's feelings & political correctness. Acceptance of scient.truth is the only way to come up with functional, humane policies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is false. Included in your list of 18 is Professor Flynn, who absolutely disagrees with you linking race to IQ, who instead argues that environmental factors (quality of childhood, nutrition, education, etc) are the main variables in determining IQ.
-
In his 1980 book Race, IQ and Jensen, Prof Flynn called attempts to link IQ squarely to race "disturbing", expressing great scepticism.”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Stefan, I am happy to go toe-to-toe with you on the evidence, any time. What do you say?https://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/31/the-anti-racialist-q-a/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
I do believe that culture as it relates to inbreeding has to be part of the equation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.