Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    Abiola_Lapite's photos More of Abiola_Lapite's photos

« Anuran Amplexus | Main | Worthless Allies »

September 24, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451afe869e200d83465648e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Portrait of a Race "Scientist":

Comments

spectator

charlatan style methodology (e.g., the use of skull circumference measurement by Nazi "scientists" during the World War II)

what did you think of that recent article showing that franz boas had also falsified info on skull circumference in the opposite direction. it is too bad that there are so many liars in science :( :(

use of brain and cranial size as indicators of intelligence in humans is statistically absurd

as a spectator in the wars between you and mr. "godless" i was wondering what your take was on this article of his

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html

he quotes a paper from nature that says

# MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51
# g was significantly linked to differences in the volume of frontal grey matter, which were determined primarily by genetic factors... the volume of frontal grey matter had additional predictive validity for g even after the predictive effect of total brain volume was factored out

Abiola Lapite

"what did you think of that recent article showing that franz boas had also falsified info on skull circumference in the opposite direction."

Even if it were true, of what relevance is it to me? Unlike certain quacks, I've never made any claims about what skull circumference must be, let alone using Boas' data.

"as a spectator in the wars between you and mr. "godless" i was wondering what your take was on this article of his"

Here are my thoughts:

1 - Brain size and skull size are not one and the same thing.

2 - Even on the assumption they were, a single study showing a correlation of 0.4 to 0.5 would not in itself suffice to wipe out all the other studies showing much, much lower correlations.

3 - Even on the assumption that it actually did hold up within "races", it wouldn't tell you anything about the relationship between them, and twin studies, by definition, are between people of the same "race."

In short, the post you link to is a typical snow job by that quack, yet another in his long list of attempts to blind the rubes with superfluous detail.

Mrs Tilton

I don't know, Abiola. After all, Rushton has done important work to show that black men are, emm, more impressively equipped than white men, and can also (I believe he carried out his research on this point in a shopping mall) ejaculate farther.

I am in no position to verify Rushton's findings (nor, to be sure, much interested in doing so). But surely his, ahem, seminal investigations merit their place in the pantheon of science, if only for their entertainment value.

On a more serious note, I would suggest that hearing somebody cite Rushton as evidence for their views is a good signal that is time to stop listening to them.

Joseph Hertzlinger

It's only a matter of time before Rushton's line of research is called "fake but accurate."

Abiola Lapite

"Fake But Accurate" - An inspired choice of words, and exactly the attitude displayed by those who lean on this rubbish. To borrow another phrase, if Rushton's work tells "essential truths", what does it matter if contains the odd lie or two?

Frank McGahon

"Fake but Accurate": the thread which connects Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke, Lynn & Vanhanen, Rushton and the Killian Memos!

spectator

hello again,

-i have just read the article, it comes from Vol. 25, Journal of Black Studies, 07-01-1995, pp 672.

Is the "Journal of Black Studies" a peer reviewed scientific journal?

-the artical from nature has more than one mri and brain voluem study. most are dated after 1995. do you knwo if mr. cernosvky has a recent critique.

-another thing, this is aother thing the mr. "godless" talsk about a lot.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000808.html

Check out the atlas' website. You can listen to the full interview here. GNXP readers can pick up a mild HBD angle at around 2 minutes & 40 seconds, when the interviewer asks about the contrasts in the multi-nation survey, Dr. John Maziotta responds that there are "...differences between Asian brains and European brains...brains in Asian populations tend to be spherical...European brains tend to be more elongated...this must be some aspect of evolution and how the genetics of the brain determine its shape and structure...." My initial thought was that Europeans are more dolichocephalic and Asians are more bachycephalic, long-headed vs. short-headed, but this seems like too simple of an answer.


Do you know if Professor Maziotta is also involved with racist or right-wing activity.

i think you have done good work by criticizing the racists because i think all research on race and intelligence should illegal. the arguments against mr. "godless" should be made which is why i am asking you because i do not know this area but we should also have laws to stop people from making racist comments and doing racist research.

race and intelligence research is racist by default as mr cernovsky has shown and should be illegal. do you agree.

Berni Allen

I have read through many pappers and books which make repeated attempts to exposes J. Phillippe Rushton's work for the nonesence and bigotry it endorses, including many Gentic studies. However, none have done quit as good of a job as you have..

"From a 21 year old Layman".. Good Stuff!

tyroneslothrop

Dear Spectator,

What article "recently" showed that Boas falsified data? Here is a 2003 article from American Anthropologist showing that Boas did not falsify anything and that, indeed, he was right:

http://gravlee.org/gravleeetal03a.pdf

And here is a discussion about Sparks and Jantz work:

http://gravlee.org/gravlee03b.pdf

If you have Anthrosource you should be able to get the Sparks and Jantz paper as well. However, it should be clear that Sparks and Jantz did not claim that Boas falsified any data and indeed in their piece in AA concede much.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Notes for Readers