A note on Rushton & Gould

On May 21, 4:01 pm, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 21, 5:18 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:16:20 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > (in article
> > <4a5a0115-afeb-43e8-8723-17d45d148...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
> > > Dark skin correlates with lower IQ. Do you have counter-evidence
that =
dark
> > > skin correlates with higher IQ?
>
> > Anyone interested in the real science surrounding this topic should
read=

> > Gould's  "Mismeasure of Man".
>
> > --
> > Love, Jim
> > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove
excessive
> > crossposts.)
>
> > ----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Usen=
et News=3D=3D----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe#1
Newsgroup Service in the
Worl=
d! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> > ----=3D East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =
=3D----
>
> Phillipe Rushton read it.  And here's what he's got to say about that
> silly jew:
>
> http://christianparty.net/rushton.htm
>

Very interesting -- from your quoted article:

---
"However, Gould's (1978, 1981) charge that Morion (1849) doctored his
results to show Caucasian racial superiority has been called into
question. A random sample of the Morton collection was remeasured by
Michael (1988), who found that very few errors had been made and that
these were not in the direction that Gould had asserted. Instead,
errors were found in Gould's own work.

Michael (1988, p. 353) concluded that Morton's research "was conducted
with integrity... [while] Gould is mistaken." As we shall show,
"politically correct" and "egalitarian" conclusions in favor of the
null hypothesis do not hold. Modern studies confirm many of Broca's
(1861) and Morion's (1849) observations."
---

But as I've just posted, EVEN GOULD HIMSELF showed that Africans have
smaller brains than Mongolians and Caucacoids by his very own
admission even if he made errors **in his own direction**.

Page 66 Table 2.5 -- Gould's own "corrected" values for
Morton's final tabulation -- that is, accepted **by Gould himself**
(all measurements in inches cubed):

  Mongolians 87
  Modern Caucasians 87
  Native Americans 86
  Malays 85
  Ancient Caucasians 84
  Africans 83

The egalitarian case *sure* is hollow.

One more thing, here's the lead article from Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law
2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235=96294 by the American Psychological
Association:

     http://tinyurl.com/yqmwpj

No matter how you look at it, biodiversity still remains.



> http://wm.christianparty.net/rushtongould.htm
>
> Here's a quote from a quote from a quote:
>
> <<<Gould's most inflammatory allegation consists of blaming IQ testers
> for magnifying the toll of those lost in the Holocaust (p. 263). Here
> he has followed the lead of Leon Kamin's (1974) The Science and
> Politics of IQ. The Kamin-Gould thesis is that early IQ testers
> claimed their research proved that Jews as a group scored low on their
> tests and that this finding was then conveniently used to sup****t
> passage of the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 which then denied
> entry to hapless Jewish refugees in the 1930s. Gould goes so far as to
> claim (1996, pp. 195-198; 255-258) that Henry H. Goddard (in 1917) and
> Carl C. Brigham (in 1923) labeled four-fifths of Jewish immigrants as
> "feeble-minded ... morons".>>>
>
> In other words, it was JEWS who were REJECTED as citizens of the US
> based on our PREVIOUS IQ tests, which JEWS have now changed.
>
> btw, Professor Rushton was trying to correlate brain size with IQ data
> which the jews had MANIPULATED, so his correlation was a bit off. I
> took his exact same brain size data and correlated it with GRE scores
> and got an r-squared of 0.88.
>
> The only real outlier was for black men.  Remove that outlier and it's
> almost a perfect correlation.  For whatever reason, the IQ of black
> men is considerably lower than their brain size indicates it should
> be, but this was not true for black women.