Here we go with the Nazi ad hominem again. If you find Rushton to be in error over a matter of science, please present your point and skip the ad hominem fallacy.
This is not an ad hominem. It seems to me you're unable to explain why it is he associates with these types of people. It is your dishonesty that cuts away at your credibility. It's not simply Rushton's science in question, it's the ideology that guides his research. These are legitimate inquiries. Sloughing it off as ad hominem only defeats your purpose, and his.
This is not true. You are either reading opinions from uninformed journalists, or you have relied on self-study and failed.
Incorrect. I'm up-to-date on the science and lack thereof. In fact, I've read Michael H. Hart's new book - a book Rushton is familiar with - and in it he explains the paucity of studies on Asians. He's Jewish, and claims there is plenty of evidence of Jewish high IQ yet he can't explain why Israel has relatively low IQ average. His book derogates blacks/African, pretends they're a homogeneous population, and contends that there is a lot of evidence of for IQ distribution, yet Lynn's book (cited to as evidence) shows that not much evidenc exists. Incosistent data, old data, one or two studies to represent entire countries, inability to take into account nutritional deficiency etc.
If so, where is the evidence of their accomplishments? I would be interested in your appraisal of sub-Saharan contributions to the following fields: astronomy, aviation, ship design, mathematics, physics, chemistry, law, government structure, education, and architecture.
Your line of questioning is bogus. Not only has sub-Saharan contributions been invaluable to civilization, but so has North Africa. Africa doesn't begin and end in Sub-Sarahan Africa.
It is well known that civilization arose in Africa and the Fertile Crescent (both of which had knowledge of math, ships, acrchitecture, astronomy, domestication of plants and animals, and so forth). These were brought to the Greeks during conquests. In Greece, refininements and advances to these and other fields were made, mind you more than 1000 years after the foundation knowledge was brought to them.
I could ask the same bogus question another way: Why didn't the Greeks achieve in their existence that we have in a mere 200 years? More advances have been made in the past 200 years than in all of human history. Science builds on itself in increments.
Regardless, accomplishments or lack thereof include cultural and environmental factors. One would not expect the Innuit to have maintained brick or mud houses. Why? Because there is nothing but snow all around them, not dirt. Secondly, if several thousand years ago, I asked you why haven't the British accomplished anything like the Greeks, you may have told me that they're incapable or that they're not as smart on average. History, culture, and environment can be deceiving.
The link is to a laughably ignorant paper. Brain volume has been shown to be consistently and positively correlated with intelligence on a within-group and between-group basis. With MRI, the correlation increases over cranial capacity measurements. With the method of correlated vectors, the correlation rises to about the same level as has been demonstrated by Haier and Jung on a location specific basis. When the volumes of cognitive centers are summed, half of the total variance in intelligence is explained.
I didn't ask for your rebuttal. I asked for Rushton's. I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal from a scientific journal. If you have it, please post it. Your post doesn't address much of what is in the paper.
Why should I care what you think about me? Do you care what I think about you? If so, you should be depressed.
If you think that by asking why you hide behind a fake name means that I "care" about you or that I want you to "care" about me, you've misunderstood why I asked you in the first place. Why not answer the question honestly?
Please show your data. What degree of overrepresentation have you found and what method was used? What was the size of your population group, that you used in your analysis? How was it selected?
<link>
All minority ethnic groups in Scotland are at least as or more likely to have degrees (or equivalent) than White Scottish people. Those most likely to have degrees from ethnic minority groups are Africans, people from ‘Other’ ethnic groups and Indians.
Pakistanis are also the most likely to have no qualifications (43%) followed by Chinese people (38%) and White Scottish people (35%). In contrast, only 15% of African people aged 16-74 years have no qualifications.
People aged 35-54 years:
The group with the highest proportion of people educated to degree level or above is African (61%).
People aged 55-74 years:
The group with the highest proportion of people educated to degree level is the African group (47%)
<link>
<link>
Black Africans in the United Kingdom are now the most highly educated members of British society. According to British Census, over 26 percent of adult black Africans in the United Kingdom hold academic qualifications higher than "A" or college levels compared with only 13.4 percent for white adults in the U.K. In short, blacks in the U.K. with African origins are outperforming British whites by a ratio of two to one.
Update: The 2001 Census (ONS, Crown Copyright 2003) showed 38.8% of all 16-74 year-old black Africans held higher qualifications, compared to a national average of 19.8%.
