I apologize to everyone.

[Fragony]

This is exactly what I mean.

Lynn has been discredited by just about everyone. He's a hack.

No he wasn't, can't just decide things like that, it really has to be true; classical leftist mistake.

[HoreTore]

No he wasn't, can't just decide things like that, it really has to be true; classical leftist mistake.

You're using discredited science to back up your claim. Who's "just deciding things" now, eh?

Lynn is accused of both confirmation bias and methodological errors. In scientific terms, that's a death sentence. I can understand that you desperately want such things to be true, as it would fit your political views perfectly. Sadly, there is no science to back it up.

Kinda like how Stalin went with Lamarckism, another discredited theory, because it fit with his political aims. Lamarck was a hack, just as Lynn is.

EDIT: your wiki article contains a quote which sums up the scientific community's view on Lynn pretty well:

"(the book's) sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."

[Fragony]

You're using discredited science to back up your claim. Who's "just deciding things" now, eh?

Lynn is accused of both confirmation bias and methodological errors. In scientific terms, that's a death sentence. I can understand that you desperately want such things to be true, as it would fit your political views perfectly. Sadly, there is no science to back it up.

Kinda like how Stalin went with Lamarckism, another discredited theory, because it fit with his political aims. Lamarck was a hack, just as Lynn is.

Of course he is accused of both comfirmation errors and methodological errors, that's normal, did you ever spend a day in university. Where they have occured isn't left out, it is perfectly obvious to the writers that their calculations aren't set in stone but merely a statistical probability

[HopAlongBunny]

To paraphrase a psyc prof I had: IQ tests accurately and reliably measure how well people score on IQ tests. So the question becomes what exactly does that prove?

[HoreTore]

Of course he is accused of both comfirmation errors and methodological errors, that's normal, did you ever spend a day in university. Where they have occured isn't left out, it is perfectly obvious for the writers that their calculations aren't set in stone but merely a statistical probability

Nah, I went to a university college, as they have a much higher focus on didactics than the university does.

Lynn's theories simply aren't accepted by the scientific community, and thus becomes junk science. A theory isn't fact when only supported by a few, it needs to be supported by many. Lynn's theories just aren't. They're hardly accepted by anyone outside white supremacist groups.

To paraphrase a psyc prof I had: IQ tests accurately and reliably measure how well people score on IQ tests. So the question becomes what exactly does that prove?

Indeed.

[Fragony]

Lynn's theories simply aren't accepted by the scientific community, and thus becomes junk science. A theory isn't fact when only supported by a few, it needs to be supported by many. Lynn's theories just aren't. They're hardly accepted by anyone outside white supremacist groups.

Leftist reflex, mistaking how you want things to be and how things are. The authors even have good intentions on how to improve things, that white-supremacy groups use it, well sure they do. But I doubt they read it.

[HoreTore]

Leftist reflex, mistaking how you want things to be and how things are. The authors even have good intentions on how to improve things, that white-supremacy groups use it, well sure they do. But I doubt they read it.

I'm not commenting on whether his theory is true or not. My point is that his theory isn't accepted by the scientific community, and is thus invalid.

Stalin wanted Lamarckism to be true because it fits with his political views. You want Lynn's theory to be true because it fits your political views. Both of you disregard the fact that it's not accepted by other scientists. I see little difference between the brains of you and Stalin.

EDIT: Here is a short paper which highlights many of the criticisms other scientists have on Lynn's "research". If you have access to jstor(or similar), I can give you much more.

[Fragony]

I read that. It remains a chicken and egg story. But of what use is it to dismiss statistically sound results? You should really be happy with the conclusions as the aim is on development, not a genetical defect even if it might look like that at first. But it is a pretty solid examination on IQ-differences and wealth, making it more of a question rather than statement