There is a lot of butthurt in this forum regarding a certian Greek player

[CavaliersFTW]

No it doesn't. It's just raw numbers.

There's nothing to interpret. It's just a group average of test scores.

Show us peer reviewed studies where the data originated please, if they exist.

[moe94]

You guys are really letting numbersix troll you on this right now?

Who takes a single thing he says seriously? At all? NumberSix is the biggest joker around.

[NumberSix]

That links directly to a wikipedia article, show me the links to the PEER REVIEWED studies that state the numbers you stated.

What are you talking about "peer reviews"? It's just a collection of numbers. People who take IQ tests score what they score. There's no room for interpretation. What ever group you identify as, your your scores are in that pool and there an average of what people in that pool score. This is seriously not difficult.

It's no different than asking what the Miami Heats FG% is. It's just a number. It is what it is.

[CavaliersFTW]

What are you talking about "peer reviews"? It's just a collection of numbers. People who take IQ tests score what they score. There's no room for interpretation. What ever group you identify as, your your scores are in that pool and there an average of what people in that pool score. This is seriously not difficult.

It's no different than asking what the Miami Heats FG% is. It's just a number. It is what it is.

Anyone, with any agenda could construct non-peer reviewed data, and limit the collection of data in any way they see fit so that erroneous conclusions could be drawn from it. Peer reviewed data is data that explains every single detail HOW data was collected, so that valid conclusions can be drawn from it.

You don't understand this? Really?

[NumberSix]

Anyone, with any agenda could construct non-peer reviewed data, and limit the collection of data in any way they see fit so that erroneous conclusions could be drawn from it. Peer reviewed data is data that explains every single detail HOW data was collected, so that valid conclusions can be drawn from it.

You don't understand this? Really?

You severely misunderstand the scientific method. First of all, peer reviews are not even for the purpose of verification. Just because something is yet to be verified doesn't mean it is invalidated. String theory has not been verified. It's not voided.

Second, where not talking about something to be peer reviewed. There's no controversy about IQ testing. There are not serious doubts about the legitimacy of IQ tests. All were talking about is statistics on how groups preform on accepted testing.

Statistics are what they are. If all the African Americans tested, together average a score of 85, then that's what it is. It's not like there are bunch of different methods for producing a mathematical average that have different outcomes.

If I told you that on average, men score a little higher on IQ tests than women, you probably would not doubt it for a second. You probably wouldn't even argue if I told you men outnumber women 8-1 in the genius range. But, when race comes up, people get all PC and squeamish. Simply accepting that these numbers are factual results doesn't make you a racist.

Like I said, you can argue why some groups score better or worse, but you can't argue the FACT that they indeed do have differences in the average scores.

[Bush4Ever]

Anyone, with any agenda could construct non-peer reviewed data, and limit the collection of data in any way they see fit so that erroneous conclusions could be drawn from it. Peer reviewed data is data that explains every single detail HOW data was collected, so that valid conclusions can be drawn from it.

You don't understand this? Really?

If you are actually interested in psychometrics vis-a-vis intelligence testing and race, you can find a number of meta-analytic studies on the topic with a quick google search, and all of the side issues involved.

Even though "he be trolling", he didn't pull that straight from his ass.

[CavaliersFTW]

You severely misunderstand the scientific method. First of all, peer reviews are not even for the purpose of verification. Just because something is yet to be verified doesn't mean it is invalidated. String theory has not been verified. It's not voided.

Second, where not talking about something to be peer reviewed. There's no controversy about IQ testing. There are not serious doubts about the legitimacy of IQ tests. All were talking about is statistics on how groups preform on accepted testing.

Statistics are what they are. If all the African Americans tested, together average a score of 85, then that's what it is. It's not like there are bunch of different methods for producing a mathematical average that have different outcomes.

Consider yourself exposed with this babble

Btw, I found the peer reviewed papers I was looking for, I'm reading over them now. 59 pages of data. Continue babbling on about how unimportant peer reviewed data is in science, clown, the paper I needed contains a helluva lot more information than Wikipedia's egregiously empty summary (wrote by someone with either a loose understanding of the peer reviewed study, or an agenda) which was then taken by you to post here, for people to draw false conclusions from

Snippets like this from the actual peer reviewed study:

"Black children adopted by middle-class
White families had a mean IQ of 117, whereas a similar group of children adopted
by middle-class Black families had a mean IQ of 104, both significantly above the
national Black mean of 85."

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Are just a fragment of what more revealing data can be found in there, including important information like how the data was collected, when the data was collected, what assumptions must be made to even validate such a collection of data (what arbitrary characteristics were used to even define 'race' and 'IQ') etc. There is far more revealing information in a peer reviewed study than the wikipedia shit you posted.

[Jameerthefear]

i'm black and i'm smarter than all of you
#breakingstereotypes

[NumberSix]

Consider yourself exposed with this babble

Btw, I found the peer reviewed papers I was looking for, I'm reading over them now. 59 pages of data. Continue babbling on about how unimportant peer reviewed data is in science, clown, the paper I needed contains a helluva lot more information than Wikipedia's egregiously empty summary (wrote by someone with either a loose understanding of the peer reviewed study, or an agenda) which was then taken by you to post here, for people to draw false conclusions from

Where did I EVER say that? Seriously. Show me 1 instance of me saying that or even mildly insinuating it.

Strawman arguments are for the mentally weak.

Snippets like this from the actual peer reviewed study:

"Black children adopted by middle-class
White families had a mean IQ of 117, whereas a similar group of children adopted
by middle-class Black families had a mean IQ of 104, both significantly above the
national Black mean of 85."

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Are just a fragment of what more revealing data can be found in there, including important information like how the data was collected, when the data was collected, etc. There is far more revealing information in a peer reviewed study than the wikipedia shit you posted.

What did I JUST say? Seriously, use your head. I specifically said that I'm not making any claim as to why the results are what they are. You can feel free to argue that there are environmental factors such as poverty, etc. That's fine. I'm making no claims. Simply giving the fact of the statistical average.

I simply said the national average for African Americans is 85 WHICH YOU JUST FCUKING CONFIRMED.




I love how CavaliersFTW immediately dismisses my data from "The Bell Curve" written by Philippe Rushton because it was on Wikipedia (Princeton's wiki, but still Wikipedia) and demands for peer reviewed papers, then comes back like "ah ha! I got it!" to "refute" me with the same data from....... Philippe Rushton.


#datlowIQlife

[BlazerRed]

This. Jeff will let basically anything go if it's making him money.

[NumberSix]

Nothing else from CavaliersFTW's dumbass?

[Milbuck]

Euroleague brings in the big bucks here.

No other explanation for someone who openly thinks Voprasplingberger Spattragoobulous would average 90ppg in the pros to not get banned.

[NumberSix]

CavaliersFTW might have committed the biggest epic fail in ISH history.

[Milbuck]

CavaliersFTW might have committed the biggest epic fail in ISH history.

Nah, I think you did by using the phrase "epic fail" in 2014.

[NumberSix]

Nah, I think you did by using the phrase "epic fail" in 2014.

Legendary blunder.