Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid

Author: MgtowDemon ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 87
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,747
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @PressF4Respect
    Lockdown making me really fat and bored.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @Athias
    "Black" is not a race. Even if one uses it as a placeholder for "African descent," then believing the anthropologists would also have you believe that everyone is of African descent.
    This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've implied that because it's possible to place all races into a broad category of "African descent" (which is debatable anyway), then there are no phenotypical distinctions if we sub-divided into "race". This fallacy is best understood by the layman when it is compared to colours. Sure, red, blue, green, orange etc. can be broadly defined as "colours" (the human race), but that doesn't mean we are not able to divide them into smaller groups of shades of the same colour (races). Similar to how it makes no sense to say there are distinctions between colours therefore we can't divide them, the same logic can be applied to human races.

    This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it.

    All of this is to ignore the fact that differing groups of humans evolved in different geographical regions throughout the world, and expecting them all to be precisely the same is belief in magic.

    No, it is not a "scientifically verifiable fact." The Intelligence Quotient, i.e. I.Q., is a psychometric, which in itself is an oxymoron. Psychology isn't a hard science. That means that there are no controls, and the results aren't replicable. This is the reason that the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3. Not to mention, despite years of effort, a causal link between genetic inheritance and I.Q. has not been and will never be substantiated. The I.Q. is the psychologist's bar trick. It doesn't measure intelligence. At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance." It's great for entertainment, but reckless when taken seriously.
    Whether I.Q. is a psychometric, and whether it's a hard science or not, isn't particularly relevant. There is no doubt that the science shows us I.Q. isn't a perfect measurement of intelligence, but that's besides the point. What we're interested in whether I.Q. probably measures something of practical importance, and the answer to that question is 'yes'.

    The question then becomes how accurate is I.Q. is in determining that. Whilst you've failed to reference any scientific material, I've already written an OP on covering the correlation between "success" and I.Q. On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence (debateart.com) . Depending on what you define as success (education level, job title, income level etc.), the correlate varies and isn't a static "0.3" as you've asserted without a shred of evidence.


    Clearly, despite there not being a perfect causal link, I.Q. most likely measures intelligence. Thus, what is more "reckless" is to ignore statistical probability.


  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,143
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @Greyparrot
    Lockdown making me really fat and bored.
    Can relate

  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @Greyparrot
    In a meritocracy, skin color means nothing. Either you can do a task competently or you can not.

    No DNA testing required.
    This loses hard to racial in-group bias. If races are only bothered whether their "own kind" gets into power/get resources/wins, and you're worried about having an even playing field, eventually you'll lose on the even playing field, a member of the racial in-group gets into power, and then gives his/her "own" a lot of free stuff and advantages, and thus destroy the even playing field. Apart from people who have been brainwashed into believing in individualism (mostly White people), this is how people behave.

    Take for example Jewish people. Keep in mind this isn't to bash Jews, because every other racial group would do this if they could. Jews are the most competent race in the world, in regards to intelligence, with an average I.Q. ranging from 108-115, depending on the study you look at. This often makes them the best candidate for jobs, in meritocracies, particularly the more cerebral ones which tend to attract a lot of power. Then they get the job, start practicing racial in-group bias for their own kind, and suddenly you end up with a case like America's where Jews own 50% of the largest corporations in America, despite being 2% of the population. Then the other racial groups gets mad that Jews control everything, then they make up stuff like "Jews are Satanic" or "All Jewish people are scamming liars", not understanding at all what happened, and so the Jews get kicked out of the country (or worse).

    This has happened over 100 times in history just with the Jews alone, and will continue to happen with any person with a racial in-group bias that gets into power because people, like you, don't understand why meritocracies don't work.



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,747
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @MgtowDemon
    Meritocracies work just fine in Jingoist nations where there is only one tribe comprised of one nation.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @Greyparrot
    Meritocracies work just fine in Jingoist nations where there is only one tribe comprised of one nation.
    That's actually fair enough. Perhaps you do understand after all.

    Trouble is, how do we get these Western nations to this stage? Promoting a 'White America policy' isn't something non-whites will readily accept.

  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 394
    1
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    Transracial adoption studies show that the alleged IQ genetic inferiority stuff is pretty garbage. See for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,747
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Death23
    I guess disrupting the western family as BLM advocates isn't such a great idea according to your study.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @Greyparrot
    I guess disrupting the western family as BLM advocates isn't such a great idea according to your study.
    Whoah slow down. Don't expect a known shit-poster to have any kind of consistency with his political views. All he wants to do is copy-paste Wikipedia, Youtube and some imgur memes. He actually didn't just post his hyperlink by itself this time (a truly rare feat for him), and instead wrote a whole sentence to accompany his copy-paste, including a bonus half-sentence to introduce his hyperlink.

    If you ask for logical consistency with what he shit-posts with, you might accidentally turn him into a worthwhile poster, and we certainly don't want that.



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,747
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @MgtowDemon
    If you ask for logical consistency with what he shit-posts with, you might accidentally turn him into a worthwhile poster, and we certainly don't want that.

    I'm not going to feed any gossip about users on this site. I just address the ideas and content.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @Greyparrot
    I'm not going to feed any gossip about users on this site. I just address the ideas and content.
    Alright. Here's the "content" that proves the "idea" that he's a shit-poster who often just posts one-liner hyperlinks, instead of contributing anything useful:







    You're welcome.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,767
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @MgtowDemon

    Language occurs.....It's the nature of the beast.

    Political weapons dripping with slanderous vitriol.

    Thank you for this overly literal, autistic take...... Three cheers for language.








  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 394
    1
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    he's a shit-poster who often just posts one-liner hyperlinks.

    You have damages. Perhaps you should whine to the mods. Tell them that you were innocently reading the forum, posting your raging incel bigot bullshit when the big bad Death posted a transracial adoption study. Keep saying “whilst” or hurling insults, perhaps if there’s someone as stupid and ignorant as you in the audience they may be convinced by appealing to intellectual snobbery and ad hominem attacks.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,747
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Death23
    So much gossipy ad-hom posts, you would think this was Twitter, not a place to debate ideas.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,020
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @MgtowDemon
    This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've implied that because it's possible to place all races into a broad category of "African descent" (which is debatable anyway), then there are no phenotypical distinctions if we sub-divided into "race". This fallacy is best understood by the layman when it is compared to colours. Sure, red, blue, green, orange etc. can be broadly defined as "colours" (the human race), but that doesn't mean we are not able to divide them into smaller groups of shades of the same colour (races). Similar to how it makes no sense to say there are distinctions between colours therefore we can't divide them, the same logic can be applied to human races.
    No such fallacy was imputed. You never read a statement on my part which stated race does not exist. I stated, "'Black' is not a race." If you're going to associate the term "Black" with those of "African descent," then everyone would be "Black."

    Whether I.Q. is a psychometric
    I.Q. is a pyschometric, which once again is an oxymoron. There's no "whether" about it.

    whether it's a hard science or not,
    It isn't a hard science; there's no "whether" about that either.

    isn't particularly relevant.
    Yes it is. You claim that differences in particular I.Q.'s are a "scientifically verifiable fact." Psychology is a soft science which doesn't conduct experiments with controls nor does it replicate its results. So what is it you're "scientifically verifying"? Assumptions based on, at best, ecological inferences.

    There is no doubt that the science shows us I.Q. isn't a perfect measurement of intelligence, but that's besides the point.
    It isn't a measure of intelligence. It's being "perfect" is besides the point.

    The question then becomes how accurate is I.Q. is in determining that. Whilst you've failed to reference any scientific material, I've already written an OP on covering the correlation between "success" and I.Q. On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence (debateart.com) . Depending on what you define as success (education level, job title, income level etc.), the correlate varies and isn't a static "0.3" as you've asserted without a shred of evidence.
    No, I did not "assert"; I "cited." It's not a debate. Feel free to confirm at your leisure.

    I.Q. correlates even better with what we colloquially define as intelligent.
    And if you look into the history of I.Q. you'd discover that what was once colloquially defined as "intelligent" was physical strength. So what does that indicate about the attempted measures of the I.Q.? Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?)

    All of which mean nothing. You can throw as many links as you want. Unless you can demonstrate an understanding of I.Q. and that which it attempts to measure, then your links will only inform the assumptions of those who are no more "authorities" on the topic than you or I.

    Clearly, despite there not being a perfect causal link
    There has been no causal link demonstrated; perfect has nothing to do with it.

    I.Q. most likely measures intelligence
    In (hard) science, there's no such thing as "most likely measures." It either does or it doesn't.

    Thus, what is more "reckless" is to ignore statistical probability.
    Not a statistical probability; it's an ecological inference which itself imputes fallacious reasoning. It's very akin to the Poverty/Crime correlation.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @Athias
    No such fallacy was imputed. You never read a statement on my part which stated race does not exist. I stated, "'Black' is not a race." If you're going to associate the term "Black" with those of "African descent," then everyone would be "Black."
    You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:

    "This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it."

    Now, using data-based arguments like this above, is it unreasonable to assume that 'Black' could easily be replaced with 'African', given that African Americans and Africans use the term to describe themselves? I didn't think so, and so becoming hung up on this semantic is unwise.

    As for the latter part of this comment, again, the research I provided showed that we can sub-divide people into other categories other than "African descent" (Asian and European), all the whilst retaining the category of "African descent". Hence, if we use the term Black/African, not everyone would have to be racially classified as of "African descent".

    I.Q. is a pyschometric, which once again is an oxymoron. There's no "whether" about it. It isn't a hard science; there's no "whether" about that either. Yes it is. You claim that differences in particular I.Q.'s are a "scientifically verifiable fact." So what is it you're "scientifically verifying"? Assumptions based on, at best, ecological inferences. It isn't a measure of intelligence. It's being "perfect" is besides the point. In (hard) science, there's no such thing as "most likely measures." It either does or it doesn't.
    These objections all fall under the broad category of "I.Q. calculation is a soft science", so I will respond to them all at once.

    I.Q. calculation is a soft science that relies on correlation instead causation -- I agree. It relies on correlation because, currently, science is not able to determine all the genes which generate the 'g' factor (which is intelligence). Are we then to say that intelligence is a myth that doesn't exist? Or, using the strong correlations which are produced in I.Q. calculations, could we determine that despite not knowing for sure (a casual link), we can say that I.Q. *probably* measures intelligence?

    Which of those seems more reasonable to you?

    No, I did not "assert"; I "cited." It's not a debate. Feel free to confirm at your leisure.
    You did not, at any stage, cite your claim that "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3."  Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) . Hence, it was an assertion.

    Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to cite the claims you're making, so asking me to "confirm" your uncited claims isn't reasonable.

    And if you look into the history of I.Q. you'd discover that what was once colloquially defined as "intelligent" was physical strength. So what does that indicate about the attempted measures of the I.Q.? Does it "measure" intelligence, or reinforces the standards on which it is based (i.e. classroom discipline?)
    Believe it or not, we are not living in the past, and hence we don't have primitive conceptions of intelligence (if that was even true, since you haven't cited anything you claimed, let alone this claim). It would be appreciated if you started to cite even the odd thing you say.

    Right now, our colloquial understanding on intelligence correlates extremely well with I.Q. results. Again, is it more likely that I.Q. is measuring nothing and all the studies were coincidental, or perhaps, that after numerous studies have replicated the same result, I.Q. is measuring something real that we haven't perfectly quantified yet?

    Psychology is a soft science which doesn't conduct experiments with controls nor does it replicate its results.
    You're incorrect because these studies did replicate the results with near unerring accuracy. This is what happens when you get hung up on word games about terms like "soft science": this science is conducted, the results show strong correlation which is replicated across all studies, and you no longer have a leg to stand on. Studies cited are re-posted below:


    All of which [the studies MgtowDemon referenced] mean nothing. You can throw as many links as you want. Unless you can demonstrate an understanding of I.Q. and that which it attempts to measure, then your links will only inform the assumptions of those who are no more "authorities" on the topic than you or I.
    The fact that you think a collection of studies, of which use the scientific method showing their methodologies, all amount to meaning "nothing", is ridiculous. If you have an anti-science stance that prohibits you from engaging with scientific research, then you are not fit for debate.

    These "authorities" have shown their workings. This is not a case wherein the studies are behind a paywall and I've said 'just believe me', or I blankly assert that 'the authorities agree with me on this'. You are able to verify the veracity of the claims made, analysing their methodologies and logical conclusions. That is what you should do.

    "ecological inference"
    This is a word game that is actually meaningful and would give a lot of credence to your argument. Unfortunately, it misaligns with the data I've provided. 

    I typed this into Google and found this definition: "drawing conclusions about individual-level behavior from aggregate-level data." If there is an issue with this, let me know.

    Anyway, if I were to cite research that had the methodology of 'people looked at other people and determined how smart they were.", this would precisely be the ecological inference that you refer to. However, there was an extra step involving an I.Q. tests, of which was then compared to these ecological inferences. *That* is the crucial step because now we can see if these "ecological inferences" have rhyme and reason backed by I.Q, and the answer is that they do. Hence, the studies I provided are not purely "ecological inferences", in fact they are testing to see if the ecological inferences have any merit. Thus, no fallacy was committed. 

    It either does or it doesn't. Not a statistical probability.
    Is correlation a completely worthless metric? You are arguing that it is. Do I need to explain why that isn't correct?
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    You have damages. Perhaps you should whine to the mods. Tell them that you were innocently reading the forum, posting your raging incel bigot bullshit when the big bad Death posted a transracial adoption study. Keep saying “whilst” or hurling insults, perhaps if there’s someone as stupid and ignorant as you in the audience they may be convinced by appealing to intellectual snobbery and ad hominem attacks.
    Imagine getting this mad at someone calling out your shit-posting xD

    Anyway, if anyone wants to actually discuss the transracial adoption this shit-poster posted (which is actually worth discussing with worthwhile people), let me know because I know the response by heart.

  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 394
    1
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    Unfortunately, African Americans are far more likely to be disadvantaged than Whites because there is a large, negative genetic component (i.e. not racism). In essence, African Americans create their own disadvantage, and thus that doesn't need to be controlled for. If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap would disappear entirely, because you would be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place. Genetic components such as lower I.Q [1][2], poor delayed gratification propensity [3], presence of the 'warrior gene' [4] etc. create this gene differential between African American and White populations, and thus one group, on average, becomes more "disadvantaged".
    Apparently the view here is that it doesn't count as racism if there's no racial hatred - That racial hatred is an essential element for racism. It is not. Racism is a belief, not an emotion.

    a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race


    The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

    The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

    Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief.

    the belief that some races are better than others, or the unfair treatment of someone because of his or her race

    the theory or opinion that a certain race is superior to another or others because of certain inborn characteristics.

    a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement

    a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement

    Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

    the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

    the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    "All of your sources, scientific research and data is wrong because my definitions say so." -- BrainDeath23

    He's so upset that he literally one-lined 11 different hyperlinks in one post, as well as bothering to format them all to make it not look like one-liners, something that would usually take him 11 posts xD

    Is there a better shit-poster than BrainDeath on Dart? It's hard to imagine so.


  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 394
    1
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    Quick change the subject because you are losing.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    Uh oh back to the usual one-liners again hahahaha.

  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 394
    1
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    Make a case against them. Credibility is so low in online forms often it’s only the evidence that really matters. Post a link with the evidence is all that’s really needed.

    And I think you said something about certain acts being racist one of them was drawing attention to the white black IQ gap. The fact that it exists isn’t racist, and It’s not a per se racist thing to do but it is something that racists would probably do so it would tend to raise Suspicions that the person saying it is racist depending on the context. If it’s an academic talking about achievement gaps in an academic context it’s probably not really going to be a racist act but on the other hand if it’s a known racist user on an online forum then yeah it probably is motivated by racial hatred. 
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 158
    0
    2
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    Make a case against them.
    THAT IS LITERALLY THE OP HAHAHHAHAHAH

    HAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH

    HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHA

    How are you a real person LOL

    Please stop I am actually dying XD
  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 394
    1
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    Uh the OP is about “racist” and “racism”. Doesnt say anything about “one-liners”. Nice try though.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,020
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @MgtowDemon
    You've, for some reason, left out the entirety of the study I provided which provided to prove my point. I'm going to copy-paste it so you have another chance to respond to it:

    "This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it."

    Now, using data-based arguments like this above, is it unreasonable to assume that 'Black' could easily be replaced with 'African', given that African Americans and Africans use the term to describe themselves? I didn't think so, and so becoming hung up on this semantic is unwise.

    As for the latter part of this comment, again, the research I provided showed that we can sub-divide people into other categories other than "African descent" (Asian and European), all the whilst retaining the category of "African descent". Hence, if we use the term Black/African, not everyone would have to be racially classified as of "African descent".
    No, I disregarded it. But after perusing the study, I've come to the conclusion that you haven't read the entirety of your study, much less pay attention to the language used.

    These objections all fall under the broad category of "I.Q. calculation is a soft science",
    Very good.

    I.Q. calculation is a soft science that relies on correlation instead causation -- I agree. It relies on correlation because, currently, science is not able to determine all the genes which generate the 'g' factor (which is intelligence).
    So how do you justify asserting that I.Q. differentials are a "scientifically verifiable fact?"

    Are we then to say that intelligence is a myth that doesn't exist?
    Non sequitur. I never stated or insinuated that intelligence didn't exist.

    Or, using the strong correlations which are produced in I.Q. calculations, could we determine that despite not knowing for sure (a casual link), we can say that I.Q. *probably* measures intelligence?
    It's not that we don't know "for sure." We don't know. And once again, "probably measures" is not part of (hard) scientific lexicon.

    Which of those seems more reasonable to you?
    Seem is not an argument. Seem is your impression.

    You did not, at any stage, cite your claim that "the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3."  Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) . Hence, it was an assertion.
    Introduce yourself to the many meanings of the term, "cite," one of which includes "mentioning as a statement of fact," the context of my use. I don't have to provide you a link, nor will I.

    Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to cite the claims you're making,
    No one charged you with the responsibility of "citing my claims." I stated you were free to confirm at your own leisure.

    asking me to "confirm" your uncited claims isn't reasonable.
    Then don't. Once again, "at your own leisure."

    Believe it or not, we are not living in the past, and hence we don't have primitive conceptions of intelligence (if that was even true, since you haven't cited anything you claimed, let alone this claim). It would be appreciated if you started to cite even the odd thing you say.
    A conception no less, which by your description is malleable contingent on our "colloquial" understanding. So once again, what does that indicate about I.Q.'s attempted measure? And again, introduce yourself to the definitions of "cite."

    You're incorrect because these studies did replicate the results with near unerring accuracy. This is what happens when you get hung up on word games about terms like "soft science": this science is conducted, the results show strong correlation which is replicated across all studies, and you no longer have a leg to stand on. Studies cited are re-posted below:
    Assumptions and arbitrary "quantification" based on correlations aren't "replicable results."

    The fact that you think a collection of studies, of which use the scientific method showing their methodologies, all amount to meaning "nothing", is ridiculous.
    The scientific method is a set of principles, the subject of which doesn't fall under my criticism. I have no intention on reading material about assumptions based on impressions of abstracts which can't be quantified.

    If you have an anti-science stance that prohibits you from engaging with scientific research, then you are not fit for debate.
    I'm not the one pedaling "psychometrics."

    These "authorities" have shown their workings.
    Who is disputing this?

    This is not a case wherein the studies are behind a paywall and I've said 'just believe me', or I blankly assert that 'the authorities agree with me on this'.
    What does that matter?

    You are able to verify the veracity of the claims made, analysing their methodologies and logical conclusions. That is what you should do.
    No, I'm able to verify their conclusions. "Veracity" is different.

    This is a word game that is actually meaningful and would give a lot of credence to your argument. Unfortunately, it misaligns with the data I've provided. 

    I typed this into Google and found this definition: "drawing conclusions about individual-level behavior from aggregate-level data." If there is an issue with this, let me know.

    Anyway, if I were to cite research that had the methodology of 'people looked at other people and determined how smart they were.", this would precisely be the ecological inference that you refer to. However, there was an extra step involving an I.Q. tests, of which was then compared to these ecological inferences. *That* is the crucial step because now we can see if these "ecological inferences" have rhyme and reason backed by I.Q, and the answer is that they do. Hence, the studies I provided are not purely "ecological inferences", in fact they are testing to see if the ecological inferences have any merit. Thus, no fallacy was committed. 
    Ecological inferences never have merit because it is fundamentally based on a division fallacy.

    Is correlation a completely worthless metric? You are arguing that it is. Do I need to explain why that isn't correct?
    Only when argued cum hoc ergo propter hoc and misunderstood as a "scientifically verifiable fact."