Your reply reduces to this: “I, canspeccy, and my ilk perceive in events just what we want to perceive.”

One must note that you chose not to criticize any detail of my comment responding to your earlier comment. Rather you stooped to nothing but ad hominem attack. I do not object to ad hominem attacks, if they are accompanied by well-supported argument that justifies them. But because your reply lacked aught but personal insult and a reference that has been debunked and that you did not abstract and apply.

I had read your source's presentation and numerous others like it before I wrote my comment. Such sources do not operate in a world of science, but in a neurotic-politics domain the denizens of which convince themselves that their invalid studies are valid and produce data that imply what they want the data to imply.

I shall not bother to demonstrate the invalidity of your source, since (a) the demonstration would require I devote more than a couple hours to the project and (b) you bear the burden of proving that your source debunks the works of Jensen, Rushton, Herrnstein, Murray, and Lynn [hereinafter referenced as “Jensen/Lynn”].

Your source and like others try to dispute Jensen/Lynn for failing to account quite what Jensen/Lynn do account. Your source and like others begin “investigation” with a bias against the possibility that g is a near-absolute limit of the influence of environment. For your sources, that bias remains always an irresistible assumption felt as “scientific” truth.

Likely your source’s, and your, bias derives not only from a goody-goody political taint that parallels “God made all his children in his image” or “Jesus loves all the little children...Black and Yellow, Brown and White,” but also from the typically-religion-based-or-religion-influenced emotional need that humans be essentially qualitatively distinct from other beasts (as if humans have souls and other beasts do not).

I use the term “religion” to denote not only formal religion (Christianity, Islam.......), but also personal moral codes or influences of superego or racial narcissism or the religion of ultimately emotion-derived/emotion-limited “science” or “math” like the “science” that invented the “Big Bang” and the “math” that “explains” why 0! (zero factorial) is 1.00 or the statistics that believes in the “principle of indifference.”

A Border Collie can learn much better than a beagle can. A Border Collie can learn language, actually learn actual language — not merely learn to associate certain sounds with certain events, as Pavlov’s dog learned to drool when a “dinner” bell rang (and as Pavlov “learned” to “drool” when his dog learned). https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/dog-spies/how-to-teach-language-to-dogs/

A Beagle cannot learn language, but only drool — or maybe be conditioned to “heal” or sit or shut up — when sound-cues or hand-signs manifest.

But not all Border Collies can learn language well. And language-learning ability varies from Border Collie to Border Collie.

Canine within-breed-differences and between-breed-differences are governed by g. The same is true of humans — like it or not.

Your source, canspeccy, disregards the overarching significance of the undeniable fact that within the “Black” “race,” even within any certain “Black” biological family (mom, pop, kids, aunts, uncles, cousins.......) quite apparent cognitive-ability differences are inevitable and undeniable. Likewise the “race” of “East Asians,” “Ashkenazi Jews,” or European “Whites” and “East Asian,” “Ashkenazi Jewish,” or European “White” biological families. The implication destroys the rest of your source’s belief.

Other readers can pursue the sources I included in my comment of March 8, 2021 at 11:07 pm GMT (comment # 344) — https://www.unz.com/article/nigerians-jews-and-scrabble-an-update-on-the-iq-debate/#comment-4513088 — AND sources those sources reference — and also Richard Lynn, The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide (Washington Summit Publishers, 1st ed. June 6, 2008), ISBN-10 : 1593680287, ISBN-13 : 978-1593680282. The reader ought pursue also pertinent literature published in professional journals that treat the relevant science and statistics fields.

Concerning non-human animals’ cognition-capacities, see also, and compare, e.g., these:
* https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/chantek-orangutan-who-knew-sign-language-has-died-39-180964390/
* https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=the-orangutan-who-speaks-like-a-human
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207016880

If you respond, canspeccy, I shall not reply. You deserve disregard.

Replies: @CanSpeccy, @Bruce William