Exception, your honor!
I see that line of argument as a failure of imagination. One could legitimately argue that African (or Latin American, or wherever) societies have contributory liability for their own underdevelopment/instability – that it’s not simply all the fault of western colonialism/globalization – due to social or cultural tendencies that it would be up to those societies themselves to correct, w/o having to bring in a theory that implies they just can’t because of some sort of general cladistically-tied inherent intellectual inferiority. But people want some explanation as to why the societies don’t just change the sociocultural factors, as if one could just decide to do so.
[Warning: snark ahead]And in any case, considering that the Western Developed World has given us things like the Birthers, American Idol, the Jerry Springer Show, Creation Science, MTV’s Jackass, and Bernie Madoff’s clients, it seems like general intellectual superiority is NOT directly related to socioeconomic advancement.[/snark]
Yes, it does sound stupid, but that’s not an indictment of anything I said in that thread. The thread was not about the definition of “a person who believe race exists,” it was about the definition of “racist.”
I’m not seeing how Chief Pedant hadn’t already inserted his ‘all Africans are stupid’ crap into the thread:
So apparently the only reason the colonial powers in Africa didn’t develop social infrastructure is because Africans aren’t capable of sustaining it, or something. I don’t know how that’s not precisely the sort of shit this thread is about.
I think that part of it is the news we hear in Africa, which many seem to consider one large cultural and political entity, much like “Europe”. Much of the news that comes out of Africa is downright strange, and often related to spiritualism taken to violent extremes, like the death-to-gays laws in Uganda, muti killings, mutilations, and the like. The SDMB community tends to be atheist, and many look down on those that hold religious or spiritualist beliefs.
IMHO, it’s not necessarily racism, but an extension of the antipathy for religion and spiritualism.
To this point, the only word used was the vague “incapable,” (along with the unfortunate–but not explicit–phrase "brain power), that could be applied to lack of education, cultural constraints, or any number of other reasons, (obviously including inherent intelligence). My point is that until such time as the reason is given explicitly, it will not necessarily derail the thread, and introducing the topic in a response as a pre-emptive strike is not helpful.
There’s nothing “unfortunate” about his use of the phrase ‘brain power’. He means that Africans are genetically predisposed to low IQs. Since his contribution to that thread clearly relies on his known views about race & intelligence, the mere fact that he hasn’t elaborated on black American SAT scores or West African sprinters or whatever is irrelevant. He had already introduced the theories that even sven is quite rightly frustrated about into that thread.
It is not irrelevant. It is the point. I have no objection to this Pit thread, but until such time as he explicitly makes his IQ claims in the other thread, it is not appropriate for other posters to be dragging in an explicit condemnation of an implicit argument.
I don’t see what the number of pages has to do with it. If the thread has been hijacked, just ask the hijackers to start another thread to discuss that topic.
But I can see that it will help if other posters, such as even sven, report such hijacks early.
Eh. It was coming. There is no doubt where things were headed. And it would have ruined yet another thread, as it has ruined every single thread about Africa since dude showed up.
Well, even sven, I guess you have me on ignore (not sure why, you are probably one of the few people I have (so far) failed to call a dumbass at one time or another).
I’m not sure why you won’t address the central issue here, which is why it is “racist” to not automatically dismiss research indicating a difference in average IQ among people of different races (however that term is defined in any particular piece of research).
Because you’re a loud moron who can’t be bothered to educate yourself on the issues you talk about?
Speaking of people I’ve called a dumbass (deservedly) . . .
I was trying to answer a question and I am attacked like this!
You sir, are a cad… I cad I say!
Take heart. When everyone around you is a dumbass but you (in your opinion), it’s time for some soul searching.
If there were a Venn diagram of people who are racist, and people who keep bringing up research indicating that different races have different IQs, there’d be a pretty big overlap. You’re right that the circles aren’t exact: there are people who are naive, or ignorant, or unable to comprehend the scientific method, who aren’t racist but have been convinced by such research. But the majority of the folks I’ve encountered who keep bringing up such research evince other signs of racism.
Given that we don’t have a clear definition of intelligence or a clear understanding of human genetics or the development of the human brain yet, if you wish to discuss whether Africans have different intelligence than other races (which again, we don’t have a clear definition for the concept of “race”), you have to be willing to examine all possibilities, including the possibility that Africans may have superior intelligence to other races. Somehow, in these discussions, the people who advocate that intelligence is genetically linked tend not to contemplate that possibility.
On top of that, the evidence for innate intelligence that is usually brought up in these threads consists of pointing to transitory political, economic or social indicators, which isn’t actually scientific evidence of anything innately genetic, because the indicators being looked at are completely transitory. If someone is going to drag up something such as per-capita GDP as an indication of innate intelligence, then you have to start contemplating weird possibilities such as that the Saudis had lower innate intelligence until the 40s, when their innate intelligence suddenly shot up. Or the Chinese had extremely high innate intelligence, until the 1800s, when it dropped drastically, but now it’s been rising for the past 30 years. That, of course is nonsensical, but it’s basically what these racial intelligence advocates do in these threads.
If a thread has accumulated an additional 100+ posts that are following the hijack, the hijack has been successful. Posters interested in the original thread are going to have wandered off and will probably not bother to re-enter the thread to resume the initial discussion. This is not based on some hypothetical concept of board dynamics, but from having watched efforts to wrest control away from hijackers in previous years. Caught soon enough, a hijack can be shunted over to a separate thread, but once it gets past a particular point, my experience has been that it is an exercise in futility.
The racial intelligence data I’ve seen posted here (and have posted myself) are studies showing that even when opportunity is normalized, racial differences persist. Specifically:
- On IQ and standardized testing, black children from homes and schools of greater opportunity (higher income; higher parental education) underscore white and asian children from homes and schools of lower opportunity, and
- Given equal preparation and access to the same or increased educational help, black students underperform whites and asians on their post-college exams such as the MCAT and LSAT, and again on their post-grad exams such as Medical Licensing exams, and
3)In every quantitative science program, and particularly with respect to PhDs, blacks are severely under-represented. At the same time they have made substantial gains in social sciences, arts and sports, suggesting that some sort of institutionalized discrimination is an inadequate explanation.
That this observation is born out by examining disparate results at the level of whole countries is an affirmation of the hypothesis that races and populations differ in intelligence, and not the primary dataset, which deals with populations reasonably controlled for opportunity.
To the best of my knowledge, none of these studies has ever been refuted on this Board. Instead, the typical attitude usually expressed is that those who believe there are differences at a racial level suffer from inadequate knowledge or outright arbitrary racist views with a priori assumptions unsubstantiated by evidence.
The fact is, there is not a shred of evidence–not a shred–that populations are genetically equivalent. All evidence points to exactly the opposite position, and all refutations here are built around attacking that evidence (“Race is a poor category; intelligence is hard to measure; opportunity cannot be normalized…”) rather than just finding any actual evidence to the contrary. Given the billions we invest in educational opportunities and forty years of active recruitment and thousands of programs specifically targeted at under-represented populations, it boggles credulity to pretend that black under-representation is some sort of cultural phenomenon while white and asian over-representation is a historical fluke. Immigrant populations from asian countries flourish here in the US in quantitative sciences; sub-saharan African populations do not.
I have no problems whatsoever giving any group the benefit of a null hypothesis which states there is no difference in group intelligence. My problem is seeing a shred of evidence to support such a hypothesis, and underneath all the feel-good charitable rhetoric on this Board is a total absence of such evidence–an interesting departure from the normal pattern of demanding evidence for unsubstantiated allegations.
What evidence would you like us to examine which indicates populations are equivalent in potential? Look at the entire world; every political system and every societal structure. Res ipsa loquitur unless your lenses are rose-colored.