Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1201  
Old 04-13-2018, 05:26 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Last call!
Special pleading by cherry picking special ed spending.


Quote:
Research shows that in Pennsylvania’s public schools skin color, not economics, determines how much money districts get.



And from your cite:

Quote:
We find that, on average, poor and minority students receive between 1-2 percent more resources than non-poor or white students in their districts, equivalent to about $65 per pupil. Although average within-district spending on poor and minority students is positive, not all districts spend more money on these students—in the most unequal districts, they receive between $300-$500 less per pupil.

Socio-economically disadvantaged students are more likely to qualify for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as well has have more barriers to success.

Nothing here says that "crackers are smarter than them negros"

Once again you are cherry picking stats to fit your pre-existing biases and ignoring the complexities that are involved.
  #1202  
Old 04-13-2018, 05:47 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,567
Here is a more accessable cite, that will demonstrate some of the complexities.


https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploa...tionTrust1.pdf


But also note this little gem, that helps hide some of the numbers in the more urban areas.

Quote:
"Census Bureau’s Public Elementary–Secondary
Education Finance Data — our source of funding
information — does not include charter schools unless they
are operated by a traditional school district, our analysis
excludes independently operated charters, as well as districts
that only operate charter schools."
And note that 1-2% spending difference that ignores the 10% of students that are in private or charter schools, which are far more likely to be white and/or high income.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgc.asp


But it does work well for cooking the books if you want to distill into a single set of digits to justify your racism.
  #1203  
Old 04-13-2018, 06:10 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,567
For those who actually care about data.

Here is the most comprehensive study to date but note.

"Taken together, the 74 genetic variants explain roughly half of 1% of the variation across individuals in educational attainment”

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/h...pdf?sequence=1

Also the general consensus from the palaeoanthropologist field is that average intelligence probably hasn't changed much for 100,000 years, or before we left Africa mostly due to the challenges of novel mutations gaining foot with a larger population base.

Studies have also shown that:

“If you are genetically predisposed to have a lot of education, you are also predisposed to have fewer children.”

I know this will be lost when arguing with someone who's position is based on having a non-defined elite group, but in general we should consider our relatives for the past 100K years to be our intellectual equals.

In fact there is some evidence that this is leading to a general reduction in "IQ" over the decades.

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727

Last edited by rat avatar; 04-13-2018 at 06:12 PM.
  #1204  
Old 04-14-2018, 02:31 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
—Cave painting started much earlier outside of Africa than within it.
So what? Abstract art started in Africa, way before Europe.

And you're completely ignorant of how unstudied Africa is vs Europe, from an archaeology standpoint, if you think this point means anything.
Quote:
Virtually all modern technology was developed outside of sub-Saharan Africa rather than within it.
Yes, we've had several threads on how colonialism retarded African progress. Nice of you to remind us of the innate savagery of Europeans once again.

Oh, it's not innate, you say? Gosh, imagine that...
Quote:
IQ scores for those descended from populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa are significantly higher than the scores for those descended from sub-Saharan African populations. This includes places that, like Africa, were colonized by the West until the mid-20th century.
So are you arguing all forms of colonialism are the same, now? What happened to the gentle Indian paternalsim of your racist fuckstick predecessor Mills?
Quote:
—No black mathematician has ever won the Fields Medal, not even in recent decades when the cultural pressure to at least name one as a token has become great.
Which easily gives the lie to anyone arguing that SJWs are in charge.

And only one woman has ever won it. Is that because women are also just inferior to men in intelligence. Or, you know, other reasons, same as the dearth of Black mathematicians.
Quote:

A non-genetic explanation for all this is possible. But it does not spring from “scientific parsimony”. Nor does it make a sensible “prior” or “null hypothesis” unless you are starting with political correctness and working backward.
Naah, it makes perfect sense - as long as you're not starting with racism and working backwards. Which, of course, excludes a dumb fuck like you.
  #1205  
Old 04-14-2018, 02:36 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
—Egypt is not part of sub-Saharan Africa.
It's not part of Eurasia, either, so what's your point?
  #1206  
Old 04-14-2018, 02:52 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Maya Angelou[...] became mega-famous by speaking at the 1993 inaugural
At last I see your actual intellectual problem* - you have no fucking clue how to distinguish cause and effect in that D-K rattlebox you call a brain, do you, you poor simpleton? It all makes sense now. Disdain is now ever so slightly tinged with pity.

* Well, one of - there's also the memory and illiteracy issues.
  #1207  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:24 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Kimstu, I’m disappointed that you are signing off on rat avatar’s extreme “nurture” position (which, admittedly, is still pretty common among social scientists). Even the scientists who wrote in Vox, and certainly the guy in the New York Times, disavow that sort of “race has no biological basis” position.
Nonsense. Nobody is claiming (at least, I'm not and I didn't see any evidence that rat avatar or any other poster here is either) that there is no biological basis for any shared physical characteristics.

But to try to extrapolate from that any consistent biological basis for superficial "racial" categories is bullshit. It is well established that two people who look "racially" dissimilar can nonetheless be more closely related genetically to each other than to people who look more "racially" similar to them. If there is no reliable correlation between superficially defined racial category and closeness of genetic relationship, then there's no biological basis for race.

What part of that do you have a problem with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
BTW, speaking of strawmen: what’s with implying that I’ve said Australian aborigines or Native Americans are low IQ?
Well, you are maintaining that racial-group differences in IQ test scores are at least partly caused by genetic differences. And Native Americans have lower average IQ test scores than whites/Europeans, as do Australian aboriginal people and Inuits.

So, given that you're claiming that climate challenges and distance traversed are primary drivers of selection for intelligence among prehistoric peoples, what's your explanation of why, say, Australian aborigines and Native Americans don't have the highest IQ levels?
  #1208  
Old 04-14-2018, 03:01 PM
orcenio orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,053
The "Africans/Blacks never invented/did 'x'...." Is one of the oldest circulating internet racist rallying cries.

With a little sleuthing you can find entire lists developed of supposedly "proof of black inferiority" talking points that were collected and disseminated by internet hate groups to use as propaganda. I'm sure many people (right here on the SDMB) are familiar with new members arriving on this board only to preach "blacks never"... invented the wheel, or written language, or math, or boats, etc. -I'm reluctant to even link to such trash, but you can find alt-right youtubers making these exact claims, no doubt, after being exposed to them via internet hate groups.-

Why do this? I think the value of making these claims comes from common shared ignorance of Africa and its ultimate goal is to use your own ignorance against you. I can make 100 claims on the life cycle of the nematode but how many are equipt to challenge them? The fact of the matter is we are all ignorant of both Africans and the African continent (we are so ignorant that we often cannot refer to the place/people as anything but "Africa" and not as any smaller individualized pieces of that whole). However if you do try to fight the claims with reason and facts the conversation almost always goes like this:

Racialist: African/Blacks never did 'x'
Anti-Racialist: Here's an example of 'x' in Africa
Racialist 1: That is not a true/complex enough example of 'x'
Racialist 2: Those are not true blacks/Africans.
Racialist 3: Those were done by non-locals (Arabs/Europeans/Asians) traders/invaders/colonizers.
Racialist 4: 'x' was done by Arabs/Europeans/Asians first! Africans came well after.

If you take a different route and ask why is 'x' being used as the key for black/African inferiority. The answer often is that there is nothing special about 'x,' it just represents a wider pattern of dysfunction/inferiority; thus the 'x' gold standard can be dropped and exchanged for the 'y' gold standard (and the 'z' one after that...) at the drop of a hat. This is why giving facts and debunking their claims rarely lead to fruitful exchanges.

Any example of black/African non-excellence is the gold standard of black/African inferiority.

No matter how often you show that, yes, one can find plenty examples of African art, language, religion, cities, technology, sea travel, farming, trading, infrastructure, etc... It does not matter. A racialist just changes that nebulous goal post to be something esoteric like
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
"No black mathematician has ever won the Fields Medal"
Odd eh? Not if you have racialist beliefs that need defending. Any fig leaf will do for this task. Any fig leaf must do.
__________________
This is not me being a nice person, this is me conforming to boards rules.

Last edited by orcenio; 04-14-2018 at 03:06 PM.
  #1209  
Old 04-14-2018, 10:42 PM
nachtmusick nachtmusick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I agree with rat avatar, David Reich is tone deaf, and the response from other researchers points to what I noticed before.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bfopinion/r...VOw#.wuWLM6gdo

I think that Reich and some researchers are also using a very wide brush that ignores that while there may be genetic differences regarding intelligence among the human race they are not reason enough to defend racism, and many of the ones he appears to criticise are mostly deniers in the popular press; but when I check issues like climate change or planetary disasters, it is clear to me that that is par for the course and Reich looks very naive there. However, most researchers are not like Reich is worrying about, and most of the posters here warning others about Murray and their ilk are also not like that.
David Reich absolutely should be tone deaf when he is discussing his views on a subject about which few people know more than he does. When this subject gets raised, it's people like David Reich who we should turn to, and who should feel free to speak up honestly. But they seldom do, because there is no chance they won't be accused of being "tone deaf" and of defending racism. I'll bet Reich wouldn't have stuck his head over the parapet this time either if it wasn't for the fact that he had just written a book on the subject.

And that Buzzfeed article is pretty weak sauce.

First of all, it's Buzzfeed. Why didn't the NYT print the letter? I understand they were given the opportunity, but declined. I can't imagine they did so because they thought that their readership would not be receptive to the content, or that they didn't want to get embroiled in a controversy. Media outlets love controversy; I'll bet Ezra Klein is still high-fiving the other Vox editors over how much attention they've gotten over this whole episode.

Secondly, the letter is signed by 67 researchers that apparently don't do a hell of a lot of research in the field of genetics. So where do they get off telling a prominent geneticist what he is or is not allowed to say about genetics research? Where are the rest of the 139 geneticists that came out against Nicholas Wade? If what Reich wrote is so off-base, maybe these geneticists are the ones who should be writing a letter.

Reich wrote this in response to critics:

“Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

So great; we can all agree about something.

He then goes into the nuances, which make great reading, and than concludes with this:

In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected. And I think everyone can understand that even if we do not yet have any idea about what the differences are, we do not need to be worried about what we will find because we can already be sure that any differences will be small (far smaller than those among individuals).

This is a key point. We are talking about differences that are probably so small that they only have symbolic meaning. But therein lies the entire conflict. To accept that there may be any difference at all is to feed our tribal inclinations, but to to deny any difference at all is to stifle our intellect.
  #1210  
Old 04-14-2018, 10:47 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 28,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
David Reich absolutely should be tone deaf when he is discussing his views on a subject about which few people know more than he does. When this subject gets raised, it's people like David Reich who we should turn to, and who should feel free to speak up honestly. But they seldom do, because there is no chance they won't be accused of being "tone deaf" and of defending racism. I'll bet Reich wouldn't have stuck his head over the parapet this time either if it wasn't for the fact that he had just written a book on the subject.

And that Buzzfeed article is pretty weak sauce.

First of all, it's Buzzfeed. Why didn't the NYT print the letter? I understand they were given the opportunity, but declined. I can't imagine they did so because they thought that their readership would not be receptive to the content, or that they didn't want to get embroiled in a controversy. Media outlets love controversy; I'll bet Ezra Klein is still high-fiving the other Vox editors over how much attention they've gotten over this whole episode.

Secondly, the letter is signed by 67 researchers that apparently don't do a hell of a lot of research in the field of genetics. So where do they get off telling a prominent geneticist what he is or is not allowed to say about genetics research? Where are the rest of the 139 geneticists that came out against Nicholas Wade? If what Reich wrote is so off-base, maybe these geneticists are the ones who should be writing a letter.

Reich wrote this in response to critics:

“Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

So great; we can all agree about something.

He then goes into the nuances, which make great reading, and than concludes with this:

In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected. And I think everyone can understand that even if we do not yet have any idea about what the differences are, we do not need to be worried about what we will find because we can already be sure that any differences will be small (far smaller than those among individuals).

This is a key point. We are talking about differences that are probably so small that they only have symbolic meaning. But therein lies the entire conflict. To accept that there may be any difference at all is to feed our tribal inclinations, but to to deny any difference at all is to stifle our intellect.
There's lots of people out there (few of them specialists in the field) advocating that we can and should already accept that black people are inherently inferior on average, intellectually speaking, due to genetics, with very spare and entirely indirect (and entirely non-genetic) evidence for, and ignoring direct evidence against. It's entirely appropriate that such folks be harshly criticized and challenged. That's not just any old claim -- that's a claim that's justified some of the worst atrocities in human history. To make such a claim without even halfway decent evidence, much less rock-solid proof, is wholly irresponsible and absolutely must be challenged.
  #1211  
Old 04-14-2018, 10:48 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
This is a key point. We are talking about differences that are probably so small that they only have symbolic meaning. But therein lies the entire conflict. To accept that there may be any difference at all is to feed our tribal inclinations, but to to deny any difference at all is to stifle our intellect.
Again Reich is telling us that people like Murray are racists and have no leg to stand on for their racist solutions. Specially when the differences of intelligence among the "races" will be small indeed.

Please check the title of this thread. It may had been an interesting conversation, but for Sam falling for the pretty talk of the racists.

And then there is the sad spectacle of you thinking that Reich was helpful to defend the indefensible.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-14-2018 at 10:52 PM.
  #1212  
Old 04-14-2018, 11:58 PM
nachtmusick nachtmusick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There's lots of people out there (few of them specialists in the field) advocating that we can and should already accept that black people are inherently inferior on average, intellectually speaking, due to genetics, with very spare and entirely indirect (and entirely non-genetic) evidence for, and ignoring direct evidence against. It's entirely appropriate that such folks be harshly criticized and challenged. That's not just any old claim -- that's a claim that's justified some of the worst atrocities in human history. To make such a claim without even halfway decent evidence, much less rock-solid proof, is wholly irresponsible and absolutely must be challenged.
Probably not as many as you imagine, but still too many. They can go fuck themselves.

But...

"To make such a claim without even halfway decent evidence, much less rock-solid proof, is wholly irresponsible and absolutely must be challenged."

I would ask that this standard be applied to anyone who calls someone a racist. For better or worse, that's a fighting word.
  #1213  
Old 04-15-2018, 12:11 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
Probably not as many as you imagine, but still too many. They can go fuck themselves.

But...

"To make such a claim without even halfway decent evidence, much less rock-solid proof, is wholly irresponsible and absolutely must be challenged."

I would ask that this standard be applied to anyone who calls someone a racist. For better or worse, that's a fighting word.
It is a descriptive term, that has implications that should cause pause in those who subscribe to it. You are handwaving away the fact that the field does uses scientifically relevant terms, which race is not.

If you subscribe to the belief that race is a valid scientific description to group people into biological groupings you are a "racist" "Racist" is a spectrum, but what is being arguing for here is not different than the tired old "Teach the Controversy" model for ID.

If you are arguing that is not the fact, please provide evidence that "race" is a useful biological term, and that the groupings based on biological traits are not addressed by more modern and precise terms (like clade) which do not hold the intentional meaning and avoid confusion with the very real, modern implications of the social impact of "race".

One has to be seriously tone deaf, ignorant, or have other motives to not realize this.

Last edited by rat avatar; 04-15-2018 at 12:13 AM.
  #1214  
Old 04-15-2018, 12:24 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
I would ask that this standard be applied to anyone who calls someone a racist. For better or worse, that's a fighting word.
So says the one that wilfully ignores that the racist OP put this on the pit to avoid having to "suffer" that coming from moderators too.

And again, Reich has no trouble on telling us that guys like Murray are racists.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-15-2018 at 12:25 AM.
  #1215  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:42 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 28,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
Probably not as many as you imagine, but still too many. They can go fuck themselves.

But...

"To make such a claim without even halfway decent evidence, much less rock-solid proof, is wholly irresponsible and absolutely must be challenged."

I would ask that this standard be applied to anyone who calls someone a racist. For better or worse, that's a fighting word.
If you're saying that calling someone racist by mistake is within the same moral universe, much less ball park, as actually saying or doing something that's racist, I'll heartily disagree.

If you're just asking people not to throw around that accusation willy nilly, then I'm fine with that, but I think that's much less common than the right's complaints would suggest.
  #1216  
Old 04-15-2018, 06:34 AM
nachtmusick nachtmusick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you're saying that calling someone racist by mistake is within the same moral universe, much less ball park, as actually saying or doing something that's racist, I'll heartily disagree.
If we were talking about burning crosses, then I would heartily agree with your disagreement. That's not the case. We are talking about subtle things that only the accusers seem to be able to perceive.

Given the social and moral consequences of being shamed as a racist, what fate would you choose for yourself?
  #1217  
Old 04-15-2018, 06:48 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 27,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
If we were talking about burning crosses, then I would heartily agree with your disagreement. That's not the case. We are talking about subtle things that only the accusers seem to be able to perceive.
Holding the possibility that there may be measurable innate intelligence differences between populations, eh, I wouldn't call that view racist. Saying there are significant intelligence differences, yes, that is racist, or else the term has no meaning.
  #1218  
Old 04-15-2018, 06:56 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 28,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
Given the social and moral consequences of being shamed as a racist, what fate would you choose for yourself?
Such consequences can be powerful indeed -- they might even lead to election as president of the US! [/sarcasm]

Any consequences are usually incredibly overblown.
  #1219  
Old 04-15-2018, 10:46 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
I have never OTOH met a South Asian person who was not at least fairly intelligent. But I have not been to South Asia, and I’m sure such people can be found there, outside the self-selected group that is capable of emigration.
It's unclear whether "...and I'm sure" was a typo, and you meant not, but either way, it seems to present problems for your logic.

If the group of South Asian immigrants to the US *is* representative of South Asians in general, what happened to the logic of inferring something about individual intelligence from how many X a group produces (e.g. patents filed, nobel prize winners)? South Asia also underwhelms per capita. And why in fact, according to your logic where IQ tests are broadly accurate, does the country do so poorly on such tests?
And again, it's funny if south asians are now allowed to be considered among the smart groups, as it is so recent that, in the West, they were depicted as simpletons. Even now, the book Camp of the Saints gets a lot of mentions on FOX.

If you mean the group is not representative, then it undercuts a lot of what you're saying. Yeah, a group of people who largely came to the US on a (skilled) work or study visa, or are the children of people that did, may well contain a higher proportion of intelligent people than just a random sampling of a big population. I'd love to compare, say, recent African immigrants on work or study visas to a random sampling of whites.
And this is ignoring the elephant in the room that those recent immigrants are going to be disproportionately from the wealthier tiers of their societies, whereas blacks in America was mandated to the lowest tier until just a couple generations ago (and it's a country with appalling social mobility).

Finally, again, all this was asked in the context of me asking you what predictions your hypothesis makes.
It's not enough to say (not a quote) "That these groups I think are smart, would be smart" because that's a premise you're starting with, not a prediction. I think your hypothesis has clear implications about what we should find with regard to intelligent individuals in Africa, but you're retreating from saying anything, because it would just lay more weight on the side of your hypothesis being a pile of shite.

Last edited by Mijin; 04-15-2018 at 10:49 AM.
  #1220  
Old 04-15-2018, 11:17 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
For better or worse, that's a fighting word.
"For better or worse"? Is there any question as to which it is?

The segment of society that benefits from historical and institutional racism has pulled a clever trick. Sixty or so years ago, the ruling class openly embraced racist principles. Then the civil rights movement started making huge progress.

That progress has been slowed down in a very interesting way—the ruling class has found a way to avoid giving up its racism-based advantages by outwardly disavowing racism and also punishing anyone who tries to identify racism in society. And most of them have also managed to persuade themselves that they are themselves uncontaminated by any stain of racism. And all this while racism is still one of the most apparent features of our societal structure.

It's certainly a masterstroke of propaganda, demagoguery, and double-think.
  #1221  
Old 04-15-2018, 12:03 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 27,898
Yes, in the case of your post, there is a question as to which it is. An accusation of blatant racism should be a fighting word. An accusation of being related to casual racists is much less powerful. People use the latter while pretending that it carries the heaviness and seriousness and intentionality of the former.
  #1222  
Old 04-15-2018, 12:15 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Yes, in the case of your post, there is a question as to which it is. An accusation of blatant racism should be a fighting word. An accusation of being related to casual racists is much less powerful. People use the latter while pretending that it carries the heaviness and seriousness and intentionality of the former.
I don't know about that. I think that people use the latter while acknowledge that it does as much harm as the former.

The argument that it seems we get into is whether someone should be chastised for unintentional racism, while ignoring that the effects are identical whether the racism is out of hatred or out of ignorance.

When it is pointed out to those who are unaware of what their actions are doing, they get offended that they are thought of as being racist, and the argument becomes about their feelings, rather than the harm that they are causing to society.
  #1223  
Old 04-15-2018, 01:08 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 28,471
I started a thread a few years ago as to whether an incorrect accusation of racism ever cause anyone significant harm in the US:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=719328

Several examples were proposed, but I thought most of them were either insignificant harm, or the racism accusation was reasonable and just. Others might have a different opinion, but IMO there was only a single example of significant harm from an unjust accusation of racism.

So I still hold that the threat and danger of incorrect accusations of racism is vastly overblown. There's no reason a mistaken accusation can't just lead to a reasonable conversation, as opposed to craziness and defensiveness.
  #1224  
Old 04-15-2018, 01:20 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 28,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I started a thread a few years ago as to whether an incorrect accusation of racism ever cause anyone significant harm in the US:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=719328

Several examples were proposed, but I thought most of them were either insignificant harm, or the racism accusation was reasonable and just. Others might have a different opinion, but IMO there was only a single example of significant harm from an unjust accusation of racism.

So I still hold that the threat and danger of incorrect accusations of racism is vastly overblown. There's no reason a mistaken accusation can't just lead to a reasonable conversation, as opposed to craziness and defensiveness.
Looking back at the thread, maybe 2 examples.
  #1225  
Old 04-15-2018, 01:45 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I started a thread a few years ago as to whether an incorrect accusation of racism ever cause anyone significant harm in the US:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=719328

Several examples were proposed, but I thought most of them were either insignificant harm, or the racism accusation was reasonable and just. Others might have a different opinion, but IMO there was only a single example of significant harm from an unjust accusation of racism.

So I still hold that the threat and danger of incorrect accusations of racism is vastly overblown. There's no reason a mistaken accusation can't just lead to a reasonable conversation, as opposed to craziness and defensiveness.
People often even call themselves a racists, and take offense to that.

You point out that something that they are doing, or a policy that they advocate or benefit from has racial bias to it, and they accuse you of calling them a racist.

In Ludovic's example, people are informed that they are the "latter", and then take exception to being called the "former."


In any case, it's all a distraction from allowing the discussion to go forward to determine causes and solutions, as we have to spend all the time trying to keep the people who are perpetuating the problem from having their feelings hurt.
  #1226  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:21 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
If we were talking about burning crosses, then I would heartily agree with your disagreement.
Oh, before I forget, this needed to be pointed out about Murray:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/...-murray-odious
Quote:
From his earliest days, Charles Murray was—to put it charitably—a shockingly oblivious human being when it came to matters of race. As a teenager in the 1950s, he and some high school friends staged a cross burning on top of a hill. Murray claims he was stunned when the residents of his Iowa town instantly thought the flaming cross was somehow racist. “It never crossed our minds that this had any larger significance,” he insisted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
That's not the case. We are talking about subtle things that only the accusers seem to be able to perceive.
Nope, as many like Reich pointed out, what Murray and others are doing is racism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
Given the social and moral consequences of being shamed as a racist, what fate would you choose for yourself?
Currently, the context is that the racists do think that they have a voice in high levels of the government. And we see now the increased influence of groups like the AEI that not only has racists like Murray as his members but also climate change deniers. As pointed before, unscientific theories or conspiracies for that kind of crowd are not about a single issue: like potato chips, they cannot have just one.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-15-2018 at 04:25 PM.
  #1227  
Old 04-16-2018, 03:21 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,116
[Okay, y’all were busy in my absence, so I’m only partway through the backlog. But let’s get this much responded to, more later.]

Rat avatar, I thought you were GBCWing this thread? I guess, like xxandyxxx, you are going to repeatedly make those proclamations and then come back here and there to take a quick potshot when you think you’re a little safer from getting dunked on. Craven and cowardly, but whatevs.

Anyway, I don’t support charter schools (I’m a Democrat—that’s a Republican thing), and I don’t like private schools at all. But my understanding is that charter schools get the same funding per student as other schools. A quick Google search seems to indicate that they get less, in fact. Which is often true of private schools as well, but parents see a perceived benefit (in both cases I suspect) of keeping their kids away from the “riff raff”. I think this is really shady, and I will always oppose any legislation that supports charters or “school choice”. But beyond that, it wouldn’t be right to ban private schools (even though I think parents who send their kids to one should be ashamed of themselves) and it doesn’t have a bearing on the funding question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
I don’t know what it means to be agnostic about a fact.
Really? Then I’d say you are not real familiar with the word. After all, even if you go with its narrow meaning, it is a question of fact whether God exists. Agnostics are proclaiming that they don’t know whether or not God exists (the older and now mostly outdated usage is that they declare it to be unknowable, presumably meaning before death—and also presumably meaning they have ruled out the possibility of miracles and direct communication with God as described in the Bible). My sense of the word as used in intellectual discourse is “I don’t know what the facts are on that specific data point, but it is irrelevant to the argument I’m making.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Yes or no—do black students receive less funding than white students with similar needs?
See above, and my reply to kb as well. The fact that they don’t have similar needs is my whole point: they have greater needs because they come to school with lower aptitude. So more money is spent on them, much of which takes the form of special education (but also Title 1 reading help, nutrition programs, summer school, preschool, tutoring, etc.). They still end up with lower aptitude on average, but not as low as if they got the same money spent on them as white students get on average.

Stop and think about this for a second: if you told black high school students in 1950 that within their lifetimes, black schoolkids would get more per capita funding from the education system, disproportionately provided by white taxpayers, they would be stunned. But you shrug it off or try to find ways to nitpick it. (The reason being that if you told white liberals this in 1950, they would be sure that it would erase any aptitude gaps, and the very disappointing fact that it has stubbornly refused to do so is what makes people like you feel you have to flail about and move the goalposts in order to avoid seeing, or at least admitting, what’s right in front of you.)

There are BTW civil rights activists who have their noses bent out of joint about this fact. They gripe that black kids, boys especially, are being “warehoused” in special education. Which, to begin with, is ridiculous. If you wanted to “warehouse” black kids, you could do it for pennies on the dollar of what is spent on white kids. Put them in a big old room (a warehouse, even!), hire some minders (not teachers, they cost too much) and give them the authority to use corporal punishment on anyone who gets out of line. Solved. To “warehouse” them in SpEd, where they will cost you more than twice as much as the reg ed kids, where they will be surrounded by highly educated bleeding heart nurturing types like my wife all day long, people who are constantly seeking research-based continuing education on how better to serve kids with special needs? Mmmkay then.

And then how would you effect equality in assignment to SpEd? It’s based on a variety of testing that is carried out by experts and has very little subjectivity involved. So you’d have to declare some kind of cap on black kids in SpEd, or make the standards for them to get in more stringent than for white kids—which would obviously get a different group of activists hopping mad, and rightly so. And then the “reformers” would have even more to get on their high horses about, since the aptitude gap would be guaranteed to increase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
Studies have also shown that:

“If you are genetically predisposed to have a lot of education, you are also predisposed to have fewer children.”
That’s pretty interesting, and exactly what Cyril Kornbluth was concerned about in 1951 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons), but I’m surprised you would offer this up given the disparity in offspring between whites and blacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not just any old claim -- that's a claim that's justified some of the worst atrocities in human history.
But it hasn’t justified any atrocities. It may have been raised as a defense of atrocities, but it’s a very weak defense indeed, and you are the one who should be regarded as suspect for implying that if this were proven to be true, it would be a justification for atrocities.

Look, no one can dispute that people with Down syndrome have something in their DNA that gives them (among other things) an intellectual disability. And indeed, Nazis and other eugenicists were all for eliminating such people from the gene pool. But the rebuttal to this idea is not “well, actually, we don’t have ironclad proof that it’s DNA that is to blame for their low IQ”! The rebuttal is “It’s wrong to commit atrocities against people simply because of intellectual deficits they were born with. If anything, we should give such people more compassion, and more help.”

Ezra Klein raised basically this point in the most recent podcast, when he wondered aloud why there weren’t more racialists taking this sympathetic tack. And as I keep saying over and over, I agree with him! I think the likely reason you don’t hear more people expressing this viewpoint is that (1) they will not be embraced by the bigoted haters, nor would they want to be; (2) they will also get tons of shit from the anti-racists, as we see on this thread. So they just keep quiet, except for a few people like me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
So says the one that wilfully ignores that the racist OP put this on the pit to avoid having to "suffer" that coming from moderators too.
You say this as though the moderators can be axiomatically presumed to be accurate or fair in their judgments about what qualifies as “hate speech”.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #1228  
Old 04-16-2018, 03:52 PM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,033
"Blacks - they're more like people with birth defects than monkeys, I guess" is going to be a really winning argument for you, I suggest you run with it!
  #1229  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:00 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
[Okay, y’all were busy in my absence, so I’m only partway through the backlog. But let’s get this much responded to, more later.]

Rat avatar, I thought you were GBCWing this thread? I guess, like xxandyxxx, you are going to repeatedly make those proclamations and then come back here and there to take a quick potshot when you think you’re a little safer from getting dunked on. Craven and cowardly, but whatevs.
The fact that you can't address my cites but resort to ad hominem attacks shows you really don't have a pot to piss in for your argument.

It doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you support charter schools or not, you are cherry picking statistics to support your views, which are based in bigotry.

Can you define what a white person is yet in a meaningful fashion?

Can you address the cites I showed that demonstrated that when adopted these inferior "negros" IQ scores increase?

Can you address the cites I offered that showed that of ALL of the known markers for educational attainment only accounted for less than 1% of outcomes?

Can you even make an argument that race and ancestry are related?

How can you rectify that almost all descendants of American slaves are mixed with some European and Native American blood which should make them "superior" in your mind, yet immigrant black high-school graduates attend college at a much higher rate than black or white students born in the U.S.

Face it, your are a racist, at least you could own that. Your willful actions in ignoring the problems with the naive theory makes it quite clear that it is not related to the implicit biases that we all suffer from.

(And FYI Being a Democrat doesn't mean you aren't a bigot, it was the Republican Party that passed the civil rights act as an example.)

Perhaps you are afraid to not be special? Is not being a snowflake what scares you? Because really I don't see what is to be lost by just admitting that race is a pretty shitty method of categorization from a scientific perspective.

Have fun moving the goal posts, or building another strawman.

Last edited by rat avatar; 04-16-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #1230  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:02 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 28,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
The fact that you can't address my cites but resort to ad hominem attacks shows you really don't have a pot to piss in for your argument.

It doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you support charter schools or not, you are cherry picking statistics to support your views, which are based in bigotry.

Can you define what a white person is yet in a meaningful fashion?

Can you address the cites I showed that demonstrated that when adopted these inferior "negros" IQ scores increase?

Can you address the cites I offered that showed that of ALL of the known markers for educational attainment only accounted for less than 1% of outcomes?

Can you even make an argument that race and ancestry are related?

How can you rectify that almost all descendants of American slaves are mixed with some European and Native American blood which should make them "superior" in your mind, yet immigrant black high-school graduates attend college at a much higher rate than black or white students born in the U.S.

Face it, your are a racist, at least you could own that. Your willful actions in ignoring the problems with the naive theory makes it quite clear that it is not related to the implicit biases that we all suffer from.

(And FYI Being a Democrat doesn't mean you aren't a bigot, it was the Republican Party that passed the civil rights act as an example.)

Perhaps you are afraid to not be special? Is not being a snowflake what scares you? Because really I don't see what is to be lost by just admitting that race is a pretty shitty method of categorization from a scientific perspective.

Have fun moving the goal posts, or building another strawman.
He never really addressed most of my questions and challenges either. He just enjoys playing the victim. Kind of like Murray.
  #1231  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:46 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You say this as though the moderators can be axiomatically presumed to be accurate or fair in their judgments about what qualifies as “hate speech”.
So says that guy that admits to paternalistic racism, compared to other pseudosciences out there you are like the lukewarmers of climate science, the "teach the controversy" of evolutionary science. The "Velikowsky light" proponents. Etc. *

Plausible on different levels, but still wrong.









* Dr Evil: "just one calorie, not evil enough!"
  #1232  
Old 04-16-2018, 05:25 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
See above, and my reply to kb as well. The fact that they don’t have similar needs is my whole point: they have greater needs because they come to school with lower aptitude. So more money is spent on them, much of which takes the form of special education (but also Title 1 reading help, nutrition programs, summer school, preschool, tutoring, etc.). They still end up with lower aptitude on average, but not as low as if they got the same money spent on them as white students get on average.
Sorry, I'm still not understanding you. Here's my very simple question: black students get less funding than white students with similar needs--yes or no? That seems like a simple yes or no question to me.

The above may be too complex for you, Mr Category 2, so I'll dumb it down a little:

Black special needs students get less funding than white special needs students, yes or no?

Black regular needs students get less funding than white regular needs students, yes or no?

Since you and I both happen to know that the answer to the above three questions is "yes" (though you seem to be avoiding saying so for some reason that probably rhymes with "weasel"), there's a follow-up question:

The above is an example of our schools failing black students, yes or no?
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1233  
Old 04-16-2018, 05:37 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,168
All that stuff I wrote upthread? I retract it. My understanding of R2 and the correlation coefficient was mucked, and in a way that qualitatively mattered. I would need to trace through then recast my analysis entirely. Haven't done that yet. Any aspersions directed at Sam Harris or anyone else are retracted as well. Clean slate.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 04-16-2018 at 05:38 PM.
  #1234  
Old 04-16-2018, 05:52 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
[...] in order to avoid seeing, or at least admitting, what’s right in front of you.
SlackerInc, we've had to speak to you before about this conclusion-jumping habit of yours. And when we do, after a few posts being a little more logically scrupulous, you slide right back in to the conclusion-jumping, as with this remark.

To remind you once again: There is as yet no scientific evidence indicating that black-white IQ test score differences have any genetic basis. Not just "there isn't any ironclad proof", but there is not even any evidence raising that hypothesis to the working-theory level.

There are various data that are consistent to some extent with that hypothesis (which nobody here is denying), but there are none that at present are better explained by that hypothesis than by various rival hypotheses.

Even the fact that black students in a persistently racist society underperform compared to white students on IQ tests, even after their share of education funding is increased, does not constitute support for the genetic-basis hypothesis. At best, it's consistent with it, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate or confirm it.

So, once again: No, people who are currently still skeptical about the genetic-basis hypothesis as an explanation for IQ test score differences between racial groups are not refusing to see (or admit) anything that's "right in front of" them. When you try to claim that the available data constitute persuasive evidence for the genetic-basis hypothesis and thus that any reasonable and honest person should agree with you about it, you are grossly overstating the weight of the data and misrepresenting the state of the science. You should stop doing that.
  #1235  
Old 04-16-2018, 06:26 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Look, no one can dispute that people with Down syndrome have something in their DNA that gives them (among other things) an intellectual disability. And indeed, Nazis and other eugenicists were all for eliminating such people from the gene pool. But the rebuttal to this idea is not “well, actually, we don’t have ironclad proof that it’s DNA that is to blame for their low IQ”! The rebuttal is “It’s wrong to commit atrocities against people simply because of intellectual deficits they were born with. If anything, we should give such people more compassion, and more help.”

Ezra Klein raised basically this point in the most recent podcast, when he wondered aloud why there weren’t more racialists taking this sympathetic tack. And as I keep saying over and over, I agree with him! I think the likely reason you don’t hear more people expressing this viewpoint is that (1) they will not be embraced by the bigoted haters, nor would they want to be; (2) they will also get tons of shit from the anti-racists, as we see on this thread. So they just keep quiet, except for a few people like me.
Earlier in this thread I forced you to admit that there was zero scientific proof of a genetic basis for race IQ differences. That was on Friday, so you managed to forget it in less than three days. Now I understand why you want sympathy for the intellectual deficits people were born with.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1236  
Old 04-16-2018, 06:32 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,116
I'm under the gun to get our taxes done (they are too complicated for TurboTax, yet our income is too modest to afford an accountant, a truly fiendish combination), so after the response earlier I have not had time to respond more--only to read for now. I am saving quoted posts to get to, I promise!

But I wanted to quickly interject that I respect what M4M owned up to, and I almost always respect Kimstu's approach, even though she is still pretty hard on me in her own way (and due to the respect factor, that has a lot more impact than the invective hurled by others).

So Kimstu, my interjection is addressed to you. Will you please respond to Evil Economist (post #1232)? I have a feeling you know EE's argument is bullshit: some kind of circular reasoning or begging the question, in that ballpark. Right?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 04-16-2018 at 06:34 PM.
  #1237  
Old 04-16-2018, 06:33 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So Kimstu, my interjection is addressed to you. Will you please respond to Evil Economist (5:25 p.m.)? I have a feeling you know EE's argument is bullshit: some kind of circular reasoning or begging the question, in that ballpark. Right?
Hahahaha, nope!

I'm moving you down to Category 1.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1238  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:01 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So Kimstu, my interjection is addressed to you. Will you please respond to Evil Economist (post #1232)? I have a feeling you know EE's argument is bullshit: some kind of circular reasoning or begging the question, in that ballpark. Right?
Sorry, I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. The issue seems to be whether black special-needs students get less funding than white special-needs students, and also whether black mainstreamed students get less funding than white mainstreamed students.

If I understand your objection correctly, you're saying that there's some kind of logical fallacy in making those points because black students have a higher proportion of special-needs to mainstreamed population than white students.

Even if we leave out the question of why the special-needs/mainstream ratios are different between the two racial groups, I can't see why that's a valid objection.

For comparison, say I've got two groups of Armed Forces veterans, tall soldiers and short soldiers. Let's say the tall soldiers have a higher ratio of wounded to unwounded among their veterans than the short soldiers do.

Now if the VA is spending less on healthcare for wounded tall vets than for wounded short vets, and also spending less on healthcare for unwounded tall vets than for unwounded short vets, those are facts that may impact the overall health status of tall vets vis-a-vis short vets. The higher wounded-to-unwounded ratio for the tall vets is a phenomenon worth exploring in its own right, but doesn't necessarily somehow cancel out the tall-vs-short spending differentials in each category.

What I would need to know to better understand this is, first of all, whether we're talking about overall or per-student spending amounts. Could somebody do me the favor of pointing out the posts that have the agreed-upon spending stats cites? Txxx.
  #1239  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:07 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
For comparison, say I've got two groups of Armed Forces veterans, tall soldiers and short soldiers. Let's say the tall soldiers have a higher ratio of wounded to unwounded among their veterans than the short soldiers do.

Now if the VA is spending less on healthcare for wounded tall vets than for wounded short vets, and also spending less on healthcare for unwounded tall vets than for unwounded short vets, those are facts that may impact the overall health status of tall vets vis-a-vis short vets. The higher wounded-to-unwounded ratio for the tall vets is a phenomenon worth exploring in its own right, but doesn't necessarily somehow cancel out the tall-vs-short spending differentials in each category.
I think your explanation is too complicated for him--$100 says he still doesn't understand.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1240  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:18 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,567
Of course the racial hereditarians will hand wave dozens of cites like this, without even offering a real definition of race.

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/0z708z33c

Quote:
As there remains no way to gather evidence that would permit the direct refutation of the environmental hypotheses, and no direct evidence for the hereditarian position, it remains the case, I argue, that the hereditarian position is unsupported by current evidence.
But as a reminder it is the hereditarians that need to provide DIRECT evidence. The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, this burden is not satisfied by shifting the burden of disproof to others.
  #1241  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:36 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So Kimstu, my interjection is addressed to you. Will you please respond to Evil Economist (post #1232)? I have a feeling you know EE's argument is bullshit: some kind of circular reasoning or begging the question, in that ballpark. Right?
Let me try with simple numbers:
Group A has 2 mainstream students, who each receive $1.50 of funding (the minimum necessary for the students to learn). They also have 1 special education student, who receives $3.50 in funding (the minimum amount of funding necessary for the student to learn)

Group B has 1 mainstream student, who receives $1 of funding, and two special education students, who each receive $3 of funding.

Now, Group B receives more total money ($7 vs. $6.50), but all of their students are receiving insufficient funding. The mainstream student is receiving only $1, compared to the $1.50 needed to provide a minimum education, and the special education students are receiving $3, less than the $3.50 needed to provide a minimum education.
If you still don't understand it at this point there's no help for you. To be honest, every time I talk with you I find myself increasingly incredulous that you did well on an IQ test--understanding the above isn't really a high-IQ task, and you failed it.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1242  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:44 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,071
Still not sure I understand what SlackerInc's objection was getting at, but at least in that analogy, the fact that the Group B students get more money overall does not make it a logical fallacy to argue that they are underfunded on a per-student basis in each of their funding categories.
  #1243  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:54 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
...who each receive...
"Each of whom receives"
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1244  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:49 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Still not sure I understand what SlackerInc's objection was getting at, but at least in that analogy, the fact that the Group B students get more money overall does not make it a logical fallacy to argue that they are underfunded on a per-student basis in each of their funding categories.
I’ve still got a backlog to catch up on, and I will. Promise! But since we’re currently kicking this around, let me weigh in on this first.

I can go find the relevant posts if this narrative is challenged, but despite the significant disagreement in interpretation, I think there are some basic facts that aren’t in dispute (and which Kimstu may have missed, dipping in and out):

(1) I have consistently said, throughout this thread and in others, that I’m in favor of significantly increasing spending for educating black kids in public schools. So this is not about any normative argument for equalizing spending between or among races, or even maintaining the status quo.

(2) Still, it’s worth considering just how astonishing a fact it is—as no one seems to dispute—that the taxpayers of America, still a mostly white group, pay more per capita to educate black kids than they do to educate their own children. That would have been unimaginable when my mother was a schoolchild. We have argued about colonial policies before: can you imagine a colonial government in Africa or India spending more per child on a typical school largely attended by the indigenous people of the country in question than a typical school of similar size attended by the colonizers’ own children? Anyone attempting a policy like that would be drummed out of office. So this is a huge policy change, and transfer of resources from “haves” to “have-nots”, within living memory.

(3) There are disputes among civil rights activists as to whether there are too many black kids in special education, or too few. So we can’t be at all sure who “should” be in what funding category. Unless we think the schools are getting this categorizaton exactly right (meaning both camps of complainers are wrong) but simply systematically underfunding black kids vis-a-vis white kids in each category? If you know anything about the way school funding is allocated and the regulations therein (and I do), you’ll know that this would be the most byzantine, unwieldy way possible to conspire to underfund black kids’ education. It would be MUCH easier to put a thumb on the scale here and there to put all the borderline white kids in SpEd, and all the borderline black kids in reg ed.

Otherwise, districts are required to fund schools on a formula based on how many reg ed kids and how many SpEd kids are in the school—without regard to race, although schools that have a poorer student body (usually defined by a threshold percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) do get extra help from the federal government, which further adds to the imbalance of funding toward inner city schools, which are much more likely to surpass this threshold. [This whole argument started because I made an offhand remark about black kids getting more funding than white kids in public schools, and Evil Economist insisted this couldn’t be true, then passed on a ridiculous cite that excluded special education, federal spending, Title 1, nutrition programs, preschool, you name it.]

(4) The counterargument, that schools are still underfunding black students relative to white students and are therefore dragging them down and lowering their IQ scores, goes something like this:
(a) White kids get, on average, F$ per capita funding in school (including all sources of money, and regardless of the category they are in).
(b) Black kids get, on average, (F+X)$ per capita funding in school.
(c) But black kids come to school with nX$ (n being whatever multiple of X you’d argue for) in greater needs than white kids do.
(d) Therefore, they are underserved by the racist school system to the tune of (n-1)X$ per student.

That’s about the size of it, right?

So then someone like me says “Hmmm...but weren’t you arguing there’s nothing inherently limited about black kids’ aptitude before they come to school? That the gap is the fault of schools for failing to sufficiently educate the black student population?”

EE and that lot replies: “Yes, indeed: that deficit of (n-1)X$ per student is the smoking gun that proves these schools are failing their black students and causing the achievement gap.”

To which I ask, “But why then does n exist to begin with? Why should the proper, good, and right level of funding for the average black child be (F+nX)$, instead of just F$ as for the average white child?

EE: [thinking] “But this one goes to eleven.”

But seriously, now do you see the paradoxical nature of this kind of circular reasoning?

For all EE’s bluster and projection, I seriously doubt if s/he will be able to grok the above. But I have faith in Kimstu’s ability to follow it, along with a few others here. Whether you’re all too blinkered or stubborn to acknowledge that I have a point, remains to be seen.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #1245  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:16 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So Kimstu, my interjection is addressed to you. Will you please respond to Evil Economist (post #1232)? I have a feeling you know EE's argument is bullshit: some kind of circular reasoning or begging the question, in that ballpark. Right?
Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!H a!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha !Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!H a!Ha!

This is, without a doubt, the most pathetic post I've seen on the Dope in years. "Hey, Kimstu? You seem to be able to kick my ass at this debate shit. I've no idea how to respond to this other guy's argument, could you do me a solid?"

Aah, the wily Boreal mind, honed by the adversity of life on the outwash plain - it always finds a way around problems, yes! Even problems like "I don't understand half of what you wrote because I'm semi-literate, and also I forget the start of a paragraph by the time I reach the end" are no match for its mind honed by the adversity of "seasons"

Ha!

Pathetic. "Let's you and him fight!" is sad when it's a bar fight. It's just a savage indictment of the standards of Triple 9 when it's an argument. You basically demonstrate the uselessness of IQ testing just by continuing to exist, SlackInIQ! Good job!

Last edited by MrDibble; 04-17-2018 at 12:19 AM.
  #1246  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:40 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,116
Gosh, Dibs, thanks ever so much for breaking the formatting of the screen with that wall of copy/pasted text (let’s hope it was copy/pasted, anyway: why do I have a sneaking suspicion you typed it all out, like Jack Nicholson in The Shining?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, you are maintaining that racial-group differences in IQ test scores are at least partly caused by genetic differences. And Native Americans have lower average IQ test scores than whites/Europeans, as do Australian aboriginal people and Inuits.

So, given that you're claiming that climate challenges and distance traversed are primary drivers of selection for intelligence among prehistoric peoples, what's your explanation of why, say, Australian aborigines and Native Americans don't have the highest IQ levels?

I don’t recall saying anything specifically about distance traversed. If I did and don’t recall, please link me to that post.

But that’s interesting information. From your cite on Native American kids:

Quote:
Biopsychosocial variables including maternal and child health, socioeconomic status, parental attitudes toward school and toward cultural separation, and children's English-language skills accounted for 67% of the Native/non-Native difference on the Performance subscale and 57% of the Verbal subscale score difference.

Questions that immediately come to mind:
—Just how low were those scores? Were they lower than white kids but still higher than black kids?
—What about if you adjust all three groups for those same psychosocial variables? How do the relative scores look then?

But let’s say those questions were answered, and the numbers came back as being the same or lower than black students. I might then hypothesize that the Native population before European colonization might have been a higher-IQ gene pool. But then the ravages of smallpox and other diseases may have been particularly hard on those whose intelligence made them most central to Native society: administrators, teachers, healers, etc., who would all see greater numbers of their fellow people on a daily basis. Or maybe the genes for having the physical robustness to survive disease don’t travel along with the ones for high intelligence. One might also imagine that this is true, sadly, of those who best adapted to being herded onto reservations (just as the “village dogs” who slowly became domesticated thousands of years ago were not as smart as their wolf cousins).

As for Australian aborigines, the key to my hypothesis was the smarts required to survive harsh winters, that humans simply cannot do without serious planning and engineering of clothing and shelter, maintenance of fire, food stores, etc. That doesn’t apply to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
The fact of the matter is we are all ignorant of both Africans and the African continent (we are so ignorant that we often cannot refer to the place/people as anything but "Africa" and not as any smaller individualized pieces of that whole).

Not in my case. I was born in a specific part of East Africa (Nairobi, Kenya), and I studied African history in college. I am well aware of the distinctions, and have always been one to roll my eyes at the stereotypical and broad brush most Americans (including African Americans, BTW) paint Africa with in toto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
Anti-Racialist: Here's an example of 'x' in Africa
Racialist 1: That is not a true/complex enough example of 'x'
Racialist 2: Those are not true blacks/Africans.
Racialist 3: Those were done by non-locals (Arabs/Europeans/Asians) traders/invaders/colonizers.
Racialist 4: 'x' was done by Arabs/Europeans/Asians first! Africans came well after.

Again, not me. I credited xxandyxxx with an excellent find on the Tanzanian invention of carbon steel, a development that one could hardly dismiss as inconsequential. But I’d also point out that I have said all along that I’d expect there to be subpopulations (clades, if you prefer, rat avatar) of sub-Saharan Africans with better genes for intelligence than you’d find among Europeans or East Asians. They just haven’t reproduced as effectively and fanned out over a large geographic area, so they are overlooked. And this assumption, I would argue, is another way my form of “racialism” should be understood as quite different from most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I think your hypothesis has clear implications about what we should find with regard to intelligent individuals in Africa, but you're retreating from saying anything, because it would just lay more weight on the side of your hypothesis being a pile of shite.

Let’s have it out then! What implications are you referring to? Be specific, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
All that stuff I wrote upthread? I retract it. My understanding of R2 and the correlation coefficient was mucked, and in a way that qualitatively mattered. I would need to trace through then recast my analysis entirely. Haven't done that yet. Any aspersions directed at Sam Harris or anyone else are retracted as well. Clean slate.

Kudos, once again, for manning up (or womanning up as the case may be) like that. I will await with interest your report as to what your revised analysis shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
To remind you once again: There is as yet no scientific evidence indicating that black-white IQ test score differences have any genetic basis. Not just "there isn't any ironclad proof", but there is not even any evidence raising that hypothesis to the working-theory level.

There are various data that are consistent to some extent with that hypothesis (which nobody here is denying)

Whoa, whoa, whoa—hold on. You really think no one in this thread has denied that? Even early in the thread? You’ve admitted, I think, that you haven’t read it all. I submit that you’ve missed a very important tenor of this conversation, that has put me in the position where I’d consider it a perfectly reasonable compromise if indeed “nobody here is denying” what you put before the parenthetical caveat. If everyone here wants to cosign that, I’d be perfectly happy for us to deliver that conclusion as reported out of committee and leave all the other disputes TBD at a later date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Earlier in this thread I forced you to admit that there was zero scientific proof of a genetic basis for race IQ differences. That was on Friday, so you managed to forget it in less than three days.

Nothing in what you quoted contradicts what you "forced [me] to admit" (snort) on Friday. Try reading for comprehension.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 04-17-2018 at 12:44 AM.
  #1247  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:19 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
(1) I have consistently said, throughout this thread and in others, that I’m in favor of significantly increasing spending for educating black kids in public schools.
So you finally admit that our schools are failing black students?
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1248  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:25 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So then someone like me says “Hmmm...but weren’t you arguing there’s nothing inherently limited about black kids’ aptitude before they come to school? That the gap is the fault of schools for failing to sufficiently educate the black student population?”

EE and that lot replies: “Yes, indeed: that deficit of (n-1)X$ per student is the smoking gun that proves these schools are failing their black students and causing the achievement gap.”
Everything you wrote was stupid, but the above was the stupidest.

Look, you couldn't figure out a simple logic problem, on an issue that you've been thinking about for years. Your brain couldn't handle it, so you probably shouldn't stress your little brain by thinking about complex things like intelligence, or understanding things that people have been patiently explaining to you.

For example, everything you wrote above is wrong. You simply, despite our best efforts, cannot understand the simple point we have been trying to make...for more than a year? Damn.

But you write a lot. Son, you need to learn: stupid + verbose = tedious.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1249  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:41 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But let’s say those questions were answered, and the numbers came back as being the same or lower than black students. I might then hypothesize that the Native population before European colonization might have been a higher-IQ gene pool. But then the ravages of smallpox and other diseases may have been particularly hard on those whose intelligence made them most central to Native society: administrators, teachers, healers, etc., who would all see greater numbers of their fellow people on a daily basis. Or maybe the genes for having the physical robustness to survive disease don’t travel along with the ones for high intelligence. One might also imagine that this is true, sadly, of those who best adapted to being herded onto reservations (just as the “village dogs” who slowly became domesticated thousands of years ago were not as smart as their wolf cousins).

As for Australian aborigines, the key to my hypothesis was the smarts required to survive harsh winters, that humans simply cannot do without serious planning and engineering of clothing and shelter, maintenance of fire, food stores, etc. That doesn’t apply to them.
Holy shit you're stupid.

Oh, we have a small piece of noisy data? Well, shit, SlackerInc's going to use it as the basis for a lengthy, convoluted, just-so story that by an odd coincidence just so happens to check off all his pre-existing prejudices (surprise!). SlackerInc doesn't need your facts, he's got a story to tell. It's like what science was like, back before they discovered the scientific method, or understood that it was a bad idea to make plumbing out of lead.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #1250  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:32 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Gosh, Dibs, thanks ever so much for breaking the formatting of the screen with that wall of copy/pasted text
Is it broken for anyone else? It wraps quite nicely for me.
Quote:
let’s hope it was copy/pasted, anyway: why do I have a sneaking suspicion you typed it all out, like Jack Nicholson in The Shining?
Naah, you gibbering idiot, it's a literal transcript of my derisive laughter, courtesy of Google voicetyping. I love how it captured the exclamation marks so accurately.

Of course, I see you don't even bother trying to defend your intellectual cowardice - but then, I've seen you throw your own parents and kid under the bus already in arguments, so no surprises there. Not taking ownership for your own failings - you're setting a real shining example there, Pater.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017