Should I assume you also think atmospheric CO2 is unimportant? “CO2 Makes Up Just 0.04% of Earth’s Atmosphere”
I do not consider our dialogue to be … the finest specimen of intelligent discourse. If you “need” to continue this … whatever-it-is, please take it to the Pit.
ETA: TL;DR. I stand by my summary
**The only scenario in which 2% isn’t significantly more than 0.5% is one where it seems appropriate to approximate both numbers as Zero. **
Your remarkable observation that regular coffee is not 100% caffeine does not change this.
There is alot of new findings about genetics and intelligence. In 2017they found 52 genes linked to intelligence, in 2018they found 939 genes linked to intelligence. Together these genes account for almost half the inheritability of intelligence.
Given the number of genes and the complex interactions of genes, it now seems naive to think that understanding the role of specific genes in intelligence without the huge databases of genetic profiles that have only been available in recent years. Even with that there is still much yet to uncover.
In the journal Intelligence there was a recent paperon a survey conducted of intelligence experts in 2013-2014. It found that 17% thought that the gap between white and black people in measured intelligence had no genetic component. The modal response was that 50% of the gap was due to genetics.
Just to be clear, is it your opinion that black people are probably inherently genetically inferior, on average, to white people, in terms of intelligence? If this isn’t what you’re saying, then what are you trying to say?
I know that decaf contains a “fair amount” of caffeine because it keeps me awake if I drink too much of it.
But what does any of this have to do with the fact that 2.0% is four times as large as 0.5%?
Methinks you would happily concede this painfully simple arithmetic fact … were it not for a fear that some might think it implies some politically incorrect conclusion. :smack:
Your talk of a “cline” suggests you “need” your debate opponents to concede that 0.5% is more than zero. Hilarity reigns.
That’s the hallmark of any pseudoscience, quackery or woo : start with a conclusion, then look for anything you can spin to justify the conclusion no matter how tangential, silly or downright wrong (ignore anything that you can’t use to support it).
If I might interject, I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here by going on and on with this? MrDibble never said 2.0% wasn’t more than 0.5% In fact, he acknowledged the obvious point you, for some reason, think needs emphasizing.
I don’t know enough about the science to say. In 1996 the APA’s Intelligence task force had this to say
“The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.”
My reading of the survey is that intelligence professionals seem to be leaning toward an explanation that is at least somewhat genetic. However research in this area seems to be getting more definitive so there is no need to speculate at this time.
Consider three possible pairings of two parameters:
a — (2.0, 2.0)
b — (2.0, 0.5)
c — (2.0, 0.)
If forced to choose, I might say that (b) is more similar to (c) than it is to (a). MrDibble prefers to cluster (b) with (a). We’re each entitled to our opinion, as are you. Resolving this conflict may be non-trivial; but I see no particular reason to uphold MrDibble’s view over my mine. I made a “throwaway” point about caffeine to express a point colorfully. I’m sure his confused response to that wasn’t due to any innumeracy, but I did want to keep the record straight.
Funnily enough, it wasn’t but weeks after the Neanderthal gene admixture studies started to be published that a race-realist poster used it against me (in my initial thread 9 n’ 1/2 years ago) as vindicating proof of African mental inferiority. He even threatened that it was an “initial shot” that would bring down our “egalitarian blank slatism”.
For these people “the proof” is always coming (just around the corner) and it will vindicate everything they say about the races. We just need to watch out/run for cover/convert now; before its too late! They grab everything new and science related to be the first to pervert it into a racialized screed and make wild claims on top of more wild claims hoping that their interlocutor isn’t well versed in whatever niche science (or African history) they are perverting.
Jeez. We can even see the technique (unashamedly) used in this thread which is dedicated to celebrating the 10 year milestone of another claim. With a complete lack of any sense of irony.
I don’t see the point of the math quibbles, but I decided to just look up the details of the conversation I paraphrased from memory in post #9. Sam Harris spends a lot of his time calmly ranting about the political correctness of the left and its stifling effect on scientific inquiry, so I’m sure he’s used this anecdote numerous times; the version I’d heard was from Harris’s Making Sense podcast episode 161 (June 24, 2019) in which he chatted with Jared Diamond. At around minute 36, Harris noted:
Harris: I remember in 2014 when it was found that homo sapiens DNA had been comingled with Neanderthal DNA to the tune of, you know, 2.7 percent or 3 percent. Basically everyone on Earth with the exception of people who have just all of their ancestors in Africa is part Neanderthal, right, and so I remember going out on social media that day and quite sanctimoniously saying “Attention all racists: you were right. Whites are special. We’re part Neanderthal. Blacks are just human”, right? You know it took me about five seconds after sending that tweet to understand; what if it had gone the other way? What if the only people on Earth who were part Neanderthal were people of African, direct African descent? That would have been a life-deranging, probably life-destroying discovery for the geneticist who had the misfortune to make it, or for any journalist who had the temerity to even talk about it, right? It just would have been so awful for reasons that we have to perform an exorcism on. We can’t politically be vulnerable to, just the data coming in. The data will be whatever they are, right? And who cares who’s part Neanderthal in the end? But I feel that we as a community of public intellectuals, for lack of a better word, are truly vulnerable to what is a kind of moral panic around the politics of discussing human difference.
If Harris has revisited the issue since, he may have updated his facts.
How can a racist view be appraised, without objective definitions of “black” and “white”? It’s too stupid to critique, like a physics hypothesis that’s so wrong, it’s not even “wrong”.
And why is this important, even if true? It’s a mystery why you’re even fixated on 2.0%. It was mentioned upstream that non-Africans typically have 1 to 2% Neanderthal DNA.
So in your pairings above, replace 2.0 with 1.0, and give us your assessment. See how crazy your perseverance looks to most of us now?
I’m sure there’s nothing psychosomatic about that in the slightest…:rolleyes:
Nothing, you’re the one who brought it up. I can’t presume to imagine what conversation is going on in your head.
I do know 4 times is less than one order of magnitude, though…
Does your use of scare quotes indicate you think the variation isn’t clinal?
I don’t need you to concede anything, the factual studies summarised by the link I already posted makes any concessions you or anyone might make completely superfluous.
That the admixture is more than zero is a fact. Harris is simply wrong when he said there wasn’t any Neanderthal admixture in always-in-Africa groups. Exact amount of admixture is your red herring.
I’d also argue that racialists often cite the achievement gap between white and black Americans as evidence of the latter’s genetic inferiority relative to the former. But black Americans have, on average, about 20% European ancestry and thus possess quite a bit of that super powerful Neanderthal DNA.
The irony here is that Harris was the one who immediately interpreted the Neanderthal finding through a politicized racialist prism. He could’ve just dispassionately and objectively considered the science, thoughtfully mused about what this could mean about long held assumptions regarding mating between Homo species, and then moved on with life like most people have done with this neat but ultimately trivial discovery. But instead, dude immediately brought ideology into it. And then projected that same mindset onto everyone else. I just can’t.
Well, population growth is slowing, particularly in the wealthier countries who are also those countries more likely to embrace LGBT rights. Now I don’t in any way think that these are connected, but if I were of such a mind I could claim that the stats back me up.
I know that decaf contains a “fair amount” of caffeine because it keeps me awake if I drink too much of it.
Hilarity reigns.