# Another Africa thread hijacked **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 1, 2011, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767 "2011-04-01T13:04:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/361 "2011-04-03T22:25:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that was published on 1988, I would go for the view from the Nature article and the reports from **random6x7** , the situation has changed a lot. The evidence supporting the Jensenist position has increased since that survey was taken. Since then there has been: The Scarr & Weinberg transracial adoption study. The studies in the 1990’s by the late behavioural geneticist David C Rowe showing there is no ‘x-factor’ depressing achievement in some groups. Evidence from the likes of John Hawks, Ben Voight & Scott Williamson showing an acceleration in genetic change over the past 10,000 years. These changes have been regional - in response to local environmental conditions & cultures. Evidence that black students in the US from families earning above $70K perform no better than white students from families earning under $20k per year. Evidence of korean adoptees performing above other groups even when experiencing malnourishment. You could read the papers I linked earlier if you want to see the evidence on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/362 "2011-04-03T22:35:17Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > The evidence supporting the Jensenist position has increased since that survey was taken. Since then there has been: > > The Scarr & Weinberg transracial adoption study. > > The studies in the 1990’s by the late behavioural geneticist David C Rowe showing there is no ‘x-factor’ depressing achievement in some groups. > > Evidence from the likes of John Hawks, Ben Voight & Scott Williamson showing an acceleration in genetic change over the past 10,000 years. These changes have been regional - in response to local environmental conditions & cultures. > > Evidence that black students in the US from families earning above $70K perform no better than white students from families earning under $20k per year. > > Evidence of korean adoptees performing above other groups even when experiencing malnourishment. > > You could read the papers I linked earlier if you want to see the evidence on the subject. And? What do we do about it? > **[Retired Site | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/retired-site/)** > > This Content is No Longer Available > [@](#): > > What about studies equating race with intelligence? > > Scientific work abetting the idea that race is real, typological, and hierarchically arranged is actually rather an old occupation, you know. In the mid-1840s we see Samuel Morton measuring crania to get at cranial capacity and then to try to rank the races on the amount of cranial capacity they have, and to equate that with racial differences and intelligence. > > And really about every 20 years somebody else comes along, almost with a best-seller, perhaps with a new method for measuring intelligence, ultimately to show that there is a ranking in intelligence, usually with whites up top. > > The most recent effort was The Bell Curve, which came out in 1994 and literally reached number two on the best-seller list in 1994, behind a book, by the way, written by Pope John Paul. The Bell Curve threw a couple spins into this. One is that it actually promoted Asians as being closer to the top, also broke down whites a little bit more. But fundamentally it was the same type of book as was written by Morton in 1850; you use the same basic methods and the same basic logic. > > Their argument went something like this: there is something called intelligence that we can put our fingers on, that we can measure; intelligence is some sort of univariable; it’s one-dimensional. That intelligence then is measurable by something called an intelligence test that actually measures intelligence. And then that intelligence is highly heritable; it’s something we really do get in our chromosomes, in our genes; it comes to us that way, it is highly heritable. Then one has to say that there is such a thing as white, black, and Asian, or whatever groups you’re comparing, that they are real, that they are measurable, that they are reproducible. > > But then let’s to back and look at the assumptions again. Is there a white group, a black group, an Asian group? Are these reproducible? Are they trained equally? Can we really measure a variable called intelligence? Is it really something that’s not affected by environment, about how we’re trained, how we grow up, what stimulation we have by children? > > I’ll give you an example. One test has shown that just a little bit of lead in the blood can affect intelligence - a little bit of lead in the blood, prenatal, can affect intelligence by easily eight points on an intelligence score. Are we to believe that those factors were unimportant in looking at the differences in IQ scores? Of course not. > > The assumptions that go into believing that there are racial differences in intelligence are absurd ones. They’re ones that we shouldn’t even be coming close to as scientists. The chief one is that here’s such a thing as race, that there are races, and that a score on a test, an average group score, has any meaning for an individual. What I have seen is that science marches on, not all of what you are reporting has been verified or continues to be taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/363 "2011-04-03T23:11:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And? What do we do about it? > > [Retired Site | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm) > What I have seen is that science marches on, not all of what you are reporting has been verified or continues to be taken seriously. Whoever wrote that obviously didn’t bother to read anything post 1900. > [@](#): > > The chief one is that here’s such a thing as race, that there are races, and that a score on a test, an average group score, has any meaning for an individual. 1. The groups identified do match genetic clusters. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) 2. Jensen & co don’t argue that an average group score has any meaning for an individual either. So, the author of that piece is creating a strawman. 3. Jensen & co note any number of factors, such as lead or other toxins that can affect cognitive development. 4. The point is that groups have different statistical distributions. These are likely due to environmental and genetic factors. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/364 "2011-04-03T23:31:30Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Whoever wrote that obviously didn’t bother to read anything post 1900. As the context was in a PBS show on race, he was not the only one that was interviewed, what I conclude is that whatever you are trying to support is not well supported by most scientists now. The link is not the research from Jensen and Co BTW, can you point at why it is relevant to IQ scores? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/365 "2011-04-04T03:21:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As the context was in a PBS show on race, he was not the only one that was interviewed, what I conclude is that whatever you are trying to support is not well supported by most scientists now. > > The link is not the research from Jensen and Co BTW, can you point at why it is relevant to IQ scores? 1. I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. As I said on the other thread, you need to understand the strawman argument of race (which is being used in the PBS example) and the one that acknowledges that doesn’t involve fixed, discrete groups. [http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf](http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf) 2. The fact that groups have different clusters implies genes occur in different statistical distributions across groups. So you’re likely to get average statistical differences. Steve Hsu discusses this here. > **[Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html)** > > \[Note: the science has advanced considerably since I wrote this post. See here for a nice picture of clustering by ethnicity. I've added so... ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/366 "2011-04-04T03:30:13Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. As I said on the other thread, you need to understand the strawman argument of race (which is being used in the PBS example) and the one that acknowledges that doesn’t involve fixed, discrete groups. [http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf](http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf) > > 2. The fact that groups have different clusters implies genes occur in different statistical distributions across groups. So you’re likely to get average statistical differences. Steve Hsu discusses this here. > > [Information Processing: Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html) Like if that really supports the “facts” you mention > [@](#): > > Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc. > > Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc. > > … > > **Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don’t know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.** Once again, I want to see any one of the scientists you are quoting coming with the same “solutions” and policies that crackpots are telling us that we should follow because those “facts” are settled. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/367 "2011-04-04T03:33:57Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > insults at poster A Truth in labelling is not “insults”. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/368 "2011-04-04T03:35:27Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > What I dislike about the use of the word “racist” is that definitions are too broad to be very useful. An adjective and a noun that can be used for Charles Murray, or a member of the Klu Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party who burns down black churches is worthless as a descriptive term. It is only a weapon, and not a precise one. Nonsense. By this absurd “logic”, the word “criminal” is useless because it covers both petty embezzlement and serial murder. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/369 "2011-04-04T04:29:00Z")
Forgive me for getting back to this so late, but I wanted to make sure it was okay to continue this line of thought in this thread. I have mod permission to continue. > [@monstro](#): > > If you choose any random dictionary from off the shelf, I doubt you’ll find “insult” or “disparaging” in any definition of the word “racist”. The absence of those words would be overwhelming support, I would think. But what do I know? I’m not a moderator. > > And my point is that it will always be disruptive when people treat a word that can be and is often used in an objective manner as being somehow different from other political terminology used to describe people, institutions, and policies. It’s coddling the stupid, to restrict its usage. Only someone who is stupid would espouse racist beliefs but then take offense at being called a racist. But I guess their sensibilities are somehow more precious than those who they offend with their garbage nonsense. > > I’ve said my piece and I’ll drop it for now. But I just wanted to put it out there that it is an irrational rule. Dictionaries are not authoritative on the connotations of words, just the denotation. The word _racist_ exists because we as a society have decided that thinking a certain way is not acceptable. Racism was much more popular in the past, but we didn’t call it such because it was the normal way of thinking. And since it is negative, it is inherently an insult when directed towards another person. Your argument that we need or even can depower a word is actually more irrational. We are just a message board. We can’t override all of society. We created the word to describe something we find offensive. By its very nature, then, it is an insult when directed towards another person. We are saying that we find that person as a whole offensive. We obviously mean it as an insult, and no one is stupid for taking it that way. We cannot depower the word _racist_ anymore than we can depower more offensive words. There is just no reason to call someone a racist if you are not saying something bad about them. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/370 "2011-04-04T05:01:51Z")
Well, there _have_ been racist posters here who self-identified as such, or else claimed to not care about the label. Beyond that, labeling ideas as racist can sometimes make one’s point more clearly and succinctly than any more circuitous analysis. There _is_ a difference between identifying a just-expressed idea as racist, and calling the poster who’s expressed it _a_ racist… though that distinction is often missed. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/371 "2011-04-04T07:30:37Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Truth in labelling is not “insults”. Then I guess it’s OK to be a racist, because blacks really do have high crime rates and low average IQs. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/372 "2011-04-04T11:19:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Forgive me for getting back to this so late, but I wanted to make sure it was okay to continue this line of thought in this thread. I have mod permission to continue. > > Dictionaries are not authoritative on the connotations of words, just the denotation. The word _racist_ exists because we as a society have decided that thinking a certain way is not acceptable. Racism was much more popular in the past, but we didn’t call it such because it was the normal way of thinking. And since it is negative, it is inherently an insult when directed towards another person. I’m quite sure the word racism" existed previous to society’s tolerance of black people. But that’s a silly point, **BigT**. Just because it didn’t become an established word until we reached a certain level of enlightenment does not mean that it is an insult. Yes, it carries with it a negative connotation. But so do a lot of political terms that we bandy about. Like “capitalist” or “socialist”. Liberals have stopped calling themselves such because “progressive” doesn’t carry the stigma that “liberal” does. No one walks around calling themselves a “religious fundamentalist”, but rather refer to themselves as “a Bible literalist”. “Racist” is no different any other these other loaded words, and yet GD is wrife with them. When we enshroud a perfectfully useful descriptor in some kind of bubble-wrap and restrict its use for only violent, angry hicks, we’re treating posters like **Chief Pedant** in a way that is inconsistent with how we would treat other dogmatic posters. I’ll continue to call people’s comments “racist” and leave their persons out of it. But not because I agree with **tomndebb**. I just don’t want to get banned. > [@](#): > > We cannot depower the word _racist_ anymore than we can depower more offensive words. There is just no reason to call someone a racist if you are not saying something bad about them. OK, this is just horse-pucky. If someone is calling me and my “kind” inherently inferior, and it is appropriate for me to only treat them politely and respectfully and not tell them how “bad” they are, then our society is really fucked up. Really. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/373 "2011-04-04T14:07:54Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’m quite sure the word racism" existed previous to society’s tolerance of black people. rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- Definition of RACISM 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2: racial prejudice or discrimination — rac·ist -sist also -shist\ noun or adjective \*\*First Known Use of RACISM 1933 \*\* ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/374 "2011-04-04T14:29:06Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- > Definition of RACISM > 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race > 2: racial prejudice or discrimination > — rac·ist -sist also -shist\ noun or adjective > > \*\*First Known Use of RACISM > 1933 > \*\* Yes, 1933. When Jim Crow was in full steam, the Klan was in the midst of its second revival, and well before anyone had ever heard of the Civil Rights Movement. At this point, I’m starting to think you’re just pretending to be a slack-jawed moron. To be as dumb as you’re acting must take a lot of work. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/375 "2011-04-04T14:37:04Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Yes, 1933. When Jim Crow was in full steam, the Klan was in the midst of its second revival, and well before anyone had ever heard of the Civil Rights Movement. > > At this point, I’m starting to think you’re just pretending to be a slack-jawed moron. To be as dumb as you’re acting must take a lot of work. To post your mindless insults requires no effort at all, not even from one who is on the left side of the bell curve. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/376 "2011-04-04T14:45:19Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > To post your mindless insults requires no effort at all, not even from one who is on the left side of the bell curve. Seriously, is this the best one-liner you can do? I agree that I’m on the left side of the bell curve. And you are on the far right side. The bell curve for LAMENESS, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/377 "2011-04-04T14:47:18Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Yes, 1933. When Jim Crow was in full steam, the Klan was in the midst of its second revival, and well before anyone had ever heard of the Civil Rights Movement. And racialist, which meant pretty much the same thing, dates to 1906. **Chief Pedant** and **New Deal Democrat** and **Chen019** are racists, so I hate to resort to a slippery slope argument, but in GD it’s always going to be preferable to label an argument instead of a person. There are lot of arguments that could have racist implications or connotations depending on your opinion, and saying the person is a racist is almost always going to poison the debate. It’s better to point out the argument for what it is instead of arguing about the person. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/378 "2011-04-04T15:17:56Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Seriously, is this the best one-liner you can do? > > I agree that I’m on the left side of the bell curve. And you are on the far right side. The bell curve for LAMENESS, that is. As Gary Larson’ scientist said to other scientists when looking at a bunch of white goofy looking people looking at the scientists from outside a window into the lab said: “Yes gentlemen, they are fools, but what kind of fools they are?” Lame is correct, even when one can all them racist right away, the fact remains that they are indeed clueless about the level of support the scientists themselves have for their conclusions and solutions, lame, lame, indeed. And then seeing them in action, demonstrating lameness on reading cites and posting cites that in reality helped undermine their “solution” was golden. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/379 "2011-04-04T15:21:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And racialist, which meant pretty much the same thing, dates to 1906. > > **Chief Pedant** and **New Deal Democrat** and **Chen019** are racists, so I hate to resort to a slippery slope argument, but in GD it’s always going to be preferable to label an argument instead of a person. Again, my beef is not that we can’t just call people racists as much as the word “racism” itself is viewed as taboo. Even when it’s blatant, people are pressured against calling it out (because “it’s always an insult!” ). So there’s no reason we should be surprised when anti-black attitudes flourish here. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767/380 "2011-04-04T15:35:46Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Again, my beef is not that we can’t just call people racists as much as the word “racism” itself is viewed as taboo. Even when it’s blatant, people are pressured against calling it out (because “it’s always an insult!” ). So there’s no reason we should be surprised when anti-black attitudes flourish here. AFAIK calling their ideas racist is still OK, personally I still prefer to call it crackpot ideas because they are also, and it can include also just plain ignorance as I have seen some display in a GD thread; there are some that are close to being branded racist, but unlike the racists in this thread over there they seem to be just having a semantics fit because they are finding that biologists dropped the old race definition. In that case remarking that they are following crackpot ideas fits as they may not be racist but just ignorant about what science is doing nowadays. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-africa-thread-hijacked/576767.md?page=20)