Can’t be that boring, or you wouldn’t have responded. 
As other posters have pointed out, race does have a meaning in biology, and humans are just too genetically close to each other for that definition to work.
So, are you proposing two definitions for race, one scientific, and one ad hoc? Or will you acknowledge that the scientific definition of race doesn’t work for humans?
This was already posted BTW:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html
It does seem to me that there is indeed a genetic component in this, but it is not the most important one.
That is also a line the critics of the ones claiming that “genes are the beesnees” use against them, I wonder if you are paying attention at what the crackpots are saying.
This is a valid point, and one that should be emphasized. The human species is far less genetically diverse than most of the things we recognize as species; there is surprisingly little variation here. Biological concepts such as “race” and “subspecies” are inapplicable in a group of critters as uniform as humans.
What follows purports to be an IQ test used during World War I. If this is true, it is clearly a test of general knowledge that requires a fairly good understanding of English. This would explain why Jews tended to get lower scores than white Gentiles. Many of the Jews tested were recent immigrants with limited knowledge of English and American society. This would not mean that IQ tests are invalid, but that they have become more a more refined and accurate test of one’s ability to learn than what one has learned.
You do realize that the claims about African IQ are based on students being tested in European languages?
I’m surprised Chief hasn’t come in yet to dazzle us with arguments about the NBA yet. That is always good for a chuckle or two.
Can you document that assertion? I am not saying that it is not true, but I would like for it to be documented. If it is true it would explain part of the 15 point difference between average black scores in the United States and in Africa, but it would not mean that African Negroes and European Caucasians are innately equivalent.
The information is available. I’m not going to do your legwork for you. Everything in your posting history suggests that you’re impervious to facts and logic, so it would be entirely wasted effort.
The test score gap isn’t 15 points, it’s currently eleven, with considerable variation from state to state. Based on recent Iowa test score data, the gap is as small as 8 points in some states.
It’s not fixed, not inherent,not genetic. And black Americans and Africans are not the same genetically.
You’re just flat wrong about all of this, so it’s impossible to have a discussion with you.
Strawman, nobody says this at all.
This conclusion is irrelevant because your previous statement is a strawman. Again, anybody who has ever participated in these threads is happy to point out subpopulation differences in the prevalence of genes.
With respect to many metabolic and morphological traits this is true. Just to make your point of view ever so slightly more valid, please identify a study showing significant sub-population variation in intelligence or even some other cognitive trait in any nonhuman animal. Then we might have more reason to believe that the observations made in humans isn’t just junk science.
You are talking about genetic markers and diseases. Genetic marker variation is basically meaningless to your argument because it only shows that proximity is important for mating.
The other class of traits you are referring to are diseases. Some of these are single gene disorders. Single gene disorders are not good models for normative variation in a quantitative traits like intelligence. They do not compare in the number of genes and environmental factors with relative effect sizes and they do not compare in the severity of differences between those in one category versus another.
Diseases such as schizophrenia, which are quantitative, do, in some studies, show differences in allelic variation that is stratified by SIRE groupings. This is very common and that is why human behavior geneticists do such stratification. Again a disease is not a good model for normative variation in a quantitative trait.
By definition, normative variation in quantitative traits must include a large number of, for lack of a better term, “healthy” alleles of genes, and “healthy” environmental factors, each having a small effect. If enough of these go wrong then the disease results. This is the current and best model for a wide variety of complex illnesses. I don’t see how this description tells us anything about normative variation in intelligence.
Nobody argues the belief you specified in your original strawman.
There is no group anywhere with the kind of data to so completely model the development of a human being in a stratified society; so this “evidence” is a god of the gaps type of argument on your part.
This is really the fundamental flaw in your argument and the essence of the logical flaw historically found with scientific racism: You define a test for a trait, you implement that test, and then interpret the results (and have demonstrated that its valid and reliable). Very scientific and I have no argument with it. You forget that you are performing a non-experimental study and have absolutely no control over all the variables. Your conclusion should always incorporate every last possible explanatory factor, but you never do that, you, as a scientific racist, look to the biological explanation and stop right there.
North Korean nuclear technology = Dr. AQ Khan + Soviet Russia, and jesus christ, I would hope a country that has two functions - missiles and nukes - could be successful at one or both.
First, only an idiot would reinvent the wheel. So why develop new rockets when the old ones work just fine? Also, I bet there are cultural differences in how parents emphasize math and science in Asian versus Sub-Saharan African cultures.
See, this is really what it’s all about. Here is a list of all your pet racist things you get all upset about. Why don’t you do the stupid egalitarians a favor and stop fucking up their threads that involve Africans? Why don’t you start debate topics on each of these issues and argue them there?
The thread that inspired this one was on the subject of “the world without European Imperialism”. It’s a popular thing to discuss. People often wonder how entire cultures might have developed without imperialist interaction. THE ENTIRE CULTURE. Not just their participation in STEM fields.
Read my posts in this thread. Your use of “meaning in biology” and “scientific definition” are weird.
Here’s an example. Say that I was interested in the relationship between the length of a person’s thumb and the length of their big toe. And say I decided to classify people into three groups based on that relationship: longer thumb, longer big toe, and equal thumb and big toe.
Have I done something that doesn’t have any “meaning in biology” or isn’t “scientific”?
I could swear a moderator slapped me for some sort of “sly innuendo” but I can’t find the original post anymore. What the heck?
I must just be stupid. I guess I should check with my family and see if I have some black ancestry.
The reason you consider it to be impossible is that you refuse to acknowledge racial disparities that are obvious everywhere in the world, and that have been throughout all of history.
The sun orbiting Earth has been quite an obvious truth for a very long time, and for a lot of people.
I suppose some people are just eager to enlist in the armies of idiocy. I wonder what’s your IQ score, I think it would tell us a lot. Probably not about you, but about the IQ test itself.
Sorry. You will note my E(dited) T(o) A(dd) note in that post indicating that I had arrived at that point in the thread from a separate link, failed to note that we were in the BBQ Pit, and pointed out, as a discussion of BBQ Pit vs Great Debates protocol, that your comment was not appropriate to GD. However, since this IS The BBQ Pit, my comment was inappropriate to this forum and I removed it, along with other comments that addressed posters who were minding their own business and not misbehaving in the Pit.
Okay, so I gather you didn’t realize which subforum this thread was in, and the rules differ from subforum to subforum? Is that correct?
I’m still curious as to what sly innuendo you thought I was doing, since your interpretation of what I wrote differs, as far as I can tell, from what I intended to write.
It would certainly have no meaning. Glove and shoes sizes are not interdependent.
Showing that some ancestors of a dozen or a hundred separate populations happened to arrive in a geographic location at a particular time, even though they have since undergone multiple genetic changes that have separated them from each other, (to the extent that any of the mostly genetically homogenous humans have separated), is meaningless.
It provides no useful information about the groups within that region that can be said of them collectively.
Think about what sort of one-liners talking about dangling things might imply.
You thought I was talking about dangly bits? See, I’m rather fond of those, and would not like to tarnish their reputation by associating them with racists.
So blacks have ALWAYS been behind European contemporaries? Always?
Are you sure you want to stand by that statement oh-so-confidently? Because I can lay some facts on you that would challenge that and make you look like the damn fool you are. But I just want to give you a moment of reflection before I do so.
It’s the least I can do, for such a master mind such as yourself.
As far as calling someone a “racist” in GD, well, it’s a political term. Yes, it can be used as an insult, but since racism can be both an ideology and a behavior, I don’t see why people should keep that word out of GD discussion. When the shoe fits, it works.
I mean, if someone is posting, “The typical black people is mentally retarded and lacks the self-actualization to do anything worthwhile for the human race”, why should we censor ourselves by saying, “Hey. Your post indicates that you hold a position that is similar to that of the Nazis, the Skinheads, and the KKK. Are you aware of this, my gentle friend?” Instead of, “Hey. The position you just advanced is racist and not scientifically sound. Do you self-identify as a racist? Why or why not?”
Like I said, it can be used as an insult, or it can be an apt descriptor. If posters can refer to people off-board as racists (such as politicians), then I don’t see why it’s taboo to call out the blatant racism of other posters–and yes, assigning them with that label if it fits. It’s an adjective that should be no more taboo than “communist”, “free-market capitalist”, “radical”, “fundamentalist”, or “attention-whore.” If someone is posting something that is in the ballpark of racism, that’s juicy fodder for debate. Eliminating the word from our discourse halts that debate.
There’s a joke about Rushton in there somewhere…