Another Africa thread hijacked

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?

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.

  1. The groups identified do match genetic clusters. 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.

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

  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.

Like if that really supports the “facts” you mention

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.

Truth in labelling is not “insults”.

Nonsense. By this absurd “logic”, the word “criminal” is useless because it covers both petty embezzlement and serial murder.

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.

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.

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.

Then I guess it’s OK to be a racist, because blacks really do have high crime rates and low average IQs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.