Racism is insidious. Most insidious of all, of course is my own racism. I find most entrenched the people who are absolute in their denial that they have any racism in them. So, you can’t debunk someone because they are a racist. You have to counter the racist argument by demonstrating that it is incorrect. You need to demonstrate that the generalization made has no predictive validity.
And, sadly, you have to turn that scrutiny inward as often as outward. Calling people racists is logically irrelevant to the validity of their position. Even racists are right some times. Examine the underlying assumptions, and look for the truth. And if the particular assumptions are true, you must look to the logic, and find what is being used as evidence of racial inequality. I happen to think you will find that race is not the actual operant force in human endeavor. But it does drive a lot of human history, because so many humans need to have an us, and a them.
The fact that there is no biological variant that is a race is unfortunately still irrelevant to social situations, because such a large plurality believe that there is. There are no biological differences between Jews, Muslims, and Christians, but a lot of them have died over the difference. So, you identify that religious issues are not relevent to whatever you are discussing, and that attitudes about race are far more significant that race would be, if there was such a thing.
Because belief in race, and racial heirarchy is not based on evidence, or logic it cannot be challenged in the mind of one who believes it with evidence or logic. Remember what is said, and remember that everything that person ever says is filtered through that illogical seive. It’s a lot of mental work, of course. But, don’t contend with the person, contend with the false assumptions.
Have children with someone you believe to be of a different race, if you really want to be part of the solution. You will be wrong about the race thing, but it will still be a step in the right direction.
why? So you can continue to not read them and believe they must be wrong because they don’t comport with your beliefs (like a creationist)?
Ok fine, I meant “sex” not gender. Both sex and race are subjective categories to which people can be assigned based on their characteristics. You keep repeating that race isn’t “scientific,” and you are correct if by that you mean “objective,” but it doesn’t make the concept useless just because it’s subjective.
Just because someone who can write complex sentences using multi syllabic words composes an argument against a book like IQ and the Wealth of Nations, or The Bell Curve does not mean that the composition is true.
If you look at the chart in the link I provided to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, you will see that there really is a strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of nations.
Two generations ago Europe and East Asia were poor and ravaged by the Second World War and the Korean War. Now they are prosperous.
The authors of IQ and the Wealth of Nations attribute the lower per capita gross domestic products of China and Vietnam to Communism. Nevertheless, Chinese and Vietnamese who move to the United States usually do well in school and prosper economically, even though they are usually poor when they move here.
No, I think critiques of culture are perfectly valid. (That is, I may argue with you about a specific assertion, but the field is legitimate.)
Culture is not race.
Cultural anthropology is not hard science, but it the study of something real and meaningful. Africans such as Mo Ibrahim assign primary responsibility for Africa’s contemporary problems to Africans, and themselves critique cultural conditions which make resolutions harder.
The assertions about biological “races” exemplified by The Bell Curve are not science at all. They are pseudoscience, espoused by and for people who need that veneer for personal or political reasons.
The only thing Charles Murray needs to end the debate is the discovery of genes for intelligence and crime. Currently The Bell Curve provides plausible explanations for facts that are not in serious dispute.
So? The reality is that that also applies to blacks:
The point is that you are indeed prejudging a whole group of people, do you know where the word prejudice comes from?
Even by taking at face value what you claim, the reality is that a good chunk of the population in the poor nations is as smart or smarter than the average person* in those rich nations are being railroaded if we follow the implications of your efforts that I have seen so far. It usually means that for many crack pots that it is essential to disparage most of the efforts to improve the situation in the poor nations as folly because blacks are “not as smart”.
And if you miss that this is also a conclusion of the bell curve, you are beyond help.
I have always considered a racist to be someone who believes that what he is racially is superior to all other races. I am a white gentile of north west European descent. The achievements of India, China, and the Jews both currently and historically, speak for themselves.
For any readers who aren’t familiar with The Bell Curve and don’t have a deep personal need to believe its claims, here is a selection of debunks from various perspectives.
Historical contingencies (war, communism, etc.) have far greater explanatory power re: wealth than some sort of inherent difference in racial intelligence. You youself are resorting to them in making your argument.
Taking a “snap shot” of wealth at any given historical moment, and you get totally different results. If you were taking that “snap shot” around 1000 AD, you swould discover that Europe was comparatively impoverished vis. the Islamic Empire and China. Take that snap-shot around 300 AD, and the Aksumite Empire (in sub-saharan Africa) would be on that exclusive “wealthy” list.
The problem of course is that if intelligence varies by population, is biologically based, and is meaningfully linked to wealth, one would predict that certain areas would always throughout history have been wealthier than others - but this is not the case. Europe is a prime example of this. Europe went from woad-wearing barbarians to Roman provinces plus places too barbarous for Romans to take, to “dark ages” - to lordly imperialist masters of the world, in the 19th century - all in a couple of millenia.
Actually DNA can’t do that because as has been discussed, the genetically speaking, humans don’t readily divide into the racial categories that society likes to put them in. You would probably be better off saying, this person is 1/32 tall, or 3/16 male pattern baldness.
Are there any dopers on the bell curve side who have any experience analyzing genomic data?
You’re describing the pure biological way of sex-typing (to look, name, list and describe the sex chromosomes).
Gender, however, (much like race) is a larger social system. Male and female are social categories that happen to be relevant for ~99% of humans. Also our social terms/categories are expanding to meet the needs of many who don’t fit into the male/female dichotomy (trans-gendered, inter-sexed, etc).
All this doesn’t change how biologists do sex-typing though.
Whenever I encounter that kind of language I know that the person presenting it is in trouble rationally, and has to appeal to emotion.
According to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Israel has an average IQ of 94. Nevertheless, the Ashkenazic Jews have an average IQ that has been estimated as high as 112. The Israeli average of 94 can be explained by the fact that Ashkenazic IQs are combined with non Ashkenazic Jews, and Arabs.
But subjective identification of race is likely to be as much influenced by culture than biology. A “mixed race” person who grew up with his “black” father in the projects might call might call themselves black, while if he was raised by his mother in Beverly hills he might call himself white. You might as well say love of hip-hop is scientific. If your claim is that blacks have lower average IQ than whites because they are a genetically different subclass, then you will need to demonstrate that genetic difference so we know what we are talking about. That is step 1. Steps 2+ of course deal with the issue of correlation!=causality.
In The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argue that civilization comes first, then comes improvements in intelligence. This is because civilization exerts different populations pressures, favoring individuals with superior intelligence.
Cochran and Harpending go so far as to suggest that Europeans were unable to take advantage of scientific and technical discoveries made by specific Greeks during the Golden Age of Greece because the average IQ had not yet advanced enough.
I’m new here, so many my impression is wrong, but it seems like I see a lot fewer people like that guy with the face (who is, quite correctly, pointing out that the belief in the biological superiority of one ‘race’ over another is textbook racism) more people like you (probably white, and whining about quite literal straight-up examples of racism being called racism.)
Whining about PCism when someone is criticizing literal, obvious racism is absurd. Do you get all your political views from South Park?
You can’t, not with any degree of reliability. I’m surprised that someone with your, um, interest in the subject is so vastly ignorant of basic facts about the biological nature of race.
Again, it can’t, reliably. You can, sometimes, find a marker that’s largely only found in certain particular ethnic groups, and then, if those ethnic groups are black, say that it is likely that someone has a black ancestor somewhere along the line, but there’s no “gene for blackness” or any particular genetic profile that will correspond well to the large and varied group of human ethnicities that are commonly identified as “black”. You can find genes that are likely (but not certain) indicators of having ancestry from some particular subset of black people, but none of those genetic markers are general to all dark-skinned Subsaharan African populations, due to the great degree of genetic diversity among black people.
Again, your pig-ignorance of very elementary facts surprises me. Although the more I read threads here, the less surprising it becomes in context.
