# Are you a racist? Warning signs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519 "2014-07-07T08:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 67
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1321 "2014-08-11T15:43:55Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The fundamental gap in IQ and academic test scores remains for contemporaneous cohorts. So what? It also remains for various non-contemporaneous cohorts. There’s nothing magical or special about “now”. > [@](#): > > Although the “Flynn effect” of rising IQ scores over time is very popular as putative evidence that intelligence and genes are unrelated, it’s a very unpersuasive tack. There is no way to sit the 1930s guy down with the 2010 guy and give them the same test; the idea that these cohorts are the same is silly on its face. No sillier than the idea that various other cohorts are the same. > [@](#): > > Beyond that, extrapolation of modern IQ test scores back to the 1930s means that in the 1930s the average IQ was in the mentally challenged range, and that’s ridiculous. For example, Flynn puts the IQ of a modern adult black male at about 85; this would give the average black male in the 1930’s an IQ well below 70. This sounds like a pretty big problem with the use of things like IQ tests to measure intelligence, or anything related to genes. > [@](#): > > Neither the Irish nor blacks were mentally challenged to the point of being mentally handicapped in the 1930s. Moreover, academic test scores such as the SAT show declines and not advances over the decades. So the dumber people of times past were scoring better on their academic exams? Even more likely – this test score gap was not indicative at all of any real difference in intrinsic intelligence! > [@](#): > > IQ measures whatever it measures. Neurobiological function, and the outcomes of skillsets dependent on it, is driven by genes. And there’s no evidence that these genes for “neurobiological functions” like intelligence are different in quality for different races/ethnicities/cohorts/etc. > [@](#): > > Within our species, all sorts of skillsets–including neurobiological skillsets–have average outcomes which are driven by those genes. They’re driven by far, far more than genes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1322 "2014-08-11T16:04:59Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Unfortunately, your cite has loads of essays with elaborate wordsmithing, and no actual studies which contradict the stark fact that, for self-identified “races,” outcomes are substantially and consistently different. Why would they? No one disputes this. > [@](#): > > That difference persists no matter how we try to make nurturing equivalent. Our efforts to “make nurturing equivalent” have been paltry and weak, and moreover, the gap has _shrunk_ by some measures. > [@](#): > > The black child of wealthy and educated parents has a huge performance gap with his SES peers, and scores barely on par with poverty-stricken whites/asians. So what? Again, no one disputes this. Why do you constantly bring this up as if it’s a disputed point? It contradicts no one’s conclusions. > [@](#): > > 1. Diversity of genes is a red herring. Any given gene accrues only to descendent lines. A gene evolved post anchor-point split within historic migration patterns would accrue only to those descendant populations. If a new gene for Really Tall arises, then the self-identified populations of Really Tall and Shorter would have an outcome difference for Tallness if migration patterns held the two populations at relative isolation. This outcome difference would be genetic, regardless of how much “genetic diversity” either group had. So what? Who gives a fuck? If you haven’t found the “smart” gene or genes, then there’s no way to know which populations are more likely to have it. Another irrelevant diversion. > [@](#): > > 1. The Flynn effect does not explain the persistent pattern difference gap. It’s not persistent. We only have a snapshot of history. Maybe if we had hundreds of years of data, this would be a decent point, but we don’t. > [@](#): > > To whatever extent nurturing helps any outcome, only effacement of a difference means average gene differences are not at play. I would be a better piano player, mathematician and golfer with better nurturing. My genes govern my maximum potential, though. The Flynn effect does nothing to explain academic score gaps which persists when adjusted for SES. The Flynn effect doesn’t need to explain it – the Flynn effect just shows that there are gaps that are explained entirely by non-genetic factors, even if we don’t know what all those factors are. > [@](#): > > The question is whether or not it is fact that genes drive average outcome differences among self-identified race groups. Until we know the genes responsible, and they’re prevalence in different populations, there’s no reason to accept this explanation. Further, there is evidence that _specifically refutes_ genes as a factor, which you consistently ignore. > [@](#): > > Less reassuring is the fact that no one can erase those differences, not even with intense nurturing or intervention. Completely false bullshit. There’s no possible way you could know this. > [@](#): > > If it could be done, it would long have been done, and we’d have a crop of intensely nurtured black students with stellar academic scores getting the racists to shut the hell up. More complete and utter bullshit. In this society? What a fucking joke. I don’t know what world you live in, but on the questions of real world discrimination, you have no fucking idea how the world works. > [@](#): > > We wouldn’t need reassuring essays by population geneticists about how no one really understands genetics, and their life-work is not heading in the direction of proving how influential genes are, and how different populations have different genes. We’d just create appropriate controls, and produce equivalent results. Bullshit. If you want to say it’s the genes that are responsible, find some actual fucking data about the fucking genes. Or just recreate the Scarr study – show that, among self-identified black people, those with greater portions of African ancestry score lower. The Scarr study showed that there was no correlation between ancestry and test scores among self-identified black people. But the cowards on your side are just too lazy (or too cowardly) to do any actual real science, like finding the genes (which would be very difficult), or doing the Scarr study again (which would be very easy). Lazy, pathetic cowards. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1323 "2014-08-11T16:11:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bullshit. If you want to say it’s the genes that are responsible, find some actual fucking data about the fucking genes. Or just recreate the Scarr study – show that, among self-identified black people, those with greater portions of African ancestry score lower. The Scarr study showed that there was no correlation between ancestry and test scores among self-identified black people. > > But the cowards on your side are just too lazy (or too cowardly) to do any actual real science, like finding the genes (which would be very difficult), or doing the Scarr study again (which would be very easy). Lazy, pathetic cowards. As a humorous aside, I believe the Scarr study was financed by one of those racist organizations, I believe the Patriot Fund. Obviously they thought there would be a different outcome. After they got the results they never funded another similar study. They thought they were buying a result from Scarr, but what they were really buying was science, and they couldn’t have that. Notice that **CP** talks a lot, but he never talks about the Scarr study. I guess a direct refutation of every single one of his claims by an actual scientist is too much cognitive dissonance for him. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1324 "2014-08-11T16:27:06Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Generally, the wordsmithing takes [very standard tacks:](http://election.princeton.edu/2014/07/08/race-and-mental-traits-nicholas-wades-third-error/) Yep, your refusal to see that they do cite the scientific studies and point at the data that debunks your points is standard issue coming from you. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1325 "2014-08-11T16:48:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > As a statistical effect, I would think that incarcerating a higher percentage of black fathers for longer periods of time than white fathers would have a statistically larger impact on black families, yes. Do you deny this? I’m not sure what your point is, but do you have some sort of study suggesting that high SES black families where the parents are educated and wealthy have some sort of higher incarceration rates for those parents than poverty-stricken and uneducated whites? Those are the two cohorts. Or, like iiandyiiii, do you propose some sort of grandparent effect where the rich black kid can’t compete academically 'cuz of what happened to Gramps, even though Mom and Dad are well-off and well-educated? Mixing up your SES data across the whole spectrum is bad science. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1326 "2014-08-11T16:54:58Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Or, like iiandyiiii, do you propose some sort of grandparent effect where the rich black kid can’t compete academically 'cuz of what happened to Gramps, even though Mom and Dad are well-off and well-educated? That’s not what I’ve proposed. Discrimination, negative media depictions, and other possible obstacles didn’t end in the 60s, you ignorant coward. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1327 "2014-08-11T17:03:40Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Or, like iiandyiiii, do you propose some sort of grandparent effect where the rich black kid can’t compete academically 'cuz of what happened to Gramps, even though Mom and Dad are well-off and well-educated? No. What we’re saying is that people like you are still around. As long as there are still racists, there is still racism and the effects of racism. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1328 "2014-08-11T17:07:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But the cowards on your side are just too lazy (or too cowardly) to do any actual real science, like finding the genes (which would be very difficult), or doing the Scarr study again (which would be very easy). Lazy, pathetic cowards. Actually, the genes driving neurobiological function are being explored every day. I gave you a nice Princeton review upthread. That review is concerned about the “ethical implications,” of which there would be none if those studying the genes were confident no race-based average disparities would emerge. Every scientist who works in this area is very sensitive about how they wordsmith anything. The reason is that so many studies suggest that, when you compare genes for any physiologic function between self-identified races, you come up with an average difference, both for the exact gene variants, and the consequent function. And seemingly trivial differences can make a substantial difference. I gave you another cite around the fact that a single C for T substitution in HMGA2 can make a 2% difference for brain size and psychometric IQ testing. You’ve got a 1977 study using cohorts all drawn from the lower end of the spectrum, using half-assed proxies to estimate average gene pool makeup, and you are comforted with an inconclusive statistical finding. It ain’t much to go on, but it’s all you have, and on this you base your faith that mother nature tinkers only with unimportant genes, maintaining an egalitarian approach across all races for functional fairness wrt any important functions. Keep working on those putative nurturing elements, and good luck with finding the magical hidden ones which will drive these differences in outcome. Or you could just continue to obfuscate with tangential and unrelated misconceptions. One thing that won’t happen any time soon, with any amount of nurturing manipulation, is equivalent outcomes. The “it’s all because of societal lack of black opportunity” excuse died hard when the evidence turned out not to support it. At least that lame-o SES excuse is dead. So just keep that Scarr study link hand, andy, and hope no one actually looks at the original data. Maybe if you say it enough times, people will assume it’s correct, just like bringing up SES as a known reason for black/white/asian outcome differences in academia. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1329 "2014-08-11T17:21:58Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Actually, the genes driving neurobiological function are being explored every day. And yet we still have, pretty much, no idea which genes are responsible for intelligence and which aren’t, much less which groups of humans are more likely to have which of these genes. > [@](#): > > The reason is that so many studies suggest that, when you compare genes for any physiologic function between self-identified races, you come up with an average difference, both for the exact gene variants, and the consequent function. Any physiologic function? How about sense of humor? Finger strength? Knuckle wrinkliness? Urination forefulness? Spincter power? Musical preferences? How about ability to differentiate colors? Or whether one prefers Kirk or Picard? Whether one prefers fiction or non-fiction? Or the nigh-infinite other ‘physiologic fuctions’? > [@](#): > > You’ve got a 1977 study using cohorts all drawn from the lower end of the spectrum, using half-assed proxies to estimate average gene pool makeup Nope, not “half-assed proxies”. But we probably have better proxies now, and your side is too cowardly (or lazy) to do this same study again. > [@](#): > > , and you are comforted with an inconclusive statistical finding. It’s the only study that even attempts to specifically address genes as a factor, rather than specific nurture factors like SES that certainly do not tell the whole story. > [@](#): > > It ain’t much to go on And yet it’s much, much more than you have to go on. > [@](#): > > , but it’s all you have, and on this you base your faith that mother nature tinkers only with unimportant genes, maintaining an egalitarian approach across all races for functional fairness wrt any important functions. Another fucking straw-man, you lazy ignorant coward. The same, tired fucking straw-man argument that you bring up again and again. How pathetic. > [@](#): > > One thing that won’t happen any time soon, with any amount of nurturing manipulation, is equivalent outcomes. There’s no way you could know this. You’re guessing, and it’s a guess based on very poor science. > [@](#): > > The “it’s all because of societal lack of black opportunity” excuse died hard when the evidence turned out not to support it. This isn’t the excuse, and even if it were, the evidence does not refute it. > [@](#): > > So just keep that Scarr study link hand, andy, and hope no one actually looks at the original data. I hope they do! And I hope someone on your side is not so lazy and/or cowardly to recreate the study someday with modern methodology. Probably too much to hope for, though, eh? > [@](#): > > Maybe if you say it enough times, people will assume it’s correct, just like bringing up SES as a known reason for black/white/asian outcome differences in academia. SES _is_ a known reason for outcome differences, you dolt! It’s not the only reason, but if it weren’t a reason, it wouldn’t have to be corrected for constantly! How do you post such bullshit without choking on it yourself? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1330 "2014-08-11T18:22:43Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m not sure what your point is, but do you have some sort of study suggesting that high SES black families where the parents are educated and wealthy have some sort of higher incarceration rates for those parents than poverty-stricken and uneducated whites? Those are the two cohorts. They damn well aren’t, unless poor white families face the same racial prejudices as rich black families, which they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1331 "2014-08-11T18:28:46Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You’ve got a 1977 study using cohorts all drawn from the lower end of the spectrum, using half-assed proxies to estimate average gene pool makeup, and you are comforted with an inconclusive statistical finding. It ain’t much to go on, but it’s all you have, and on this you base your faith that mother nature tinkers only with unimportant genes, maintaining an egalitarian approach across all races for functional fairness wrt any important functions. Interesting wording. May I suggest instead the alternative wording of: “Every study ever done of the direct impact of race genes on the black/white testing difference has found that genes had no impact.” Also, there you go again using that “egalitarian” word, even after it has been explained to you that it doesn’t apply here. I have to ask myself, “is our **ChiefPedant** learning?” Also, finally, an “inconclusive” statistical finding is exactly the result you would get if there there was no such thing as a black intelligence gene. You understand that, right? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1332 "2014-08-11T18:33:20Z")
I have a tangential question that I’d like iiandyiiii, et all, to answer. Hopefully with a yes or no. With elaboration if they’d like. Question: Is there a genetic component to sexual preference? And why do you think that? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1333 "2014-08-11T18:34:34Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Beyond that, extrapolation of modern IQ test scores back to the 1930s means that in the 1930s the average IQ was in the mentally challenged range, and that’s ridiculous. For example, Flynn puts the IQ of a modern adult black male at about 85; this would give the average black male in the 1930’s an IQ well below 70. > > Neither the Irish nor blacks were mentally challenged to the point of being mentally handicapped in the 1930s. Moreover, academic test scores such as the SAT show declines and not advances over the decades. So the dumber people of times past were scoring better on their academic exams? I guess one solution to this thorny problem is not to assume that IQ has been growing at the same rate over time? Seriously, are you confused by this? Perhaps this simple cartoon will help: [http://xkcd.com/605/](http://xkcd.com/605/). More seriously, if you don’t understand that you can’t extrapolate current trends into the indefinite past or future, then maybe you shouldn’t be doing “science”. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1334 "2014-08-11T18:36:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I have a tangential question that I’d like iiandyiiii, et all, to answer. Hopefully with a yes or no. With elaboration if they’d like. > > Question: Is there a genetic component to sexual preference? And why do you think that? If you think this question has anything at all to do with the question of whether there is a genetic basis for IQ differences between races, then you are too fucking stupid to be participating in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1335 "2014-08-11T18:51:56Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If you think this question has anything at all to do with the question of whether there is a genetic basis for IQ differences between races, then you are too fucking stupid to be participating in this thread. Your lack of dispassionate intellectual curiosity and imagination has no bearing on my intellectual ability. But I’m unsurprised to see you think otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1336 "2014-08-11T18:57:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I have a tangential question that I’d like iiandyiiii, et all, to answer. Hopefully with a yes or no. With elaboration if they’d like. > > Question: Is there a genetic component to sexual preference? And why do you think that? I’ve answered this before. I don’t know the answer to this question – we don’t know the genes responsible for sexual preference (if they exist). If forced at gunpoint to answer the question, I lean “yes, genes are at least partly involved”. This is due (firstly) to conversations with gay people, who can describe the origin of their sexual feelings. Further, twin studies have shown a correlation (though not a 100% correlation) in orientation. Neither of these pieces of evidence have a parallel for the question of intelligence – people can’t self-report any information about the source of their intelligence, nor are twin studies at all useful for race and intelligence because twins have the exact same genetic ancestry. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1337 "2014-08-11T19:03:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Your lack of dispassionate intellectual curiosity and imagination has no bearing on my intellectual ability. But I’m unsurprised to see you think otherwise. You honestly don’t understand how that question has no relevance to this topic? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1338 "2014-08-11T19:03:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve answered this before. I don’t know the answer to this question – we don’t know the genes responsible for sexual preference (if they exist). If forced at gunpoint to answer the question, I lean “yes, genes are at least partly involved”. This is due (firstly) to conversations with gay people, who can describe the origin of their sexual feelings. Further, twin studies have shown a correlation (though not a 100% correlation) in orientation. Could be explained by gestational environment rather than genes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1339 "2014-08-11T19:05:05Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Could be explained by gestational environment rather than genes. Good point! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1340 "2014-08-11T19:06:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > …dispassionate… I forgot to congratulate you for learning a new word. The way to really own a new word is to repeat it 100 times, and you’re well on your way in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=66) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=68)