Did it counter anything I said about your first cite? Nope, it did not.
It wasn’t my statement, it was from your own damn cite. So who’s the simpleton now, Chief Poultrymolester? You don’t have an answer for the actual criticisms of that blog post I raised, so you’re just going to try the full Gish Gallop instead?
One of us has posted a full scientific paper, one of us can’t tell the difference between a scientific paper and an opinion piece that’s clearly labelled as such - the journal equivalent of a Letter to the Editor.
So who’s the one interested in science, again?
I’m not here to debate you, you dumb shit. I’m here to call you names, because the debate has already been won. It was won when organizations like the AAPArecognized the unscientific nature of the race concept you and your racist friends still cling to.
Not really. Black society has already provided a cultural marker that says nothing about a biological construct identified as “race.” In 1989, a group proclaimed a desire that those whose ancestors were imported as slaves from Africa be identified as “African American.” Regardless how one feels about that declaration or the term that was chosen, it immediately removed and “biological race” from the matter, leaving only the history of one’s more immediate ancestry.
Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Patrice Lumumba, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and any number of others might well be of any imagined biological “race,” but they are clearly not African Americans.
Black Americans don’t seek solutions for biological problems. They seek solutions for social, economic, and legal problems. No one denies that blacks exist as a social group. They don’t exist as a biological group.
Not so fast - a study from 1988, that thinks it’s OK to clump African Americans and South African Blacks as a group (or American South African Whites, for that matter - do you know the degree of non-European admixture in the latter?) certainly seems racist to me.
You might consider starting here for a review of some of the genes related to neurobiology that you are confident mother nature must have exempted from evolution. As an aside, the “ethics” part of the article review refers to the rather delicate fact that once we start discussing genes and intelligence, we open up a can of “ethical” worms.
Why? Because every researcher of genes and physiology accepts this fact: genes make a difference in our outcomes–even intelligence–and gene frequencies differ among human populations, including at the race level.
Were this not so, there would be no “ethical” dilemma of studying genes and intelligence.
Perhaps what you just can’t even is provide any scientific counterpoint to the following points:
Genes affect outcomes
Gene frequencies for variants cluster by populations, including the race grouping
The observed patterns are so strongly expressed that, for example, highly educated and wealthy black families have children who academically underperform white and asian children from poorly educated and poverty-stricken backgrounds, making standard explanations for outcome differences (such as socioeconomic status) completely unsupported by data
It’s similar to many, many blogs and articles on the topic.
My approach is this: “race” is a self-defined grouping that exists at a fairly crude level. In modern populations with a history of mixed migrations, it’s definitely less accurate as a proxy for genetic profile than it would be within the source population pre-migration. At a group average level, outcome differences can be ascribed to genes where other factors are taken into account appropriately.
I think it would be a good idea to get rid of “race,” except that there is a natural human predilection to self-identify. If we were to get rid of “race” as a categorization, we would not be able to set aside special consideration for race, and if we can’t do that then we would see a substantial loss of representation for blacks in the middle class. Without special consideration for race that ignores academic performance differences, the average academic scores for blacks would keep them out of higher education, even if admission preferences were adjusted for socioeconomic backgrounds.
It’s a good thing you aren’t here to debate, because you are either clueless or dumb. I’m going to give you the time of day just this once, recognzing you probably can’t be educate past your privileges.
Here’s your post:
By Mr Dibble:
*"“Simple” is right. Not in the “uncomplicated” sense, but in the “mentally retarded” one. Seriously, you link to a page (Looks like a blog, in no way any kind of academic journal. Not your own, is it? That would be too brazilian of you.) that purports to be all about genetics and last common ancestor and all this other supposedly scientific stuff, and then reduces it to “Africans have curly hair and dark skin” like those are actual genetic markers - ignoring, oh, Melanesians and Andamese and Aborigines, who have, if anything, more genetic separation from Sub-saharan Africans than Europeans (Andamese, in particular, are by their DNA the most distant from African anywhere on the planet, biologically) yet have the same physical features of “curly hair, thick lips, dark skin” your blog post harps on about.
And that’s the level of science the racists use, everybody. “I know a Black by how they look, and damn the DNA”
*
But you keep fucking that (White) chicken, Pedant."
You quote, out of context, a single part of an essay which in toto does not represent the topic the way that out of context quote seems to suggest. Here’s the paragraph, and I suggest reading the whole essay again:
*“Without getting too technical with scientific explanations (those will come later, but I am just trying to establish the basics for now), you can think of genetic clusters in the following manner: curly hair does not in and of itself prove that the person is black. A person of any race, and in particular a Caucasoid, could have curly hair. A Caucasoid may have thick lips and even somewhat dark skin. Any one of these does not prove the person to be black. But when you see that a person’s hair is curly, his lips are thick, his skin is dark, his bone, cranial and dental structure is like most other blacks, and so on, so forth for hundreds and even thousands of different qualities, you realize that the person can only be someone of African descent. You know this just by looking at a person. Geneticists know this by looking at a person’s DNA.”
*
The “debate” around the use of the term “race” has been “won” on the field of word usage (we’re pretty much all agreed it’s not a scientific term; it has exceedingly soft biological edges; there is no single marker for race; race is best left as a self-identified socially useful marker; and there are nuances to the use of the term when understanding genetic clusters and frequencies.
Enjoy your “win.”
However, debates about how (and whether) to use “race” have nothing to do with the simple scientific fact that genes variations cluster by self-identified “race” because of the historical migration patterns of the human species, and that even when so broad a lumping as self-identified “race” is used to group large populations, one will see a consequent distribution for gene variants that has an average difference. Moreover those gene differences drive average physiologic outcome differences.
Thus we can say in linguistic shorthand, “For the US population, Blacks have a higher likelihood of SS based sickle cell disease than do whites, and white males have lower testosterone levels than do blacks” even if the “black” we happen to be looking at is Navin Johnson, and the “white” is Barack Obama.
Only a dullard–and I grant you, they are not rare–confuses group averages with individuals.
I am confused about this point, since I know nothing about how to define who is an African American, and hold no position on it.
What I do know is that if we get rid of (self-identified) race preferences, and substitute socioeconomic status only (i.e. “opportunity”) as acceptable preference for getting into higher education and getting jobs, the black middle class in the USA will suffer terribly.
Currently, the best schools give substantial race-alone preferences to admissions for blacks, and once an education is received, companies are also freer to give preferences to blacks in order to keep up diversity. But if we get rid of race-alone preferences, at every SES tier, blacks will be outperformed (as a group average) by equally SES-disadvantaged students, and by a margin so wide that blacks will not be competitive candidates. Currently, for example, the Ivy League schools preferentially admit blacks who are from higher SES tiers (because that’s where the best students can be found) even when the academic records and scores from those high-SES black students are woefully behind their asian and white counterparts (from all SES tiers). They (and most other schools) ignore the SES advantage those black students have in the same way they might ignore poorer scores from a white legacy student. They need to protect “black race” as a category to get the best black students just the way they might protect “legacy” as a category to get the best legacy students.
Without a notion of “race” this is not possible, and those excellent black candidates would not be able to be given preferences because their race category would not even exist.
It is way too simplistic for Judge Roberts to think we’ll get rid of racism by getting rid of race. What would happen instead is that underrepresentation by blacks in the middle class of America would increase substantially if we get rid of race.
“Related to neurobiology” does not mean intelligence, not in the least. Face it – we have, effectively, no idea which genes are responsible for high or low intelligence.
This provides zero evidence that black people are less intelligent. You fail at trying to sidestep your complete lack of data about the genes for high and low intelligence. Not genes related to the brain, or related to the nervous system, but related to high and low intelligence.
I don’t see an ethical dilemma. Study all you want. But until you find the genes responsible for high and low intelligence, there’s absolutely no reason to accept the genetic explanation as the best one to explain various discrepancies in test scores. No reason at all.
These don’t need to be ‘countered’. Whether they’re true or not does nothing to support your assertion that black people are inherently genetically less intelligent.
“Copmletely unsupported by data”? Wrong. There is plenty of data that supports the fact that socioeconomic status affects academic and test score outcomes (among other outcomes). This particular characteristic may not be the entire explanation for test score disparities, but everyone (even your bad-scientist buddies) accept that it is part of the story. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t have to be corrected for!
But there are countless other non-genetic factors that may be playing a part, which you conveniently dismiss. Unfortunately, many of them, like intrinsic, low-level day-to-day difficulties and challenges that are likely present for various minorities, are nearly impossible to measure in a laboratory or experimental setting. But that doesn’t mean they can be dismissed.
And considering that we have absolutely no data on the genes for high and low intelligence, much less their prevalence in various populations, it’s utterly ridiculous to make a conclusion about these populations’ likelihood of having these genes.
There is remarkable evidence that genes drive physiologic functions, including those relating to the brain.
There is remarkable evidence that gene variants cluster by race.
There is remarkable evidence that observed gene variants are driven by Darwinian selection for positive effects.
There is remarkable evidence that nurturing does not overcome differences.
There is remarkable evidence that exactly the same patterns of performance for the various “races” exist across all boundaries, creating over-representation for race-based groups within any number of skillsets.
Your “zero evidence” mantra feels to me like you are clinging to a cliff edge by your fingernails in demanding the exact gene(s) be identified.
I’m pretty sure we humans are smarter than cockroaches, but I’m not sure we know which genes are responsible for that, either. So I guess there’s “zero evidence” humans are smarter than cockroaches?
So what? Are you saying every single human characterstic – sense of humor, musical ability, ability to dance, close-up vision, finger strength, nose-hair prevalence, bowel strength, intestine-length, fingernail sharpness, tooth thickness, hair-follicle malleability, foot pronation, and a million others, must have some sort of ‘racial heirarchy’?
Whether this is true or not, there is no evidence that the genes for high and low intelligence cluster by race, chiefly because we don’t know what these genes are.
Again, whether true or not, this tells us nothing about the genes for intelligence in various populations. Another useless assertion.
Complete bullshit. There is tons of evidence that nurturing has a huge affect on outcomes. Kids with more successful and more attentive parents do better than kids with less successful, less attentive parents. This doesn’t mean every discrepancy is erased, but there’s a huge difference.
How can you say such crap with a straight face?
No, there is very poor evidence for this. Really, really weak evidence, and none of it is genetic. No genes at all.
LOL. No, you.
You’re the one who, after literally centuries of the most brutal treatment imaginable, thinks that a few decades of weak testing and very weak efforts at correcting discrepancies is enough to declare “finished – nothing we can do”. You’re the one who believes that the hood-wearing thugs from a hundred years ago just happened to be correct about black people. You’re the one whose assertions have the backing of no major scientific organizations. You’re the one who blames conspiracy theories and the like for the complete lack of support for your ideas among the scientific community.
Hint: if you’re trying to convince us that it’s not racist to state that black people are less intelligent than white people, it’s probably not wise to compare black people to cockroaches.
Chief Pedant – he’s not racist… he just thinks black people are inherently genetically less intelligent than white people – not because of any genetic data, but for the same reasons we know that cockroaches are less intelligent than white people.
I’m going to ignore the word “remarkable” in all of these, because it’s irrelevant, but it’s mostly wrong.
Yes, of course. You fully understand that you need to start your chain of illogic in “true” territory.
SOME do. Mainly those responsible for the superficial phenotypic features we use to define race. A few others at well. There is no evidence that this holds true for genetic determinants of intelligence.
SOME do. Most do not. The relative importance of selection vs genetic drift and other neutral effects is a matter of active debate in the literature. Signatures of selection are actually fairly rare in the human genomes.
This is so vague as to be meaningless. WHICH differences? Nurturing will never change skin color, obviously.
And this is, well, let’s say questionable at best. Always end your chain in bullshit territory.
Well, of course not. I’m not White, so I must be teh dumb…:rolleyes:
Oh please - what does the context change (a context anyone could find by clicking your link)? Does anything in the “context” invalidate the content of the part I quoted? Is there any part of that blog post that goes on to say “But of course, this is wrong, we can’t identify Blacks by their physical features like we said earlier!” Nope, doesn’t happen. But nice try at accusing me of making shit up.
What would be the point, when you refuse to accept that what was written in the damn blog post was what it actually says?
So why you keep trying to fuck it like it’s a scientific chicken, ese?
Not even those - not dark skin, not curly hair, not thick lips (you know, the Gollywog trifecta) …not even blonde hair…
There is no clustering, human phenotypic variations are clinal, or multi-polar at worst (like say blonde hair, or lactose tolerance). Don’t concede this point. There’s no need to.
(by CP):
There is remarkable evidence that nurturing does not overcome differences.
Either you struggle with reading skills, or you hope folks here do…
“Overcoming” differences is quite different from “huge effect” on differences.
Nowhere have I ever said that nurturing does not have a “huge effect” on outcomes.
Were I maximally nurtured, I would be a (hugely) better golfer.
No amount of nurturing would overcome the genetic limitations that keep me off the PGA tour.
As to the charge I would “compare black people to cockroaches”…
You are an ignorant, race-baiting, stupid, incompetent, inflammatory, uneducated asshole who wants to ratchet up the rhetoric, fling around dung, misrepresent positions and generally obfuscate because there is not a shred of science backing up your deepest hope that mother nature has somehow exempted all functionally signficant genes from being maldistributed among human populations.
(Re your trouble understanding why, if “race” is not a scientific term, it has relevance:)
Read slowly. Work through these points. Get help if needed.
Start with a simple example:
“Tall” is not a scientific term.
A grouping of self-identified “tall” and “short” people nevertheless separates two groups with average height differences. Those differences are driven by nurture and nature. When nurture is accounted for, the residual difference is genetically driven (even when all the genes are not identified).
Genes promoting “tallness” cluster within the self-identified “tall” group.
Get back to me after you’ve digested that much, and you might also consider that screeching with large text or flinging around vulgarity does little to promote a reasoned point.