“Genes” and “clustering” are. So shut the fuck up, racist idiot. Can’t have your non-scientific cake and eat it at the same time, Chief Poultryfiddler.
And, still, there is not ‘remarkable evidence’ that nurturing does not overcome differences. We’ve only been studying it for a paltry few decades, and some of the differences have shrunk. Why couldn’t they continue to shrink? Why are outcomes now so special?
Guess I hit a nerve. It’s tough arguing that black people are inherently genetically inferior, huh?
Seriously – then why did you bring up the cockroaches? What relevance does comparing human intelligence to cockroaches have to comparing white intelligence to black intelligence, unless you’re saying that we can use similar reasoning for both situations?
You continually misrepresent my position, though – I hold no hope that “mother nature has somehow exempted all functionally signficant genes from being maldistributed among human populations”. I don’t even think about it. I just point out that your certainty is completely unwarranted without any information at all about the genes for high or low intelligence. All you have is test scores, and from a few decades of test scores you extrapolate a conclusion about genes. It’s just ludicrous! Why is now so special? Why are test scores now so definitive, when scores have changed over time so much? Why do test scores and outcomes now somehow perfectly represent some sort of racial heirarchy, while test scores and outcomes in the past do not? Any social “nurture” factors, like various forms of discrimination, which affected outcomes in the past might very well still affect outcomes now. It’s just silly to put any special magical relevance and significance on outcomes now.
By the way, CP, that cockroach thing is going to haunt you for a long, long time. Every time you post in threads about race and intelligence, someone’s going to point out that you think black people are comparable to cockroaches, at least when comparing their intelligence to white people.
Man I love the Straight Dope. 
The debate (and I’m not interested particularly in pursuing it because it’s irrelevant scientifically) is whether or not a concept of “biological race” should be promoted. See Rosenberg’s work on STRUCTURE, responses to it, rebuttals, and ad nauseum.
But genes do cluster by self-identified race. They are the reason that–on average–a given “race” has a recognizable physical appearance. Without that, a great deal of racism would go away, of course; you wouldn’t be able to even know you should make an assumption about an individual because their appearance wouldn’t give away their “race.”
To understand gene clustering better, do some reading in two areas:
First, get educated on the history of human migrations to better understand why populations might have had different gene frequencies driven in the first place.
Second, just read the literature on gene variants and where they appear. For example,you might look at Bruce Lahn’s work on the distribution of MCPH1 variants, or the frequency of Neandertal gene introgression in eurasian versus sub-sharan african (lots of current work on this). Or any number (thousands upon thousands) or articles from the medical literature outlining physiologic differences that show up even among a “races” grouping.
You did indeed hit a nerve. It is so irritating to try and explain fairly simple concepts to individuals determined to be assholes.
Read. The. Post. Slowly. That. Contained. A. Reference. To. Why. Your. Idiotic. Position. That. There. Is. Zero. Evidence. For. Genes. Applies. To. The. Equally. Idiotic. Assertion. That. Therefore. We. Have. Zero. Evidence. That. We. Humans. Are. Genetically. Smarter. Than. Cockroaches.
Of course you are using similar reasoning. The fact you are using parallel reasoning has nothing to do with the notion that I would compare any human (other than you, maybe) to a cockroach.
Idiot.
That’s one thing I agree with you about.
You love it because you’re part of the mob. Because you know that the ones piling on other people and twisting their words are people on your side of the debates. Or sometimes, like here, you yourself.
Finally, you’ve said something accurate.
And if they quote me completely, no problem.
If they take your word for what I said, they’ll be taking the word of a cockroach, with about the same weight of intellectual capacity.
You must indeed love the SDMB which allows you in anonymity to confuse a point, libel another individual, and claim a victory unilaterally in the absence of a single shred of competent reasoning or scientific evidence.
You’re a step away from Dribble’s approach to fling around “chicken fucking” where no actual debated point can be won.
And claiming that black people are inherently genetically inferior in intelligence is not being an asshole. Sure. Keep telling yourself that it’s absolutely fine to say that black people are dumber, with the paltry non-evidence you have. If that’s what it takes to maintain your self-esteem.
Now you’re illegible.
We don’t compare humans the same way we compare humans to animals. You’re either anthropomorphizing cockoraches or ‘cockroach-o-morphizing’ black people, both of which are silly (and one of which is, obviously, extremely racist).
I’m not using similar reasoning. I’m not making any claims at all about intelligence, or about genes. I’m just pointing out the incredible weakness of your claims about the genetics of intelligence in black people, because we have no data at all about the genes for intelligence, much less the genes for intelligence for black people.
No, I’m not an “egalitarian”, whatever that is. No, I don’t make any claims about equality. I just have this compulsion to point out weak arguments, and especially, weak arguments that just happen to include extremely racist statements.
Bullshit. I’m pointing out a very weak argument, and pointing out racist statements.
I disagree.
I hope they do! And I hope they quote your subsequent blow-up because you’ve been called on it. It really is nonsense to claim that comparing humans and cockroaches have anything at all to do with this.
Oohh… am I a black cockroach or a white cockroach?
I’m making no scientific claims. I’m just pointing out the patheticness (and racist-ness) of your claims.
Is this different than calling people “cockroaches” when you’ve lost an “actual debated point”?
With which part? Do you really think it’s reasonable to make claims about the genetics of the intelligence of black people when we have no data whatsoever about which genes are responsible for high or low intelligence, much less which of these genes are more common in black people? Do you really think it’s not racist to claim that black people are inherently genetically less intelligent?
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii 566538]
Why do test scores and outcomes now somehow perfectly represent some sort of racial heirarchy, while test scores and outcomes in the past do not? Any social “nurture” factors, like various forms of discrimination, which affected outcomes in the past might very well still affect outcomes now. It’s just silly to put any special magical relevance and significance on outcomes now.
[/QUOTE]
Tests of various kinds simply quantify patterns. It’s a modern construct to do that.
Perhaps you’d like to list some patterns you see that are at odds with “test scores.”
Now. Or historical. U.S. Or International. Homogeneous or Heterogeneous societies. Democratic political systems. Non-democratic political systems. Wealthy nations. Poor Nations. Black-governed Nations. White-governed Nations. Asian-Governed Nations. Theocracies. Monarchies. Black Majority. White Majority. Asian Majority. Enslavement History. No Enslavement History.
Where do you want to go to show how the stunning successes of a given race within a particular system clearly show the general outcomes patterns of success for a given “race” to be so markedly distinct from what “test scores” support that it’s obvious “test scores” are a meaningless modern diversion from what actually is?
Just a reminder: the question is not whether it’s “racist,” but whether it’s “correct.”
You and others here seem to think you just need to show something is “racist” and then all discussion about factual merit should end.
Idiot.
Sure. Historical test scores among various immigrants. Historical test scores that showed the Irish had a low IQ, which then rose sharply. The test scores that showed that, among African Americans, African-ancestry has no correlation with lower performance. The test scores that show that first-generation immigrant children show no discrepancy between black and white, and only in subsequent generations does the discrepancy appear.
I can’t parse this sentence. I have no idea what you’re asking.
Not the ones for physical appearance.
Only to racists like you, who believe they can tell a person’s race just by the curl of their hair and the colour of their skin.
I must have forgotten more about human migration than you’ve ever learned. For instance, I know that, due to the history of human migrations, the curly, dark,thick-lippy Andamese are genetically the most isolated from Sub-Africans, something you have no response for. Which is, of course, typical for “scientific” racists - “scientific” in their selection of examples and arguments to respond to, just like their heroes Rushton, Lynn et al were “scientific” in picking their data, too.
It’s both racist and, so far, incorrect. Your conclusion is not supported by the data at all.
Wrong. I show it’s racist and that it’s totally unsupported by the data. And I mock you, of course. Mockery is appropriate in many circumstances.
You keep on keepin’ on, CP. Those black people aren’t gonna compare themselves to cockroaches, after all.
Can you remind me again which cite/authoritative opinion you’ve presented disagrees with any of my key points?
- Genes cluster by race
- Genes drive outcomes
- No nurturing variables have been shown to equalize outcomes.
- It is reasonable to conclude that observed differences at the “race” level are driven by average gene frequency differences in addition to nurturing differences.
Or are you still betting on white and asian guys to take over sprinting in the next Olympics, like the good ole days before blacks had a decent chance to compete?
Or maybe you’re just hoping that if you can find “blacks” and “cockroaches” in the same post, your readers will also assume the poster must have just compared blacks with cockroaches.
Idiot.
Well this is good news!
I’ll pass it on to the hundreds millions of blacks in America and elsewhere who feel that they have been pre-judged on appearance without the opportunity to present much of anything else.
Your “key points” are either irrelevant to the discussion, or unsupported nonsense. As follows:
Whether true or not, irrelevant.
Whether true or not, irrelevant.
Considering how little actual research and experimentation there has been on “nurturing variables”, and the nearly infinite variation in “nurture” that is routinely ignored, this falls into the “nonsense” category.
Huh? Differences are driven by genes and nurture? That just means “differences are different”, right? If so, then I’ll gladly concede this point – differences are indeed different, CP.
Who the hell knows? Most of the best sprinters probably have white ancestry, and many probably have native-american ancestry as well. And considering the cultural near-obsession that some countries (cough Jamaica) have with sprinting, it might not be that surprising that some countries seem to dominate the sport far beyond what the per-capita averages would suggest.
No, only when posters explicitly state that the reasoning behind the claim that people are smarter than cockroaches also suggests that white people are smarter than black people.
I have sympathy for you, CP, I really do. I think it probably really sucks to have racist stuff in your head. Hopefully you’ll get past it one day.