Are you a racist? Warning signs

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

Zero evidence about the genes of black people for intelligence, which you’ve admitted – you don’t know which genes are involved in intelligence for black people…

I think you need to go back to my cockroach post and reread it.

Instead of focusing on your dumbass inference that I compare cockroaches with blacks, focus on what I said.

If we look at intelligence between two groups (in that case, two completely different species), we don’t have to know which gene does what to make an accurate inference.

I can state confidently that humans are more intelligent than cockroaches even if I don’t know which genes in humans are responsible for that difference. What I do is control for nurturing. I know that no amount of nurturing would get a cockroach up to a human level of intelligence.

Likewise, if I’m comparing two groups of humans, I don’t have to use as my standard the one you propose: Exactly which gene doing exactly what?

There is a much more reasonable standard. Recognize a pattern. Postulate genetic and nurturing reasons. Examine which explanation for differences seems the most persuasive.

For human populations–including race-based groups–there are consistent patterns. There are good reasons to postulate genetic differences. There are good ways to exclude nurturing variables. The most parsimonious explanation for the residual differences in the patterns and outcomes we observe is genes.

Moreover, genetic science is making rapid advances that identify those genes, and the research always pushes in the same general direction: Genes drive who we are. Clinging to the hope that we’ll find our neurobiological genes don’t cluster by race when all other genes do is beyond pitiful. It’s completely unrealistic.

It’s not as if the research seems to suggest that everyone has about the same genes and that those genes don’t drive differences. It’s always exactly the same direction: Hey; this gene controls this function and these variants have these disparate outcomes. So since we know that genes variants do cluster by race, the notion that those clusterings drive the disparate outcomes we see is not only a reasonable explanation, it’s the most likely explanation.

Even when we can’t name the gene.

But I think all of this is a bit over your ability to grasp, so you are just interested in the “Neener neener neener Pedant thinks blacks should be compared with cockroaches” approach to a rational discussion.

Idiot.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It should be noted that that poster later backed off that assertion. Though there were others who have said things along the same lines (honesty in particular springs to mind).Notwithstanding all this, it does appear correct that iiandyii accepts that there are genetic differences between populations. For example, he would presumably agree with the first five items in your previous post.

While I’m piling on iiandyiiii I should throw in Honesty.

He once insisted (after mentioning his schooling specialty in genetics) that every single human on earth had exactly the same genes.

He became very confused between the idea of a general nickname for a gene (say; one that codes for hemoglobin) and a variant of that particular gene driving a completely different outcome.

He was also apparently completely unaware of reasearch showing introgression of Neandertal and Denisovan genes into certain eurasian populations.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

The test results show wide variation in IQ scores. But that’s not what’s being debated here. I’m refuting the claim that the evidence shows that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average. I refute this chiefly because we have pretty much zero data about the genes for intelligence among black people. I also assert that such a claim about the genes of black people is a racist claim.

No. The tests for IQ persistently show exactly the same variation, with blacks underscoring whites and asians. Similar patterns are in every country using psychometrics, and every proxy for IQ.

Moreover, in no country or system has any sort of variable overcome that pattern. I have listed dozens of studies here over the years. It’s never any different.

In the current news is U of Texas v Fisher. U of Texas needs race-based AA for the 20% of black students they want to get outside the 10% system. They have to have race-based preferences, because that 20% of students cannot be shown to be disadvantaged in other ways. So U of Texas needs to be able to assign to those students points just for being black in order to escalate them high enough in the admissions criteria to get them admitted. A wealthy and privileged black family’s son who has attended the best possible schools needs to be able to get points assigned just for being black in the U of Texas system. The school has decided that diversity trumps some other notion of fairness, and by “diversity” they mean, “black and hispanic” students.

This is the dilemma average genetic differences bring us. Because the differences are driven by gene frequency differences, no amount of nurturing gets black students up to par with their socioeconomic peers. So to get black representation for the best quality black students, we have to have race-based AA (which I support).

You can “refute” the genetic differences, but if you are going to support race-based AA you are going to have to accept that there has been no amount of nurturing anywhere that overcomes the basic problem: wealthy and educated black families have children who underperform children from poverty-stricken and undereducated white families.

Methinks you are going to look the other way at the obvious reason for the difference, pretend it must be some undiscovered non-genetic variable (and one peculiar to blacks), and agree that race-based preferences must be preserved even for wealthy and privileged black applicants over impoverished and underprivileged whites. Because there is absolutely no way to otherwise get good black students into higher education, and neither you nor I want the black middle class to be gutted.

[andros]

@Chief_Pedant

While I’m piling on iiandyiiii I should throw in Honesty.

Since he’s no longer a part of our snuggly family, I’d suggest you not waste your time.

Oh wait, you already have. Never mind.

[MrDibble]

@Velocity

Straightforward and simple question: Are we to believe that all races and ethnicities have equal average IQ?

Yes?

No?

*Not *straightforward and not simple at all.

What do you mean by “races”?
What do you mean by “average IQ”?

And even if it’s “yes”, what does it matter? The argument here isn’t, and has never been, whether different population groups score differently on standardized intelligence tests (which I assume is what you “simple” question is actually asking) No-one here disputes that. It’s why, what scientific explanation there is for that.

And what scientific justification there is for grouping people into the traditional races, that’s also an issue. Although one that was settled with a resounding “None” ages ago. Some people just refuse to accept that. Because they’re racists.

@Chief_Pedant

You appear to be arguing either that:

1. Blacks as a group do not have a “typical” appearance that–on average–creates a perception on the part of others that they are “black.” If that’s what you are arguing

That’s not what I’m arguing. The fact that you can’t tell what I’m arguing is very obvious at this point, but I’ll repeat myself because you’re clearly slow and need some sort of help:

I’m arguing that the “typical appearance” of Blacks is not, in fact, a diagnostic feature of being Black. That there are many groups who are not Black who have the same “typical” appearance.

Unless you tautologically define “Black” as 'having the “typical” features of Blacks. Aaah, who am I fooling, I mean dark skin, thick lips and fuzzy hair, of course!'which is what you are doing.

, make sure you aren’t one of those people who thinks blacks are treated differently just because the observer thinks they “look” black. But a lot of racist history would disagree with you.

I’m not arguing people don’t use Black appearance to judge others. I’m arguing that it has jack-shit to do with the sciences of human genetic groups and population history.

And I’ve already shown that my racist history shows that appearance, hell, even close affinity, has got absolutely zero to do with what groups get defined by racists.

I repeat, the Apartheid government you seem to think grouped people by appearance? Classified mainland Han Chinese as “Coloured”, but Taiwanese Han Chinese as “White”:smack:. So tell me more about how they treated Blacks different because they “looked” Black, instead of for a whole bundle of cultural-historic reasons. I find your ill-informed insights into the motivations of my own local racist oppressors soooo fascinating.:rolleyes:

2. There aren’t gene clusters driving appearance differences among self-identified race groups. If that’s what you are arguing, I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to understand genes and clustering.

So please, if you understand this science I don’t, point me to the cluster for a “Black” appearance, if you can?

What’s that? You can’t? Because there’s no such cluster, and you’re full of shit. And have the intellectual capacity of the typical racist. Save us from doctors who think they’re scientists.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

I think you need to go back to my cockroach post and reread it.

Instead of focusing on your dumbass inference that I compare cockroaches with blacks, focus on what I said.

If we look at intelligence between two groups (in that case, two completely different species), we don’t have to know which gene does what to make an accurate inference.

We do if the inference is about genes.

I can state confidently that humans are more intelligent than cockroaches even if I don’t know which genes in humans are responsible for that difference. What I do is control for nurturing. I know that no amount of nurturing would get a cockroach up to a human level of intelligence.

Likewise, if I’m comparing two groups of humans, I don’t have to use as my standard the one you propose: Exactly which gene doing exactly what?

Wrong. Comparing humans is different than comparing humans to cockroaches. Humans have mostly the same genes, and, worldwide, what differs between humans is far more likely to be based on culture than biology.

There is a much more reasonable standard. Recognize a pattern. Postulate genetic and nurturing reasons. Examine which explanation for differences seems the most persuasive.

For human populations–including race-based groups–there are consistent patterns.

No there aren’t. A few paltry decades of weak research is not “consistent patterns”.

There are good reasons to postulate genetic differences.

Postulating is okay. Making conclusions at this point is ridiculous.

There are good ways to exclude nurturing variables.

The “good ways” to exclude all nurturing variables have not been done yet.

The most parsimonious explanation for the residual differences in the patterns and outcomes we observe is genes.

No it’s not. There are many, many nurture factors that have not been taken into account.

Moreover, genetic science is making rapid advances that identify those genes, and the research always pushes in the same general direction: Genes drive who we are.

The latest research has offered nothing to support the claim that black people have inferior genes for intelligence.

Clinging to the hope that we’ll find our neurobiological genes don’t cluster by race when all other genes do is beyond pitiful. It’s completely unrealistic.

There’s no “clinging to hope”… you have no genetic evidence that black people have inferior genes for intelligence. Without such evidence, and without the types of experiments necessary to truly eliminate nurture variables, there is no way to make a conclusion about genes.

It’s not as if the research seems to suggest that everyone has about the same genes and that those genes don’t drive differences. It’s always exactly the same direction: Hey; this gene controls this function and these variants have these disparate outcomes.

It has not been in this “same direction” for the question ‘do black people have inferior genes for intelligence?’. No progress has been made on that question.

So since we know that genes variants do cluster by race, the notion that those clusterings drive the disparate outcomes we see is not only a reasonable explanation, it’s the most likely explanation.

Utterly ridiculous. We have had disparate outcomes throughout history, with so many different groups on the ‘bottom’ at various times: the Irish, Chinese immigrants, Roma, Jews, etc. The explanation was always cultural. There is no reason now to believe it’s not still cultural. There is nothing magical about now. There is nothing special about outcomes now that sets them apart from outcomes in the past.

But I think all of this is a bit over your ability to grasp, so you are just interested in the “Neener neener neener Pedant thinks blacks should be compared with cockroaches” approach to a rational discussion.

I’m interested in demonstrating the inherent weakness (and racist-ness) of your arguments. They are very, very weak, and you have the support of no major scientific organization. And the scientists who agree with your claims about black genes for intelligence, are, in general, pariahs in the scientific community.

And I’m interested in mocking you too. Bad, racist arguments deserve mockery.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

No. The tests for IQ persistently show exactly the same variation, with blacks underscoring whites and asians. Similar patterns are in every country using psychometrics, and every proxy for IQ.

“Similar patterns” over a few decades of weak testing. These are not patterns – this is a snapshot of history.

Moreover, in no country or system has any sort of variable overcome that pattern. I have listed dozens of studies here over the years. It’s never any different.

“Dozens of studies” in this snapshot of history, after centuries of brutal treatment and few and weak efforts to fix the discrepancies.

In the current news is U of Texas v Fisher. U of Texas needs race-based AA for the 20% of black students they want to get outside the 10% system. They have to have race-based preferences, because that 20% of students cannot be shown to be disadvantaged in other ways. So U of Texas needs to be able to assign to those students points just for being black in order to escalate them high enough in the admissions criteria to get them admitted. A wealthy and privileged black family’s son who has attended the best possible schools needs to be able to get points assigned just for being black in the U of Texas system. The school has decided that diversity trumps some other notion of fairness, and by “diversity” they mean, “black and hispanic” students.

This is the dilemma average genetic differences bring us. Because the differences are driven by gene frequency differences, no amount of nurturing gets black students up to par with their socioeconomic peers. So to get black representation for the best quality black students, we have to have race-based AA (which I support).

One of the strangest arguments for AA I’ve ever heard… I’ve never known of anyone else who thought black people were inherently intellectually inferior to support AA.

I support AA, but for different reasons.

You can “refute” the genetic differences, but if you are going to support race-based AA you are going to have to accept that there has been no amount of nurturing anywhere that overcomes the basic problem: wealthy and educated black families have children who underperform children from poverty-stricken and undereducated white families.

Snapshot of history. Paltry and weak efforts. Now is not special.

Methinks you are going to look the other way at the obvious reason for the difference, pretend it must be some undiscovered non-genetic variable (and one peculiar to blacks), and agree that race-based preferences must be preserved even for wealthy and privileged black applicants over impoverished and underprivileged whites. Because there is absolutely no way to otherwise get good black students into higher education, and neither you nor I want the black middle class to be gutted.

I think the widespread belief in racist claims like “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” is more likely to lead to the end of AA (and the gutting of the black middle class). Thankfully for my side, the evidence for this claim about black genes is pretty much non-existent.

[iiandyiiii]

@iiandyiiii

We do if the inference is about genes.

This part should say “We do if the inference is about genes (when comparing people to other people, at least).”

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

“We do if the inference is about genes (when comparing people to other people, at least).”

Do you believe that homosexual orientation in humans is entirely the result of environment and volition?

Regards,
Shodan

[Acsenray]

How do we even begin to quantify intelligence if we want to study genetic intelligence? IQ tests have already been debunked as such a test. They test only the ability to take the test, and scores improve as the test taker’s circumstances improve. So it doesn’t test anything genetic.

[Shodan]

@Acsenray

… scores improve as the test taker’s circumstances improve. So it doesn’t test anything genetic.

That doesn’t follow logically. If I am 5’2" and you are 6’8", my basketball skills may improve with practice but I am not going to beat you one-on-one.

Regards,
Shodan

[MrDibble]

@Shodan

Do you believe that homosexual orientation in humans is entirely the result of environment and volition?

Look, everyone, Shodan’s back. Two weeks after the last driveby, but it’s nice he’s found the time again.

[MrDibble]

@Shodan

That doesn’t follow logically. If I am 5’2" and you are 6’8", my basketball skills may improve with practice but I am not going to beat you one-on-one.

IQ tests aren’t contests* against other people*, but against a fixed standard. Improvement indicates intelligence isn’t innate.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Do you believe that homosexual orientation in humans is entirely the result of environment and volition?

Regards,
Shodan

I don’t know. I suspect genes are involved, but I do not know for sure. The question of whether homosexuality is “nature” or “nurture” (or a combination) is irrelevant to my feelings on the morality of homosexuality.

[Marley23]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t know. I suspect genes are involved, but I do not know for sure. The question of whether homosexuality is “nature” or “nurture” (or a combination) is irrelevant to my feelings on the morality of homosexuality.

The important thing is, have you found a way to say gay people are stupid while pretending you are being polite and scientific?

[BrainGlutton]

@Velocity

Straightforward and simple question: Are we to believe that all races and ethnicities have equal average IQ?

Yes?

No?

Controlling for non-hereditary factors, yes.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t know. I suspect genes are involved, but I do not know for sure.

But would you insist there is “no evidence” that genes are involved?

[DingoelGringo]

@Shakes

How about: Have you ever complained the black people can use the word “Nigga” with impunity while you can’t?"

Do you have a desire and urge to do so? If so why?

[DingoelGringo]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t know. I suspect genes are involved, but I do not know for sure. The question of whether homosexuality is “nature” or “nurture” (or a combination) is irrelevant to my feelings on the morality of homosexuality.

In the latest pole 40% of gays believe it is nature, and 40% believe in the nurture base, and the others said they just sort of got sucked into it.

[andros]

Har. :rolleyes: