Again, that doesn’t follow logically. The fact that one can improve one’s performance does not show that there is no genetic factor involved. Also irrelevant is whether you are comparing one group to another or to a standard.
Do you really not understand this?
Regards,
Shodan
This is silly, and you should do more reading on psychometric testing. But perhaps you are fine with an individual whose debunked IQ of 80 does your neurosurgery.
In any case there are many many proxies for intelligence, and I’m not aware that any of them are at odds with IQ testing among race groups. For example, both IQ tests as well as standardized academic tests rank similarly among groups.
The idea that scores “improve as the test taker’s circumstances improve” is incorrect. Higher scores, as a rule of thumb, correlate with higher socioeconomic status. But this is not the same as correlation, and you can’t make me smarter by making me suddenly rich. You should see some improvement on an IQ test, certainly; some small variation is probably associated with things like opportunity to practice and better foundational education. But you won’t actually improve intelligence just by making someone richer, and a properly designed psychometric test will get at g reasonably well independent of SES effects.
No mechanism to quantify “intelligence” is perfect, and even the choice of words is unfortunate, because there are so many ways to look at “intelligence.”
But what is not in doubt is that the brains of different human populations have different average abilities (aong with the rest of physiologic functions) based on different average gene pools from the fact that human migration patterns and evolution have driven disparate gene pools among population groups.
Which is the usual self-contradictory nonsense. Since you cannot point to any specific gene that causes homosexuality, by your own standard there is no basis for your suspicion, and your expression of a such a suspicion is clear evidence of homophobia.
QED,
Regards,
Shodan
I think you should have this procedure. It’d improve both your personality and your posts.
Wishing harm on a poster. Charming.
I don’t know. I haven’t done much investigation into this topic – certainly nowhere near the reading I’ve done on the question of race and intelligence.
This is totally incoherent. I said “I don’t know” because I haven’t done much reading or research into the topic. My suspicion is only based on conversations I’ve had with gay people.
What did I say that is “self-contradictory”?
I didn’t wish harm on him. However if I said he were genetically inferior you’d be defending me to the hilt. What a fun contradiction that is.
Shodan, do you believe that black people, on average, have inferior genes for intelligence than white people?
OK.
But suppose you accept for purposes of this question that there is not a known gene which varies between homosexuals and heterosexuals and which is linked to sexual orientation.
Given that assumption, would you insist that there is “no evidence” that genes are involved?
by CP:
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.
When we posit that there is no fundamental (genetically-driven) difference in average academic performance ability between blacks and whites/asians, what is left to distinguish who should get a helping hand up is “personal opportunity” and “ancestral history of oppression/slavery/unfairness.”
The public sentiment is that if your personal history has disadvantaged you, you should get a helping hand up. There is not much positive public sentiment toward the idea that, although you may be personally privileged, because your ancestors were screwed over you should personally get a special exemption from meeting the same qualifications as everyone else.
So when you get rid of the idea that there are average genetically-driven differences in performance ability among race-based groups, you get rid of the sentiment to protect a race group (and blacks in particular) unless the individual was personally disadvantaged by background.
The dilemma higher education has is that the best black students come from highly advantaged backgrounds, but still cannot compete academically with whites and asians from disadvantaged backgrounds. Without a special protection by race, those advantaged and excellent black students would not gain admission. We would have almost no black students at all in any medical school in the US (outside of HBCUs, assuming they were allowed to continue to operate). I have given you links elsewhere from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education supporting this, and you can go to the last GD thread to find them if you are interested.
This argument may work with some people, but I think far more people who believe black people to be intellectually inferior, on average, due to genes, have no interest at all in helping black people succeed.
I don’t know. I would have to look at what other research has been done, and what it says. Sexual orientation is probably expressed, studied, and measured in very different ways than intelligence – notably, sexual orientation can be accurately reported by individuals, while we have no consistent, accurate, and accepted way to measure intelligence across the board.
If you “prove” that black people are intellectually inferior:
You can then justify any lack of success as just a result of that being dumb thing. Gosh, we’d totally give you help but what’s the point, idiot?
You can discriminate against them. As said above, gee, who wants a super dumb surgeon?
You can be hateful to them. Because it’s not about them being BLACK, you see, it’s about them being DUMB.
You can feel superior to them. I may have failed that test, but I’m still genetically gifted compared to you, random black person of DUMBNESS.
You can defend sterilizing them. Can’t have them spreading those dumb genes!
You can defend ill-treatment in prisons or other institutions. Why, they are closer to animals anyway.
What it all boils down to is finding a way, some way, to justify being a racist. Finding some way to be able to look at someone and be permitted to say, “You’re inferior to me” without having anyone be mean to you on the internet.
It perfectly aligns with this thread. What the people who get called “racist” worry about isn’t not being racist. It’s not being called out as racist. It’s not being identified as racist. They won’t change their behaviors, they just attempt to find new justifications (actually very very very old justifications) and dress it up in science and (occasionally) public interest.
“no consistent, accurate, and accepted way to measure” correlates with inconclusive evidence, not with no evidence.
No it doesn’t. We can’t measure intelligence well. We can’t measure the genes for intelligence in black people at all.
You keep bobbing back and forth.
We can’t measure the genes for sexual orientation at all either.
In line with your earlier exhortations, you should consider your own biases here.
In the case of blacks it serves your purposes to deny to the extent possible that there might be evidence of differences. In the case of gays, it serves your purposes to magnify it. And sure enough, on a very similar question in the two cases, you have diametrically opposing viewpoints, and in both cases they happen to align with your broader agenda.
It would be neat if the world always worked like that. But in reality it’s just people’s minds.
There is no known “gay gene”. And in fact, when we look at identical twins, it happens that sometimes one twin is homosexual while the other is heterosexual. So there is no gay gene, where if you have it you’re always gay and if you don’t have it you’re always straight. However, identical twins are much more likely to both be gay or both be straight than fraternal twins. So there’s that.
I mean, there is no such thing as a gene for maleness, where if you have the gene you always have male phenotype and if you don’t you always have female phenotype. Not even a Y chromosome will guarantee that you develop male phenotype, if you have a gene for androgen insensitivity then you’ll develop female phenotype even though your body is producing enough testosterone to normally develop into a male the mechanism for responding to testosterone is broken.
All we can really say about homosexuality is that we don’t know any effective way of changing sexual orientation. You can’t pray away the gay, you can’t wish away the gay, you can’t cut away the gay, you can’t talk away the gay. Maybe in the future we’ll find a treatment that turns gays straight. But there has been a centuries-long effort to find a way to find such a treatment, and none of them actually work, even for people who really really really don’t want to be gay.
Huh? I have pretty much no viewpoint except a slight suspicion on the question of genes for homosexuality. How is this “diametrically opposing viewpoints”?
Did you even fully read my posts? “I don’t know” was pretty prominent.
FP – you act as if your intention in asking me about homosexuality wasn’t perfectly obvious to all. Of course I knew what you were trying to do, and trying to ‘trap’ me into saying. Conveniently for me, I actually know very little about studies into the biology of homosexuality, so my true “I don’t know” answer is also perfectly consistent with my position on the other question.