Yeah, if you think the problem with America is there’s too much anti-racism, then you might be a racist.
If you think racism has been solved, and the reason black people are still falling behind white people is that they’re naturally stupid, then you might be a racist.
If you think racism only means someone who advocates lynching, torture, enslavement, deportation, de jure segregation, and/or de jure second class citizenship for black people, then you might be a racist.
What do you think about the motives of those who claim that black people have inferior genes for intelligence?
Which “science” about genes and intelligence is “bad”?
The history of human migrations isolating populations so that groups develop with gene pools which cluster?
Evolution of genes across all traits without any particular trait being exempted ?
Modern studies linking genes to expression of every trait, including genes driving neurophysiologic functions?
Modern studies showing genetically driven race-group level differences for all sorts of ordinary physiological functions such as creatine kinase levels, bone density, hemoglobin types or the like?
Modern studies quantifying how even a trivial difference in the evolution of a gene variant such as a C for T substitution in HGMA2 can make a 2% difference in IQ level?
Modern studies showing an introgression of archaic genesets substantial enough and apparently advantageous enough to persist across 35,000 years, and drive a 3% gene difference in the modern gene pools of eurasians versus sub-saharans?
Modern studies showing extraordinarily high penetration of genes like MCPH1 haplogroup D variant into eurasian but not sub-saharan populations, demonstrating how different gene pools can be for gene variants?
Modern studies showing consistent differences in psychometric quantitative exams across race groups, always with the same general patterns identified for performance outcomes?
Modern studies showing that when specific outcomes such as academic performance exams are analyzed, there is a marked and persistent disparity between race-based scores even when socioeconomic differences are not only accounted for, but skewed markedly in the direction of favoring an underperforming groups?
You may cite lack of investigation for any putative nurturing cause you’d like to advance, and perhaps you’d like to advance those as-yet undefined nurturing problems which keep blacks–and only blacks–permanently underperforming even when given highly advantageous socioeconomic advantage, but that hardly makes the rest of the science “bad science.”
I’ll be interested in you identifying the “bad science” more precisely here in the chain of reasoning that says genes are at play in driving group level differences even at the grouping level of self-identified race.
Is it the case that you think being called an epithet like racist is, of itself, a reason to avoid addressing the topic?
Does the label “racist” have a shred of weight on whether or not a concept is correct?
Or do you just get to say, “Racist racist racist” if someone holds a position, and all by itself, that’s all you need to contribute to a discussion.
This “racist” bullshit is the reason we cannot have a coherent discussion about science and what we need to drive for social policy. And why.
I could not give a rat’s ass if you call me a racist nor if you think I actually am one.
If you don’t have an educated position on a topic, but still apply a label to someone advancing a position, you are either deliberately ignorant or functionally incompetent.
Preach it, Sister!!
I’m struggling to be sweet and nice, too.
But all these cockroaches busy calling me a “racist” as a deliberate slur because they don’t like their egalitarian Shangri La being contaminated with any facts, really make my hemorrhoids bulge. 
And then it becomes hard to be nice, even though I’m a people person (including blacks). Plus some of my best friends and colleagues are black, not to mention some of my relatives. I guess I’ll just continue to promote a double standard for race groups, and hope everybody understands why… 
So…much…JAQing…
Can’t…breathe…
They might be racists.
They might be scientists.
They might just be people who look at the evidence for how nature works and say, “Hunh…apparently at a race level, our gene pool differences wire us differently for group averages. May not tell me much about any given individual, but let me take that into account if I’m making social policy that tries to be as inclusive as possible for all groups.”
And unless it’s a shorthand among people who understand language, or who are abbreviating a concept for an educated audience, let’s find a less pejorative term than “inferior.” We are all evolved to live and interact where our source gene pool population lived and interacted. Plopping every human population pool down into what is (for mother nature) a suddenly foreign cosmos should not generate pejorative terms like “inferior.” Too handy a slur for racists to glom on to and fling around without an iota of understanding.
Good insult!
Vapid from a content standpoint, though.
Must be nice to be in the Pit where you can substitute insults for reason and fact.
There’s a good plan!
If you don’t have any science, bring out the Nazis!
Cockroach.
All this, and all irrelevant to the claim about black genes for intelligence. I don’t know why you continue to mention irrelevant stuff.
No, not consistent. A blip. A snapshot. A tiny pond of decent study in an ocean of discrimination.
Irrelevant. This is part of the question we’re trying to answer – what is the cause of these disparities?
“Permanently”? Wrong. Blip/snapshot/tiny, tiny slice of history.
Sure – your massive inflation of the tiny bit of actual research done, and the tiny efforts made to correct it, as compared to the centuries of brutality and discrimination. Also, none of this has anything to do with black people’s genes for intelligence. The question is “is the test-score disparity best explained by inferior genes for intelligence in black people?”. The test-score disparity is evidence for nothing except a disparity in test scores. All the other sideshows you continually put forward, which I have no interest in refuting because they’re not fucking relevant to the question of black people’s genes for intellgience, are irrelevant. Bad science all around.
These “group averages” that have been measured only exist for a tiny proportion of human characteristics. Is there a difference in dancing ability? Nose-hair length? Sense of humor? Foot pronation? Toenail thickness? Testicle hairiness? Sphincter strength? Vein circumference? Knuckle wrinkliness?
Unless all these (and many, many more) human characteristics have been shown to differ by group, it’s not at all “apparent at a race level” that gene pool differences wire us differently.
Considering that there is no evidence that their genes are inferior, I find it a handy word to use to demonstrate what your side is truly asserting.
If you try to argue that saying an entire population has retarded-level IQ isn’t a claim they are inferior in any way, you might be a racist.
We don’t know whether there a genetic way to define intelligence.
We know for certain that there is no possible, conceivable way to genetically define “blackness” in a way that includes all the people we define as black and excludes the people we define as non-black.
The “black race” as it is known in human society is simply not a genetic group.
Thus there cannot be any conceivable genetic link between blackness and intelligence.
IOW, you have not a single study showing that the data I have given you is incorrect.
The cause of these disparities is genes. When, as a population average, wealthy and privileged black children underscore poverty-stricken and underprivileged whites, the reason is differences in the average genes driving that skillset.
That particular disparity is stubbornly persistent. Admissions committees deal with it every day. It is at the heart of the U Texas Fisher case. The same disparity in the exact same pattern exists across the entire world, in every political system; every population demographic; every social history.
G. E. N. E. S.
Not a shred of science says otherwise.
I’m not sure who you are trying to address here, but if it’s me, I have the same question I have before:
Is it your construct that labeling an individual a “racist” has even the tiniest weight with respect to whether or not their view on a topic is correct?
As far as labeling an entire population as having a “retarded-level IQ,” I note with some irony that James R Flynn does exactly that with his baseline data for blacks when he discusses his infamous Flynn effect. Specifically, the data he uses and conclusions he reaches infer an average IQ for blacks in particular of less that 70 somewhere around the 1940s-50s. On the IQ scales of the time, that equates to “Borderline Defective” and similar terms. Flynn currently assesses average black male adult IQ at 85.
IQ is much too much of a hot button because of the assumption in a society such as ours that intelligence is such a high-value trait. From a biological standpoint, it is not necessarily a highest-value trait, and so it makes no sense that isolated populations all over the world would simultaneously evolve identical IQ’s given the uniqueness of each population’s situation. IQ, and even what we consider “intelligence” (g; at least) is a fairly modern and western concept, created to measure a trait useful within the culture and population that created it. Where that society becomes a mixed population society because of the mobility of the modern world, the idea that “intelligence” as measured by psychometric testing should be a paramount indicator of superiority is not really a valid one.
Thinking that a high IQ is a superior trait is like thinking “tall” is a “superior” trait. In the first place, it’s an accident of genes. Not much to feel superior about since none of us choose our parents. In the second place, it is one trait among many, and not necessarily the highest value one for a given population.
I think some additional reading will help you work through this, but basically think of “black” versus “non-black” as populations descended from the relatively small group that exited africa some 70,000 years ago and spread out through eurasia. (I’m simplifying, but you can read more if you like.)
This migration “gate” opens and closes during human history for various reasons, but genetically it creates a group that remained in sub-saharan africa, with descendants of that group, and a group which populated the remaining world, with descendants who populated those groups. In mtDNA terms (maternal lineage) think haplogroup M-N descendants of L3 as modern day “whites” and “asians” (again; simplifying).
Back-migration of M-N into sub-saharan africa was not robust. Further, introgression of Denisovan and Neandertal genes into non-african populations introduced several percent of archaic genes from lineages even more ancient than L0. Evolution drives changes for all genes in all populations, so modern day populations reflect the evolution of the source population genes from wherever you want to define the anchor point of anatomically modern humans (loosely 200,000 years ago) plus any changes along the way that have been driven to any significant penetrance in descendant populations. However a modern branch will not have access to evolved or introgressed genes introduced into descendant branches from anchor points which already migrated away.
For example, if MCPH1 haplogroup D variant gets introduced to M-N and its descendants, it won’t show up very broadly in sub-saharan populations because of the minimal back-migration of out of africa genes into sub-saharan africa (there were some migration gates over the years, including through the sahara from northern africa, and through east africa; but again, simplifying).
The easiest way to think of “black” as a genetic pool cluster is to think of populations which are not descended from the M-N anchor point. Another way to say it is the “sub-saharan gene pool.” Another way is “(recent) african continental origin.”
You are exactly right that there isn’t an exact genetic way to “define” a black individual or a “white” individual and so on. But you would be badly mistaken to think that the gene pool of the average individual self-identifying as black is exactly the same gene pool as the average individual self-identifying as “white” or “asian.”
That’s why we say in medical shorthand, for example, that “whites have a higher incidence of cystic fibrosis than do asians.” The gene pool from which a self-identifying white draws her genes has a higher frequency for gene variants which code for CF than does the gene pool for a self-identifying asian. And so on, for nearly every gene, since all genes evolve.
We don’t have a genetic litmus test for “asian” or “white.” We do understand that migration patterns have driven disparate frequencies in the gene pools underlying those two fairly crude self-identifications.
In other words, genes cluster differently for self-identified races, and so if we decide to use those groupings (even though there is no particular constraint to use them), the differences we see are underpinned and driven by genes.
Yanno, I respect the sheer volume of pixels you’re burning here and all…but you had me at “some of my best friends are black.”
“What we consider intelligence.” “g.”
Ha. Hahahaha!!! Ha! WE do not reify phantoms, thank you very much.
I feel like assigning the letter “z” to a combination of:1. a propensity to fill in test score bubbles in a clockwise circular motion; and 2. a tendency to know the current population of Saskatoon within two standard deviations.
There, look at “z”! It’s a real thing! Why? Because I said so!
Africa, Asia, and America begin with the letter A, while Europe does not; therefore, any differences we see between Europeans and the rest are underpinned and driven by the first letter of the continent in which one resides.