Uh, no, that doesn’t follow at all. Of course IQ tests are a good proxy for intelligence, and of course intelligence within a particular environment is mostly (or, at least 50%) heritable, that doesn’t negate the idea that environmental influences can also play a role.
For what it’s worth, the Flynn effect in European countries seems to have maxed out or to have started to reverse itself, and if current fertility trends continue, we can expect that to continue. So it’s unlikely that white Americans are going to get any smarter. Black Americans may still be able to benefit from the Flynn effect, and that would narrow the gap.
Only 18% of the researchers asked responded to the poll – the author of the article doesn’t seem confident that this is a particularly representative sample.
And you get my ‘viewpoint’ wrong (just like CP). In this thread, my aim is not to make an argument about the cause of the test-score disparity. My aim is simply to demonstrate the extreme weakness of the assertion that the cause of the test-score disparity is inferior genes for intelligence in black people, due to things like the absence of any data whatsoever about the genes for intelligence in black people, along with data that refutes this assertion like the Scarr (et al) study that shows African admixture does not correlate to lower test scores.
I worked with a woman who was real rude to a fellow who was bi-lingual. One day he rather abruptly asked her if he had ever offended her. “I cannot understand,” he said, “why you are always rude to me.”
After he left she got very huffy and self righteous. When I observed, “You are rude to him.” (me being the only non-white person present) The other employees ganged up on me and claimed this lady couldn’t possibly be racist because she was married to a black man (!)
Ok, so am I racist because I was the only one in the room who observed her obvious discomfort when speaking to someone Mexican? Was she? Was he? Or are we all? And whaddya think of the contention that she is exempt from racism cause she married a man of another race? ?
I submit that one can be alright with another race (black) and still be racist.
There’s no direct evidence of a genetic influence. Then again, there’s no direct evidence of a lack of a genetic cause.
But that doesn’t stop the resident racists on this board from jumping straight to genetics at the drop of a hat.
Nor from falsely attributing the opposite viewpoint to everybody who disagrees with them. Namely, CP likes to claim all us poor stupid Dopers claim no such link exists rather than what we actually claim - that no evidence of a genetic link has been yet found.
I’m married to a black man and I am still prone to racist thoughts on occasion. I didn’t magically become some amazing, bias-free person just by falling in love.
There’s also no genetic evidence either way that black people are prone to murdering 8 year old children (thus rendering them free to become little Batmans).
The “responsible” position is NOT agnosticism.
The responsible position is accepting the null hypothesis until sufficient contrary genetic evidence is provided.
I love that your suggestion is functionally equivalent to the position you wish to advocate. That’s just…asinine.
Incidentally, people who argue that “there is no such thing as race or ethnicity” don’t seem to realize that they are effectively destroying any argument in favor of affirmative action.
(i.e., How can you give preferential treatment to black students if there is no such thing as being black?)
Read the thread again. Nobody in the thread claims that race doesn’t exist as a social construct, which is quite sufficient for race based legal policies, which incidentally don’t require much in the way of genetic testing.
Plenty of people in the thread claim (with pretty good evidence) that the traditional separation of people, particularly Americans, into three (or four or whatever) races has no genetic basis. There’s no way to do this that doesn’t require the rules to be mostly exceptions.
But of course, it all boils down to that classic “genetic” test: I know it when I see it. But there’s a ton of sophistry and obfuscation on top of that one test.
I wouldn’t call it that. “Agnosticism” presumes there is done kind of coherent argument being made, with reasonably well-defined terms, but that there is insufficient reason to express confidence in its truth value.
This crap doesn’t even come close to rising to that level. It’s more on the order of something that is just not worth wasting much time over, because the categories that are being imposed – upon populations of humans, and upon the workings of the human mind – are so useless, especially when thrown together uselessly with a gossamer thread of “genetics.”
Can you point to anyone who has actually said “there is no such thing as race or ethnicity”? Or are you just posting drivel to keep yourself from falling asleep on your keyboard?
No one claims that there is no such thing as ethnicity.
And your twisted version of “no such thing as race” is a distortion of what is actually said. The point made by those who deny the utility of dividing people by (perceived) races is that there is no set of common traits that justifies lumping large numbers of disparate populations under a single umbrella called “race” in which the people within each “race” are more different than alike.
On the other hand, there are a number of superficial physical characteristics that allow people to perceive such thing as “race” and many people have used those superficial characteristics to discriminate against various groups for a long time. Regardless whether Affirmative Action is an effective social tool, laws can certainly address the injustice imposed on people because of those perceived similarities.
Saying “if there is no such thing as race, there cannot be racial discrimination” is just dumb and is frequently posted, here, only by posters who prefer to act dumb.
It’s a small sample, but not necessarily a biased one. That being said, it does, at least, give us some evidence (maybe not particularly strong) that a large majority of the people who actually study the relevant issues, think that the B/W gap is at least partly genetic.
I don’t think the assertion that “the cause of the test score disparity is [genetic]” is that weak, and I don’t think your arguments here have been particularly good. The claim that adoption studies show no racial gap in childhood, but a larger gap in adolescence and adulthood, is exactly what we would expect if genetics were the causative factor, since heritability for most traits is much higher in adults than in children. Similarly, because African and Indian immigrants to America are already pre-selected for education level, they don’t tell us much about the overall populations of their home countries. Indian test scores on the PISA are abysmally low, which you might not realize if your experience with Indians was limited to immigrant doctors and scientists.
Having said that, I’m not convinced by Chief Pedant yet either.
I’m going to look more closely at the Scarr study, because if it holds up and is supported by more recent work, that would be good evidence in favour of a non-genetic explanation.
Pointing out that the Nazis embraced and championed your views is not an ad hominem. It’s the truth. Given the heritage of your argument and the shit data that you’ve trotted out again and again and again and again, the other side doesn’t need to provide anything. Your posts are a mix of lies, invented data, trivia taken out of context, and plain old nonsense. Since your views are firmly in the tradition of bodily humor, spirit mediums, phrenologym phlogiston and flat out racism (from slavery justifications to Nazism and beyond), it’s viewed with extreme skepticism by people with functioning brains.
My views about you as an individual are supported by some pretty strong data: having read a lot of your posts I know you’re a bigot and an unbearable pompous ignoramus and I’ve a sneaking suspicion your momma dresses you funny. However I’m also not claiming that’s a substitute for an argument. It’s just a bonus. Anyway, if you’re going to be a chief, man up and admit you’re on the same side as the Nazis. If not, stop calling yourself Fuhrer. I mean, Chief.