The context of what I was saying was not about whether you were or were not dishonest. I described a category of what I would object to on grounds of dishonesty. If it happened to fit you that was incidental to the point I was making at that time.
Assuming that I was responding to someone who had actually called me that, you might have something. As it is …
The fact that many experts who are familiar with the evidence and supposed to base their opinions on an assessment of the evidence felt there was likely some genetic component tends to weaken your assertion that there is “no evidence” of any genetic component. You parried this by suggesting (post #734) that they were basing their contrary positions on “suspicions, feelings, etc. about the subject”. This amounts to a claim about the opinions of these scientists (and contrary to your assertion in post #771 that you have made no such claims) and it’s at that point that their motivation for holding those positions became relevant.
In that case it would behoove you to ascertain that your various opponents in these discussions are actually saying what you presume them to be saying - that genetic factors account for the entire disparity - before carrying on as you do.
Personally I think it’s ludicrous to think that genetic factors account for the entire discrepancy between the general populations of whites versus blacks, and I doubt if anyone is actually making this claim. (It might be that someone is making that claim about certain tests which measured specific supposedly normalized cohorts.)
[IIRC, people have pointed this issue - specifically that the presence of environmental factors doesn’t mean that there are not also genetic factors - to you in the past, but I can’t be bothered to hunt this down just now, and I could be wrong.]
OK. But you would agree then, that for purposes of your argument with that hypothetical guy holding that hypothetical position, the third and fourth sentences of your post #734 - and all this discussion of the “best explanation” generally - are moot. Correct?
Oh, I just like giving hateful man-hater feminists a hard time once in awhile, usually in the pit. You’re a self-righteous Heather who holds grudges and just can’t get over yourself.
So, you just randomly start talking about things “generally” and not because anyone else said anything. You’re just “generally” pointing it out in the presence of people who just happen to fit the categorization.
And you call other people dishonest? In your face-to-face life, does anyone actually fall for this line of bullshit you peddle? It’s hilariously transparent in writing, but maybe you couple it with a super earnest look or something.
Considering the variety of ways that the polling question could be interpreted, and the low response level, I don’t think it weakens my case significantly at all.
This is also just my “suspicions, feelings, etc.”. I really don’t have any idea beyond the vaguest notion what those scientists believe, much less why they believe it.
I still don’t see how it’s relevant. As to my motivations, I suppose it was something like “well, I might as well make a guess about some aspect of these vague poll answers”.
I have ascertained that, at least for CP (entire or almost entire).
CP has pretty clearly made this claim (or almost this claim).
People probably have, and I haven’t disputed this. I recognize that there is a non-zero possibility that genetics are involved.
Possibly, but who cares? I wasn’t arguing with some hypothetical guy in that post – I was arguing against real assertions that the best explanation for the test score disparity is inferior genes for intelligence among black people. Indeed, unless I am wildly mistaken, CP argues that this is the only significant factor in the test score disparity nowadays.
I’m still curious why my motivations are “interesting”, but the motivations of those who claim that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average, are not.
I don’t who any of those people are. Are they from the movie?
Generally I’m a kind-hearted liberal tree hugger but in the pit I see people forming snotty little cliques and spewing out all sorts of nonsense and if I’m in the mood, I call them out for their crap. Then I get a troll-stalker following me around taking digs. Oh, well.
Or why it’s just so interesting that you talk about this so often, but when people do nothing but talk about the inferiority of black people, that’s not remarkable at all.
You’re conflating two different posts. One is my first post to this thread (which you quoted above and called a complaint) - that was before anyone had called me anything and obviously did not amount to a complaint about being called anything. The other is my “generally” comment, which was clarifying my response to something you said.
Try to keep things straight, if possible.
Can you link to that? I would be surprised. That would amount to a claim that there are no enviromental differences in aggregate between whites and blacks which might influence their average scores at all, which I can’t imagine anyone thinks. (As above, he might be claiming that certain sub-groups are or can be normalized to isolate these factors - e.g. I know he’s made claims about middle class blacks versus lower class whites - but in terms of the entire white and black populations I don’t recall anything of the sort. So a link would be helpful)
That’s not what I said. He thinks the “nurture” factors have been entirely eliminated/accounted for, and the gap that still exists is entirely due to genes (basically, once the studies account for socio-economic status, he claims that any remaining gap is due to genes). I think that’s a ridiculous claim – mainly because I think it’s ludicrous to claim that all non-genetic factors (i.e. “nurture”) have been accounted for.
The term “racist” is often misused as a name-calling way of shouting down opposing views rather than address the issue. Let’s deal with the facts instead.
Perhaps, but I don’t think it’s being misused here. It really is a racist claim, and perhaps racism in its purest form, to claim that black people are inherently less intelligent, on average, due to genes.
Until the scientific evidence emerges - which may be never - we can’t say with certainly whether black people have a lower average IQ due to genetics or not.
So the fair approach is: “This theory cannot be confirmed as true, but cannot be discounted either. It could be accurate or inaccurate.”
By the same logic, we can’t say with certainty whether Jews are inherently greedier and less trustworthy than others due to genetics, so it’s not racist to say they are.
Sorry. Both are racist claims. It’s racist to say that Jews are inherently genetically less honest, and it’s racist to say that black people are inherently genetically less intelligent.
And we have no genetic evidence that supports either claim.
It’s also not a theory. It’s a hypothesis. The question is “why does this test-score disparity exist”? The hypothesis of some, like Chief Pedant, is that it exists (once corrected for economic factors) due to inferior genes for intelligence, on average, in black people.
But it’s just a hypothesis. It hasn’t been tested, except perhaps in the Scarr study (which I’ve cited), and the Scarr study’s findings seem to refute the hypothesis.
I’m inclined to think the test-score disparity among different groups of people is more about culture, attitude and personal motivation than anything genetic or economic.