Just giving that survey the value it deserves, just about zero in a discussion like this.
And that is not what I’m saying, the survey, besides being flawed in other areas, is flawed like many other surveys (that use the same flaws as other psudoscientists out there) by not focusing on the ones that have to declare in the end if their opinion has a real basis, namely the biologists and genetic experts. It was good to see what the opinion the ones studying intelligence have regarding genes. Might as well do a survey requesting the opinion of meteorologists regarding climate science.
And indeed that was done (meteorologists are not climate scientists and a good chunk of them got the climate science wrong), like with the current example the result is IMHO misleading and tailor-made to the ones opposing the current scientific consensus.
Grasping at straws, do you really mean to say that we have the evidence? It shows precisely the current understanding among the experts, there may be some genetic component, but that is not here yet, and it would be reckless to apply any solutions based on that.
Translation: You rather continue to wilfully ignore that you were wrong in assuming the current levels of agreement among the experts, they are not as divergent as you reported.
And this doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said. There’s no evidence that points to genetics as more likely to be “a cause” than all the other causes.
This is complete nonsense, but you’re welcome to expand on this. You’ve been wrong about most of the other things you’ve assumed I’m claiming and arguing, so I’m not surprised at all that you’re probably way off here too.
You think there’s actual basis for the belief that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have absolutely nothing to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap? Are you serious?
I’m quite certain I’ve never called him a racist either.
And you say my objections to “racism” are broad as if this is somehow a bad thing.
It’s possible to claim a position on both the facts and the moral concerns of an issue. I think I’ve state pretty clearly my position on both in discussions in with both approaches have come up.
I won’t deny that a big part of my motivation on this topic is opposing racist claims (in addition to opposing poor science). Why is this interesting at all? Would this be surprising to anyone?
By consistently only noting the ‘errors’ of one side of this argument, you certainly make yourself appear biased. You certainly don’t come across as a fair arbiter of the facts when you only criticize one side. Maybe you don’t care about this.
I do relate to questions about whether things are “racist” because the massive role racism has played in our society. It’s both correct to criticize CP’s claims (and similar claims) because they’re bad science and because they’re racist claims.
Do you have any feelings about the morality of making any claims at all? Is it immoral to try to convince people that the Holocaust didn’t happen? That white people should unite against people of color? Or are such concerns uninteresting to you?
Maybe I need to expand for F-P on what I mean by ‘no evidence that points to genetics as more likely to be “a cause” than all the other causes’, since he continually seem to misunderstand me. There are nigh-infinite possible causes for the ‘test-score gap’ – discrimination, poor nutrition, parasites, test-bias, genes, economics, etc. Through correcting for some small number of these causes, like economics, they can be eliminated as the cause for the remaining part of the gap. I suppose this strengthens all the other possible causes, including genetics (though, of course, studies like the Scarr study weaken the genetic explanation as a possible cause), but there isn’t a piece of evidence that points to “genetics” as more likely than other explanations, except for the one(s) (like economics) which have already been corrected for.
And most of these nigh-infinite number of causes have not been corrected for. So there’s still no piece of evidence that points to “genes” that doesn’t also point to lots and lots of other causes with the same level of ‘strength’.
I don’t know why you insist in tying yourself position in knots. Your “best explanation” has merely morphed here into “more likely”. The question is, “is there evidence that it is A cause”. You acknowledged before that there was. Do you stand by that assertion?
As someone who is reading the exchange, your position is not easily understood. You keep erecting straw men and couching statements in qualifiers like “best explanation”. While that can be important information, you use it to shroud your position when answering even direct questions in which an answer without such qualifiers would provide clearer insight into your position.
Can you point to where he said or implied this? This is yet another example of your straw manning.
It is if it is too broad. No? I realize you don’t think it is. But could someone be so concerned about racism that he saw it when it really wasn’t there? And if so, wouldn’t that be a bad thing?
I think Fotheringay-Phipps’s critique of your debate here was right on. You are too concerned with the moral implications to allow for genuine non-racist scientific inquiry. This is clear in every thread you’ve posted in about this topic.
He does to me. Keep in mind that neither he nor I are agreeing with CP’s position. We merely think that you overstate the case for racism.
There you go again. If they’re bad science, do you really need any other route of attack? Attack the science and allow it to fall or stand on its own veracity. You’re insisting that such positions are necessarily racist puts you on shaky ground. very shaky, as it advertises that you are not as concerned with science or facts as your are about morality or motives. When your focus is on the latter two, as yours most definitely is, you can’t expect people to accept your critiques as detached and fair.
They mean the same thing as I’m using them (the “best explanation” is also “more/most likely”). It’s true I’m using nuance… nuance is sometimes okay.
If I acknowledged it (and I’d like to see what you mean), it was only in the sense that “there is evidence that there is a cause beyone economics, and genes are included as one possibility”. There is no evidence that points to genes as more likely than the other possibilities (i.e. no evidence that it is the “best explanation”).
I use these phrases to explain my position. The phrases have only changed as I’ve found different ways to better state what I mean. There is no genetic evidence at all that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, and no non-genetic evidence at all that points to this conclusion over other possible explanations.
Further (and this is, of course, ignored by you and F-P) there is evidence that explicitly refutes genetics as a part of the cause.
No it’s not. In post #835F-P says “As noted, I don’t share CP’s conclusion that non-genetic factors can be ruled out as accounting for the entire difference, but I think that’s more of a judgment call, and is not as detached from reality as are the claims by you and others that there is zero basis for such a notion.”
So F-P is saying that there is not zero basis for CP’s notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have absolutely nothing to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for.
I disagree. This is an utterly ridiculous claim by CP. Do you think there’s basis to this notion?
Sure… but I find it ridiculous that anyone can claim with a straight face that the following claim (and variations) “black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average” is not a racist claim.
I’m fine with any sort of scientific inquiry, as long as it’s done ethically and with good science. So far, there has been no science done that’s been good science and has supported these sorts of racist assertions.
I’m aware that you think it’s not racist to say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average”, or variations. I disagree. Somehow, IIRC, you do think it would be racist to say “Jews have greater inclination to greed due to genes, on average”, or something similar, and I don’t at all understand how this is consistent.
Of course. Holocaust deniers are wrong because of bad science, bad history, and bad morals. It’s perfectly fine to point all of this out when arguing with Holocaust deniers. And so it goes with this topic.
I’ve done this. I’ve also used different ‘lines of attack’.
I don’t see how… and I don’t see how such claims can possibly be described as not racist. I don’t see how pointing this out puts me on ‘shaky ground’ at all.
As far as I can tell, the only people who don’t accept my critiques as “detached and fair” are folks who believe that it’s not racist to say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence on average”.
I’m not as concerned what such folks think about me, because they clearly have a very different, and even alien, understanding of the world as compared to mine.
That’s what I meant. What if that vague sense of xenophobia becomes an acute one ? Then it becomes racism. Blaming evolution ? I don’t even know what that means. How is it you know so much about what’s “wrong” with my personality ? Oh, you’re the one who bans. I get ya’. It’s the authority you hold. I like when people speak as if they know me. It’s usually laughable. But not this time.
I don’t know that I have the interest and time to keep going round and round with you as you play your game at this time. But as you’re egregiously misrepresenting what I’ve said here I thought I’d point it out.
I completely agree that there is zero basis for anyone’s “notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have absolutely nothing to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for”, and have never said anything that would imply otherwise to a reasonably intelligent person who was arguing in good faith.
However, I am not aware of anyone who has made this claim, including CP, so my quote about CP not being nearly as detached from reality as you are does not relate to this statement.
The only one who is hung up with this strict division of all factors into 1) genetic 2) economic and 3) all other, is you yourself. But if you insist on structuring it this way, you can say that the “notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors cannot completely account for the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for” which would leave genetic factors as the remainder, is more reasonable and not as detached from reality as is your position here.
Or, more generally, the “notion that economic factors, discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors cannot completely account for current differences in test scores and other gaps of this sort” is less detached from reality than your positions on this issue.
The only misunderstanding, then, is on what CP said, which you defended (in a roundabout way, sometimes). I have been arguing on this topic with him for years, and he’s absolutely made statements dismissing past oppression, discrimination, and other societal factors as having anything to do with the test-score gap (after economics are corrected for).
I don’t hold a position here. I’m just criticizing the position of those who say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence”. For the millionth time.
The position which you generally summarize by your statement above is closer to the following:
Observed average skillset differences among human populations–including groupings such as self-identified races–for certain physical skills such as power sprinting, psychometric exams for intelligence, and standardized academic scores, are driven by average differences in gene pools as well as average differences in nurture.
By insisting that position be distilled to “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” you:
Use a pejorative for ranking where nature does not. Every source population for genetic traits is evolved to successfully propagate in it source environment, and nature does not recognize “superior” or “inferior.” It only recognizes “successful reproduction.” By introducing “inferior” you add a personal editorial not part of a scientific position.
Limit a much broader discussion of genetically driven differences to the only one that is apparently a personal hot-button for you–the efforts of our dominant culture to quantify intelligence.
I don’t expect a dumbass like you to do other than cling to your personal distortions in the hope that you can obfuscate an obvious explanation for a stubbornly persistent and ubiquitous pattern among every collection of humans in every system in the world.
Regardless of public positions, I’m pretty sure every thinking human understands the obvious fact that our intelligence–individual or average of individual–is driven by genes. To date, no amount of nurturing to the maximum possible extent has closed intelligence gaps among source population gene pools. No genetic studies between populations ever come to the conclusion that at a self-identified race level, populations have identical gene pools.
But given your passion for defending an egalitarian mother nature, perhaps it’s best the obvious remains beyond your ability to grasp. It lets you live in a little pollyanna world content with promoting mantras like “zero evidence” and libelous drivel like “hey, you compare blacks with cockroaches!” instead of having to cope with reality.
“Generations of systemic racism” for ancestors is a pitifully inadequate explanation for why children of wealthy black and educated parents perform so abysmally on standardized tests compared with a cohort of whites or asians whose parents are poor and uneducated.
First, why does this explanation only have value when applied to blacks? We don’t look for that explanation when looking at the scores of whites asians whose ancestors had a crappy history.
More importantly, what are you postulating here? That the black parents (perhaps with a leg up from race-based preferences) managed to make it to the middle and upper classes, but now their kids are so deeply affected by what happened to their ancestors that they crap out in school?
“Oh Mom; I wanted to learn Geometry, but I kept thinking about how oppressed we have been in the past, and I just couldn’t think straight…”
I thought the Nazis were more “on the side” of promoting their own group as the In Charge group. I think they would be at odds with my position to promote race-based preferences so that society can be as broadly represented as possible for the different races. As to genetics, I don’t know much about the Nazi position, but if they held that genes drive skillsets, and that average gene pools differ among populations of humans, they were correct.
Let me help you with what an ad hominem attack is, since in your role as a moderator, you’ll need to recognize it.
An ad hominem attack seeks to cast doubt on a position by attacking the individual promoting the position.
For example, if I hold that genes drive differences among self-identified racial groups, associating me with Nazis would be an ad hominen attack on that argument. It may be true–I could even be an actual Nazi–but it would be a fallacy that my Nazi-hood had any bearing on the strength of the argument itself.
In general, application of “racist” is an ad hominen attack on the debate around genetically driven differences. Because “racist” is generally accepted as a pejorative, calling an individual a “racist” is often an attempt to leave an implication that their position less scientifically tenable.
But of course whether or not a Nazi holds a position of fact, or a position can be described as “racist” has no bearing whatsoever on scientific truth. Mother Nature herself appears to hold that in the competition for reproduction, it’s perfectly acceptable to evolve new genes, and there’s no rule that an entire population cannot evolve a new gene pool should circumstances permit it. Nor is there any rule that a population must only evolve “fairly,” whatever that is.
But reminding Mother Nature that Nazis also thought gene pools differences could drive average skillset differences carries no weight around what actually is. It would be an ad hominen fallacy to assume it does.
Yanno, I assume most user names are exaggerations. I’m pretty sure that #1BieberFan96, f’rinstance, is not literally the number one Bieber fan in the world.
However, you might well be the very chiefest of pedants. I salute your dedication, sir.