Are you a racist? Warning signs

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

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.

There’s no evidence that points to genes as a stronger or more likely cause for differences in test scores than “nurture” causes. It’s very foolish to make such claims about genetics, which match many of the racist claims of some of the most savage murderers and brutalizers in human history, without knowing the genes involved.

By insisting that position be distilled to “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” you:

1. Use a pejorative for ranking where nature does not.

This is meaningless phrase. Nature doesn’t use any terminology whatsoever, much less pejorative phrases.

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.

Who gives a fuck? If you argued that Jews were inherently more likely to be dishonest and greedy due to genes, would it be a “personal editorial” if I say that you’re arguing that Jews are inherently genetically morally inferior?

2. 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.

My personal “hot button” issues, as relating to this discussion, are claims about the most fundamental human characteristics of various races/ethnicities/groups – fundamental human characteristics like intelligence, morality, aggression, honesty, etc., which have historically been used to justify the most evil acts in human history.

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.

It’s not “stubbornly persistent”, and it’s not “ubiquitous”. Different groups have been at the top and bottom in various parts of history, and it’s only for the last few decades that modern outcomes have held sway.

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.

This provides as much evidence for inferior genes for intelligence among black people as it does that they have superior genes for intelligence. In short, such a statement is irrelevant to this discussion.

To date, no amount of nurturing to the maximum possible extent has closed intelligence gaps among source population gene pools.

Gaps have shrunk by some measures, and it’s only been a few decades of very weak efforts that have even been attempted.

There’s nothing special about now. I really don’t get at all why you think outcomes now are so special. What’s so fucking special about outcomes now, you pseudoscientific cowardly jackoff?

No genetic studies between populations ever come to the conclusion that at a self-identified race level, populations have identical gene pools.

This is irrelevant to this claim. More irrelevant fucking sidestepping from you. This provides just as much evidence that black people have superior genetics for every fucking human trait as it does that they have inferior genetics for any trait.

But given your passion for defending an egalitarian mother nature

Complete fucking nonsense which you repeat fucking constantly. You just can’t get my actual position into your thick fucking cowardly skull, so you create one out of whole fucking cloth just to argue with, you cowardly pissant.

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.

What bullshit. You make claims about the genes for black people that mirror the worst evil crap in history, and cry like a little fucking cowardly baby because I ask you to find the fucking genes.

What a whiny little baby you are. An actual study has been done that truly compares genetic markers for African admixture among self-identified African Americans to their test scores, which would provide pretty definitive evidence about whether it’s the genetic admixture or the self-identified cultural status that causes the lower test scores, and because it shows that the admixture has no effect, you dismiss it.

If you weren’t such a lazy fucking coward, you would go do some actual fucking science, or find some people who would, and do this study again with modern technology. It wouldn’t be that fucking hard – genetic markers for ancestry are a lot easier to find these days. But you’re just a coward who wants to make claims about black people’s genes without actually knowing anything at all about the genes you’re making claims about.

What a pathetic load of racist nonsense.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

But reminding Mother Nature that Nazis also thought gene pools differences could drive average skillset differences carries no weight around what actually is.

We’re not reminding “mother nature”. We’re reminding everyone else that you and the Nazis share identical beliefs about the inherent intelligence of black people.

And from this post, we can add “inadvertently claims that ‘the Nazis were right about black people’” to the charge of “inadvertently compares black people’s intelligence to the intelligence of cockroaches in how it relates to white people’s intelligence” to the list of “things to remind Straight Dope readers about Chief Pedant when he talks about race and intelligence”.

[Smeghead]

Good cripes, is this wad of stupid still oozing around?

[GIGObuster]

@Smeghead

Good cripes, is this wad of stupid still oozing around?

Yes, the Chief and a few others are still feeding the wrong wolf.

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwoWolves-Cherokee.html

[orangeapples]

@chicagowhitesox1173

This thread started to suck after around page 7 or 8. It turned into a bunch of nonsense.

Page lengths aren’t the same for everyone. Which post in particular soured you on the rest of the thread? I know where I started thinking, “You’re just spinning your wheels, people”, but it was more recent than that. Of course that’s just the nature of the ol’ internet back-and-forth, and even so, there’s always a better than even chance a guy might learn something along the way.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@iiandyiiii

So both of these statements:

“black people have both inferior genes for intelligence, on average, and stronger genetic temptations towards aggression, rape, and violence, on average”

and

“Jews have stronger genetic temptations towards greed and dishonesty, on average”

are not racist statements, in your mind?

I know I said I’d be out of the thread, but I forgot to answer this: my answer would be no. It would depend on whether someone was making the claim out of racial animus, or was approaching the question in a disinterested way and was convinced by the data. But the claim itself isn’t ‘racist’.

[MrDibble]

@iiandyiii

“black people have […] stronger genetic temptations towards aggression, rape, and violence, on average”
“Jews have stronger genetic temptations towards greed and dishonesty, on average”

@Hector_St_Clare

the claim itself isn’t ‘racist’.

OK, then. :smack:

You should probably just have stayed out of the thread.

[Little_Nemo]

@Hector_St_Clare

I know I said I’d be out of the thread, but I forgot to answer this: my answer would be no. It would depend on whether someone was making the claim out of racial animus, or was approaching the question in a disinterested way and was convinced by the data. But the claim itself isn’t ‘racist’.

There is no legitimate data to support these claims. So there are only two groups of people who make these claims:

1. Knowing racists who are aware that what they’re saying are lies.
2. Gullible racists who believe the lies.

[iiandyiiii]

@Hector_St_Clare

I know I said I’d be out of the thread, but I forgot to answer this: my answer would be no. It would depend on whether someone was making the claim out of racial animus, or was approaching the question in a disinterested way and was convinced by the data. But the claim itself isn’t ‘racist’.

From my point of view, motivations are irrelevant as to whether a statement is racist. We can look at the words themselves to decide if a claim is racist – we don’t have to read minds. So both claims are racist… in fact, they are some of the purest and simplest examples of racism.

And I guess, from you’re point of view, one can say the most vile things about a race/ethnicity/etc., but it’s not racist as long as one is “approaching the question in a disinterested way and convinced by the data”.

So if Heinrich Himmler was “approaching the question in a disinterested way and convinced by the data” that Jews were greedy and dishonest, I guess from your point of view this means does that he did not make racist claims?

[foolsguinea]

Do you have a username with an accidental racial slur?

Do you indulge the shorthand of referring to historical groups as taking action (“France” did this, “The Zionists” did that, “The Republicans” are stupid) when of course a median intelligence 10-year-old (not, however, “10-year-olds” in general) can see that individuals take actions, not groups? You dehumanizing racist!

e_e

[Marley23]

@Chief_Pedant

“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.

Racism still exists, unfortunately - you’re my cite - and so do the effects of racial discrimination even in forms that aren’t practiced as much. If you’re black and relatively wealthy, you’re still much more likely than a comparable white person to be surrounded by poverty and the problems associated with it. For that we can thank housing discrimination. And rich or poor, society will still treat you according to your race.

First, why does this explanation only have value when applied to blacks?

That’s a surprisingly ignorant question for someone who considers himself a pedant. Do I have to recapitulate U.S. history for you? Many minorities have been discriminated against; nobody was ever systematically kept down and subject to the same degree of legal and extralegal force. I’m not sure anybody else is getting such a raw degree today either.

@Chief_Pedant

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.

Aww, how precious. You’re one of history’s little ironies, that’s what you are. I’m aware of your position on things like Affirmative Action. It’s weird, but it has nothing to do with the racism of your Negroes Iz Dum theory.

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.

Thank you and goodnight.

[Marley23]

The other thing that doesn’t get discussed much - or if it was mentioned in this overlong thread, I didn’t see it - is why anyone is supposed to give a damn if one racial group is a couple of percentage points more intelligent than another. I don’t think a 5% variation would explain a whole lot of human history, but I think this preoccupation with a small difference tells you a lot about the preoccupied.

[MrDibble]

@Marley23

Many minorities have been discriminated against; nobody was ever systematically kept down and subject to the same degree of legal and extralegal force. I’m not sure anybody else is getting such a raw degree today either.

Maybe Native Americans? What the current racist stance on their IQs?

N/M, I see it’s supposed to be ~87, 2 points above Af-Ams.

Which is weird, what with them being genetically closest to the superIQ Asians and all…almost like systematic genocide and oppression did something to their test scores. Naaah, that’s crazy talk.

[Marley23]

@MrDibble

Maybe Native Americans?

That’s my fault for forgetting them. I guess that’s typical.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Little_Nemo

There is no legitimate data to support these claims. So there are only two groups of people who make these claims:

As demonstrated by the survey, most researchers who actually study the issue disagree (as in, 87% of them believe part of the Black/White difference is due to genetic differences).

I’m inclined to trust their assessment of the evidence more than some anonymous clowns on a message board.

[iiandyiiii]

@Hector_St_Clare

As demonstrated by the survey, most researchers who actually study the issue disagree (as in, 87% of them believe part of the Black/White difference is due to genetic differences).

I’m inclined to trust their assessment of the evidence more than some anonymous clowns on a message board.

I wonder what their opinions would be on whether it’s racist to say that Jews are inherently greedy and dishonest?

[Marley23]

@Hector_St_Clare

As demonstrated by the survey, most researchers who actually study the issue disagree (as in, 87% of them believe part of the Black/White difference is due to genetic differences).

There was no survey of “most researchers.” There was a survey of people who had recently published on the issue. You have a habit of doing this, Hector_St_Clair: you make a claim, then as the thread goes on you keep strengthening the claim until it not longer resembles your original statement. This is either extreme sloppiness or real dishonesty. To quote your own survey at you:

Researchers were invited to participate only if they had recent intelligence-related publications in Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Biological Psychology, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Journal of School-Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
Invitations were emailed to 1237 persons and at the end only 228 (18 %) participants completed the process (70 fully and 158 partially).
[…]
Asked: What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?

0% of differences due to genes: (17% of our experts)
0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts
50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts
60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts
100% of differences due to genes: (5% of our experts)
M=47% of differences due to genes (SD=31%)

To review your mistakes:

1. The survey was of people who had published recently, not all researchers.
2. Further, less than 20% of the subjects responded fully and less than 6% completed the survey.
3. 83% of the people who responded said genes played some role in explaining the IQ gap. 62% felt the gap was at least 50% genetic.
4. Based on the small number of people who actually took the survey - 83% of 6% - your conclusion is based on the opinion of around 190 people.
5. Whether these publications are reputable and the survey properly conducted and whether this represents current scientific consensus is beyond my ability (and probably yours) to say.

You twit.

[Ludovic]

@MrDibble

Which is weird, what with them being genetically closest to the superIQ Asians and all…almost like systematic genocide and oppression did something to their test scores. Naaah, that’s crazy talk.

Naw, Crazy Talk is smarter than to assert that.

[wonky]

@Marley23

You twit.

Dayum. Harsh words. Are you sure that’s allowed in the pit?

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Marley23

There was no survey of “most researchers.” There was a survey of people who had recently published on the issue. You have a habit of doing this, Hector_St_Clair: you make a claim, then as the thread goes on you keep strengthening the claim until it not longer resembles your original statement. This is either extreme sloppiness or real dishonesty. To quote your own survey at you:

To review your mistakes:

1. The survey was of people who had published recently, not all researchers.
2. Further, less than 20% of the subjects responded fully and less than 6% completed the survey.
3. 83% of the people who responded said genes played some role in explaining the IQ gap. 62% felt the gap was at least 50% genetic.
4. Based on the small number of people who actually took the survey - 83% of 6% - your conclusion is based on the opinion of around 190 people.
5. Whether these publications are reputable and the survey properly conducted and whether this represents current scientific consensus is beyond my ability (and probably yours) to say.

You twit.

What evidence do you have that Factors 1-5 systematically bias the conclusion? Do you have a survey of intelligence researchers that says something to the contrary?