Are you too stupid to understand one sentence? The survey did not say what you’re claiming it did. I don’t need to provide evidence of systemic bias; the survey - particularly after you inflated it - fails to justify what you said.
Indeed, Hector_St_Clare has also the ability of skipping what others also noticed about the survey, even if one is generous and grants that the survey was made properly it is a survey that just gets the opinion of a few experts in investigating intelligence regarding a related field. (Notice that there was no specific part about the ones surveyed about actually working with genes, most just gave their opinion indeed.)
And the key here is “opinion” just like in previous pumped up surveys by the “scientific” racists the survey’s focus was not on experts in genetics or anthropology. It may not had that intention but this is like asking dentists on their opinion of what causes a kind of mouth cancer. Once an expert goes outside their area of expertise the opinion they give has virtually the same value as mine or yours.
A previous example was mentioned in the area of climate change, many climate change deniers grabbed a survey of meteorologists that found that 52 percent believe global warming is happening and is mostly human-caused, and 48% that do not.
So that demonstrates that there is a lot of controversy among climate scientists?
No, that survey was only good at finding that a good number of meteorologists (who do not need to have a degree in a related field to become one) get a related subject wrong.
Research made shows that there is agreement on the human causes of the recent warming by more than 95% of the climate scientists and research published.
So far I have not seen good surveys done to the genetic experts, biologists or anthropologists; but it is not too hard to figure out what the current consensus is. One then should look at what is being discussed in recent meets of the experts, most of the discussions are not related to finding differences of intelligence among races because most do not see a biological reason to divide people by using the old social constructs.
The point then stands, experts like P.Z. Myers would not sound like iiandyiiii if the evidence actually pointed overwhelmingly in favor of the scientific racists.
…
And then one should not ignore what the ones with experience at looking at science and pseudo-science are saying too, I still have to find any good explanation from a “scientific” racist why groups that investigate pseudo-science for a living are wrong for arriving to the general conclusion that “scientific” racists are the pits and a minority. The point here is that others with more time already investigated and consulted what the experts are saying, and from the more serious sceptics to the ones that are more into roasting ignorance agree on where the consensus is on this matter.
Hecky baby had the ability to skip over an entire Pit thread in his honor, I have no doubt he’s talented enough to do the same thing in other areas.
When a pattern is persistent and consistent in source populations whose genesets have been isolated for tens of thousands of years, it is perfectly reasonable to postulate a genetically-driven contribution to observed outcome patterns.
When attribution of the pattern is given to variables such as culture, but no consistent cultural explanation can be found, and no amount of adjustments to culture erase the observed pattern, it is perfectly reasonable to postulate a genetically-driven contribution to observed outcome patterns.
When attribution of the pattern is given to variables such as socioeconomic status or opportunity or parental education, but those widely-accepted variables turn out not to have any basis whatsoever in fact, it is perfectly reasonable to postulate a genetically-driven contribution to the observed outcome patterns.
Ad hominem attacks associating a genetic explanation with Nazis, murderers, racists, and brutalizers is a reasonable way of using rhetoric to suppress research, obfuscate facts and persuade the masses. It has no actual bearing of any kind on a matter of fact any more than the accusation of “Nazis believed that too” makes it less likely the earth revolves around the sun.
Every scientific paper on genes–and particularly those comparing genes among populations–comes to a conclusion that genes and their concomitant functions vary among population sets, including the sets grouped by self-defined races.
You may drum up popular support with the sort of inflammatory crap you post here, but you won’t change the science of genes, and your position that only opportunity separates the outcomes of various races will have a damaging and irreparable effect on the black middle class in the US.
When race-based AA disappears because we can no longer extend a helping hand by race association, the best black minds in the US (almost all from that black middle class) will no longer have the opportunity their parents had.
This is not a debate about how racist the Pedant is. It’s a debate about how stupid and ignorant it is to think mother nature is an egalitarian, and how insisting that she is will come back to bite you in the ass.
The current outcome gaps are quite substantial in their effects.
I can give you specific numbers if you have trouble looking them up on your own.
If you look at any grade school across the country, you’ll see that nearly every school has a basketball program which is well-attended. Nearly every kid is exposed to basketball, and nearly every kid who is any good at all has NBA dreams. Along the way, the dropout from basketball is such that very few whites and asians survive to the NBA, relative to the starting percentage of whites in grade school. Similar observations might be made for certain power sprinting sports. Thus, whether one characterizes the difference as substantial or trivial, what happens is that the successful group is substantially disproportionately represented.
In academia, a general pattern of success is observed, at every grade level, and within every income strata. Those differences are profound enough so that without special race-based consideration, almost no blacks would qualify for entrance into medical school in the United States (observation from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education). Similar outcomes for all sorts of exams given at every level and across every profession follow the same pattern. See Ricci v DeStefano as an example index case.
We simply cannot get race-based diversity in society without recognizing a special consideration for blacks. From fire fighters to lawyers; from teachers to physicians; from technical workers to engineers; the pattern is never different and never erased by adjusting for opportunity, income, wealth or parental education.
There is a real and measurable societal effect–loss of racial diversity across every occupation in society–of what you call a “preoccupation with a small difference” in skillset outcomes.
I won at this Bingo many times before thanks to what this guy says.
Today is mostly a win using the middle bar. 
The only human groups that have been isolated for tens of thousands of years are the Australian Aborigines and the inhabitants of the Americas (and that second one is being charitable with the “tens”). So more bullshit.
It’s not a debate at all, you cretin, it’s a pitting of you and your racist ilk. That you’ve used it as some forum to spew more of your filth was inevitable, but that’s great, any opportunity to get you to crawl out from under your rock is welcome. Sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfectant.
And what kind of a twat refers to himself in the third person? Dark Gods, what a tosser.
And just think, this ineradicable pattern has persisted for nearly fifty years! It’s been over four decades since US society as a whole reached a general consensus that several hundred years of legal discrimination and oppression and racist bigotry directed against blacks was probably unfair and wrong. Good heavens, that stretches back to the lifetimes of the parents of many of today’s blacks! Obviously no complex societal phenomenon could survive that long unless it were based in innate and intractable genetic differences.
This is also how we know that American whites are genetically inferior to German whites when it comes to playing soccer. (This only applies to white American men, though. Oddly enough, white American women are genetically comparable to white German women when it comes to playing soccer. Top geneticists are hard at work analyzing the white American Y-chromosome to understand this discrepancy.)
Wow… so much factual wrongness. Genesets have not been isolated for tens of thousands of years. The pattern is not persistent and consistent for any more than a tiny blip of history… a few decades is nothing.
Consistent cultural explanations can be found – they just haven’t been proven. And various “adjustments” to culture have made the gap shrink, even if it hasn’t disappeared. And again, the pattern is not persistent over any more time than a snapshot of history.
LOL – what bullshit! Of course SES and opportunity and parental education have some basis in fact as an effect… why would we have to correct for them, otherwise? It’s the rest of the gap that we’re wondering about.
And, of course, you conveniently ignore the actual evidence that refutes genes.
Considering the centrality of racism and notions of inferiority had to the Nazi policy and atrocities, I think Nazi beliefs about race are pretty relevant to trying to show your mindset.
Whether true or not, irrelevant – zero scientific papers on genes show anything about the black genes for intelligence.
Complete nonsense. Your position that black people are inherently less intelligent would have a far, far more damaging effect on black people in the US if it were widely accepted.
How do I know this? Because at one point, you ignorant pseudoscientific buffoon, this position was widely accepted. Was the black middle class better off then?
Go ahead… I’ll wait for you to try and think of how these sorts of racist conclusions were not involved with the brutality of the times when they were accepted.
Considering that I support AA, this is irrelevant.
More straw-man arguments about “egalitarians”, you cowardly, lazy sack of shit.
A study has been done that compared African admixture among black children to test scores, and there was no correlation. If you don’t like that study, find another one, or do another one, you coward.
Perhaps you would like to suggest some historical patterns over whatever time span you are comfortable with that suggest a different pattern from the one we observe.
Reach out to Jared Diamond, perhaps, to understand why it’s just the luck of the draw for where you live that leaves the same groups in the same tiers for cargo?
Perhaps you would like to suggest why groups other than blacks don’t seem to need more than 50 years of a fair shake at the table to do just fine at the academic skillset.
Your soccer example is trivially stupid. It took me quite a few posts to help you understand how uneducated your Hebrew league example for basketball was…
I’ll just point you to whatever higher academic institution you are most closely associated with and have you ask them:
- To make public their approach to admissions for race preferences and academic scores
- Their success in turning out black students who at the end of the same curriculum as everyone else have equivalent graduate entrance exam scores after adjusting for SES background
It’s just pure bullshit that some sort of long legacy of oppression and bad treatment is a good reason that blacks from high SES backgrounds, including high parental education backgrounds, cannot perform academically on par with whites and asians from lower SES backgrounds.
And I’m pretty sure inside that excellent little head of yours you know it, regardless of what wordsmithing you produce for public consumption.
Without race-based preferences for blacks that are allowed to ignore socio-economic advantages given to the best black students, admissions across academia will find it impossible to create diversity that includes self-identified blacks. The performance gap is too great, and the pattern stubbornly resistant to opportunity and SES advantage.
Underneath all the careful positioning; the “science is hard” crap; the “we haven’t looked at variable X” obfuscation; the “you are an ignorant racist” mudslinging and so on is a stark truth: Our outcomes as humans are driven by our genes in concert with our nurturing, and where our average gene pools differ, no amount of nurturing will bridge the gap nature created.
Perhaps the Creationists will turn out to be right, and we’ll all have the same gene pool from 5,000 years ago. Neither science nor practical experience seem to be trending in that direction, though…
For one thing, they haven’t had 50 years of “a fair shake at the table”. Maybe they’ve had 30, but I’m not even sure about that. For another, by some measures the gap has shrunk. And thirdly, there are a myriad of groups, in a myriad of circumstances, and no two are alike. Native Americans have also been treated abominably through most of American history, and they similarly lag in many academic and economic outcomes.
This explanation actually fits the facts, unlike the genetic explanation.
I’ve noticed that most people who make racist claims believe, for some reason, that everyone secretly agrees with them. Perhaps it’s something about maintaining one’s self-worth.
There’s no reason to believe this gap was created by nature. There have been so many outcome gaps throughout human history, and everyone accepts that most of them were entirely created by people – without genetic evidence, there’s no reason to believe this one is any different. Now is not special.
More straw man bullshit. I guess having this fictional opponent with fictional arguments helps you craft your turds, but it just goes to show everyone that you refuse to address the underlying problems with your argument – the complete absence of data about the genes for black people’s intelligence, and the positive evidence against genes as a cause for the test-score gap.
IMO this arguments cuts the other way WRT this specific issue. Meaning that the experts in non-genetic aspects of intelligence are better able to assess the likelihood of a genetic difference, counterintuitive as this may seem at first glance.
Because in looking at the debate as it’s being played out here, there is not much genetic science in play. Both sides seem to agree that genetic variation is at least possible. And both sides seem to agree that there’s no direct genetic evidence, in the form of knowing specific genes which are correlated with intelligence and which vary in prevalence by “race”. So there’s not much direct genetic aspects at issue, and not much for a geneticist to add in the way of knowledge and understanding. The real issue is the non-genetic aspects. Are these various non-genetic aspects significant enough and do they influence intelligence enough such that they might account for all the currently observed differences in measured intelligence? To the extent that you think they can/might/do, then the case for any genetic impact is weakened. To the extent that you think they can’t/don’t, then the case for a genetic factor is strengthened. In light of this, it would seem to me that those in a better position to make the assessment are those who are experts in the non-genetic aspects of intelligence and what influences it.
LOL. Why don’t you get Kimstu to review your study and approve it?
If she’s academically honest and willing to treat it as fairly as she’d treat any paper, I’ll be interested in how she wordsmiths a response. We’ve been over the studies showing outcome differences by race hundreds of times, so I don’t think the weight of evidence in that regard will ever be persuasive to you.
But I encourage you to read more about human migration for the past 200,000 years, and how the current population genesets have come to be separated. The idea that there is not a general split at the L3/M-N point in time (using mtDNA) creating a division for descendant lines is just plain wrong. Many many other division points can be created according to how you like to split or lump, and many many exceptions/branches/older lines/groupings can be created.
That’s not the problem at hand. In modern times, descendants of M-N branches do have an average gene pool that is different from other branches at the M-N anchor point, and average skillset differences that are different from other branches. And self-identification with “races” (crude as that division may be) align closely enough with those disparate gene pools such that any average difference in genes will drive an average group difference in outcomes. At such a crude level, it doesn’t matter that a subgroup of highly intelligent West Africans outperforms a subgroup of dumbass Swedes. (After all, that’s what averages are all about.) Post M-N split, the genetic makeup of descendant lines doesn’t even contain the same source genes until you go back another few hundred thousand years to pick up common ancestors with Neandertals and Denisovans. Gene pools cluster by race along with continental origin, and remarkably so. So remarkable that most institutional researchers are very very sensitive to the “ethics” of any genetic research which looks at self-identified race. Were there no concern that disparities would show up (because of confidence that these gene pools are not so separated as to cluster by race), there would be no ethical consideration needed for racial lines. Quite the opposite; there would be haste in demonstrating with scientific rigor that all genesets are homogenized across race lines.
But no population geneticist thinks race-based groupings are so homogenized by modern migration patterns that race-based geneset pools have been erased. What has happened instead is an emphasis that each individual be evaluated according to their particular geneset, and that assumptions about an individual not be made along self-identification lines. This is exactly the correct approach, and as long as we are not talking about group averages, is the best way to think about any given individual. Variation among individuals is so strong that there is a broader range among individuals than group averages; this is the reason the old and fat Pedant can periodically find a west african to outrun.
But since we insist on self-identifying at a race level (because, contrary to dribble and others there is apparently some sort of average appearance difference that prevents us from sneaking publicly around in an aracial disguise) we are left with the genetic divisions that self-identification gives us.
I’ve posted the link many times, for all to see, and anyone who wishes can review it. I would certainly welcome this.
You have shown no studies that correlate African admixture among self-identified black people with test scores.
You didn’t say “general split”, you said genesets were “isolated”. Which they weren’t.
Many of these divisions also show that various “black” ethnic groups are more closely related to “white” and “Asian” ethnic groups that other far-flung “black” ethnic groups. Which is what we would expect, considering the “out-of-Africa” theory.
Whether true or not, you have not shown that these gene differences include the characteristic of intelligence. Further, you’ve implied that every human characteristic must differ genetically by ethnic group, which is a frankly ridiculous claim.
Whatever all this says, it says nothing about the genes for intelligence for black people. Just more irrelevant sideshow.
A whole lot of words and nothing about the genes for intelligence for black people.
You trust that academic tests actually can tell us something about genes for intelligence. I don’t. I think the only thing that can actually provide any data about the genes for intelligence are the genes for intelligence.
It’s almost sweet, if it wasn’t so sad, that CP thinks wide acceptance of his beliefs about the intelligence of black people would actually benefit black people.
The thing is, we don’t have to theorize or hypothesize about this – for most of US history, CP’s beliefs about the intelligence of black people were widely accepted by most of society and society’s leaders. And for most of US history, these beliefs were used to justify systemic and state-supported violence, oppression, exploitation, and brutality.
Why the hell would we believe that it would be just the opposite today, were those beliefs resurrected?
I just wanted to highlight this graf. Two elements of it stand out for me.
Firstly, it absolutely astounds me that you believe that American Blacks of any SES “cannot perform academically” on the same level as White and Asian Americans. Your choice to take the actual facts, the honest-to-goodness evidence, and twist it from “have not” to “cannot” shows me clearly where your biases lie.
Secondly, that you consider the very concepts of generational patterning, systemic racism, and social inertia to be “pure bullshit” indicates to me not only ignorance, but a very intentional and willful ignorance.
I don’t think you’re dishonest, and I don’t think you’re a bad person. OTOH, I don’t even know that you’re being sincere. Maybe everything you’re writing–and based on the number of words you’ve put up you’re clearly invested in this subject–is all just elaborate advocatus diaboli.
Alls I do know is that based on what you write, you’re pretty fucking racist.
No-one’s ever contested an Out-of-Africa/Africa split in the past, you cretin.
But if you contend that M&N are evidence in your favour, you’re deluded. The existence of M1 and N1a populations show that your “seperated genesets” idiocy is just so much bullshit. Nobody’s been that isolated, since the Australians split.
Really? Then why do the high M&N-carrying Ethiopians score lower than the L3 relicts south of them, in your ‘scientific’ racist literature?
Only if that’s how you choose to split people up.
Except when they don’t, of course.
Unless your idea of “cluster by race” is “Everyone outside of SSAfrica” vs “Everyone In SSAfrica. Oh, except the Horn and East Africa, that doesn’t count. Clines? What clines?”
Not even the most virulent racist I’ve encounters favours a two-race model.
What are the “average appearance differences” between an Andaman Islander and an Mbuti tribesman? How does that line up with their genetic differences? What are the “average appearance” similarities between an Andamanese and a Han Chinese? How does that line up with their genetic clustering?
How succesful do you think an Andamanese would be at convincing a Klan rally that it’s cool, he’s really Asian?
And the examples I gave were 1) as opinion, and 2) a real life example of why you are wrong.
Such a feeble straw to grasp to make a dumb point. What you have here is the “feely” world that identifies how a pseudo-scientist thinks.
No, in science there is not only consensus by the experts, but also consensus of the evidence, and that is so much so that even in academia the Biologists do make the point that for biology there is really no human races (IOW, the consensus is such that that is what biology teachers teach nowadays). The fact is that most experts got convinced by the fact that genetically speaking the human race is not as different as the racists thought it was. And depending on a survey of experts in intelligence, that did not work with genes and with other problems is really underwhelming. Specially since you also claimed that the survey was not important, pumping it up to be used to make hay in a different field is indeed what pseudo scientists do.
IOW, you have nothing substantive with which to respond to that point.
Somehow this fails to surprise me …
I’m amazed that Chief is always able to attract sparring partners. The guy is intractably obsessed with black people, and the quality of his arguments speak for themselves. Anyone who would get taken in by his specious logic is already a True Believer, so I don’t even think there’s a need to worry about gullible lurkers. They either see him as the joke he is (seriously…the NBA again), or they are a lost soul who doesn’t.