Yup, that’s right. Congratulations. You win all the internets. Have a cookie.
I’m not surprised that you would take umbrage at that.
Because for your part, I don’t think you’ve said anything substantive in this entire thread. Or in any other thread I can recall either, FTM.
How so? your point depends on virtually nothing as you acknowledged already, you are only back-pedalling (after sounding more reasonable just recently) to go for the worst way to see that survey, so it is clear what side you support; remember: I’m here to reply to your asinine say so that there a controversy going, the evidence from the academics is also clear: it is a controversy only in the minds of the pseudo scientists and the racists.
Umbrage, now? Nope. Not even a little.
Amusement? Oh my, yes. Lots of it.
And yes, I find substance to be overrated. Particularly in the Pit. You found me out! Have another cookie!
Well said.
Neither am I. Unequal sentencing from drug offenses started getting really bad about 30 years ago and it’s only now that politicians are making some steps toward addressing them. Meanwhile the Voting Rights Act has been gutted and the social safety net is being chipped away.
This is a great point. Any thoughts on this, Chief Pedant? Perhaps you’d like to call iiandyiii a cockroach?
Hard to figure out what you’re saying, if anything.
I said earlier that the survey was weakened by the small sample size, and is only significant in showing that the notion was not as far out as others (including you) claim it is. That said, WRT the specific issue of whether the expertise of these individuals was the appropriate one in making the assessment, I’ve noted that since in this case the genetic factor was being backed into by elimination of other factors, expertise in those other factors was more important than expertise in genetics, details of which are not the primary area of dispute.
In that context, just carrying on further about pseudo-scientists and racists doesn’t add much. I mean, it’s not as if that hasn’t been mentioned a zillion times already. Yes, you think anyone who entertains such a notion is an idiot and a racist. Everyone gets that already. No one cares. Now, do you have any actual sort of real response to this specific point? It doesn’t look like it. That is all.
Not really. It’s actually pretty obvious just from reading your posts.
Yes, dear. You’re very smart.
Being smart is even more over-rated than substance.
But it does come in useful sometimes.
Yea, different by degrees, not type. I don’t blame evolution for my inability to see in the infra-red. And I’m not blaming evolution for racism. But racism is a sort of blindness born of our innate tendency to judge others on insufficient evidence. Kinda like you did with me and my comments. You don’t have to read this. But since you have, I’m sure you won’t mind offering your superior insights into bigotry. I await enlightenment. Just like you. Ban me if you like. Authority never intimidates me. It ain’t gonna start with you. I got better things to do than look for friends among those whose superior intellect offers them cover while they throw stones. Anyway, ya’ got a weeny-arm, kid.
That was a remarkable post: every sentence was dumber than the one before it.
Yea, I must have hit something or you wouldn’t be overstating that. You can’t catch the ball, either. I am the one who gets banned. Let’s see if I’m right about that one. And don’t just edit this out and make it look like I walked away. That is, if you got the guts. I’m gonna’ guess you don’t.
Sweet Jesus, get the fuck over yourself. You’re dumb and you’re acting like a teenager, which does get on my nerves a little bit, but you don’t get banned for that.
Then you should stop claiming that you do not understand where Chief Pedant is coming from.
People like faithfool does, and he already encountered the “quality” of thought that Hector_St_Clare brings to the plate, that Hector supports you is in reality a point against you.
Not clear what point you have, the point I made stands, the survey you used is weak by your own words and me and others pointed out that it is misleading because the experts they consulted are asked to opine on an item that others should had been asked about, and the examples that show how common this move is made by the ones that want to misrepresent science shows what we are dealing with here.
Over-rated?! You have to be kidding. I would kill to be half as smart as most of the people pointing out how crazy-ass wrong you are in this thread. And how the hell is substance over-rated? That just…that just makes my eyeballs bleed.
Sorry, that one was me. Ol’ Phippsy accused me of never posting anything of substance. I agreed, because he’s full of the smarts. And because he and I have very different ideas of what constitutes substance. And because IJDGAF whether he is impressed with my snarking and drive-by dickishness or not.
(Fun fact: Of the previous five sentences, only one is sarcastic!)
I consider absolute bullshit to claim that SES and ancestral oppression is a more reasonable explanation than genes for the substantial gap between blacks and whites/asians that persists even when the black cohort consists of highly educated and wealthy families and the white/asian cohort consists of poverty-stricken and uneducated families.
What specifically do you want to advance as a reason for that disparity? Are the educated and wealthy black parents too stupid to press the value of education on their children? Is racial oppression in the schools–which the parents apparently overcame–so horrible the black kids can’t learn? Are the black students so wounded by the trials of their grandparents that they are unable to learn how to reason and assimilate facts?
As for the reasonableness of a genetic explanation, which part of it is likely to be wrong? Is there a scientist somewhere with some data that genes don’t cluster for self-identified races? A scientist somewhere who thinks genes for some traits are off limits from evolution? A scientist somewhere who has erased the average difference beyond what can be erased by accounting for opportunity?
The only reason average genes are an unpopular explanation is that it is unpalatable to think of groups as being inherently differently enabled for skillsets.
Before you get too upset and confused about the concept of averages and descendant lines, I’d suggest some more reading.
One could easily take any anchor point at a migration gate and create two races. Or take multiple anchor points and make a hundred. Biologically speaking, the question is whether or not, given a grouping schema, the groups have genes which cluster by those groupings.
What happens when they do–and for self identified races, they do–is that an average frequency for some genes varies among the two groups. For example, the average frequency for any number of genes coding for disease states varies between the self-identified groupings of blacks and whites. This doesn’t mean every subgrouping varies the same way, and I think that’s where you are getting confused.
For example, if you were to look at the frequency of MCPH1 Haplogroup D variant, you’d find it remarkably more penetrated into white populations than black ones, even though you might find exceptions on both sides. The relative isolation of populations for tens of thousands of years does not mean there has never been admixture; it’s just a comment about why average geneset pools differ. You would find, for instance, a much higher average frequency for Neandertal gene in self-identified white populations than black, even though you might find exceptions on both sides. The reason is that the introgression of Neandertal genes into the human race is thought to have occurred in early M-N lines, with minimal penetration back into african populations.
I hope this helps.
I did call him a cockroach. At least, I meant to.
As to whether or not a refusal to admit that self-identified race groups differ in skillsets at a genetic level will help or hurt blacks, we’ll see where the court cases take us.
As I’ve pointed out, public sentiment has historically been favorable toward race-based AA on the grounds that historic oppression leaves blacks unfairly disadvantaged for education, and that this unfair SES disparity leaves their academic performance marginal. Therefore, to make up for an unfair SES, it’s reasonable to have a race-based preference.
In recent years, as the black middle class has improved, it’s the case that the best black students come from those more privileged families. However the best black students from those privileged backgrounds are still woefully behind their privileged peers, and not even competitive with underprivileged whites.
This is a dilemma for schools, who want the best students they can get. What they have had to do is preserve a race-based preference for black students even when the black student is far more privileged than the whites and asians with whom his scores compare.
If we recognize that different groups are differently enabled, we can accommodate this in the name of race-based diversity. If we refuse to admit it, public sentiment will continue to turn against race-based AA and back toward opportunity-based AA. The recent cases of Ricci DeStefano, U Texas Fisher, and Michigan Schuette are all examples.
But race-based AA is much deeper than that, extending as a practical approach to diversity across nearly every public and private sector in the US. If we lose it because we decide only opportunity should be considered, we will strike a significant blow to the rise of the black middle class in the USA. Much of that middle class has been built on race-based preferences all along the educational line, under the assumption that it will be self-sustaining as children from that middle class have access to the same schooling successful whites and asians have had all along. That has not happened. It will not happen until such time as the gene pools have the same average frequency for genes creating equivalently functional outcomes.
What the Nazis did with genetic differences is irrelevant to what we should do now, and the reason it is brought up here by others is either ignorance or ad hominem attacks.
Really? What race is an Andanamese? An Aeta? A Vanuatuan? How do you think they’d “self-identify”?
You draw the distinction between Africa/Not because that is your choice. You freely admit you could group humans any way you choose, but that is how you choose to draw the lines. And then you blithely ignore all exceptions and gradations and pretend you have a model for how the world actually is, that the picture in your head reflects historic and current reality. That is what makes you a racist.
And when it’s pointed out to you that , say , the “general appearance” *you brought up * doesn’t actually match genetic groupings or continental groups, you don’t answer those objections, you just Gallop on. Because you’re a racist, and race is all you see.
Ah, dang. I hate it when someone tail-ends a conversation I’m having with someone else and wants to comment on the last thing they heard. And here I did it on the internet where it’s all in black and white and easily reviewable, so I have no good excuse. Now I’m going to point at that thing behind you so you can check it out while I quietly slip away… :o