None of the statistics suggest that black children can’t succeed – so why do you advance such nonsense like “can’t learn” and “unable to learn”? Discrimination and past oppression may just add obstacles that black kids have and white kids don’t, such that it’s more difficult for black kids to succeed, even when economics are normalized. More difficult, but not impossible. Which would affect the averages, and the numbers.
All this and ignoring the question. The question was this (rephrased for your convenience): Considering that, for most of US history, your assertion that black people are inherently less intelligent was widely accepted by society and society’s leaders, and that this assertion was used as justification for exploitation, brutality, oppression, and discrimination, why on earth should we think that resurrecting wide acceptance of this assertion would be not make things much, much worse for black people? Why wouldn’t many people, including leaders, just use such an assertion to exploit and oppress black people as they did before?
Chief Pedant offhandedly wrote the phrase “skillsets at a genetic level” a few posts up, as if throwing these words together magically made them have anything to do with each other.
That’s really all you need to know about this poster’s dimwittedness, and all his obsessive genetic knowledge won’t change that, not ever.
Well, genetic “knowledge”, at any rate. I mean, he can quote lists of haplogrous cadged, no doubt, from the writings of known frauds, but just his use of the concept of heritability shows he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about (any more than Hector does, for that matter)
I don’t understand how any of this relates to what I said (or if it was intended to). Either way …
Or alternatively: you said it originally for the same reason you say everything else you say here - because you thought it sounded snappy and made you look cool. Then one of your fellow nitwits - mistakenly assuming it was something said by the “other side” and therefore to be unthinkingly mocked - said it made his eyeballs bleed, and suddenly it became cooler for you to take a different tack. Nothing more complicated than that.
Ironic that the very post you quoted would have been apropos here. “Being smart is even more over-rated than substance. But it does come in useful sometimes.” Would have been useful for you here.
Well I myself don’t know a whole lot about genetics (and have stayed away from nitty-gritty genetic disputes primarily for this reason) so I can’t make a real educated assessment as to how knowledgeable the various participants are about genetics (other than egregious cases, like honesty).
But as a sort of high level view, I see on the one side a biologist and a medical doctor. On the other side I have some amateurs who are really really worked up about the subject. If I had to guess which side has genuine understanding of genetic issues and which side is in over their heads, I know what I’m going with. No guarantees of course.
That’s certainly an alternate explanation. Deeply flawed with a number of errors, but it’s definitely an alternative.
And the beat goes on …
Either way you will continue as if nothing needs to be changed on what you were going with. The point that is missed is that since your idea regarding the survey was based on a misleading conclusion it should be dismissed.
This is not clear because many of the cites I made are coming from the researchers and experts (like Dr. Joseph Graves, Jr., PhD, Professor Evolutionary Biology/Life Sciencesthat that do show that they are the majority indeed) are telling you how wrong the scientific racists are, it is not just what this “amateur” is saying.
But the main reason why this is not clear is that since there is no evidence of the credentials of a Biologist or a medical doctor in a message board I’m not sure who you are going with then.
It still sounds like someone that wants to continue to protect his/her cherished ignorance.
(Excerpted from longer post)
I suggest you re-read my earlier post related to that italicized phrase. I genuinely do wish I was as smart as the people handing you your own ass here. The point is you’ve had your ass handed to you. Not by me, I’m just one of the cheerleading nitwits from the other side. Still, that’s your ass in your hands there.
And my eyeballs never did bleed. That was hyperbolic.
The problem with cites from individual researchers etc. is (among other things) that they can be cherry picked.
I think I’ve said earlier that I don’t think you can conclude from that survey that a majority accept the genetic hypothesis, and that’s not my claim. I do think that strongly suggests that the case for it is not as weak as you present it. That’s all.
Of course, the value of that assessment itself is heavily compromised by the level of intellect backing it up.
Yuh-huh. Too bad you couldn’t be assed to answer his question.
To me that suggests you don’t really give a shit what happens to the “genetically inferior.” You just want your purported superiority to be acknowledged, and in turn that takes some of the shine off your nice-guy AA-supporting racist stance.
What I actually brought up was the fact that your “science” is an updated version of Nazi “science.” iiandyiii didn’t mention the Nazis. He did refer to the long history of racism and segregation and so forth in the U.S., which is what you ignored and will probably ignore again. I guess you believe that history goes away if you ignore it. If only that were your stupidest belief.
Still missing the point, I do not reject the survey for what it shows, it shows the ponderings of experts in measuring intelligence giving their opinion about genes.
Again, you might as well ask meteorologists about climate change. You are likely to get a misleading result that is used then to seed FUD.
Missing the point still, I’m assuming here that the researchers in intelligence are very good and one should assume that they are intelligent, but that does not mean that they can avoid gross ignorance in other fields. All scientists are not experts on everything like “Brain” from the Thunderbirds.
(Yeah that is Peter Hadfield, science writer reporting about how non experts do abuse their unrelated degrees in pondering about climate science, but the main lesson about scientists not being experts on every field of science and understanding that they only are giving their opinion when they ponder about other fields has to be learned by you still.)
(Excerpted from longer post)
Did you just “I know you are but what am I” me? That’s water, horsey. Right there. Go ahead, drink up.
See, it’s funny because he called you dumb! But he used that fancy book-learning language to do it! Get it? It’s a riot!
I’ve repeatdly pointed out why that’s not the case here, and you’ve just ignored it in favor of repeating yourself.
OK.
FWIW, CP is (originally) from Pakistan. Not sure where they fit on the intelligence scale these days.
I didn’t have to do that, as he had already gotten out in front on that himself.
I just pointed out the implications.
Something I missed, you are indeed only showing that you do not pay attention, the point was that in academia this is what being taught at high levels, if there was no consensus on this then yesterday we would had seen many on the anti science right demanding this professor to be removed for teaching nonsense.
In essence what I posted was part of the logic of looking for what consensus there is by looking in this case at what they are teaching in universities nowadays, this is not perfect as there are a few universities out there that have very little quality, but generally speaking regarding genetics and anthropology this is what I have found in previous discussions what graduate students are learning nowadays.
The consensus that is out there is supported by the other items mentioned before: What the experts are talking about in their meets and what sceptics that check at what pseudo-science is doing are telling us.
Meh, in reality you are and you are avoiding the question, what do you think then as you then acknowledge why that survey should not be taken into account? What doctor are you supporting then?
Why Mr. Phipps, you are a caution!
This seems ridiculous. You’re trying to prove something is universally accepted because of the absence of right-wingers demanding the removal of a professor who teaches it?
Best as I can figure out what you’re saying here, you’re saying that positions like those of CP are not taught in schools, therefore they are universally rejected. I guess you’re assuming that there are no political implications involved in schools deciding whether or not to teach such things. Needless to say, I don’t share that assumption.
[Which is besides for the question of whether the relative prevalence of this or that gene in various culturally defined ethnic groups is relevant to someone teaching genetics.]
Again, your writing is hard to decipher. If I understand you correctly, my response is that I don’t think “the survey should not be taken into account”. What I do think is that the survey does not establish that most intelligence researchers think genetics is a part of the disparity, let alone that 83% think so, because of the low response rate.
But I do think it strongly suggests that enough think so that it’s unlikely the hypothesis is as baseless as you say it is. In sum, whether it should be “taken into account” depends on what the claim is.
[I note again that you’ve continued to just ignore my earlier point.]
Had to look that one up.
I guess you’re good for something.
Nope, that item of right wingers is only an example of the ones that would complain, others would be indeed the experts in biology, genetics and anthropology, the point here is that you then have to show if there is there is any movement from scientific groups to complain against what is being taught in the universities right now. I do think that you will only find shady groups supporting that.
The reality is that I’m the one trying to figure out your obtuseness, others have no trouble following what I’m pointing out.
In this case it is clear that you are grossly ignoring that the point was: besides not establishing what most intelligence researchers think the survey is not getting the well researched conclusions of geneticists, biologists and anthropologists. Just as it was shown that meteorologists can be wrong with climate science, so it is that intelligence experts (the few that bothered to response) are wrong about what the relevant experts in biology, genetics and anthropology are actually talking about.
Since there are many and I pointed out that your points are not clear please clarify what is what you are asking here.