What environmental circumstance do you propose is driving those epigenetic changes among wealthy and educated blacks (and only blacks) to such an extent that their children underscore poverty-stricken and poorly educated whites?
If you find some kind of mass epigenetic consequence of some mass environmental cause visited only upon blacks, and consistently resulting in some positive effects (power sprinting sports) and some negative effects (lower academic skillsets), I’m all ears.
It would still be variant gene frequencies, though; just not traditional DNA inheritance.
Man, I’m well aware that poor white students out score rich black ones. You seem not to have read my comment, in which I note that very fact.
Let’s try this again. We know that height for example, and some other metabolic factors, can be affected by hereditary Epigenetic factors: why is it impossible that intelligence might be as well?
The actual environmental cause? I’d imagine parasitic infections. I don’t have any evidence for specific mechanisms, but then again, neither do you. My point is just that a trait can be hereditary without being genetically influenced, and without being ‘immutable’ (which I’m sure you realise, but some people don’t).
Nope, I had my run ins with many of the ones mentioned in previous threads, so stop lying to yourself.
Stop feeding the bad wolf, if you take into account what James Burke did you will also know that the ones that do think that only original ideas move the world are the ones who are very ignorant. And we already know that your racist ideas are the ones that are not original at all.
And as the Bingo showed, the experts are already aware of your same old same old points, the evidence is there to show that indeed, it is you the one that does not have any independent thinking, remember your abuse of using Al Gore endlessly in other discussions? (but is clear that you forget, so easily, showing that your problems are indeed going deep.) Yes, your “buddy” that you always do mention with no thought whatsoever if he actually agrees or that you continue to ignore that he is not like you.
No, it doesn’t. But neither does your hypothesis. The science does not show a genetic explanation. You choose to infer the existence of undiscovered genes because you cannot think of another explanation. You are making an argument from ignorance, God of the gaps style. Instead of “We don’t know, therefore God,” you prefer “We don’t know, therefore genes.” You aren’t retaining an open mind, as you seem to believe. You have made up your mind.
It’s been shown in thread after thread that there are significant holes in your hypothesis, and this doesn’t matter to you. The biggest one, that race can’t be correlated to genetics at all, seems to have put not even the slightest dent in your fervor. And now, apparently, the discovery of a whole new way for environmental factors to propagate across generations (aka epigenetics) doesn’t faze your determination.
That some races are genetically inferior in intelligence is not reasonable inference. It’s a hypothesis that fits your own personal biases. And, what’s worse, is it’s a hypothesis that has no function. You aren’t a scientist doing research on the subject. You have no reason to continue to even entertain the idea. But you choose to do so, and you choose to share it over and over.
There is no reason for a non-racist non-scientist to adhere to such a hypothesis. You believe it because you want it to be true. That is why your racism is relevant in the discussion. It’s not a schoolyard taunt, but the reason why your arguments don’t hold muster.
That is the difference between you and people like magellan, who entertains the idea that genetics might be a factor. He may have other flaws, but, in this one issue at least, he is not a racist. You are, and since your racism is scientific, it means your science is wrong.
One big meta point that guys like the Chief ignore is that I do agree with people like James Burke when he reported what his professor told him about what Burke could do with the connections idea that he appeared to come with: “I stole it, you steal it now” “You stole it?!?” James Burke replied. The professor then told Burke: “my lad, do you think we are born with ideas?”
One just have to be smart about where good ideas come from and how to identify them, they are usually the ones with more support among most experts.
This point BTW does wonders to recognize posters that are indeed giving plenty of evidence of their foolishness: it is normal to realize that the ideas they repeat are not really their own. The dumb part comes when they claim or imply that there is some sort of originality when reusing those wrong and misleading racist ideas. It is in reality just pseudo originality, and BTW I do report many times that in cases like this that I follow what the experts are telling us.
Just relying on ad hominems only shows, yet again, that people like the Chief have also run out of all the misrepresentations that he reuses.
Again and again.
And he continues with the same sources seen before, one can then conclude that there are very few new experts agreeing with the likes of the Chief.
One thing with science is that when an idea has support and overwhelming evidence comes, then many more researchers would appear following the footsteps of the race “realists” researchers, but what I have seen so far is that from the side of the “race realists” the same faces pop up. Many of then already dead and discredited. By contrast one can find many examples of new experts coming with more evidence and reports or declarations that the Chief and others are deluded.
And I have already made this point many times before: I prefer to have educated ideas, as someone said ‘Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself’ and this why I do not agree with a few on the progressive side that oppose nuclear power or GMOs, if I only relied with what my peers said I would fool myself many times on those issues. But what I do is to check the science and what most experts are telling us, the Chief and others need to stop relying on the bad [del]wolves[/del] sources out there.
You sure? I thought race realism IQ arguments show that pretty much everyone besides East Asians, whites, and Jews are dumb as bricks and in many cases borderline retarded. These racist threads always seem to focus on black people for some reason (American parochialism? Because Africa is a shithole?), but it’s not like anyone else comes up roses. South Asians, Indians, arabs, hispanics, the former Soviet bloc, Ireland, man, they is so dumb! And some native peoples supposedly have room temperature IQs.
As others have noted, you have constructed a strawman. I am perfectly open-minded to evidence of all forms, and I am aware these issues are “live” in the respectable research community. (A good friend if mine does genetic research among indigenous peoples of Central America, and I read much of Cavalli-Svorza’s tome back in the 90s, just to give you some idea of my personal involvement.) I have even learned a few factual things from you and CP in this very thread.
Of the three problematic aspects (in general terms) of your way of thinking – reification of “race,” reification of a single thing “intelligence,” and assertion of well-defined links between certain genes and this thing called “intelligence” – the first is, admittedly, the least problematic. Yes, you can make some genetic distinctions (with limited statistical power) among groups of humans, based on relative degrees of geographic isolation during various eras of the past (and, less so, the present).
Among the other two issues, I think it’s a close call ascertaining which one racists like you exploit more beyond its scientific utility, but I’d probably go with the second one – reification of “intelligence.” The third realm, linking of specific mental tendencies and potentialities with specific genetic realities, at least has SOME good science behind it – but don’t think for a minute that this excuses your racist exaggeration of such findings.
That came out wrong. I meant “as much as anyone can be – we’re all imperfect humans, each with our own biases.” Indeed, this was one of the main themes of Stephen Jay Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man – that Cyril Burt et al. weren’t evil or demented, but that they approached the evidence in light of their culture’s assumptions, as all of us are fated to do, in one way or another, every day.
(When in this day and age you reason too much like Sir Cyril, though, it IS a mild form of evil and/or dementia.)
For example, I admit that I hope there is no significant genetic basis, highly correlated to a reasonably widely-shared culturally generated racial taxonomy, for a broad range of potentialities to which we could meaningfully assign an umbrella term “intelligence.” I admit that I have to try my best to suppress this hope when assessing evidence. I admit that the “wealthy black kids tending to score poorly on certain kinds of tests” thing which CP keeps bringing up is intriguing, and deserves close scrutiny.
(Linguist – and African American – John McWhorter recounted in one of his books the precise age (I think it was 12) at which he started to feel pressure, from his black peers, to suppress his intellectual curiosity, lest he side with/join/feed the white socio-cultural-economic hegemony. I know this doesn’t speak directly to the studies CP cites, for several reasons, but it does offer a glimpse of the sort of explanations I hope – and think – account for these findings.)
I’m not arguing this. Societal factors completely out of the control of the parents are likely involved.
Good thing I’m not saying this, then!
Yes, this is the gap we are trying to explain. Well done in explaining the question we are trying to answer.
There are likely many causes. There is direct evidence that points away from genes as a cause, so other factors are probably involved. Perhaps, as I’ve suggested, there are obstacles like small, day-to-day racist interactions, negative media depictions, and other legacies of racism and brutality that combine to make it harder (but not impossible) for black children to succeed and to reach their potential, whatever their wealth.
We have direct evidence that points away from genes as a factor in lower test scores. We have no direct evidence that points away from abp.
That’s okay. My “theory” is obviously a joke, and meant to highlight the weakness of genes as a possible cause. None of the ‘evidence’ you’ve put forward directly favors genes over all other possible causes, so I’ve put out a silly example that is equally “strengthened” by data that points away from SES as the cause.
John McWhorter is wrong. High performing Black students get along better with their peers than high performing White kids. There is no ‘Black culture of underachievement’, or whatever.
Even if there’s no direct evidence that points more strongly in one direction than the other, you have to take into account which one has a stronger theoretical basis. If I walk outside and see the ground is wet there’s no evidence that points more strongly towards it having rained than towards space aliens having a massive intergalactic water-fight. But I would assume the former, and so would you, because in that case you would not be bound by an overwhelming ideological imperative as you are here. (You’ve repeatedly asserted that you accept that genetic differences in intelligence are theoretically possible - and in fact you’ve gotten all worked up over people who’ve failed to acknowledge this.)
I don’t know how confident you can be that income and education are the only factors.
My own hypothesis, FWIW, is that a lot of children of wealthy and educated black parents self-identify with a black subculture that tends to be less intellectual or even anti-intellectual, and this drags down their average IQ. That subculture, in turn, is shaped by the other environmental factors which tend to influence the black community as a whole.
IOW, once you have a group which has a lower average intelligence for whatever reason, the group dynamic will tend to produce a culture which further reinforces and magnifies the deficiency. So you can’t just isolate for the original factors in comparing with other groups.
Or maybe something else. Basically, it’s a very complex issue, and I don’t have a lot of confidence that it’s nearly fully understood at this time.
[To go out even further on a limb, I would speculate that it might be possible that even if there are differences in average intelligence between the various “races”, it’s possible that they’re not so much different in level as they are different in type. Meaning, more analogous to men and women, whose minds are thought to function differently but ultimately arrive at roughly the same place through different processes. The catch here is that the Western approach to thinking eventually conquered the world (through an accident of historical timing) and thus non-Western minds are being measured against methods of thinking that reflect and are derived from European minds. This is obviously wild speculation and may be complete nonsense, but at this point I think it could be theoretically possible.]
What evidence do you have for any external (nurturing) factors that might drive epigenetic changes in only a black cohort?
I don’t think you understand the epigenetic argument, which is fundamentally a way of dodging gene pools by blaming phenotypic expression on non-hereditary genetic changes…it saves a given individual from blaming his geneset pool, but at a population level is woefully lacking.
What kind of epigenetic driver do you think might exist that subverts the otherwise equivalent gene pool of wealthy blacks?
You have it backward- Epigenetic changes are (sometimes) hereditary, but they are not genetic. They don’t involve changes in the actual genetic code (I.e. Sequence of base pairs).
If you want to think that race cannot be correlated with genetics at all, you have failed to understand human migration history, failed to read (or comprehend) studies such as the one I just posted above, and choose to live in a little carefully wordsmithed world that hides behind statements such as “race is a social construct” and “there is no biological marker for a race” and the like.
Have at. Don’t wait for race differences to ever go away until all races draw from the same gene pool, though–in which case race would truly be a social construct.
The good news is that many–if not most–casual onlookers happily accept the nonsensical, scientifically unsupported, reassuring, simple-minded notion that gene frequencies do not vary by race. So you have a lot of equally ignorant brethren spouting the same bullshit.