“Wealthy and educated blacks substantially underscore their SES peers across every social and political system, and to such an extent that children from wealthy and educated black families demonstrate an academic aptitude barely on par with poverty-stricken whites who have uneducated parents. Therefore socioeconomic status and educational opportunity is not an explanation for the academic underperformance of blacks.”
Can you at least agree to that as a starter?
You can still call anyone you want a racist, of course. It may even help you distract from addressing the burden of actually having an informed opinion on the facts.
Though the “across every social and political system” is absurd hyperbole considering the paucity of data we have relative to human history, this says nothing about black people’s genes or intelligence, and is therefore not a racist thing to say.
This is so badly wrong it appears you haven’t even read the thread.
We are a single species, but we have elected to self-identify into groups that in turn have different gene frequency for the gene pools that that grouping creates.
So far, nothing has been posted against the following points:
Gene frequencies vary by self-identified “race.” This is because of the history of human migrations and various splitting points. For example, choosing a splitting point at the last out of africa major migration (in mtDNA terms, at the point of the L3-M/N split) creates two groups with different gene frequencies. As an example, look at the average frequency of introgressed Neandertal genes or MCHP1 haplogroupD variant in those two broad pools. The question is not, “How do you define a race biolgocally?” It is instead, “If you let people self-define their groups, is there a difference in the frequency of genes within the gene pools to which they have self-identified?” If there is, then any difference in the function of those genes will drive a difference in average outcome as the effect of the genes is expressed.
Self-identified “race” correlates surprisingly well with those broad, self-identified groupings with disparate gene pools.
At least 1800 genes (from the study I gave by Eric Wang) can be shown to be driven into their relatively high penetration by evolution (Wang uses “Darwinian selection”). That is, as genes have evolved, at least 1800 of them have been driven to high penetration because they are positively selected for and not because (for example) they were present at a population bottleneck. The idea that variations are just sort of odd and unimportant happenstances is completely unsupported.
New genes that show up past any given anchor point (L3-M/N, e.g.) will be available only to descendant lines from that anchor point. That’s why, for example, we see Neandertal gene introgression accounting for something like 2 or 3% of “whites” but far less in sub-saharan black populations. The migration patterns and back-migration into sub-saharan africa have been limited by geography to northern (and, to some extent, eastern) africa. Therefore the average self-identified “black” will have a gene pool containing fewer Neandertal genes than the average self-identified white.
Very tiny evolutionary changes in a single gene can drive substantial changes in outcome. For example, a single T for C substitution in HMGA2 has been found (in one of the largest brain studies to date) to drive a 2% difference in brain size and a 2% difference in IQ.
It is highly unlikely evolution has left off tinkering with neurobiological genes in order to keep all the races just about the same.
It’s just ignorant to think that “individuals just have different combinations of the same trait” if what you are implying is that all those individuals draw from the same pool with an equal chance of inheriting the same genes. In the currently-used categories for “race,” recent continental origin of the source pool for that category is preserved well enough to alter gene frequency occurrence by race, and because of the pattern of human migrations, those source pools are not homogenized.
Which of them are comfort you the most for an explanation why children of wealthy and educated black parents cannot compete except on par with children of poverty-stricken and uneducated white parents?
I am sorry for the sputum on your monitor. GIGObuster froths me with his earnest stupidity.
**
Evil Economist** Agrees with me, so besides your Crank Magnetism, Bad memory and pseudo-nazism you only show to all that you are not able at paying attention so you can be dismissed then.
Every study looking at SES tier breakdown for races continues to show exactly the same pattern.
GIGAbozo, my problem is keeping my blood pressure down while explaining the same thing over and over again. I’m only doing it one more time because my pride keeps insisting that even the simplest of points will eventually register, even on a dullard as slow as you.
Your “study” is a statistical analysis which tries to model the effect of SES by looking at a whole group and then seeing which factors might best predict or correlate with score outcomes. Fine. The author can play with all the modeling he wants, and make all the predicted future outcomes he wants, and conclude whatever he wants based on his modeling.
But here’s the fly in the ointment:
We have actual results already tiered into actual socioeconomic strata, and actual socioeconomic controls already studied against actual outcomes!
Isn’t that great??!! We don’t need to model and predict because we have real-world results! It’s as if, instead of predicting that you are a donkey because of your posts here, I can touch and feel your long floppy ears and see for myself!
We can analyze academic performances, and use real life data for the SES controls!
It’s super fantastic, hey?
When we do, using ACTUAL DATA, what we find is:
(wait for it…)
Controlling for SES does NOT even come close to explaining the racial difference in achievement. In fact, blacks from high SES backgrounds barely score on par with whites from low SES backgrounds.
THAT’s the facts, and THAT’s why we need race-based (and not opportunity-based) affirmative action.
Your lack of attention is clear to all, the researchers of the study I quoted show that the previous ones have to be checked again.
The progress of science is indeed like that, new research modifies the view of the previous ones, it confirms or gives us doubts about was was found in the past.
Your attempt at freeze-drying what was found in the past and deny the latest research is indeed what a pseudo-scientist does.
Blacks are so frightened when they have to put down their “race” on an exam, that the stereotype threat prevents them from putting down the right answer.
Teachers expect blacks to perform poorly, and blacks step right up and please them by performing poorly.
A bright black child would rather buckle to the pressure of his peers and play basketball or mumble rap instead of applying himself in school.
The angst of having ancestors who were abused, oppressed and enslaved so clouds the mind that a wealthy black child with educated parents cannot himself learn on par with socioeconomic peers whose ancestors may or may not have been oppressed in various ways.
I also recall you mentioning something about “culture,” which apparently means educated and wealthy black parents who have already attained a middle class status by virtue of their achievement are either too stupid or too lazy or too incompetent to inculcate into their children the very reason they themselves found success, preferring instead to let the asians pound the value of education into their kids.
If I have missed any, feel free to add them for review here. And keep thinking of more, because you’ll need them to obfuscate the obvious:
**There are fundamental differences for the way our minds and bodies work because the average gene pools of our self-identified groupings have been driven apart by human migration patterns and the unwillingness of mother nature to make some genes off-limits.
**
GIGAblatherer, I am going to have to down grade you from “donkey” to “ass.” You are obviously so mentally challenged that you cannot even independently evaluate what a study means. That alone doesn’t make you an ass, but not getting some help understanding the topic does. Go get some help. You may use my posts.
You don’t have a “latest research” study with some kind of new data. The data used for that study are from test scores that end about the year 2000 (see the graphs and the labels; not the year the study was reported).
But it doesn’t matter. Your “study” tries to come up with statistical modeling to predict an outcome. This is completely unnecessary since the actual outcome using SES controls has been done many times over and never changes. Why not email the author and ask him what his model has to say about data which, instead of predicting what would happen in SES tiers, actually looks at scores from SES tiers? Refer him to any of the cites which show a vast difference in academic scores for blacks and whites/asians within the same SES tiers.
That’s not an accurate representation of the factors I’ve suggested. It also ignores a major one: that there are challenges unique to the ‘black experience’, which could include day to day racism, discrimination, and media depictions/role models, that serve as obstacles for black children to succeed.
And it’s hardly a particularly groundbreaking suggestion. We already know that (for example) otherwise identical resumes with ‘black’ sounding names are less likely to get callbacks from potential employers – it seems very likely that there are numerous similar ‘small’ obstacles that face black children, and many have probably not been documented at all.
It shouldn’t shock anyone that, even with an equal background and ‘skillset’, it might be more difficult for a black child to succeed than others.
Even though the parents overcame those challenges, they produce offspring who cannot, and
Those challenges are so great that having wealthy and educated parents is a lesser advantage than being white in a poverty stricken home with uneducated parents?
Keep 'em coming. From where I sit in the business world, we’re desperate for black candidates, as is the rest of the academic world.
What’s with this “cannot” crap? I’ve suggested that there are obstacles that make it more difficult. Where do you get “cannot” from this?
Very possibly. Though we were just talking about academic/test score outcomes – out of curiosity, how do economic outcomes compare between rich black children (with educated parents) and poor white children with uneducated parents?
For all the huff and puff he is making, the fact is that they indeed used the previous data to arrive to the conclusion they have now by reviewing it with more up to date methods.
And there he goes again ignoring that Evil Economist agreed with me, the Chief’s previous post showed that he thought that Evil Economist was not taking the study I linked to and other ones into account.
His pathetic efforts geared toward me are even more so when one takes into account that he is ignoring all the ones that do not agree with him. It is not just me.
