I damn well hope so.
The idea of an entire generation of 60s vintage Japanese clones creeps me right the fuck out.
The problem at hand is the determination to use a loaded term such as “intelligence” instead of, say, “neurobiological functioning” or whatever. Not to mention the the insistence of throwing in “inferior” instead of “differently wired,” or whatever.
From a genetic standpoint, despite my and others’ use of shorthand terms (“smarter,” e.g., especially for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone), what we need to accept is that different (self-identified) races are, on average, differently programmed genetically.
That’s all. Simple as that. We do not have the same gene pools any more than men and women have the same gene pools. Those differences are going to drive outcomes which are disparate for any given skillset. Skillsets such as physical abilities (power sprinting) or academic test-taking (graduate entrance exams) or psychometric assessments (IQ tests) are all going to reflect average gene pool variations.
There is a longer and deeper discussion about how to approach this at a societal level. That discussion is never really held for faults on both sides of the fence. For the simpleton racist skinhead, an average genetic “superiority” for a skillset is translated into a personal superiority as if self-identifying with a race confers upon that individual some sort of superiority (and it might be said that the exact individuals who cling to that mentality are themselves the dullards of their group). For the simpleton egalitarian, the notion that races might cluster into biologically disparate pools is so abhorrent that they cannot even examine the science objectively over the voices in their head screaming “RACIST RACIST RACIST!”
The cacophony becomes deafening, and the science gets lost. The rhetoric at the level of public consumption is so ingrained with an assortment of standard misconceptions and misrepresentations–not to mention trigger phrases and words which obfuscate any careful debate–that little practical progress is ever made in even communicating the date, much less taking away accurate conclusions.
At the center of all of this, the fundamental average patterns which drive average outcomes never change, because they are driven by the stark reality that for all of us, genes determine our maximum potential. We are our genes, and for race groups, our average potential is driven by our average gene pools. If the average genes for women are different than the average genes for men, the average outcome for a given skillset standard will be different. No amount of nurturing will change that average; no amount of rhetorical manipulation will alter the facts: the gene pools are different, and the outcomes are different.
We can find ways to get all races represented at nearly all levels in society at distributions representative enough to quell the sense that some groups never have a place at the table of success. We will not get there by making opportunity equal and then simply having a competitive standard equally applied, because the law of averages will ensure that a genetically driven pattern will result in disparate distribution. It will not work for firefighters, and it will not work for doctors.
But if we begin with a supposition that race is only an arbitrary way of splitting, and that it’s ridiculous (from all that science has taught us about evolution and migration) to establish a prior some sort of silly Creationist egalitarian view that all races are homogenized for genetically driven functional outcomes) then we can begin to ameliorate disparate outcomes for that arbitrary classification, and create a world where every self-identified group (sexes; races; ethnicities; disabled; cultures…) has some reasonable chance at being successful.
If, instead, we insist that every race must be equal, we’ll make policy based on faulty assumptions, and we will guarantee that the policy will fail to effect equal representation, much the same way that a policy assuming men and women are wired the same for physical ability would fail to allow women to take their place as firefighters.
You attributed something to me I never said.
You then posted a rebuttal to that misrepresentation.
When I reposted my original point, you decided that I had changed positions as a response to your rebuttal, when what happened is that you were rebutting a position I never made in the first place.
You are an idiot for not reading carefully, and a cockroach for misrepresenting me instead of simply quoting the actual content I post.
Yes, the outcomes of black students in medical schools are substantially “inferior” from an academic perspective.
Specifically, subsequent licensing exams after 4 years of medical school are lower, resulting in exactly the same problem for how to race-preference choices for residencies. Pass rates on board-certification exams another 3-7 years down the road are substantially lower, resulting in a paucity of specialty-certified black physicians. Disciplinary rates for medical practice are substantially higher.
As to who, and what, makes a “good physician,” that is a broader discussion. Is a subspecialist who can’t relate to people contributing more to medicine than a general practitioner taking care of the underserved? When those kinds of subjective criteria are put into the equation, the considerations of who to bring into medical school become much broader than simply looking at MCAT scores.
The question for MCAT scores (I think) is whether or not whatever differences there are, are driven by genes. It’s not a debate about who makes a good doctor. Those may well be different skillsets.
No.
Are you suggesting that a phenomenon which changes in a few generations cannot have any genetic component affecting it?
Regards,
Shodan
You really believe that males and females are in different gene pools?
Interesting.
And yet, you continue to use the “shorthand” in these discussions, which promotes the very misunderstanding that you now claim is unfortunate or in error.
I see no effort on your part to change this situation. You will post for a short while on “Self-identifed Ethnic Selection,” but soon you are back to using the term “race.”
And while you frequently make broad claims about the universal nature of your observations, they are routinely taken from studies or analyses that are limited to the U.S. That is not persuasive.
Of course, here you talk about averages in gene pools, while elsewhere you make the claims that no individual could exceed that average, going so far as to claim that for given “races,” no individual in one “race” could hope to rise as high as the average of another “race”–a claim I find prepostrous however firmly you believe it.
Your first claim is disingenuous. Your conclusion is silly.
Throwing an accusation of “Creationist” makes no sense unless you actually find someone supporting that view. The claim is not that the perceived “races” are homogenized, but that the differences that are perceived have not been demonstrated to be significant in the ways that you want them to be.
As to giving everyone a chance: I want my doctor to be the best possible, regardless of race. If it was true that members of one “race” or another simply could not hack it, then they should be excluded for the safety and health of everyone.
Your claims regarding scores on tests and disciplinary actions go back to thinking that testing actually provides objective results and that there is no cultural impetus behind disciplinary hearings. I do not have any faith that either is true.
I routinely scored poorly on skill tests throughout my career, while being the “go to” guy for information on those same skills. I do not test well on “skill” tests, never guessing what answer the test writer is trying to discover, but I know the technical information better than the vast majority of my colleagues when I am asked to perform a task.
Similarly, “Driving While Black” extends out beyond the roadways. Black kids are routinely punished more harshly and more frequently than their white fellow students for identical actions. Black customers are watched more closely than white customers as suspected shoplifters. Black sale clerks are more frequently accused of rudeness for saying the same things that are given a pass when uttered by white sales clerks. I see no reason to expect that that general attitude changes when someone begins wearing a stethoscope, with more people reporting problems and more boards dealing more harshly to drive up disciplinary numbers.
Bring me the results of a disciplinary board where the members never know the SES of their subjects and we can talk.
You missed it. Women do have to have the same physical ability to carry out a task. They must be able to lug the same equipment and haul the same hose as men. They simply do not have to exercise a specific task in a way that men used to, (before it was shown that the way men were doing it was harmful).
So, in other words, you want to find a nicer way of saying that black people have, on average, inherently inferior intellectual ability.
Why do we need to accept this, with no genetic evidence? Why are a few paltry decades of testing somehow revealing of some historical truth, when we know discrimination against black people is still a very significant problem?
No they’re not, or at least not necessarily. They can reflect variations in many traits besides genetics. The IQ test-score gap between 1930s Irish people and modern Irish people is absolutely NOT genetic. There are many similar gaps that are similarly not genetic. With no data about the genes for intelligence, it is extremely foolish to be making conclusions that any of these gaps are based on genes.
What science? The scientific organizations, pretty universally, reject your conclusion.
Yes they do. They change all the time. These patterns have changed constantly over history.
Still no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s virtually impossible that the change in observed characteristics is based on a change in genes.
The genes are the same. But the observed characteristics can change significantly. And that demonstrates how much influence external conditions can have over the way genetic traits are expressed.
Which is the point most of us have been making. Black students and white students may get different results on test scores. But this is overwhelmingly more likely to be the result of external conditions rather than black people and white people being genetically different.
No. Wrong. Stupidly wrong. Power sprinting is no more a race-clustered trait than intelligence. “Jamaican” is not a race.
Do try to keep up with the class, MrD. It’s all very simple, but I’ll explain it just one more time:
-
Jamaicans are obviously black.
-
Blacks are big strong bucks who just love to run fast…
2a. …and their geneticals make them real good at it.
-
Therefore Jamaicans are black.
-
Therefore genes control intelligence.
Got it now?
I simply cannot convey how strongly the racialist views being touted here is rejected by modern Geneticists… But I will try.
I’ll just tackle these two, since my patience to explain the same things over and over again diminishes.
Self-identified birth sex of male gene pool: Frequency for Y chromosome approaches 100%
Self-identified birth sex of female gene pool: Frequency for Y chromosome approaches 0%
No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus handing out the same genes to the groups which self-identify as male and female (although surgeons can help the gender-fluid if they don’t like the gender their genes put them in).
As to physical differences you are not typically this dumb, tomndebb: Women do not have the same average physical ability to carry out a task as men.
If we make special accommodations for the fact that the physical outcomes for skillsets differ, on average, we can find ways to get women more broadly represented for roles typically assigned to men. The reason we make those gender-specific accommodations for tasks involving certain physical skillsets is…
…wait for it…
men and women have different gene frequencies in their gene pools, and no amount of nurturing erases that average outcome difference because the outcomes are driven by genes.
One last thing: You are correct that much of the data I cite is from the US, where the data is most stringently collected and reported by “race.” And of course, the source pool for self-identified blacks in the US is heavily biased toward people of recent west african descent. I have used an L-3/M-N splitting point for reasons outlined above, but many other population splitting points could be used if you want to argue for them. However from a migration standpoint (not to mention the introgression of archaic genes such as Neandertal and Denisovan), L-3/M-N is convenient.
I have never proposed that race-divisions are anything but broad, crude an arbitrary. I have only proposed that, IF one groups by self-identified race, one can show a difference in average gene frequency both by direct measurement of known genes such as MCPH1 haplogroup D variant, 1800 evolution-driven genes shown to be selected for in Eric Wang’s study referenced above, archaic genes, thousands upon thousands of physiologic studies using race groups for medicine, and so on.
The fundamental gap in IQ and academic test scores remains for contemporaneous cohorts.
Although the “Flynn effect” of rising IQ scores over time is very popular as putative evidence that intelligence and genes are unrelated, it’s a very unpersuasive tack. There is no way to sit the 1930s guy down with the 2010 guy and give them the same test; the idea that these cohorts are the same is silly on its face.
Beyond that, extrapolation of modern IQ test scores back to the 1930s means that in the 1930s the average IQ was in the mentally challenged range, and that’s ridiculous. For example, Flynn puts the IQ of a modern adult black male at about 85; this would give the average black male in the 1930’s an IQ well below 70.
Neither the Irish nor blacks were mentally challenged to the point of being mentally handicapped in the 1930s. Moreover, academic test scores such as the SAT show declines and not advances over the decades. So the dumber people of times past were scoring better on their academic exams?
IQ measures whatever it measures. Neurobiological function, and the outcomes of skillsets dependent on it, is driven by genes.
Within our species, all sorts of skillsets–including neurobiological skillsets–have average outcomes which are driven by those genes.
I am not the least surprised.
I’m just working on those lazy whites who cannot motivate themselves to practice for basketball when, and are so stupid that they drop out of competitive basketball voluntarily, even though they coulda been NBA stars.
And what should we do about those stupid white parents who say to their kids, “Oh honey; why don’t you just drop out of basketball and do used car sales? Sure; you could be a star and go to college free or even make the NBA, but what I see in your future is car sales.”
The gap was decreasing for more than 30 years until the start of the crack epidemic, when racist policies tore apart black families, incarcerated millions of black fathers, and drove American blacks deeper into poverty. Despite all the problems that black families were facing, the gap didn’t increase. Now that the racist anti-black policies are being slowly dissolved, the gap will begin to decrease again, and your bizarre racist statements will seem increasingly odd.
Unfortunately, your cite has loads of essays with elaborate wordsmithing, and no actual studies which contradict the stark fact that, for self-identified “races,” outcomes are substantially and consistently different. That difference persists no matter how we try to make nurturing equivalent. The black child of wealthy and educated parents has a huge performance gap with his SES peers, and scores barely on par with poverty-stricken whites/asians.
Generally, the wordsmithing takes very standard tacks:
- There’s a lot of diversity, so we shouldn’t clump ourselves into races, and besides, there’s more total genetic diversity in the black clump.
- The Flynn effect means intelligence is largely nurturing
- It’s naughty to think genes drive differential outcomes
Briefly (for the zillionth time):
-
Diversity of genes is a red herring. Any given gene accrues only to descendent lines. A gene evolved post anchor-point split within historic migration patterns would accrue only to those descendant populations. If a new gene for Really Tall arises, then the self-identified populations of Really Tall and Shorter would have an outcome difference for Tallness if migration patterns held the two populations at relative isolation. This outcome difference would be genetic, regardless of how much “genetic diversity” either group had.
-
The Flynn effect does not explain the persistent pattern difference gap. To whatever extent nurturing helps any outcome, only effacement of a difference means average gene differences are not at play. I would be a better piano player, mathematician and golfer with better nurturing. My genes govern my maximum potential, though. The Flynn effect does nothing to explain academic score gaps which persists when adjusted for SES.
-
It probably is naughty. Racist even. The question is whether or not it is fact that genes drive average outcome differences among self-identified race groups.
I get it that the wordsmithing and position papers of population geneticists is gently reassuring.
Less reassuring is the fact that no one can erase those differences, not even with intense nurturing or intervention. If it could be done, it would long have been done, and we’d have a crop of intensely nurtured black students with stellar academic scores getting the racists to shut the hell up.
We wouldn’t need reassuring essays by population geneticists about how no one really understands genetics, and their life-work is not heading in the direction of proving how influential genes are, and how different populations have different genes. We’d just create appropriate controls, and produce equivalent results.
Is it your contention that cocaine addiction is the fundamental nurturing reason that high-SES blacks underscore their SES peers so abysmally?
I have posted elsewhere about the ridiculous war on drugs, and the devastation on black families. I have railed against our prison system and the legal system’s disproportionate effect on blacks. I do note that you don’t seem to feel this is a stumbling block for basketball success?
It’s not clear to me that comparing comparable SES cohorts has much to do with that, and my own professional black colleagues are pretty much indistinguishable from the other high-SES peers I have wrt concerns such as drug abuse…
As a statistical effect, I would think that incarcerating a higher percentage of black fathers for longer periods of time than white fathers would have a statistically larger impact on black families, yes. Do you deny this?