So what? It also remains for various non-contemporaneous cohorts. There’s nothing magical or special about “now”.
No sillier than the idea that various other cohorts are the same.
This sounds like a pretty big problem with the use of things like IQ tests to measure intelligence, or anything related to genes.
Even more likely – this test score gap was not indicative at all of any real difference in intrinsic intelligence!
And there’s no evidence that these genes for “neurobiological functions” like intelligence are different in quality for different races/ethnicities/cohorts/etc.
Our efforts to “make nurturing equivalent” have been paltry and weak, and moreover, the gap has shrunk by some measures.
So what? Again, no one disputes this. Why do you constantly bring this up as if it’s a disputed point? It contradicts no one’s conclusions.
So what? Who gives a fuck? If you haven’t found the “smart” gene or genes, then there’s no way to know which populations are more likely to have it.
Another irrelevant diversion.
It’s not persistent. We only have a snapshot of history. Maybe if we had hundreds of years of data, this would be a decent point, but we don’t.
The Flynn effect doesn’t need to explain it – the Flynn effect just shows that there are gaps that are explained entirely by non-genetic factors, even if we don’t know what all those factors are.
Until we know the genes responsible, and they’re prevalence in different populations, there’s no reason to accept this explanation. Further, there is evidence that specifically refutes genes as a factor, which you consistently ignore.
Completely false bullshit. There’s no possible way you could know this.
More complete and utter bullshit. In this society? What a fucking joke. I don’t know what world you live in, but on the questions of real world discrimination, you have no fucking idea how the world works.
Bullshit. If you want to say it’s the genes that are responsible, find some actual fucking data about the fucking genes. Or just recreate the Scarr study – show that, among self-identified black people, those with greater portions of African ancestry score lower. The Scarr study showed that there was no correlation between ancestry and test scores among self-identified black people.
But the cowards on your side are just too lazy (or too cowardly) to do any actual real science, like finding the genes (which would be very difficult), or doing the Scarr study again (which would be very easy). Lazy, pathetic cowards.
As a humorous aside, I believe the Scarr study was financed by one of those racist organizations, I believe the Patriot Fund. Obviously they thought there would be a different outcome. After they got the results they never funded another similar study. They thought they were buying a result from Scarr, but what they were really buying was science, and they couldn’t have that.
Notice that CP talks a lot, but he never talks about the Scarr study. I guess a direct refutation of every single one of his claims by an actual scientist is too much cognitive dissonance for him.
I’m not sure what your point is, but do you have some sort of study suggesting that high SES black families where the parents are educated and wealthy have some sort of higher incarceration rates for those parents than poverty-stricken and uneducated whites? Those are the two cohorts.
Or, like iiandyiiii, do you propose some sort of grandparent effect where the rich black kid can’t compete academically 'cuz of what happened to Gramps, even though Mom and Dad are well-off and well-educated?
Mixing up your SES data across the whole spectrum is bad science.
Actually, the genes driving neurobiological function are being explored every day. I gave you a nice Princeton review upthread. That review is concerned about the “ethical implications,” of which there would be none if those studying the genes were confident no race-based average disparities would emerge.
Every scientist who works in this area is very sensitive about how they wordsmith anything. The reason is that so many studies suggest that, when you compare genes for any physiologic function between self-identified races, you come up with an average difference, both for the exact gene variants, and the consequent function.
And seemingly trivial differences can make a substantial difference. I gave you another cite around the fact that a single C for T substitution in HMGA2 can make a 2% difference for brain size and psychometric IQ testing.
You’ve got a 1977 study using cohorts all drawn from the lower end of the spectrum, using half-assed proxies to estimate average gene pool makeup, and you are comforted with an inconclusive statistical finding. It ain’t much to go on, but it’s all you have, and on this you base your faith that mother nature tinkers only with unimportant genes, maintaining an egalitarian approach across all races for functional fairness wrt any important functions.
Keep working on those putative nurturing elements, and good luck with finding the magical hidden ones which will drive these differences in outcome. Or you could just continue to obfuscate with tangential and unrelated misconceptions.
One thing that won’t happen any time soon, with any amount of nurturing manipulation, is equivalent outcomes. The “it’s all because of societal lack of black opportunity” excuse died hard when the evidence turned out not to support it.
At least that lame-o SES excuse is dead.
So just keep that Scarr study link hand, andy, and hope no one actually looks at the original data. Maybe if you say it enough times, people will assume it’s correct, just like bringing up SES as a known reason for black/white/asian outcome differences in academia.
And yet we still have, pretty much, no idea which genes are responsible for intelligence and which aren’t, much less which groups of humans are more likely to have which of these genes.
Any physiologic function? How about sense of humor? Finger strength? Knuckle wrinkliness? Urination forefulness? Spincter power? Musical preferences? How about ability to differentiate colors? Or whether one prefers Kirk or Picard? Whether one prefers fiction or non-fiction? Or the nigh-infinite other ‘physiologic fuctions’?
Nope, not “half-assed proxies”. But we probably have better proxies now, and your side is too cowardly (or lazy) to do this same study again.
It’s the only study that even attempts to specifically address genes as a factor, rather than specific nurture factors like SES that certainly do not tell the whole story.
And yet it’s much, much more than you have to go on.
Another fucking straw-man, you lazy ignorant coward. The same, tired fucking straw-man argument that you bring up again and again. How pathetic.
There’s no way you could know this. You’re guessing, and it’s a guess based on very poor science.
This isn’t the excuse, and even if it were, the evidence does not refute it.
I hope they do! And I hope someone on your side is not so lazy and/or cowardly to recreate the study someday with modern methodology. Probably too much to hope for, though, eh?
SES is a known reason for outcome differences, you dolt! It’s not the only reason, but if it weren’t a reason, it wouldn’t have to be corrected for constantly!
How do you post such bullshit without choking on it yourself?
Interesting wording. May I suggest instead the alternative wording of: “Every study ever done of the direct impact of race genes on the black/white testing difference has found that genes had no impact.”
Also, there you go again using that “egalitarian” word, even after it has been explained to you that it doesn’t apply here. I have to ask myself, “is our ChiefPedant learning?”
Also, finally, an “inconclusive” statistical finding is exactly the result you would get if there there was no such thing as a black intelligence gene. You understand that, right?
I guess one solution to this thorny problem is not to assume that IQ has been growing at the same rate over time? Seriously, are you confused by this? Perhaps this simple cartoon will help: http://xkcd.com/605/.
More seriously, if you don’t understand that you can’t extrapolate current trends into the indefinite past or future, then maybe you shouldn’t be doing “science”.
If you think this question has anything at all to do with the question of whether there is a genetic basis for IQ differences between races, then you are too fucking stupid to be participating in this thread.
Your lack of dispassionate intellectual curiosity and imagination has no bearing on my intellectual ability. But I’m unsurprised to see you think otherwise.
I’ve answered this before. I don’t know the answer to this question – we don’t know the genes responsible for sexual preference (if they exist). If forced at gunpoint to answer the question, I lean “yes, genes are at least partly involved”. This is due (firstly) to conversations with gay people, who can describe the origin of their sexual feelings. Further, twin studies have shown a correlation (though not a 100% correlation) in orientation.
Neither of these pieces of evidence have a parallel for the question of intelligence – people can’t self-report any information about the source of their intelligence, nor are twin studies at all useful for race and intelligence because twins have the exact same genetic ancestry.
I forgot to congratulate you for learning a new word. The way to really own a new word is to repeat it 100 times, and you’re well on your way in this thread.