You fucking idiot. You clearly missed the point of the study, since there wasn’t a sentence in the report for you to take out of context as supporting your racist beliefs.
The point of the study, you stupid worthless sack, is that motivated black children perform exactly as well as motivated white children on IQ tests.
Explain that using you racist genetics theory, you ignorant moron.
No idea, CP, where you’re getting this “skips a generation” crap.
A solution we can all agree on, combined with a remarkable sense of self. This is a Chief Pedant I can live with.
This is where I think you get it wrong. There is evidence for X. There is also evidence for Anti-X. Fine, but that doesn’t magically make the evidence for X disappear. You consistently either confuse or conflate evidence with proof. Now if the evidence for X can be PROVEN to be disregarded, because the other evidence can be proven to account for the theory of X, then you’d be right. But no such proof exists. You merely point to evidence that may account for X and wave your wand over it and give it the weight of proof that cleanly discounts the evidence that exists for X.
I really think you should think about this more. Your underlying logic is flawed.
You can start by looking in the mirror. In essence that’s what you’re doing. I say “in essence” because I doubt these threads will stop a scientist from doing what he wants. But you’re attempting to make the position not just wrong (which it may very well be), but verboten.
It’s the same tactic that Sandman, I mean Gigo, and team, use with climate change. He still is unable to get it through his mushy melon that one can question some of the thinking shared by his fellow religionists and accept the fact of climate change. He want’s to use “deniers”, you want to use “racist”. But the game is exactly the same.
He’s a lost cause, like many people who find religion. But I think your personal bias (we all have them) as simply allowed you to accept a false premise: that the existence of evidence that might very well explain the difference in intelligence that is exhibited simply makes the evidence that it is related, at least in part, to genetics simply disappear. That’s not that case. Now, it may very well turn out to be the case that the nurturing evidence will someday be so strong to rise to the level of "proof that the genetic theory is wrong. But we’re no where near that.
I think you’re not giving motivation the importance it deserves. I find the implications of the study very interesting. But it doesn’t answer the problem of Blacks, when the motivation is there to get to an Ivy League school, medical school, law school, etc., they still don’t perform as well. Same with the tests for firefighters, cops, etc. All applicants have the same desire, and probably the same motivation to do well. Most will come from the same neighbor and economic class, but from what I understand, the difference in scores persists.
I haven’t done any of this that you’re describing. No, there’s probably no proof (that I know of) that genetics have nothing to do with the test-score gap. But there’s also no proof alien brain parasites have nothing to do with it.
And there’s no evidence for ‘genes’ as the best explanation for the test-score gap that does not support random other explanations that haven’t been controlled for, even silly ones like the parasites. Any evidence, so far, for genes, also supports the explanations that I’ve offered – like a combination of media depictions, role models, day-to-day racism and discrimination, etc. And there is specific evidence against genes, but not against these other explanations.
So you have inaccurately described my argument.
No I’m not. I’m calling out bad science. In addition to calling out bad science, I’m calling out racist statements. It’s very possible and very reasonable to do both.
If it’s racist to say “Jews are inherently greedier and more dishonest due to genes”, then it’s racist to say “black people are inherently less intelligent due to genes”. It doesn’t matter who says it, or why they say it – it’s racist even if you really believe there’s scientific evidence for it, even if you think you have proof. Same for Jews and greed/honesty, same for black people and intelligence. If a Jewish scientist finds a gene that he thinks is the “dishonesty” gene, and finds that more Jews have it than other groups, it’s still racist if he goes on to proclaim that Jews are inherently genetically less honest, on average. And intelligence is not some special characteristic that gets a pass from racist statements, while greed and dishonesty do not – these are the same assertions racists have been making for centuries to support the most abominable acts anyone has ever perpetrated.
These are the most basic and most fundamental kinds of racist statements there are.
Wrong. I’m simply stating that it’s totally foolish and unreasonable, on the scientific grounds, to state (as CP has) that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, and that this is the best explanation for the test score gap. There are a myriad of other possible explanations that have superior scientific cases for them as causes, and many other possible explanations that have probably not even been explored.
There’s evidence against socio-economic status as the best explanation for the test-score gap. But evidence against SES is not evidence for any particular cause. There’s no evidence for genes as the cause. No evidence that points to genes but not other possible causes. Maybe there will be someday. But there is none today. If you disagree, point out to me the evidence specifically for genes – not evidence against other causes, but evidence that specifically points to genes and no other possible cause.
You are reading the study but you are not apparently reading what happened when the results were attempted to be replicated in the real world. Nothing happened. Read the quote again, wrt Fryer’s New York application of the M&M results.
You are making an inflammatory, unbased implication that Google, FB, and Apple (in this particular instance) are actively discriminating against blacks with equal qualifications. Bullshit. The reason for FaceBook’s 120:1 ratio for black techs hired v asians hired (adjusted for source pool) is that their selection process includes quantified results. This is a huge practical problem for them that will require race-based preferences skewed markedly in favor of blacks to overcome because the screening scores are so disparate even accounting for prior educational and SES opportunity.
Treating race as something that is plainly and clearly socially defined, for example, is shit science. Chief Pedant sometimes pays lip service to this fact by talking about SIRE, but it doesn’t make the problem go away. Race is a social construct based mostly on surface characteristics, not genes. Consider the paper bag test. Consider the concept of passing. Consider the fact that black and white people in America have been interbreeding for centuries to be point that African-Americans have a substantial amount of European ancestry - and yet there has to be some kind of defined separation between races for this theory to even be plausible. There’s no such separation. That’s why it’s absurd to insist this is plausible and we need to keep an open mind (on the idea that maybe black people are just stupid). There’s no morality or intellectual honesty to keeping an open mind on asinine or nonsensical theories.
They attempted to use the conclusion of the first study, that lower motivations are at least part of the problem for lower academic performance, to help students perform better. They weren’t able to increase performance (for the most part – there were exceptions, apparently).
That doesn’t mean that motivation is not part of the problem. It just means they haven’t figured out how to fix motivations in the long-term.
No I’m not. The discrimination doesn’t have to be “active”. If there is discrimination, in a lot of cases it’s probably pretty subtle, passive, and small-scale.
If Facebook has conqured discrimination, good for Facebook. I doubt this is the case, but it doesn’t affect any of my points. It’s possible that they have a legitimate reason for such skewed hiring demographics, but it’s also very possible that there are subtle forms of discrimination at work here.
Consider 3 generations, and your “Oppression” theory for underperformance.
Underprivileged ancestor (Grandparent of privileged child, e.g.): Underperformance b/c of direct oppression. Oppression applies.
Underprivileged Parent: Success despite oppression of their parents. Oppression does not apply.
Privileged child of successful parents: Underperformance b/c of ancestral oppression (of Grandparent, e.g.). Oppression applies.
Read those three lines slowly and you’ll figure out where you maintain the “oppression” reason for underperformance skips a generation. You may use your fingers. Put one up for each line, and then bend one down if there is success. You’ll notice the center finger of the three is down. That’s the generation that the oppression reason for underperformance skipped…unless there was an M&M scarcity I didn’t read about.
Hope this helps.
It helps me understand your idiocy. That’s not my proposed explanation. Here it is, in simplified form (noting that this is just one of many possible explanations that are far superior to the genetic explanation):
Underprivileged ancestor (Grandparent of privileged child, e.g.): Underperformance b/c of direct oppression, discrimination, and many other factors.
Underprivileged Parent: Success despite direct oppression, discrimination, and many other factors. They had some major obstacles, but they succeeded nonetheless.
Privileged child of successful parents: Underperformance b/c of direct oppression, discrimination, and many other factors.
So nothing was skipped. The oppression, discrimination, and other factors, affected all three generations, though possibly to a lesser degree for later generations. Through some combination of luck, skill, effort, moxie, natural talent, and other factors, one generation overcame these obstacles. Perhaps one of their children did not – but maybe the other 1.5 kids did.
If that were true, we could motivate these lazy black children into performing on par with their peers.
As the real-world results showed, that does not happen. The performance gap is not due to laziness, lack of cell minutes, or M&M scarcity, this study notwithstanding.
Sure sounds to me like the Generation 2 was skipped for underperformance even though oppression was present in all three…let me go check my fingers again and make sure the middle one is not raised.
No one was skipped – these are (for the purposes of this hypothetical) people who are not victims of history, but rather full actors and participators in their own lives. They all faced challenges and obstacles, and some were able to overcome these challenges and obstacles.
But there are challenges and obstacles present for black people, even rich black people, that are not present for white people.
But there is evidence that genes play a role in intelligence. You seem to be trying to ignore that.
No. Your desperate need to always couch your statements about evidence with “the best explanation” is a straw man. It’s either evidence or it isn’t. You want to raise the bar for evidence in order to say something is not evidence. That’s not the way it works. X is either evidence or it is not. And it falls somewhere on a spectrum of weak evidence or strong evidence. Any other insistence by you simply demonstrates your inability to be dispassionate on this subject and shows that you’re operating under a very strong bias.
Oh, please, with the “on scientific grounds”. You can’t claim to hold science on high and think that for something to be considered evidence that it need provide "the best explanation.
Yeesh. You are operating on the incorrect notion that for something to be “evidence” it needs to provide the “best explanation”. Where do you get this from? It’s complete and utter nonsense. Sorry.
You know, look at all your posts. And look at all the ways you feel the need to qualify your statements about the evidence pointing to genes playing a role in intelligence. The fact that you continually need to do so, and are unable to simply state, “Yes there is evidence, but I find it very weak” might be instructive.
By the way, are you of the opinion that more intelligent parents tend to have more intelligent offspring. Not just better educated, but more intelligent? And why?
The average relative admixture in self-identified US blacks of (mostly) west african and european recent ancestry for genes is typically estimated at about 80% and 20%, respectively. Barack Obama and Navin Johnson are examples of outliers, but that’s the whole point of “average.” For self-identifed whites, the admixture of west African genes is quite a bit less; perhaps a few percent.
I believe that if you have a chance to read more carefully, you’ll notice I refer to SIRE grouping as “crude and broad” in terms of biological boundaries. This does not mean, however, that an average difference in gene frequencies does not exist. It does, and in fact you point out that “surface characteristics” are (on average) different between the two groups even though those at the end of the average spectrum on either side can pass for a different group. Those “surface characteristics” are driven by genes, and the fact that there is an average difference is driven by the frequency with which those genes show up in the gene pools created by the self definition. By self-defining as “black,” I would put myself in a gene pool (even in the US) where, on average, 80% of the pool contains genes which drive surface characteristics of my fellow self-definers toward an average appearance. One of my ongoing contentions with iiandyiiii is that mother nature has not exempted non-surface characteristics genes from evolving.
From a human history perspective, this particular broad division occurs at approximately the L3-M-n mtDNA split for the group(s) which left africa about 70 kya. Somewhere since then, the average “surface characteristics” evolved to disparate gene frequencies in the current average gene pools from which US blacks and whites, on average, draw their genes.
It’s a common misconception that we have to have a biologically stringent grouping to have a difference in average gene pools, but of course that’s simply not true. We could self-define into the crude and broad groups of Tall and Not Tall, and those two groups would have average outcome differences for height because their average gene pools are different for the frequency of the gene(s) driving height. And this would be true even if there were a lot of cross-over, a lot more general genetic diversity in one group v another, and a lot of self-definers passing for one group or another.
No I’m not. There’s plenty of evidence that genes play a role in intelligence – I’ve never denied this.
No it’s not – CP has pretty clearly stated that genes are “the best explanation”.
The question we’re trying to answer is “why is there a test-score gap?”. So far, there’s no evidence that points to genes as the best answer/best explanation for this question. There’s no evidence that just points to genes – only evidence that points away from other explanations. If you disagree, point out the evidence that actually just points to genes.
Already addressed above.
I’d like to know what this weak evidence is that you speak of. What evidence, even weakly, just points to genes, as opposed to pointing away from certain other explanations?
This is only an ongoing contention with the hay-people you’ve created. Certainly not with me.
Men at those companies are also vastly over represented compared to women. Do you think this is evidence that women are less intelligent than men?
Why do I get the feeling this is some kind of trap?
Mods aren’t allowed to set traps in the Pit anymore, are they?