Like your expertise and your purported science, Navin Johnson is fictional. You’re touting a typical estimate of an average based on two huge areas without pining down any kind of time component. Compare that to the usual examples that are trotted out in support of this crap - one tribe that is exceptionally good at marathon running and another that is exceptionally good at sprinting. Those are two groups that are pretty well isolated. This is the exact opposite. The idea that you can make solid scientific conclusions based on this kind of vagary is insane.
I don’t know what an average black or white appearance is. You could talk about some ‘typical’ characteristics, but it’s hard to do so without stereotyping (I’m assuming you would make an effort) and bringing in other groups who share those features (like dark skin) but don’t share the genetic characteristics you’re imagining. And again, those features vary a lot depending on where in Africa a person’s ancestors come from and what non-African people, if any, those ancestors mixed with.
Another problem is that those kinds of identities change over time. And I guess you’re trusting people to classify themselves genetically when they don’t know their genes in the first place. That’s about as credible as the guy who made up the IQ scores for several African countries.
Men outrepresent women at roughly 70% to 30%. If the general population is about half women, then 70% is a multiple of about 1.5 or so.
This as opposed to a 120-fold differential representation for black v white tech sector for FaceBook.
Neither distribution is a priori evidence of “intelligence,” but for a demonstrated skillset.
In both cases, it is ultimately the gene differences at play, but given that women and men have biological constraints which both directly limit women (men don’t give birth) and indirectly limit them (men have a tendency to dominate while women are more inclined to cooperative behaviors), I am not inclined to jump to a conclusion that the preponderance of men is due to a neurbiological advantage for the necessary skillset. I do not think there is any data supporting a notion that men and women exposed to the same educational opportunity have consistently disparate results on academic and intellectual psychometric evaluations such as the screening tests used in the technical workplace.
If nature does not exempt all but superficial genes, then it’s more likely than not that all groups descended from migration anchor points have had their neurobiological genes driven far enough to create neurobiological outcome differences for the same reason that the disparate evolution of superficial appearance genes creates an appearance difference disparate enough for groups to self-identify.
Except for young-earth creationists, we evolve, and for at least some groups, we are admixed with archaic lineages as well.
Think of evolution as “descent with modification,” and then consider whether “modifcation” is likely to produce an egalitarian result for any given characteristic across descendant populations isolated at different anchor points in our human history.
For your own benefit, please list the specific evidence, along with cites, that percentage of African heritage is inversely correlated with IQ. Then list the specific evidence that it is not correlated.
The brackets you cleverly left blank are for “laziness, cell minutes and M&M’s.”
Very clever (and, from your perspective, necessary) wordsmithing to make it seem like I’m ignoring studies of some kind…
Your own cite around the M&M chuckler showed what happens when that study was put to the test in New York to the tune of $75 Million, with motivation incentives for both students and teachers.
Bupkiss happened.
Go back and read the quote I cited from your M&M cite.
Clever wordsmithing is not going to help your case here. Data might, but you are going to have a tough time finding any.
This thread is a lengthy testament to two things: Chief Pedant likes to say vile stuff, and under no circumstances will be take ownership of his own views. In fact he’ll shriek and whine like a spoiled toddler if you try to hold him to account for his opinions.
Some of those non-genetic explanations are possibilities that I suggested earlier in this thread.
But I would also add another possible factor. IMO, all the constant harping about racism by well-meaning people is discouraging black achievment. This works in 2 ways. 1) it convinces many black kids that there’s no hope because they’re facing an insurmountable obstacle in the form of societal racism, and 2) for those who don’t give up entirely, it suggests that the race-neutral amount of effort needed to be successful is lower than it actually is (and that white people are coasting based on skin color and connections). Either way, not conducive to encouraging kids to do their homework.
Yes, and the fact that he characterizes this position in that manner gives provides some insight into how Chief Pedant really thinks. The difference is that he’s full of shit.
Yes, I suppose it is unfair that other people are characterizing Chief Pedant’s arguments correctly and that he is characterizing Evil Economist’s argument incorrectly. But I don’t see think carping at Evil Economist will fix that.
