Your lack of attention is not strange, because otherwise you would realize that you are indirectly defending scientific racists. And Nativists too, sorry but you do not have the previous experience I had with those fellows. Since nowhere they claimed that they denounce or stooped using sources like V-DARE it is really naive to claim that their intentions are no longer on pushing for societal solutions that do assume determinism.
Good lord. Stop. Just stop.
- That is an pitch perfect description of what happened. Out. In.
- Golub summarizes the debate (talks in third person, etc), and says
He doesn’t need anything else. Your slings to his character are unwarranted.
Well, yes. Fuentes out preforming Wade shows the weakness in Wade’s racialism.
That’s a direct quote from Wade: 36:28
The “muck” is what is being peddled by the bullshitting racialists.
Yes, mea maxima culpa. I used the “no correlation” shorthand which any working scientist would understand meant “no statistically significant correlation”. My bad.
Well, of course you did…far be it for you to ask me to elaborate.
Ok. The rest of us know what the implication is.
Actually, until you can show us some numbers, we can’t say whether the correlation is weak, as you seem to think, or non-existent, as Blake said. I was leaning more towards “piss-poor” correlation when I made my initial post. On rethink, I’m inclined to say “No correlation whatsoever” is going to be closer to the truth.
Unless you have some actual statistical measures that say different?
Woo-hoo! Not just a strawman. A bogus strawman.
Wait, doesn’t that mean it’s not a real strawman at all? Why, yes, yes it does.
And it’s not a strawman, to point out what the obvious intention is behind saying things are correlated. Nobody uses it to weaken their own argument, If someone said “well, we can see this is very weakly correlated with that…” they’d just get laughed out of the debate. Especially when a much stronger correlation is pointed out immediately.
So pretending that Chronos was saying there was a weak correlation is disingenuous, as far as I’m concerned.
Who’s talking about variation within anything? The global variation is the issue. That’s what refutes any significant ( mustn’t forget that, lest I inadvertently strawman someone bogusly :rolleyes:) correlation between skin colour and sickle cell.
I am not going to argue about the numbers for sickle cell (which I don’t know, anyway).
But in general, if X% of “whites” have the gene for sickle cell and X% plus Y% of blacks do, then that’s some correlation, for all values of Y other than 0.
The extreme of completely correlated would mean that X is 0 and Y is 100. Obviously nobody is claiming anything close to that. Which is why I said the only claim being discussed here is a weak correlation.
And a similar possibility is what’s being contemplated WRT the intelligence question as well. Unlike the “blacks iz dumb” or “determinism” that your ilk would like to pretend.
This has no meaning in context, particularly the last sentence. I return to my previous statement. You do not understand what correlation means.
But this will all depend on how “blacks” and “whites” are defined. If ‘whites’ are Sicilians, and ‘blacks’ are Australian Aborigines, then ‘whites’ have a greater correlation with sickle cell. If ‘whites’ are Europeans + Turks + Arabs + Persians, and ‘blacks’ are people in Africa, India, Australia, and various islands with skin with a reflectance-level darker than X value, then the correlation might be different.
Of course. That’s obvious.
What’s your point?
I’d probably avoid talking about statistical significance and concentrate more on practical significance. Statistical significance is a function of sample size, and given that we are talking about potentially billions of people Even the slightest whiff of a correlation can be statistically significant. In actuality, due to within group genetic correlations and random chance, it is likely that there is some slight difference between racial groups (however you choose to define them) and any given characteristic. However the size of this difference is likely to be an order of magnitude or two less than the random variation within the racial groups. What you really want to concentrate on is the added predictive value that race gives you in determining a characteristic in a given individual. In general you will find that it gives you bupkis. So with possibly a few exceptions, there is no value in looking at a persons race when making any evaluation about them.
Yes, I’m quite aware that skin color isn’t the strongest correlation one can use to predict incidence of sickle cell. The correlation between skin color and sickle cell is because both skin color and sickle cell are correlated with latitude, and either of those correlations is stronger than the correlation between color and sickle cell. But that doesn’t mean that the correlation is statistically insignificant, and it certainly doesn’t mean it’s weak.
If you showed me a lineup of ten randomly-selected people drawn from the entire population of the planet, and asked me if any of them had sickle-cell… well, the best answer I could give would be “no”, because it’s not that common in any population. But if you told me that one of them did have sickle-cell, and asked me which one, I would guess the one with the darkest skin (who is more likely to be African than Australian, just by the numbers), and I would have a greater than 10% chance of being right.
The same can apply to any attempts to correlate being ‘black’ or ‘white’ and higher test scores.
The strength of a correlation and the statistical significance, as discussed here, are separate but related matters. (Mr. Dibble is confused about this, among other things.)
Statistical significance is about the strength of the correlation in a given sample being used as a test, and depends on both the strength of the correlation and the sample size as you say. But beyond testing, the strength of the correlation is a measure of relationship in and of itself.
For example, if you took a given sample size and found an r-squared value of .8, that would be a pretty good indicator that there was some correlation for a decent sized sample. Whereas a value of .05 might not. But even beyond establishing whether there is or is not any sort of correlation, there is also a difference between strong and weak corrrelations even if the actual value is known. So even if you sampled every person in the world about some correlation, and there was no issue of “statistical significance”, there would still be a difference between r-squared values of .8 and .05 in terms of the relationship of the two values.
ISTM that you’ve conflated the two issues as well in saying " given that we are talking about potentially billions of people Even the slightest whiff of a correlation can be statistically significant". This only makes sense if we’re talking about a test that was run on billions of people. But this has not been done, and anyway if it was you would know the actual answer and wouldn’t be concerned about statistical significance.
That depends what else you know about the individual. (In addition, it could also be relevant on a broader level for public health efforts, or marketing campaigns.)
That’s equally obvious.
Again, what’s your point?
I agree. The opening list of Wade’s supposed position is highly slanted insofar as ‘white/asian peaceful’ v ‘black violent’, and then it hardly disproves Wade point that the ‘scientific community’ (at least in its public statements) fears the truth about race to show that many jumped all over Wade. Although it doesn’t prove Wade’s point either.
I view it as a litmus test of reasonableness to admit that in the current political environment there’s a very high risk of being smeared as a public figure if you appear to entertain as plausible any connection between racial genetics and…really anything except appearance characteristics, if that. It’s certainly not ‘disproved’ that there might be more significance to race in general and on average (how each individual is to be treated is a different topic). Perhaps it will be disproved, and then everything will work out very nicely and comfortably, no uncomfortable truths at all. But if one claims the ferocious response people like Wade and Murray get is all because those authors ‘ignored scientific fact’ one is naive or dishonest.
Because you’ve said that there is a correlation between being ‘black’ and having lower test scores (IIRC) or having sickle cell. So I pointed out that, depending on how ‘black’ and ‘white’ are defined, these correlations can be in any direction we choose.
I still don’t see any significance.
Of course you can change the values by changing the definition. But you can’t change the values for a given definition.
Because ‘black’ and ‘white’ are so poorly (and inconsistently) defined, such correlations are pretty meaningless.
What does the time when Wade was disconnected have to do with what I said?
Golub wrote “~here it starts~ [summary] ~here it ends~” That was the point.
I said:
“It doesn’t seem like anyone here is arguing for determinism…”
OK, we finally disagree about something.
If the categories are poorly and inconsistently defined then the correlations (to the extent that they exist, in a given case) will be imprecise. They won’t be meaningless.
Imprecise, and useless for trying to answer a question like “why do self-identified African Americans score lower on tests than other groups”.
The second doesn’t follow from the first.
Considering the arbitrary definitions, it follows logically.
No it doesn’t. We’ll have to leave it at that.