OK, agreed, if they include both skin color and hereditary measures as explanatory variables, they’re probably mis-estimating the correlation (through there are ways around this, I don’t know if they used them; need to spend more time reading the paper)
Thank God for copy and paste!
I don’t need to have one as I can cite others who have or had a higher standing in the relevant fields.
By the way, you never answered the question re: the NPI. You said you agree with their position. so, are you a white supremacist?
[/QUOTE]
Could you define “White supremacist”?
I take it you haven’t read the paper you just cited? Not only does it not support the theory of a black race, it says specifically:
“One can conclude from these observations that although there are certain genetic differences between races, there is no genetic evidence whatsoever to justify the uncomplimentary evaluation that members of one race have sometimes made of members of other races. There simply is no biological basis for racism.”
I think that was directed at you.
Do I really have to?
By the way, when searching on your posts, I note that you’ve been banned from a number of boards for making racist posts. Do you post to stormfront?
Not in this context.
There’s a good definition here.
See also “racialism.”
Who do you outsource your thinking to? Mayr was open to the idea of genetic racial differences in intelligence. Hence he said:
“The test results by themselves cannot tell us what percentage of the superior performance by the Asian-American students was due to their genetic endowment and what percentage to the cultural trait of being better prepared for the = test thanks to spending, on the whole, far more time on homework than the African-American students did.”
(or “Anybody should be able to enjoy the benefits of our liberal society in spite of differences of religion, race, or socioeconomic status. Regard less of whether the difference in performance between individuals, or two groups, has biological or purely cultural causes, it is our moral obligation to see to it that each individual and group has an equal opportunity.”)
(or “Geographical groups of humans, what biologists call races, tend to differ from each other in mean differences and sometimes even in specific single genes. But when it comes to the capacities that are required for the optimal functioning of our society, I am sure that the performance of any individual in any racial group can be matched by that of some individual in another racial group. This is what a population analysis reveals.”)
You have to be pretty myopic to not see this. What he wasn’t open to was the ideas of genetic racial differences in personality; hence he said:
“Curiously, when people make derogatory statements about members of other races, they often do not refer to biological traits at all, but rather to putative character traits m: embers of a certain racial group are said to be lazy, dishon
est, unreliable, thievish, arrogant, etc. There is no scientific evidence of a genetic basis for any such negative traits. There is also no scientific evidence known to me that the genetic differences we do discover among the human races have any influence at all on personality. Most of the mentioned undesirable per sonality traits, if they are at all correlated with specific human populations…”
The latter is what he was referring to by “uncomplimentary evaluation” and “racism.”
But I’m not arguing about these (here), so this is irreverent.
Yes. How else am I supposed to know what you’re talking about? Can’t you even define the term?
As far as I know, I have only been banned from “Rational Skepticism”? The board administrator would not clarify why. No, Stormfront is a bit too lowbrow for my likes.
The National Policy Institute ain’t no higherbrow.
[quote=“BrainGlutton, post:246, topic:626877”]
There’s a good definition here.
I don’t know what “superior” means here. I know that there are mean trait differences between certain groups. In that sense some groups are superior in trait X or inferior in trait X. Is that what we are talking about? If not, what?
The Alternative Right, the NPI webzine, is definitely a step up – though I agree not highbrow.
This is funny in an ironic way, considering the rest of your post
Cool. I am too. I just don’t think you (or anyone else) has proved any.
It’s absolutely funny to me the way you can read this and think it supports your particular biases.
I read this and I think “this guy wouldn’t have liked Chuck11”. You read this and you think…what?
I read this and I think, this absolutely contradicts Chuck11’s claims. You read this and you think…what?
Again, funny in an ironic way.
Oh, I can. I’m just shocked that you’ve never encountered this question before. Unless…you’re not being facetious, are you?
This is a not so great example of the shit that I’m talking about:
I guess that the above has nothing to do with the relative performance of Black school teachers on highly predictive standardized tests, which, of course, has nothing to do with the mysterious IQ gap and its cause.
This has absolutely fuck-all to do with a discussion of whether an IQ gap has an environmental or genetic cause. Do you understand this?
You don’t seem to be familiar with Mayr’s thinking. Mayr opposed typological thinking. That’s what he identified as “racism.” He didn’t oppose the idea of mean racial differences in intelligence. Here is a comment of his on Jensenism:
“John has already pointed out that there is nothing in our statement that reflects adversely on Jensen and his report. In a class I gave last year we devoted two hours to Jensen’s report, largely favorably, I might say, pointing out, however, how difficult it is to eliminate entirely the environmental factor.”
Since I defend a “Jensenist” position, I see no reason why he would have disagreed with me. If you reread the passages, you will see that he is open to the Jensenist position.
As for your other comment – so you can’t define the term in question, can you?
And you’re Mr. On Topic, right? Let’s discuss the evidence then. I’ve been waiting for this-- but all you want to talk about is my political philosophy and the positions of a few of the authors that I have cited.
Ok, from now on, I will only reply to on topic posts. Fair enough.
A “racial-realist” who didn’t devolve into just making random nasty racist comments would be a welcome relief–I don’t think we’ve ever had one before.
(or “Geographical groups of humans, what biologists call races, tend to differ from each other in mean differences and sometimes even in specific single genes. But when it comes to the capacities that are required for the optimal functioning of our society, I am sure that the performance of any individual in any racial group can be matched by that of some individual in another racial group. This is what a population analysis reveals.”)
I obviously agree with this point. I noted that only 20% of the phenotypic IQ variance is between populations. The populations differ in frequency; they don’t differ discretely. There are proportionately fewer Blacks at the upper IQ levels – at least in the US --but no matter how far up you go there will always be some. This is what Mayr is saying. And I completely agree. You’re not dealing with a typologist buddy. So stop typing me.
You must be new here. Generally the ones making nasty ad-hominem comments are those debating the “race realists”.
Let me give a summary of where we are in the debate at this point:
[ul][li]Can black people be considered a race[/li][/ul]
Result: Game over, man.
The geneticists have utterly, completely, and hilariously failed to prove their case. We have a guy who claims that blacks are a race, citing a paper that flat-out, explicitly says that he’s wrong. When paper authors feel the need to say, in the abstract of their paper, “guys, blacks aren’t a race.” And then you go ahead and cite their paper as the best support you have for your claim that blacks can be considered a race…well, you have an epic fail.
Other evidence that black people can be considered a race consists of one guy with no credentials saying “well, I think they are.” OK, well I think they aren’t, and Every. Single. paper you have cited supports me.
Rating: Embarrassing. Please stop.
[ul][li]Is there genetic evidence for an IQ gap[/li][/ul]
Result: Could go either way
Only one paper has specifically tested racial background against IQ. That paper determined that there was no statistically significant correlation between West African heritage and IQ. We have additional evidence that maybe the authors didn’t choose the best possible measure of heritage, so that the calculation might not have been able to pick up a genetic link even if there was one, so I’m downgrading this to inconclusive, but weakly in favor of an environmental explanation.
Let me point out that do all sorts of clearly mathematically wrong calculations to claim that the results actually support a genetic result…well, that suggests a certain level of bad-faith desperation. Guys, the evidence doesn’t support you, deal with it.
Rating: Your character is showing.
I’m calling this one:
Are black people a race: No. It’s not even debatable. All (and I do mean all) the legitimate genetic evidence says they aren’t, and anyone arguing otherwise is just ignorant.
Is there a link between West African heritage and IQ: Inconclusive, but weakly favoring the “environmental” conclusion. We won’t know without more evidence, and anyone claiming to know for sure either way at this point is wrong. Not much point in debating this until we have better tests of the correlation of genetic heritage and IQ.
What’s the question? That different life science disciplines use different terminology? That’s hardly controversial. Are any human races “ecotypes”? Not on your nelly.
No. Just that the zoological concept you’ve characterised as “zoological race” (geographical subspecies) has no relevance to any discussion about people. All extant Homo sapiens are one subspecies. Case closed.