For Rascist Pedantry above and beyond any measure of sanity.
For persisting through the years, and through the threads, against any and all rational arguments that tried - why, I have no idea - to disabuse you of your nuttery.
You, Chief Pedant have earned yourself this shiny new Pit thread!
Normally at this point, I’d include a few examples for the multitude, but your body of work is so large it’s really difficult to pick just one example. I’m guessing your reputation proceeds you.
Congratulations. You’ve cloaked racism in scholarship and proven nothing other than that you are a racist.
I love the Pit. Racist. Racist. Racist. Ahhh. Sweet relief. :p. Have at it everyone. You’ll sleep better.
Morgenstern feel free to help a sister out. I admire mudslinging, but lack your purported flair.
Perhaps I’m a masochist for doing so, but I will defend Mr. Pedant.
No one disagrees that typical hair texture is different in Africa from Europe, and that this is a phenotypical expression of a genotypic variation. Similarly, Africans are most susceptible to sickle cell anemia, while Caucasians are more susceptible to certain esophogeal disorders. Genetics. One can quibble whether the underlying genetic variation is, on average, very tiny, or just tiny, but clearly there are phenotypical differences that arise from genes and are correlated with ethnicities.
*Yet when Mr. Pedant suggests that there may be a genetic reason why Kenya tends to produce excellent runners, he’s accused of racism. * :smack:
I don’t find the topic interesting, but this Board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance. Call it one of my fetishes, but I’ve always favored describing reality objectively, rather than kowtowing to political correctness.
Go ahead and ask the Mod to add my name to the thread title. :rolleyes: I know many Dopers find me much more annoying than Chief Pedant.
Pretty sure that it’s the insistence that black people are inherently genetically inferior in intelligence, on average, that gets him accusations of racism, not anything about running. Intelligence really is different… there’s not a history of oppression against black people that’s been justified by accusations about running ability – there is a history of oppression against black people that has been justified by accusations about lower intelligence (among other characteristics).
I’ll note that I take no position on whether CP is inherently a racist himself. I do believe many of things he says are racist assertions.
This is where ideology gets in the way of true scientific objective analysis.
If there is a phenotypical expression of a genotypic variation that causes hair to be reliably different, then we can certainly acknowledge that it’s possible another phenotypical expression of a genotypic variation might cause better running ability.
It’s not a case of the laws of biology or the physical constraints of the universe being violated, after all.
So in my view, the proper response is: what is your evidence? How can it be tested? Absent compelling evidence, you haven’t shown your claims about faster running to be true.
As opposed to OMG HE SAID BLACK PEOPLE WERE DIFFERENT RACIST RACIST RACIST GET AWAY FROM ME
Does that history alter the biological question in some way?
I’m pretty damn certain the answer to the biological question is: “No, there is no difference in intelligence that arises from these biological characteristics.” But I don’t regard the subject as unmentionable. It’s a claim: support it with evidence or withdraw it, or admit at least that you can’t support it with evidence and are choosing to believe it without objective evidentiary support.
I don’t think you’ve been participating in those threads, because the whole thing revolves around how one can even get reliable data in the first place.
I don’t know why people keep engaging him on this. It’s the exact same BS being bandied about over and over and over again in every thread he show up in.
That doesn’t change anything, in my opinion – there are certain assertions that are always racist, no matter who makes them, and no matter why. Someone might believe that they have data that suggests that Jews are inherently genetically more greedy and more untrustworthy on average… it’s still racist (or bigoted/anti-semitic or equivalent) to assert that Jews are inherently more greedy and more untrustworthy. In my view, it’s the same for intelligence. It doesn’t matter what data someone has – it’s still racist to say that black people are, on average, inferior genetically in intelligence. It doesn’t matter what kind of flowery language one dresses this up in.
Here’s a possible way, in my view, in which the test score disparity could be studied and a conclusion that genes are involved could be presented: we’ve found all the genes involved in human intelligence (see sources a, b, and c). We’ve found that genes def and ghi are associated with above-average test scores on certain tests (see sources j and k). All the other genes involved in human intelligence are spread out equally among various population groups, but def and ghi are 50% more likely to be found in an individual in population groups l, m, and n, then groups o, p, and q (see sources r and s). So we conclude that differing likelihoods of having genes def and ghi are at least partly responsible for the test score gap.
There may be other ways to present this kind of support for the “genetic hypothesis” as an explanation for the test-score gap that are not racist, but CP is not doing so, in my view. He’s using as evidence for his genetic hypothesis the existence of the test-score gap, and the assumption that all human characteristics influenced by genes must necessarily differ by population group (which makes no sense to me… is he saying that characteristics like dancing ability, sense of humor, knuckle-wrinkliness, and the nigh-infinite other human characteristics must necessarily differ genetically between all human population groups/ethnicities/races???) to conclude that genes are responsible for the test-score gap.
Plus he thinks it’s okay to use the same reasoning that we use to know that cockroaches are less intelligent to determine that black people are less intelligent. And he ignores anything (like the Scarr study) that refutes his claims. To me he’s totally uninterested in actual science, and he’s already decided that black people are inferior on average – and somehow, he thinks that acceptance of this would actually help black people. It’s very strange, and I can’t explain it, so I just interpret the assertions as best I can (that these are indeed racist assertions), and try to point out bad science and bad conclusions and bad uses of data.
My problem with your post is this sentence: It doesn’t matter what data someone has – it’s still racist to say that black people are, on average, inferior genetically in intelligence.
As you acknowledge in your post, there IS a possible set of data that could support that claim. The problem proponents of the claim face is: that data either doesn’t exist or, where it does, points in the other direction.
But it’s not illuminating to call the claim racist. It’s illuminating to show it false, or unproven, as may be.
No, there’s not a possible set of data that could support that claim, just as there’s no possible set of data that would support a claim that Jews are inherently greedier and less trustworthy. Do you agree or disagree on this part?
What there could be, in my view, is a possible set of data that could support the claim that differing likelihoods in having certain genes might be part of the explanation for a test-score gap (not that anyone has presented such data).
Those are different claims, in my opinion. It’s perfectly reasonable that researchers might have to be careful (which doesn’t mean they have to stay away) when treading around subjects associated with historical rationalizations for some of the most brutal treatment of people in history.
