# Chief Pedant, come on down! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 11, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363 "2015-10-11T22:09:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/241 "2015-10-13T11:57:42Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > No they didn’t. They proved that on a sliding scale of 20% European to 80% African to 60% European to 40% African, there wasn’t a notable correlation between ancestry percentage and test results. They said nothing about 100%/0%, or any of the other 0%/0% results. Right – they controlled for “nurture” in one of the only possible ways – only testing people identified and culturally/societally treated as “black”. Among black people, African ancestry has nothing to do with intelligence test scores. That’s a pretty strong indication that African ancestry may have nothing to do with intelligence test scores with wider populations as well. > [@](#): > > This study is evidence against one particular theory of gene distribution and intelligence. On the other hand, as far as I know, no one’s arguing for a linear ordering of intelligence genes, of which European ancestors have all of them and African ancestors have none. If they were, this would be an excellent study to point such people at. It’s evidence against any particular theory that postulates that the African gene pool is more likely to contain genes for lower intelligence than non-African gene pools. That includes pretty much any “blacks are dumber due to genes” hypothesis that I know of. Most such assertions that I’ve heard are some variation of "there are certain genes for smartness and genes for lower intelligence, and the genes for smartness are more likely to be found in non-African gene pools than African gene pools (and therefore more likely to be found in an individual with no African ancestry than a person with some African ancestry), while the genes for lower intelligence are more likely to be found in African gene pools are more likely to be found in African gene pools than non-African gene pools (and therefore more likely to be found in an individual with African ancestry than a person with no African ancestry). > [@](#): > > [Here you go.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence) I’m aware of this hypothesis. Until we actually have the genes for high and low intelligence, and their likelihood of being present in various populations, I remain unconvinced. When society is as profoundly as unequal as ours, I don’t believe test scores can tell us anything at all useful about genetics, when comparing groups with very different historical and present treatment in society. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/242 "2015-10-13T12:10:47Z")
Some educated and well presented data on the issues [https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html](https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html) > **[The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test](https://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html)** > > The > Journal of Blacks in Higher Education is dedicated to the conscientious > investigation of the status and prospects for African Americans in higher > education. Science, bitch. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/243 "2015-10-13T12:13:02Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > No they didn’t. They proved that on a sliding scale of 20% European to 80% African to 60% European to 40% African, there wasn’t a notable correlation between ancestry percentage and test results. They said nothing about 100%/0%, or any of the other 0%/0% results. You need to really stop and think about what you’re suggesting. Describe exactly your theory of how the “one drop” rule works. Explain exactly how it would impact the 20%/80% or 60%/40% results. You may find this a helpful exercise. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/244 "2015-10-13T12:36:49Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Science, bitch. it would seem you are not educated in the science… an book review about education testing and an article from a journal of education are not science and do not tell us about the biological science of genetics or the human populations. it does indeed tell us when we compare with the data of the europeans, like the united kingdom as already presented that the americans have a deep running sociological issue and complexes around the peoples of obvious recent african descent… but so do the discussions here. > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You need to really stop and think about what you’re suggesting. Describe exactly your theory of how the “one drop” rule works. Explain exactly how it would impact the 20%/80% or 60%/40% results. You may find this a helpful exercise. it is easy there is the conclusion already held and then there is finding a way to make sure the archaic idea behind the conclusion is defended by ad hoc responses. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/245 "2015-10-13T12:38:58Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > it would seem you are not educated in the science… an book review When you want to lecture and talk down to others, be sure and fucking check your grammar before posting. Because otherwise you look as stupid as you actually are. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/246 "2015-10-13T12:49:08Z")
oh dommage, I made a mistake in the fourth language I speak. I am very humiliated. nevertheless, it is less humiliation to feel than not being able to tell the difference between the biological sciences and the subject of educational testing, or to make postings that show that one has not understood the fundamental sciences behind the discussion and is just relying on sloganeering. so I think I will be okay today… ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/247 "2015-10-13T13:00:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Some educated and well presented data on the issues > > [The Black-White Test Score Gap](https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html) > > [The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test](http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html) > > Science, bitch. From what I can tell, both of these sources seem to conclude that non-genetic explanations are far more likely than genetic explanations for the test-score gap. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/248 "2015-10-13T13:01:46Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > it would seem you are not educated in the science… an book review about education testing I can understand why an internet know-it-all would not bother to take some time to read anything, especially if it’s directly related to the argument at hand, but you take the cake for being ignorant. ‘The Shape of the River,’’ was written William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, which of course are names you don’t recognize. These authors are former presidents of Princeton and Harvard Universities, which means unlike you, they are educated and science based people, and the book has an extensive science based bibliography, it is about the science, but some idiot like you just ignores it all, and continues to act smarter than actual smart people. It’s why nobody likes you. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/249 "2015-10-13T13:03:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From what I can tell, both of these sources seem to conclude that non-genetic explanations are far more likely than genetic explanations for the test-score gap. Well there’s a lot more than that, but yes, it’s a main reason I posted the links. To introduce some educated writing about the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/250 "2015-10-13T14:17:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually it seems that you are not paying attention, there are other studies that also demonstrate that that is not accurate. > > [The IQ Gap is No Longer a Black and White Issue, by Chanda Chisala - The Unz Review](http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/) That seems like a very silly article. It compares a self-selected group of immigrants to native-born populations, it relies heavily on anecdotal data, and it misunderstands basic concepts like regression to the mean to make specious points. ---
**Author:** ![jimbuff314](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c57346/32.png) [@jimbuff314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimbuff314)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/251 "2015-10-13T15:55:06Z")
[In response to some crap **magellan01** spurted out, beginning with “Let’s say he is right”] > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Oh, look who it is. Color me surprised you showed up in a thread about race and racists. I’m starting to seriously believe you have this superpower sense where you can be anywhere in the world and suddenly turn your head and say “Wait…what’s that? SOMEONE HAS MADE A THREAD ABOUT RACISM ON THE SDMB! I must get there as soon as possible and proceed to shove my head as far up as my ass as possible in it, because heaven forbid a Pit thread about racism go by without me being able to be involved in it, trolling it around with my own racist views!” > > I mean really. I picture you sitting on the toilet, reading the newspaper and suddenly dropping it, your eyes wide, jumping to your feet without even wiping or flushing and with the thoughts you were just having about how witty you were in thinking “you’re currently dropping the Washington family off at the Superbowl” disappearing from your mind in an instant…your eyes get narrow. A RACISM THREAD HAS BEEN MADE! > > Or maybe in bed with the wife and foreplay has just started, but then you turn over, leaving her cold and wondering what’s wrong while you scramble for your pajama bottoms “Not now, honey, SOMEONE HAS MADE A PIT THREAD ABOUT RACISM ON AN ONLINE MESSAGE BOARD, I must sound off!” > > Or pausing while on a boardwalk with the hot dog halfway up to your mouth, raising your head, eyes bulging, already wondering what the fastest way to the nearest computer terminal is so you can start in with your wasteful dreck…maybe you even drop the hot dog, it totally forgotten in the new, gleeful thoughts of how you NEED to get there in order to defend racism to its last like the racist, idiotic, enormous troll you are! > > It would really explain a lot as to why you’re pretty much in every one. > > Of course, it **can’t** be because you’re as racist as **CP** , though. > > I’m glad we could continue to meet in these threads like this. See you for the next one, love. Don’t bother replying to this, I’m not returning to it to see what you say next, I want to remember you in this thread just as you are now. A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Or at least as long as internet message boards exist. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/252 "2015-10-13T15:57:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You need to really stop and think about what you’re suggesting. Describe exactly your theory of how the “one drop” rule works. Explain exactly how it would impact the 20%/80% or 60%/40% results. You may find this a helpful exercise. OK. Let’s assume that there are a bunch of genes which code for intelligence, numbered A-Z. Let’s assume that there are a bunch of genes, any of which can individually deactivate all 26 of those genes, numbered 1-10, which are clustered in a particular population. In this case, a member of a population which has all of 1-10 will not express particularly differently than someone who has just 1. Only someone with none of the 10 deactivate-all genes will show intelligence above their population group. Of course, there’s no evidence that intelligence works this way. But given what we know of simple attributes like eye color and how they’re influenced by multiple overlapping genetic factors, I don’t see any reason to assume that the above scenario is necessarily impossible. …Hmm. Now here would be an interesting follow-up to that study; what happens when they do it again, only they cast a really wide net, test everyone’s blood samples, and include people with significant African ancestry who don’t identify as black? If we could divide people into four cohorts, of non-African-ancestry-non-black-identification, mixed-ancestry-non-black-identification, mixed-ancestry-black-identification, and African-ancestry-black-identification, and show that the first two and the second two groups had distinctly similar scores, and that the second and third groups had distinctly different scores, that would be a stake through the heart of the genetic difference theory. Does anyone know of a study like that? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/253 "2015-10-13T16:01:27Z")
> [@jimbuff314](#): > > [In response to some crap **magellan01** spurted out, beginning with “Let’s say he is right”] > > A thing of beauty is a joy forever. > > Or at least as long as internet message boards exist. It was pretty good for the most part, but ruined IMO by the “I’m not going to read your response” ending. That type of fingers-in-the-ears wimpiness undermines the force of the attack. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/254 "2015-10-13T16:01:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say that he’s right, and it turns out that there is a genetic component to intelligence and that is may be more prevalent in Race A than Race B, would that by “racist”? Yes, in fact, that is the definition of racism. To even think a subset of humans could be different, in any way, because of genetic differences, that is the basis of racism. It’s why people hate racist. A racist believes breeding matters, and that not everybody is created equaal, and that some genetic lines of people are better than others. The Japanese were awful about this, they actually thought they were superior, because of their superior race, and even taught different people had evolved (descended) from different kinds of apes. (I heard it, so it has to be true) Same for every other racist group, they believe God created them special, and all others are inferior, or worse. God loves the pure race, and despises the rest. If there was any scientific evidence to support this, it would also be racist. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/255 "2015-10-13T16:20:05Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Yes, in fact, that is the definition of racism. To even think a subset of humans could be different, in any way, because of genetic differences, that is the basis of racism. > > It’s why people hate racist. A racist believes breeding matters, and that not everybody is created equaal, and that some genetic lines of people are better than others. The Japanese were awful about this, they actually thought they were superior, because of their superior race, and even taught different people had evolved (descended) from different kinds of apes. (I heard it, so it has to be true) > > Same for every other racist group, they believe God created them special, and all others are inferior, or worse. God loves the pure race, and despises the rest. > > If there was any scientific evidence to support this, it would also be racist. I disagree. Following your logic, pointing out _any_ differences, benign as they may be, would constitute _racism_, and make a statement _racist_ and the speaker a _racist._ [Here is the definition of “racism”:](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) > [@](#): > > Full Definition of RACISM > > 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race > > 2: racial prejudice or discrimination Pointing out a scientific fact, like, “Blacks have more melanin in their skin”, is a race-based observation. It is racial, yes, but suggests nothing about the superiority or inferiority of any race. I can see how the word _could_ be used as you suggest, but that is stretching it. At the same time it muddies up the primary meaning of the word, in which there is a value judgement attached. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/256 "2015-10-13T16:48:02Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If there was any scientific evidence to support this, it would also be racist. I also find this definition of racism to be rather unhelpful. Suppose that in 30 years, there is absolutely 100% settled science that rigorously inarguably proves that there are some real but very minor differences in average cognitive abilities between different racial groups… so minor that they’re trivial compared to individual variance and the effect of nurture. Is someone who accepts this settled science as true but never judges anyone by their race in any way, accepting and valuing each individual for their individual strengths and weaknesses, a racist? If so, I think the word ceases to be useful. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/257 "2015-10-13T16:49:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Pointing out a scientific fact, like, “Blacks have more melanin in their skin”, is a race-based observation. It is racial, yes, but suggests nothing about the superiority or inferiority of any race. But claims about inherent genetic intelligence are a lot more than “nothing” about the superiority or inferiority of any race. That’s why, in my mind, such claims are racist, no matter who makes them, and no matter why. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/258 "2015-10-13T16:53:01Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I also find this definition of racism to be rather unhelpful. Suppose that in 30 years, there is absolutely 100% settled science that rigorously inarguably proves that there are some real but very minor differences in average cognitive abilities between different racial groups… so minor that they’re trivial compared to individual variance and the effect of nurture. Is someone who accepts this settled science as true but never judges anyone by their race in any way, accepting and valuing each individual for their individual strengths and weaknesses, a racist? If so, I think the word ceases to be useful. I think it’s possible, in some hypothetical science-fiction universe, that such a claim might not be racist. But in the real world, in the present, the claims are racist. So at least for me, when someone makes such a claim (and I have the energy and inclination), I will try to look skeptically but as objectively as I can at the evidence they cite, and then give my view about the claim. So far, when doing this, I haven’t found a single version of this claim (the “blacks are inherently genetically less intelligent on average” claim) that I don’t easily and very straight-forwardly consider racist. And I’m fine with calling them (the claims, not necessarily the people that make the claims) that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/259 "2015-10-13T16:53:33Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I also find this definition of racism to be rather unhelpful. Suppose that in 30 years, there is absolutely 100% settled science that rigorously inarguably proves that there are some real but very minor differences in average cognitive abilities between different racial groups… so minor that they’re trivial compared to individual variance and the effect of nurture. Is someone who accepts this settled science as true but never judges anyone by their race in any way, accepting and valuing each individual for their individual strengths and weaknesses, a racist? If so, I think the word ceases to be useful. This is, I think, an important distinction. The core of racism, to me, is judging people solely by their race. If, as you say, there is in the future some scientific consensus about differences in “intelligence” between some races, I would not call someone “racist” for agreeing with that, but I would call him racist if he looks at someone in the “less intelligent on average” racial group and assumes the guy is stupid solely based on his membership in that racial group. Otherwise, the term loses it’s negative meaning, and then we have to come up with a new term that does carry the negative connotation. As it is, the term “racist” has an inherent, negative connotation to it. If you want to separate that connotation, then we lose an important way of calling out people who are, really do think that race = destiny. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363/260 "2015-10-13T16:59:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The core of racism, to me, is judging people solely by their race. Do you really mean “solely” here? I think judging people partially by their race is also pretty clearly racist (like “he’s one of the good ones” and “a great guy for a [racial slur]”). I bring this up because I think there’s a lot of people who _actually believe_ that having a black friend (or even a black spouse or black adopted child) means they aren’t and can’t be racist – that racism is “I want to kill/enslave/hurt black people”, and anything short of that is not racist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chief-pedant-come-on-down/734363.md?page=14)