CP has set up this dichotomy in every thread we have this discussion. In fact, that’s seems to be the sole basis for his claim that it’s genetic.
And nobody has offers any PROOF.
Right, so tell me what the races are. Describe them please. Explain to me the clear lines of genetic demarcation that define these groups.
First, I didn’t say what you quoted me as saying. Second, it’s not at all clear that the different physical attributes individuals have corresponds at all to what we commonly refer to as race. Third, even if it did, we don’t even have a well-defined understanding of intelligence and the role it plays in life.
How many times must I say this. Their assertions are wrong because they have no proof.
Nonsense. This is the problem with arguing with people who turn opinions into religion; which is essentially what they have done. Since we can’t explain everything we currently see as the byproduct of nurture must mean it’s nature. If I said God causes natural disasters. Then you say well we can explain why a, b, and c happened. I would just counter that well you can explain why x happened so, that must be the work of God, right. Anything that is not natural must be supernatural? That’s what CP is doing.
First, they are racist. Second, the ad hominem is perfectly valid because his biases are what is what is clouding his ability to apply reason. You would have a point if all I did was call him a racist, rather than explain why his racism is problematic. Third, please tell me about a few medical or physical differences that exclusively affect entire races of people.
First, I have countless times. Every dumbass thing one of you says about Blacks being good at basketball or being fast runners, etc. has been thoroughly refuted. You would rather ignore the debate points and focus on emotional pleas. So I will respond in kind.
This is not true. If you think this, you know as little about track as you do about football.
While most of these record holders have Black skin, they do not share the same genetic material as other who are similarly complected. You are using phenotype to make genetic assumptions. By and large, all of the record holders are of West African ancestry. Find me some world class sprinters from Kenya. Those record holders are from a small gene pool that does not have a lot in common with the larger racial group. If it were, you would see more Kenyan and other East African sprinters. More importantly you assume the average person in any group has anything in common with people who are such outliers.
No cite coming, just my opinion. At least I’ll admit it. But if you really want to just scream for cites for every assertion made, I will respond in kind.
Where were all these Blacks 25 years ago? Honestly, how do you account for the changes the percentages in various sports? Why don’t Blacks dominate soccer, a more popular sport where there are almost no barriers to entry. Speed is important there too. Why has the percentage of Blacks gone down in the MLB in recent years? Why are Canadians so good at hockey? Do they have better hockey genes than their richer, white American counterparts? Why are Germans good at soccer and why aren’t Austrians as good? Genes don’t change that fast.
But it doesn’t mean that it does, particularly when there is no evidence for it.
You don’t need an English degree to be a poet.
Cite that testosterone causes one to be distracted.
Any evidence for that speculation? Let’s say you asked someone in 1950 if women were capable of doing as well in school as men are. What do you think they would say? I’ve linked to this before, but it’s particularly relevant so I will quote it again. This is regarding Jews in sports.
We can see how silly this sounds today. Why do you think your ideas will be looked at any differently 50 years from now? Why do you assume the snapshot you see today will bear any resemblance to what we see 50 years from now?
Not if interest is not the same. Do you think Dominicans are somehow genetically gifted for playing baseball, or is it that they just place a high cultural emphasis on it?
Please give me 5 examples of these racial differences.
Cite?
You need far more than speed in track. Have you ever played sports in an official capacity? You seem to know nothing about sports. Why do you think sprinters have coaches? Do you think those coaches are teaching them speed? It’s easy to simplify a sport to just one component, but it’s usually more complicated.
“Although the MCAT as a whole shows relatively consistent and good predictive validity findings for performance in both medical school and on licensing examinations, there was considerable variation on the four different subtests. In particular, the biological sciences subtest had the only adjusted medium effect-size value on measures of medical school performance. In predicting performance on the medical board licensing examination measures, only the biological sciences and verbal reasoning subtests maintained adjusted medium effect-size values across the first two and all three Step examination respectively. Just as some of the subtests have shown consistently good predictive validity performance, the writing sample subtest consistently has shown no predictive validity value across medical school or licensure examination performance. The practical implications of these findings for medical schools support the continuing use of the MCAT total score as a predictor of student performance in medical school and beyond. Consideration should be given, however, to weighting or limiting the use of only the biological sciences and verbal reasoning subtests as the two best measures for predicting future medical student success.”
I read through that meta analysis and came away with the conclusion that the BS and VR subsets of the MCAT were reasonably good predictors while the softer stuff like the written sample were not good predictors.
In evaluating students for med school, more than the MCAT is taken into account and all of us who have been on med school admission committees discount it as the sole–or even primary arbiter. There are too many other qualities involved in being a doctor.
I would say that very poor MCATs are a very good predictor of someone who is likely to struggle in medical school. One of the things that happens with these sorts of studies is that they are looking at a fairly narrow range of performance already heavily skewed toward the top end. If the MCAT were discounted so heavily during the admission process that a high percentage of very poor scores was admitted, you would see a much better correlation. I’m not sure the kid who gets a 11 is that much more likely to outperform the kid who gets a 9; even a 9 has shown the ability to master material reasonably well, and there are many other skillsets beyond simple mastery of data.
Physicians in practice do not take quantitative exams except for ongoing licensure. It has been difficult to find ways to measure their clinical care other than very crude instruments such as disciplinary or tort actions.
I’m uninterested in turning my SDMB hobby into a he-said she-said give and take that requires too much time.
I’d like to address a handful of issues:
Am I a racist because I think many population differences are due to genetic differences in addition to nurturing differences?
I’m uninterested in labels. I offer the observation that the application of the term “racist” may be effective rhetoric but contributes nothing of substance in undermining the accuracy of what is being presented in the opposing position. I’m interested in facts and what is correct.
Is it all nature and never nurture?
No. Nurture is layered upon nature, and nature–genes–establish a maximum potential. With the best possible nurture, that potential is fully realized. With inadequate nurture, it’s not. I don’t have the genes for calculus or basketball. Good nurturing will improve my skillset but it won’t turn me into a mathematician or a basketball star, and my relative ineptitude is immutably poor beyond that gene-determined potential.
Have we identified genes which determine intelligence?
No. We know that intelligence is highly genetic. Anyone in a family of several children know that from the identical nurturing environment come children of different intelligences because their genes vary. And a given highly intelligent outlier often comes from a cohort of more ordinary siblings despite identical nurturing. Moreover, in every animal but humans we recognize intelligence differences and attribute them to genes. “That’s a dumb dog.” Or even, “That’s a dumb breed of dog.” We recognize the genetic underpinnings of nearly every trait we have as humans and then make genes for intelligence some sort of sacrosanct off-limit discussion.
With respect to sports, isn’t it true that various other populations have had their turn at success in the past, and therefore the present over-representation by blacks in the NBA is not remarkable?
No. It is remarkable, because it occurs at a time when the opportunity has been opened to all and in an environment where the nurturing opportunity is greater for US whites, for example. It would strain credulity to suppose that blacks would not have dominated the NBA in prior decades if they had been given the opportunity to play. I might recommend reading Taboo by John Entine.
Is “race” even a reasonable cohort?
It’s not a particularly good one; in comparing populations, the broader the category the less likely it is we will find differences. Where those differences are found, however, the fact that the category is broad or relatively unrelated has no bearing on whether or not differences found can be genetic. All tall and all short people are fairly broad, perhaps otherwise unrelated categories, but the difference between them is definitely genetic.
I have often pointed out that within a race multiple sub-populations can be identified, and those sub-populations can have genetically-based differences. I would not be at all surprised to find a given white population with a signficantly different performance than another.
What is the core proof that population differences are genetic if we don’t know the genes?
It comes down to controlling for nurture. To date performance differentials using a variety of metrics have proved stubbornly resistent to ameliorative efforts. Higher academia has pushed for lowered admission standards for blacks and other underrepresented minorities in the hope that, once admitted to decent educational programs, differences would dissolve because nurturing is equalized. They have not. Race-based score differentials persist into post-college and post-specialty metrics. Moreover, as the black middle class has grown, the cohort of blacks with equal or greater economic and educational family background has expanded enough to provide cohort comparisons with less-nurtured whites, and yet a gap exists. In many sports, nurture clearly favors whites who have overwhelmingly more support, facilities, coaching and opportunity, and yet blacks outperform them. To pretend that the problem of disparate outcome can be attributed to disparate opportunity is not credible.
I’ve lurked in a few of those threads and don’t recall him doing that. Can you please provide a post of his that sets up the dichotomy you say? That is, that nature accounts for all differences and nurture none. Or even something along those lines. Thanks.
Okay. What, precisely do you want PROOF for? Are you now backtracking and saying that it is meaningless to talk about race at all. You seemed earlier to grant that these concepts exist in a way they we can discuss them. Do you now want PROOF that this thing calls RACE exists, in some absolute scientific way? If so, knock yourself out.
On the other hand, if you are willing to grant, as you appeared to be earlier that we can agree that these categories of race exist, and would like to discuss the role that nature and nurture play in them, that’s interesting.
Which is it?
NO!!! You’re wrong. Just because there is no proof does not mean the assertion is wrong. I can say that Joe Dimaggio is the greatest baseball player to ever live, or that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain, or that The Mississippi is the world’s longest river. If I have ZERO proof for any of those claims, thet doesn not mean those claims are false. It simply means that that I have offered no proof, or evidence, and they may be wrong. If evidence was offered for the three examples, one would be proven correct, one would be proven incorrect, and one would be a judgement call.
Incorrect. I do agree with your point that just because we might not understand all the ways nurture may effect things, that does NOT mean that nature must be responsible. But I still haven’t heard why you are so sure that nature doesn’t play a role. Especially when we see that nature does, in fact, effect physicality for large swaths of people, i.e., races: hair, skin, stature, facial features, etc.
First: Oh please. Second: Are you fucking kidding kidding me? Do you know anything about logic? In a debate the ad hominem is never valid. The fact that its known to be a fallacy should clue you in to that. Third: Nice strawman built upon an excluded middle. Two fallacies in one. Well done!
I think I see the problem. There are two debates going on here. The one on the page and the one in your head. You have slayed CP’s logic time after time only in the latter. And the more you insist on characterizing him as a racist and assuming that proves your point the less good you do yourself. And please share this “thorough refutation” you allude to so we can see just how thoroughly it refutes anything.
Oh really? Then, why don’t you educate me. Where was what I said wrong? You do realize this is GD, right?
For the premise to be correct, it would not be necessary that all blacks perform equally well, only that a significant percent of the world’s best be black. And I do not make the assumption you claim I make. You’d like me to, but I don’t. Sorry.
Now that’s an unfair characterization of what I’ve done. I’ve asked for cites for a couple of critical assertions you’ve made. One that is absolutely astounding! Maybe you should start a thread in The Pit or IMHO instead if you don’t like having to back up such outlandish assertions.
I’ll venture a few guesses. I think the percentage of blacks in MLB has dropped because more and more players are hispanic. That seems rather obvious. As far as Canada and hockey, it’s a religion up there. And the weather makes it more likely that kids will spend a lot of time honing those skills and not honing skills in other sports, many of which have a short season do to weather. I think the reason one European country does better in soccer is probably doe most to resources and coaching. As far as black representation in soccer, I’m not sure your assumption is correct, as I don’t watch a lot of soccer. But from the little Word Cup I have watched, it seems that every team has blacks on it. There’s also the point I mentioned earlier about other sports. While speed is great in soccer, it is not the sole criteria, ball handling skills are crucial as well, so I wouldn’t expect a group that is the fastest on earth to necessarily duplicate their dominance when you add in other skills.
But their is evidence. We’re trying to divine why blacks far outperform others when it comes to speed. Nature may play a role in that, right? The evidence that might support that position is that we know that there are other physical characteristics that are due to nature: hair, skin, stature, facial features, etc., so it is reasonable to hypothesize that nature may be playing a role in speed, as well. What part of that do you disagree with?
No, you don’t. But you said “traditional” poet. For that, an english degree is going to be mighty helpful.
I retract that. I was just trying to point to boys having a harder time sitting still than girls. It was a tangent anyway.
Again, you’re conflating a people having artificial barriers placed before them (women), and then removed, with a group of people doing well at a sport because they are the ones most drawn to it (basketball). Basketball, like boxing, has historically attracted a subset of the population who disproportionately seek to succeed at it. Boxing has been another example.
First, what oyu cited is 80 years old. We know a lot more now, don’t you think. But the claim that blacks are faster runners don’t have anything to do with that. Track is a sport that is fervently pursued by all groups. Yet, blacks hold virtually all the records. To consider that a reason for that may be a physical difference—right or wrong—is perfectly reasonable.
I have no doubt that nurture plays a role. Maybe even a dominant role. But it is possible that there is also a genetic component, as well. But even if there is not, that does not mean that in some sports populations excel due to genetic advantage. Look at the strong man competitions. They are almost always won by those of Scandinavian descent. This is because they are, on average, much larger people. Add equal training and effort to all participants and the bigger people will usually outperform the others.
Tight curly hair on Blacks.
Darker skin.
Slighter stature of Asians.
Skull shape and eye shape in Asians.
Broader noses and fuller lips on Blacks.
Oh, come on. This aligns with your world view. Jews did well in basketball when the lived in the inner cities, particularly New York. Like the blacks that occupied those neighborhoods afterwards they gravitated toward basketball because it required no field and very little equipment. Inner city populations make do with the opportunities they have. Italians and Irish gravitated toward boxing. Jews toward basketball. Do you disagree with any of this?
In track, speed is the only thing you need. Now technique, flexibility, conditioning, strategy all help, but it’s all to gain speed. And if everyone is getting coached, you’d expect them all to improve at similar percentages. so, overall, the times for everyone may go up, while the dispersal of medals among the races would remain the same.
*By the way, you inadvertently misattributed to athelas the things I said.
In trying to sort through which of these various threads are germane to the main thread point of disparate impact, it seems to me this snippet bears review.
We are at least agreed that there is a substantially disproportionate representation by race in Track and Field, and Rap. I do not think it’s true that women are “blowing away” their male counterparts in academia, but it’s certainly true that once academia was opened up to them they have managed to compete on par despite their disadvantaged history.
Let’s begin with disproportionate representation in Track and Field/NBA/NFL etc. You assert that blacks work harder at it and have fewer other options. I do not think you would be satisfied with an explanation that there are more whites or asians in medicine because they work harder at it and have fewer other options. I think it’s reasonable to say that very few whites would choose alternative careers over NBA stardom. The reason their options are limited is because they are unable to perform at the level of their black peers. Academic and business careers are not closed to blacks; quite the opposite is true. What has happened is that blacks (like all other groups) have–as an average for the group–been more successful where their skillset is robust and less successful where it is not. For instance, in academia, PhDs for blacks have risen in the social sciences but only marginally in the STEM (Science, Tech, Engineering,Math) quantitative sciences since the academic doors were opened to them 30 years ago. I find the modest success in the NBA of eastern europeans to be supportive of a genetic hypothesis. It does not surprise me to find a population subset from a much broader group (all whites) that is more highly competetive than the cohort from which they are a subset. You have made the point that West Africans are the subgroup over-represented in Track and Field. And of course the Kalenjin are disproportionately represented in long-distance running. It can be argued that they just culturally love to run, but it seems highly unlikely they would attain the disproportionate level of success they have unless they were genetically gifted at it. I’d bet against the Samoans developing a similar success. http://www.kenyarunners.com/pages/167371/page167371.html?refresh=1112199340095
To your point about music? I don’t know the answer. It makes sense to me that humans are wired as differently for music as for any other attribute and that there are fundamental genres which resonate more closely with a given cohort’s genes. Of course there is also a cultural overlay to taste. Still, in the end culture follows our genetic makeup. If we look around the world we see markedly different cultures and tastes that have been created and molded by those populations. While culture seems much more portable than other attributes, the field of sociobiology devotes itself to the notion that our biological underpinnings drive our sociology. Interestingly, it is controversial when applied to humans, but much less so when applied to all other animals. We do not like being told we are a product of our genes.
No, the elephant in the room is the possibility that there is a genetic component to racial differences in intelligence. This is a highly controversial topic and anyone who argued for such a position is likely to be attacked in much the same way that you’ve attacked CP in this thread. I don’t know if serious peer reviewed journals would even publish a study that drew such a conclusion, but certainly anyone who did such a study runs the risk of serious harm, on a personal and professional level.
Larry Summers was a pretty well established guy and he took a lot of heat for something less controversial and on more solid ground than racial differences.
See above. In addition, as I’ve noted previously, the nurture influence on intelligence is very complex and likely poorly understood, and thus difficult to control for.
And as you yourself have noted, intelligence itself is not clearly defined or measurable. In this thread CP is focusing on one narrow aspect of intelligence - the ability to do well on exams - which makes it easier to measure, but this is not an all-encompassing definition of intelligence.
And none of these are true in any absolute sense. The problem is that race is a social category, so when we self-identify as something it doesn’t neatly overlap with our preconceived notions, or (likely) our genetic makeup. I personally know Black people with light skin and straight hair, tall Asian people, etc. Please tell me the defining characteristics of race, and detail the different races.
My point was that if you yell for a cite for everything that is obviously an opinion, or is a reasonable or common assertion is pretty ridiculous.
Again, have you ever played a sport? If you think track is just speed, then you are simply wrong. Yes, it is timed, but all those other things you mentioned (among others) are of great importance. Flexibility is flexibility even if it makes you faster. And you second point about coaching is just almost too stupid to even address. Do you really believe that if everyone is getting coached, we’d expect them to improve at similar percentages? Go tell that to Phil Jackson.
My apologies.
I actually would agree with that for the most part. Question, if Asians are so medically inclined, why are their so few doctors in many Asian countries? Where are all the cutting edge technologies and drugs coming out of China? Why does Cuba have so many? Are they naturally gifted physicians?
But there aren’t many Kenyan sprinters are there? The problem is that both Kenyans and Jamaicans are both informally considered Black. One group seems to be overrepresented as sprinters whereas the other is really bad. Yet, you decide that since they look the same, and are both Black, then they both must be fast runners. Turns out that is not the case. That’s the issue. Nobody would bat an eyelash at the fact that some specific groups seem to have certain genetic gifts that others don’t. The problem is that Blacks are not a uniform group any more than Asians are. What makes you think they share the same genes? What makes you think Canadians and Croatians share the same genetic gifts for basketball, hockey, or anything else?
Let’s make this simple rather than continually going back and forth with incorrect and illogical sports analogies. Show me some proof. Don’t bother responding to anything else. Just show me a study, a gene, or even some promising lead.
Anymore than someone who argued global warming doesn’t exist, or that vaccines cause autism? By and large, the scientific community shuns those with poor or unsubstantiated ideas. If a good study was presented that came to that conclusion, I would bet money that it could be published somewhere.
Because he was, in all likelihood, wrong. Mere importantly, he was serving in a political position, he was already hated for his arrogance and moodiness, and had had trouble with professors already. If you’ll note, I didn’t see him, or anyone else of merit, defend his actual position with real evidence.
And yet CP, and the like, think we understand it so well that we can control for it to the point where the differences that remain must be due to genetics. Can you understand why I have a problem with that logic?
No he is not. If he were just talking about exams, he’d get far less flack. He is stating that Blacks are not as capable of learning, and subsequently are less qualified to do their jobs.
Chief Pedant, whiile I disagree with your assertions I commend your ability to rationally state your opinion. It’s refreshing and I don’t say that to gush; I mean it. I am pressed for time, but I just had a fascinating conversation with a friend about this thread. If you would humor us, could you answer these questions as well?:
1. Sarah has had sex with over 200 men and have painstakingly kept measure of the penises she has encountered. She finds that, on average, blacks have a penis length of 8 - 9.5 inches; while finding that whites, on average, have a penis length of 6 - 7.5 inches. She notes that the glans of the white penis is often bigger than the black one, but loses out to shaft girth and length. There is also anecdotal but not scientific evidence from millions of white women in the world declaring that black penis is able to hit areas of the vaginal walls that white penises, on average, fail to scrape. She notes, however, that the biggest penis, 11.5 was from a guy named Sergei from Kiev. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Blacks have distinct genes that make their penises bigger than whites
B. Genes that govern penis length is normal in blacks; less normal in whites
C. Differences in penis length is due to nuture of the penis (e.g. masturbating and having sex as early as possible).
D. Penis length correlates with athletic ability (e.g. basketball players have bigger penises than lawyers, etc).
E. Sergei is an outlier
2. Sarah recorded all 200 sexual encounters and makes observations during the pornographic feedback. She notices that black men tend to grunt and are aggressive in bed. She notices that white men are the reverse and tend to, as she says, “narrate” in a cyclical succession of words and phrases (e.g. “Are you ready?”, “Fuck yeah,” “Just like that”, “Good”, et al. ) during sex. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Blacks have distinct genes that close vocal cords during sex
B. Whites have genes that force vocal cords open during sex
C. Blacks grunt because they are unable to form sentences during sex.
D. Whites talk and narrate to showcase his intellectual superiority during copulation
E. Talking during sex is due to nuture of mind (e.g. The more one reads, the more one is likely to narrate during sex).
3. Sarah loves bondage. Out of 100 black men, only 2 allowed themselves to be handcuffed, and 0 were into spanking. Out of 100 white men, she found 80 allowed themselves to be handcuffed, and 30 allowed themselves to be spanked. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Blacks have genes that them aversive to handcuffing and spanking.
B. Whites have genes that allow them to have a propensity for spanking and handcuffing
C. Blacks are genetically intolerant to sexual fetishes
D. Whites are genetically permissive to sexual fetishes
E. None of the above
(And this is one is from me)
4. Sarah turns on the television and finds that out of 1000 hockey players, only 2 are black. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Whites have genes that make them superior in cold weather
B. Blacks become weakened at cold temperatures due to genes
C. Blacks lack motor control to skate on ice or other smooth surfaces
D. Whites absorb the ambient light reflected from snow and ice to increase the body’s metabolic rate.
E. Blacks are intellectually incapable of learning to play the sport
In all these situations you’re dealing with a small population, one that may or may not be representative of the larger world. If you want to draw an analogy between penis size and speed, you need to have Sarah hold a competition throughout the world to find men with the biggest penises, and have the winners receive both fame and millions of dollars in reward. Just like world record holders in track get, and those who capture the speed positions in football.
As far as #4. We need an option that contains the correct answer:
F. We don’t have enough information, as we do not know how many blacks have attempted to become hockey players.
OK, we’ll have to leave it as a disagreement about that.
He got much of his flak from outside Harvard. And what he said is not particularly controversial in scientific circles (although not universally agreed to, obviously) - unlike racial groups, male and female brains are known to differ. I don’t know whether anyone did or didn’t defend the position, not having followed it that closely, but he himself wasn’t going to be able to defend it, political realities being what they are.
I think CP is saying that for this limited area (professional exams) we have a more complete understanding of the nurturing and a more reliable measure of the outcome. But maybe not. But that’s what I’m saying, in any event, whether or not he agrees.
That said, I would reiterate that I don’t know if the evidence is as convincing as CP says, and I tend to be skeptical. The main difference between myself and people like you is that I don’t think you can rule out the possibility. Which is significant in the context of this thread, because I don’t think you can take different outcomes as proof of discrimination as long as the possibility of different abilities is still out there.
Only to the limited extent that the book knowledge measured in exams is a component of doing their jobs.
So, now you’re back to the notion that race does not exist in the way we’ve been talking about it. Sigh. You need to review your set theory. But even then, if you insist on putting this “absolute” criterion on the term, we have nothing to talk about. I asked you this explicitly earlier and you didn’t answer.
Bullshit. You made some pretty strong claims. One about what another poster said, which I still call bullshit on, and another ridiculous claim that “blacks work harder”. When asked for evidence of that, you come back with squat. any of the other few cites I asked for were along the same lines. But thanks for admitting you were just intentionally being difficult.
Yeah, I’ve played sports my whole life. You ever have a logic class?
First, that is not what he has said here, or in several other threads. This isn’t our first rodeo together. I’ll tried to probe him, and ask him questions about why he feels the way he does. It’s of no use. This time, I am pretty much tired of talking in circles. He is clearly a racist, and, more importantly, has no evidence to support his claims.
Second, what makes you so sure we have a more complete understanding of nurture wrt testing but not in other areas?
First, you don’t understand the law in these cases if you are making this argument. It’s not a problem if there is disparate impact if the tests, etc. are required for the job. There would be no problem with prevent x group from doing y if y required something they are not capable of doing. The issue arises mostly when people create tests as a means of rationing rather than a way to evaluate competency. The New Haven test was thrown out in large part because experts testified to the bias in the test and the inclusion of questions that were not germane to the job. Others also stated that there were other tests that could have done a better job in both minimizing disparate impact, and evaluating candidates. After that testimony, they threw out the test. Just because Black firefighters did poorly in and of itself would not have been as problematic.
Second, I don’t rule out the possibility. I have said several times that CP may be proved right. The problem is there is no evidence for his belief. If I argued that George Bush knew about 9/11, what would you say? Surely, it’s possible. Maybe when the info is declassified, we might find out he did. But right now, there is absolutely no evidence of that, and thus such a claim should be dismissed.
Lastly, of course people have different abilities. The issue is whether those genetic differences are neatly drawn along social (racial) lines. I see no compelling evidence that that is the case.
Because it’s more limited and has been extensively studied (by people attempting to help people pass the tests, whether for profit or social concern).
As I’ve mentioned, the way things work is that once disproportionate impact is shown, the burden of proof shifts to the testers to prove that their tests are relevant. Which is difficult in any event, and in addition you can always get some expert to testify that the test was flawed and that other tests were better, especially if - as in the case you cite - the other expert is marketing his own competing tests.
I would quibble with the word “neatly” here. No one is claiming that. The only question is whether there are some small differences on average, very roughly correlated.
As Fotheringay-Phipps pointed out, here is the problem. You seem to insist that the position counter to yours is absolutist, true 100% of the time. That the correlation is so strong as to be “neat”. I don’t know where you get that from. I don’t know anyone who holds a position anywhere near that.
Let me ask you this: If someone developed a new IQ test (that experts thought more accurately measured intelligence), and gave that test to the entire world, and it turned out that the top 50 scores all went to people with green eyes, and these people lived on all six continents, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to hypothesize that there might be some physical linkage between green eyes and high IQ?
"*1. Sarah has had sex with over 200 men and have painstakingly kept measure of the penises she has encountered. She finds that, on average, blacks have a penis length of 8 - 9.5 inches; while finding that whites, on average, have a penis length of 6 - 7.5 inches. She notes that the glans of the white penis is often bigger than the black one, but loses out to shaft girth and length. There is also anecdotal but not scientific evidence from millions of white women in the world declaring that black penis is able to hit areas of the vaginal walls that white penises, on average, fail to scrape. She notes, however, that the biggest penis, 11.5 was from a guy named Sergei from Kiev. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Blacks have distinct genes that make their penises bigger than whites
B. Genes that govern penis length is normal in blacks; less normal in whites
C. Differences in penis length is due to nuture of the penis (e.g. masturbating and having sex as early as possible).
D. Penis length correlates with athletic ability (e.g. basketball players have bigger penises than lawyers, etc).
E. Sergei is an outlier*"
**By CP: **
Hey, how’d you get CP’s measurements!!! Oh wait…you probably meant inches and not millimeters…In that case if the populations have an ordinary bell curve distribution, Sergio is definitely an outright liar…I mean an outlier. If there is more of a bimodal distribution in his group, maybe he just got lucky and fell into the macro group instead of the micro group. If size could be enlarged by heavy use, there would be even more hairy palms than there are now, so it’s a reasonable assumption that any differences are due to genetic makeup. A statistical analysis would be required to see if there are differences which can be extrapolated beyond the individuals involved.
"*2. Sarah recorded all 200 sexual encounters and makes observations during the pornographic feedback. She notices that black men tend to grunt and are aggressive in bed. She notices that white men are the reverse and tend to, as she says, “narrate” in a cyclical succession of words and phrases (e.g. “Are you ready?”, “Fuck yeah,” “Just like that”, “Good”, et al. ) during sex. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Blacks have distinct genes that close vocal cords during sex
B. Whites have genes that force vocal cords open during sex
C. Blacks grunt because they are unable to form sentences during sex.
D. Whites talk and narrate to showcase his intellectual superiority during copulation
E. Talking during sex is due to nuture of mind (e.g. The more one reads, the more one is likely to narrate during sex).*"
By CP:
Your conversations with your friends are certainly more interesting than mine, Honesty.
"*3. Sarah loves bondage. Out of 100 black men, only 2 allowed themselves to be handcuffed, and 0 were into spanking. Out of 100 white men, she found 80 allowed themselves to be handcuffed, and 30 allowed themselves to be spanked. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Blacks have genes that them aversive to handcuffing and spanking.
B. Whites have genes that allow them to have a propensity for spanking and handcuffing
C. Blacks are genetically intolerant to sexual fetishes
D. Whites are genetically permissive to sexual fetishes
E. None of the above*"
By CP:
F. Blacks have substantially superior judgment.
"*(And this is one is from me)
4. Sarah turns on the television and finds that out of 1000 hockey players, only 2 are black. What is the best possible reason for this phenomenon?
A. Whites have genes that make them superior in cold weather
B. Blacks become weakened at cold temperatures due to genes
C. Blacks lack motor control to skate on ice or other smooth surfaces
D. Whites absorb the ambient light reflected from snow and ice to increase the body’s metabolic rate.
E. Blacks are intellectually incapable of learning to play the sport*"
By CP:
Obviously a trick question because it’s germane to the OP.
In evaluating this sort of disproportionate representation we need to ask questions such as:
Is the sport equally open to all groups?
Are cultural drivers present equally?
If given the option, would both groups choose hockey over other available options?
Are other nurturing factors such as training and facilities, preparatory sports leagues, and so on equally present for both groups?
If the answers to 1, 2, 3 and 4 are “yes” then I would posit that whites have a genetic advantage for the hockey skillset. It is, of course, for this reason that I think the NBA is reasonable proof that genes coding for that skillset are more prevalent among blacks (and in particular, blacks of west african descent). The NBA is open to all. From childhood on children in nearly every school system in the country are exposed to basketball and, from an early age, adulate basketball stars and teams. All children with high potential–particularly among whites, at least–are groomed by parents and coaches to continue excelling. And finally, nurturing factors associated with deliberate development of that skillset to its maximum potential–leagues, coaching, facilities, family support, equipment…–all favor whites. Despite all these criteria whites (and most other cohorts) are substantially under-represented. Blacks of west african descent have the highest proportionate representaion. Conclusion: their maximum potential is higher than any other group. So high that no amount of nurturing on the part of less-abled groups can overcome it.