Read monstro’s post to which I was replying and you’ll get it…don’t know about King of the Hay People for me, but I can tell you who is Queen of the Straw Clutching to your and LHOD’s Kingship of the same title… :rolleyes:
by monstro:
“If it pleases the audience, I’ll add an additional line of evidence. Multiple studies have shown that the expression of Gene X is extremely sensitive to environmental factors, particularly those of early childhood. Mice who carried Gene X and who were subjected to harsh stimuli during the first five days of birth were found to perform only half as well on learning tests as mice without Gene X but who were raised under ideal conditions. But Gene X mice who were raised under ideal conditions performed twice as well as their control counterparts.”
I like fantasizing as well, although I try not to make the mistake of also thinking my fantasies might just come true.
It’s so unfair that reality steps in.
But I completely understand the need to have various hypotheticals to distract the really difficult issue:
There is a reason to expect that blacks and eurasians have different gene pools
Markedly different average performance outcomes are observed
These outcomes differences are observed in every nation across every political boundary, in white/asian/black majority situations
Correcting for SES does not eliminate the performance outcome differences
Some outcomes (academic exams and quantitative sciences, e.g.) always have asians disproportionately at the top. Some outcomes (power sprinting sports, e.g.) always have blacks at the top. This is true even though an academically poor white might still have the NBA or power sprinting as a backup profession were he good enough to perform.
Physiologic average differences are observed among these groups
Gene frequency differences are observed among these groups
I recommend additional reading about how the world was peopled by early groups out of africa.
There may have been real early groups that traveled along the coast and got to australia–another story–but most of modern India is peopled by mtDNA R, N and U haplogroup lines. These lines converge about 50kya, from early out of africa lines shortly after the L3/M-N split. They are lines similar to the ones we see in europe, other parts of asia, and the modern middle eastern groups.
If we look at various genetic markers, we’ll see a broad average difference between sub-saharan african lines and eurasian lines in general. Denisovan and Neandertal genetic introgression into eurasian lines are examples of one kind of difference. It’s thought that the geographic gate out of africa opened and closed over the years accounting for this broad sub-saharan versus eurasian grouping split.
I lapse into shorthand occasionally, but on average try to avoid using “intelligence” instead of “academic performance” or STEM sciences or whatever. The brain is an interesting thing, as is evolution. Evolution is all about reproductive advantage and makes no claim that g is a better quality than mathematical calculation, or vision, or color perception or sound processing or aggression or muscle power or endurance or…well; you get it.
If it’s true that groups have evolved disparately over the last 70kya, it is also true that an “intelligence” test developed by one of those groups is a somewhat farcical way to decide that group is somehow superior to a different group. Clearly the “intelligence” test is measuring something germane to the population which developed it, and within whose milieu the quality being measured is important. Worse (as is the case with western culture) if the culture creating the test becomes the dominant culture aspired to across the world, you never even get some other test which would measure brain qualities not related to “intelligence.”
It’s kind of a cultural quirk that “intelligence” has become so dominant as a desired quality, when you think about it.
You are right that power sprinting is easier to measure. The reason I bring it up is that many people are resistant to the idea that anything could possibly have a different average outcome across race groups with average gene frequencies as the cause. It’s a nice easy proof that these groups have been separated long enough for it to be reasonable that their gene pools differ.
And then the question becomes, “Why would brain function be immune to evolution?”
The brain is not immune to evolution. But why do you insist that outcomes NOW, whether in sprinting, academic test scores, or other outcomes, are special and represent some perfect representation of a genetic hierarchy for various characteristics? Different groups have been at the top and bottom of society (and things like athletics) at various times in history – pretty much every group has been at the top at some time and place, and every group has been at the bottom. Why would we single out any time and place as perfectly representative of some sort of natural genetic hierarchy, such that all other times and places were affected and arrange by various characteristics of society?
I don’t believe NOW is special – I think the same circumstances that put the Irish (or the Chinese, or Jews, etc.) at the bottom, at a certain time and place, or the Nubians (or Spanish, or Arabs, or Mongols, or Greeks, etc.) at the top, at a certain time and place, are still occurring today to varying degrees. I see today as a normal part of history, not separate and immune to the biases, tragedies, bigotries, and other unfortunate qualities of every other period in history.
I see nothing special about NOW, except that we happen to live in it. I don’t trust any outcomes now any more than outcomes in the past, when we’re talking about massive and spread out populations, as actually representative of any useful information about genetics.
I’m not sure where, buried in any of that, is a response to my comment. Again, “Indians do not group with East Asians under any meaningful metric”. (With the exception of a bit of Southeast Asian ancestry among Bengalis and other people in the northeast). The term “Asian” is useless in this context.
Wait a minute. Your hypothetical was about how scientists would react, not “people”.
My first thought is: OK, then prove it. But that’s the thing about hypotheticals-- they can’t be proven. Which tell us just how useful they are in a debate.
But my second thought is… Look at the folks in this thread. A small minority are arguing against nurture and most people are arguing in favor. So yeah, some “people” would have a difficult time accepting your hypothetical (flaws and all, ), but scientists? You’re making the same argument, but in the other direction, that the racialists in this thread are making-- that scientists are too biased to look at the data objectively. I disagree. But since you’re the one making the assertion, I guess it’s up to you to prove it.
And ywtf says I’m fighting the hypothetical. You just changed it completely! The key point of the hypothetical was that the measured results did NOT conform with the results that the genetics would have predicted.
Anyway, I seem to be the only one interested in discussing this hypothetical, and apparently I don’t “get it”, so I’ll just let it go [let it GO, LET IT GOOO!!].
If anyone else wants to take the discussion further, please do.
WTF. The hypothetical has ALWAYS been about how “people” would react. Like, the people in this thread. And your fighting the hypothetical is exactly what LHoD predicted. You accepted the premise of the original hypothetical quite easily. When it’s flipped, suddenly we’ve got to entertain 21 questions from you.
We don’t have to prove anything. You just did it for us.
Hypotheticals are useful in uncovering double standards.
You’re living in a totally different reality than I am. After the original hypothesis was posted, people couldn’t WAIT to post. Even if it was just to say what had already been said. “Ah, if black people–I mean, this unnamed minority group–was found to have a lower IQ, then no more Affirmative Action! Yay us–I mean, society!” But when I posted the flip-side hypothetical–one that was a lot more fleshed-out than the original, by the way–we get a day of crickets, followed by you challenging the evidence and Chief Pedant spouting his usual nonsense. Four posters (iiandyiiii, LHoD, ywtf, and myself) beefed up the hypothetical to help you out, but STILL no one wants to run with it and answer the questions I posed. I played the OP’s game. It sure would be nice for the OP to play mine, at the very fucking least.
Your claim isn’t ‘reality’, it’s a hypothesis to explain reality, with not a whole lot of real evidence for or against it. Don’t confuse the observed reality with one possible explanation for it.
AA is not about countering prejudice, its about changing outcomes. Its putting your thumb on the scales to counter the historical effects of slavery and segregation.
If it was the centuries of oppression alone that kept blacks out of good schools and well paying professions then you wouldn’t have so many immigrant groups prospering.
And WTF does strength and violent tendencies have to do with STEM fields? IQ has a direct link with admission to good schools and getting good jobs.
I don’t have a cite but it doesn’t seem like you are arguing that my assertion is incorrect.
I disagree. If we get to the point where all the socioeconomic differences between groups of people are reflective of differences in ability then I don’t see why we need to equalize anything. The problem is that it is still pretty clear that racial prejudice and discrimination affects outcomes.
Any day now the Hebrew league will rise again to conquer basketball and the Inuit will have their turn at the hundred meter Olympic records while the Mbuti staff CERN.
In human history? Yep, pretty much all circumstance. Nubians conquering Egypt – circumstance. Mongols conquering all the way to Europe – circumstance. And so it was for pretty much everything.
Now isn’t special. And basketball isn’t intelligence, obviously.
According to this cite, which references West’s Encyclopedia of American law, Affirmative Action is:
Seems like your entire argument hinges upon a misconception. If Affirmative Action exists to counter existing discrimination, that need will still exist even if it is determined that there are intellectual differences between the races.
As has been repeated ad nauseum in every thread about this subject, immigrants aren’t comparable to non-immigrants. Immigrants distinguish themselves by having the resources, the qualifications, the support system, and the desire to come over here. To ignore this is as asinine as comparing ex-pat Americans living in India to the untouchables living in the slums of India.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I’m saying that the existence of group-level genetic differences doesn’t mean an individual within a particular group can’t be as good or better than most others in another group. So withholding the benefit of AA for a person like this–who undoubtedly would be subject to discrimination because of idiots who don’t understand statistics–would be wrong.
I don’t think we need to equalize things like admissions or quotas in jobs, but I do think there would be cause to equalize things like income and healthcare expenses and retirement.
And here no mention needs to be made about groups or race. Just on an individual level, some people are going to get the short end of the genetic stick in life. So what should we do with such people? Hold spaces in college for them and pretend they are in the same league? Hold job positions open in more lucrative fields so that we can pretend the other people they displaced were not more deserving?
I think those solutions are the wrong direction to take. We should focus instead on shoring up the income and healthcare costs and retirement costs on the back end for such people. There you preserve the ability of a meritocracy to select the best people in the work force and colleges, but smooth out the raw effects of the fact that people are not born into this world with equal abilities.
I’m not sure AA is needed for people who have the stats to compete on their own. In my experience, people want to give others who are less well represented the benefit of the doubt. I think companies like google and yahoo and apple would LOVE to hire more black and hispanic programmers.
The bigger form of negative discrimination seems to occur in the private/personal sector where such programs do not and cannot reach. Who you associate with, and who chooses to associate with you might be colored by the perceptions of the larger group. This is something no amount of policy can assert away, because group perceptions that take hold in the minds of men are often based on empirical observation. Like the over representation of asians on colleges, that data point can’t be asserted away because it’s based on what people SEE.
I have the same feelings over radical muslims, if there is a terrorist attack I expect the participant to be some crazy muslim because of the empirical observations that trouble seems to stem from that group more than others.
The only way to guard against this on a personal level is to try to treat everyone as an individual. But you will get people who will judge you based on negative perceptions of the group you belong to. It’s not fair, and I’m not sure what the answer to that issue is, but I think it is a real effect.
Google and yahoo aren’t representative of all employers. In my experience, there are plenty of businesses that could care less about minorities. Not just in hiring, but with promotions.
If AA is not needed for minorities who have the ability to compete on their own, then the same applies to non-minorities. So are why are concerned so much about AA? I think it does more good than harm because it at least pushes back against centuries of unfair treatment and increases opportunities for people who otherwise would be shut out due to social barriers they inherited.
The only thing I’m certain AA does for underrepresented minorities is increase the stigma associated with their presence. Did the black student get in because of his grades or because of AA? Did the black guy get hired because he was the best guy for the job or because his employers were trying to fill some quota?
These questions place a cloud over the legitimacy of the black students/employees place. Now you might say who cares, who cares what people think, so long as they get in the school or get the job they are better off. If they got the edge because they were selected among similarly qualified peers, that’s probably true. But if they were less qualified than the peers, then you are doing nothing but placing them at a competitive disadvantage. It would be better to have them sorted where they fit in better based on their own resume/test scores/grades.
I don’t agree with much of what Thomas Sowell says politically, but one anecdote struck a nerve. He was teaching a course at some college, I think it might have been UCLA. And at the end a student came up to him and said he didn’t expect to enjoy the class, but that he did and learned a great deal. The implication was that because Sowell was a black professor he did not expect as much from HIM.
Decades of affirmative action there did nothing but give the impression that if you see a black person in such a position, there is a good chance the reason they are there is because they got a leg up, a pity parade to place some stools for the poor little cripples to step onto so they can actually compete with the big boys. Before AA the converse was true. If you saw a black professor in the 50s, with all the REAL WORLD visible racism and constraints on their abilities to get ahead, the natural impression would more likely be that they were impressive in both intellect and character.
AA magnifies the stigmas against under represented minorities when applied in the field.
), but scientists? You’re making the same argument, but in the other direction, that the racialists in this thread are making-- that scientists are too biased to look at the data objectively. I disagree. But since you’re the one making the assertion, I guess it’s up to you to prove it.