Your quote? If you say so.
Or the fact that it applies to scientific racists? Scientific racism being the topic of this thread, how is that off topic?
Err, no, that’s not how well-poisoning works - showing you that your argument applies even better to your side is not well-poisoning.
I’m in actuality wondering if I’m whooshing myself–this is just gold!
In retrospect: I claim digs on sig usage!
True, although there would also be no reason to assume that there wasn’t any connection between race and intelligence/achievement. A null hypothesis is a very passive/negative construction that doesn’t stick its neck out in any direction.
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
But we do not live in a vacuum. And in the USA today, it is indisputably true that there is a strong statistical link between race and academic achievement.
[/quote]
Also true, and nobody AFAICT is disputing it.
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
What I think is an intellectually unsupportable position is “well, we see this strong link, but there are reasons why it could be due to the environment, therefore we assume is absolutely positively due to environmental factors, and the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim otherwise”.
[/quote]
But nobody’s saying that from a scientific viewpoint we should assume it “is absolutely positively due to environmental factors”.
All we’re saying is that if anybody wants to claim that this phenomenon or some part of it is due to genetic factors, they have to show scientifically that there’s statistically significant evidence for their claim. The null hypothesis for the required statistical study would be “Nope, this purported genetic factor probably has nothing to do with the observed phenomenon, and if you say different, prove it”.
Note that exactly the same response would apply if anybody wants to claim scientifically that this phenomenon or some part of it is due to some particular environmental factor.
That is, if somebody comes along saying, for instance, “Racial differences in measured intelligence are largely due to different lead-exposure levels in childhood”, that is a claim that requires scientific validation, just like claims about alleged genetic factors. The null hypothesis for the required statistical study would be “Nope, lead-exposure levels probably have nothing to do with the observed phenomenon, and if you say different, prove it”.
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
That is, treating the “it’s all environmental” position as the default fallback position (which I was referring to as the null hypothesis, likely incorrectly), just kind of because it would be pleasant and happy.
[/quote]
But AFAICT, nobody’s trying to claim that such a “default fallback position” is in any way a scientific claim.
There’s nothing scientifically wrong with having the personal opinion that “it’s all environmental”, and likewise there’s nothing scientifically wrong with having the personal opinion that “it’s all genetic” or “it’s probably some of each”.
I would argue that when it comes to social policy, it’s probably best to operate on the default assumption that “it’s all environmental” unless and until scientific evidence shows otherwise, for the reasons you adduce and also because when it comes to social policy, environmental causes of inequality are the sort of thing we can do something about, while genetic causes aren’t.
But that is in no way equivalent to claiming that science is adopting or should adopt the default assumption “it’s all environmental”. Science has no truck with any “default assumptions” about phenomena that are not yet scientifically understood.
Whatever you happen to be claiming, science is, metaphorically speaking, from Missouri, and you have to show it. If there are in fact any people out there asserting that the scientific position is to assume that racial differences are caused exclusively by environmental factors and that claims about the influence of environmental factors don’t need to be scientifically substantiated, those people are wrong.
I was saying that the topic is discussed at length in many places. That some author wanted to pretend that it was “taboo” in order to promote a book (15 years ago) using a “shocking” title does not, in any way, refute my statement.
Entine’s book was, itself, discussed at length, (and pretty well refuted) at the time it was published. Claiming “taboo” in 2016 is nonsense.
You are obviously confused as to what racism is. It helps to own a dictionary. And calling a legitimate point of view racist is calling the person holding that view racist which is indeed a classic example of poisoning the well.
No, read the OP again.
Like I just said, there’s nothing prima facie racist or wrong about having the personal opinion that racial differences are probably at least to some extent genetic in nature, or any other personal opinion about the as-yet-unknown etiology of aggregate racial differences.
But when someone holding such an opinion falsely asserts that it should be accepted as fact on the grounds that it’s been scientifically validated, although in fact so far there is no evidentially supported scientific validation for it, that’s when “a legitimate point of view” turns into “scientific racism”.
And complaining that it’s unfair to require such evidence to comply with ordinary standards of scientific rigor is just the fake-victimhood cherry on top of the scientific-racism shit sundae.
There is a degree of anonymity on internet forums that does not exist in the real world. There can still be some quasi accountability in terms of attitudes and beliefs associated with and stick to our chosen avatars online, but these are not always linked directly to our personas in the real world.
I would never openly talk about this in the real world with random people like I am doing here. It’s a vulgar topic, it makes the one arguing that group genetic differences that lead to differential results in aptitude between groups are likely look racist for even broaching the topic. I happen to think it’s true though, and online I can more freely lay out why that is.
Part of the problem is that I think it’s more of an issue of not having evidentially supported scientific validation that you would accept and consider beyond the threshold of acceptable evidence.
My standards are lower than yours. I am not a scientist though, like most people I am a lay person in most things. If there are such studies that were made, I am not in a position to know the details of those studies, or judge whether the scientists refuting the claims of said studies are on the level and not infusing their analysis with their own biases to get the result they want vs the result that is.
You yourself agreed with the claim that no one disputes there is a statistical link between race and academic achievement (at least here).
To me, that is evidence of a sort that some of the differences are likely due to genetics.
Because I have empirical proof that would sate you? No. Because I believe that academic achievement is a function of both ones environment, and innate capabilities.
The portion that is governed by innate capabilities is primarily constrained by genetics, that covers a sort of genetic potential for aptitude that varies between individuals.
If it varies between individuals based on genetics, it varies by families, and populations at large in terms of the frequency of alleles that contribute to all sorts of complex phenotypes that show up in mean cognitive ability and academic achievement.
Once you have some genetic variability in intelligence between individuals, it is the most natural thing in the world to me to presume and make a logical leap that such variance that clearly exists between individuals, does the same between populations. The counter view would essentially be to presume from the outset that there is zero genetic variance between populations that lead to differential results in average cognitive ability. I cannot conceive of a world where that is a possibility. Unless you think we are genetic clones with no varying genetic potential. How can you claim that genetic potential varies by individuals but not populations when genetic material is heritable? Distributions don’t just naturally equalize because of some ethereal notions of equality.
This is my thought process, this is why I expect genetic differences to play some role in the differences we see in results. So tell me, what is wrong with my thought process? I know this is not a proof that you would except with that hyper threshold of proof you would consider acceptable, but based on my lower thresholds of evidence suggesting a certain reality, where is my thinking flawed?
Why should I think think there is either little to no effect of genetics that is causing the differences in academic achievement and other similar metrics, or that there is zero convincing evidence of it? Because if the only response is I need to get as close to a certainty on this subject as the particle guys did with the higgs, or some social science equivalent, then we are at an impasse.
My standards are not that high for this kind of thing when it comes to the evidence I consider valid.
What you are saying just isn’t true.
From the racist, scientific racist, sciencetasting, ultra-right right wing, white supremacist group know as NPR, How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners : Parallels : NPR. But since this doesn’t fit your scientifically veneered political narrative I’m sure you’ll find a way to hand wave it away.
It’s a thoughtful and very interesting piece. I recommend you read it.
(I’m assuming you have not done so, since there is not a single word in it that contradicts Kimstu’s point.)
The OP that ends:
Pretend different, but the OP is just the old race realism tack from another angle. All the OP is saying is “Let’s pretend scientific racism was true”…
Not in this case.
Dictionaries describe, not prescribe.
Well, good thing I didn’t do that, then, isn’t it?
No, you poison the well before the argument begins. If you point out the uncomfortable truths and implications of your opponent’s own words during an argument, that’s just called winning the argument.
Whereas I don’t hesitate to stand by my views in real life, the exact same views that I hold here. Funny, that…
It’s a sign of either a fearlessness of consequence I do not possess, or a sign of a milquetoast range of views that would not ruffle the feathers of anyone you seek to stay in good graces with.
For myself, I hold back the full panoply of my views, even in other online forums that are more… delicate.
When I read some article about tech companies having very low numbers of women and blacks/hispanics, I think to myself there are less qualified candidates going for those positions more than the companies themselves deliberately shutting groups of people out. I’ll sometimes mention that, but I do not go into some diatribe about how part of the reason I think there are fewer proportional qualified candidates, is because the pool among different groups doesn’t necessarily have an identical % of people with the aptitude to be software engineers.
That’s a can of worms I’d rather not lightly wade into in all places, so yes, I hold back. It’s even worse in real life, what do I gain from this argument? When someone mouths off that the reason x group is doing less well is because of some government policy or republicans trying to keep black people down, or terrible schools, or etc etc. The general accepted consensus on polite society is that average aptitude levels do not vary between groups/races. That any variations that we see must be nearly totally explainable by some non intrinsic property. Liberals focus on things like school funding and day care and free college, conservatives on personal behaviors being the primary differential, each might toss in some luck and who you know. Some acknowledge some difference between individuals that leads to different outcomes, but different averages between groups ?
No, shut down, that is a slog of an argument, and usually the people pushing it are the sort of people like Jared Taylor and other white separatists that are genuine racists.
The topic is absolute poison in polite society, but that does not mean the conclusion has no truth to it. And it has consequences, consequences that cannot be addressed by presuming it does not exist.
Yup, that is indeed the problem. The problem is not the mere existence of a hypothesis that racial-group differences may be explainable to some extent by genetics. The problem is that many people want that hypothesis to be accepted as fact even though it hasn’t actually been scientifically validated.
[QUOTE=Salvor]
My standards are lower than yours.
[/quote]
That’s okay, no evidentiary standards are required for merely having an opinion on the subject.
For asserting that one’s opinion is scientifically supported, though, higher standards are necessary.
[QUOTE=Salvor]
You yourself agreed with the claim that no one disputes there is a statistical link between race and academic achievement (at least here).
[/quote]
Yup, numerous reliable studies have attested to the existence of such a link in various contexts.
[QUOTE=Salvor]
To me, that is evidence of a sort that some of the differences are likely due to genetics. […]
Once you have some genetic variability in intelligence between individuals, it is the most natural thing in the world to me to presume and make a logical leap that such variance that clearly exists between individuals, does the same between populations. […]
This is my thought process, this is why I expect genetic differences to play some role in the differences we see in results. So tell me, what is wrong with my thought process?
[/quote]
Emphasis added. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with your thought process to the extent that it is formulating a hypothesis about possible genetic influences on racial-group differences in academic achievement.
That’s precisely how hypotheses get formulated: people notice phenomena that seem to be meaningful or systematic rather than random, and try to think up reasonable-seeming potential explanations for the cause(s) of the phenomena.
Where your thought process goes haywire is when you start thinking that because this explanation seems reasonable to you as a layperson, therefore it should count as to some extent scientifically valid.
Of course it’s a possibility, and one that has many confirmed parallels in human development. For example, the age at which children learn to talk isn’t significantly different in different populations. Nor is the range of light frequencies that constitutes the visible spectrum. Nor is the average sex ratio of boys to girls born in a population, or number of teeth in adults.
We could think up lots of reasons why earlier speech development, or being able to see in the infrared or ultraviolet, or having more boys than girls or vice versa, or having more teeth, would be advantageous to humans in certain situations. So why haven’t some populations developed these traits significantly more than others?
Some human traits are simply more or less constant across existing populations. There’s nothing “inconceivable” about the possibility that average intelligence might be one of them.
Because that’s simply what we see in certain human traits. For example, a tendency to sire more sons than daughters or vice versa is to some extent heritable on the individual level. But that doesn’t translate into a change in the basic human sex ratio at the population level.
If such facts don’t match your layperson preconceptions of the way you think science ought to work, the problem is not with the science.
Like I said, you don’t need any standards at all to have an opinion. But you do need high standards to justify “considering evidence valid” in the sense of scientific validity.
Being uncomfortable to engage strangers in a discuss still fails to rise to the level of taboo.
Few people choose to discuss the particulars of their sex lives with their parents, but that does not make the discussion of one’s sex life taboo. Context and social situations influence when a discussion may occur–or occur comfortably. That does not make a topic taboo.
In this case, the topic is not taboo and is still widely discussed, although a lack of knowledge of one’s audience may make such a discussion unwise or uncomfortable.
That cultural phenotype?
You obviously didn’t read the article or you wouldn’t have posted. Why were these researchers so cowed? Political correctness like the OP alluded to.
A Humpty-Dumptyism?
Exactly. Nobody here is attempting in any way to deny evidence from specific studies on distinct population groups, such as the champion-runner Kenyan Kalenjin peoples in the linked articles, that specific physiological factors determined by genetics are likely to influence their average performance.
But trying to naively extrapolate from that sort of study to much broader inferences about traits of much more vaguely defined racial groups is mere bullshit, scientifically speaking.