In which Danielinthewolvesden defends his racist GD statement...

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Let us assume collounsbury & his cites are right about the inablity of genetics to make a clear differentiation between “races”- ie there is no clear dividing line, and thus- for the purpose of genetics- “race” does not exist. Thus- since ‘race’ does not 'exist"- there can be no differnces in intelligence- between a differnce that does not exist -using this definition. However, even if i agree you are right- this does not make me a “racist”- in fact- by that definition, it proves I am not. And, the arguements seem to go that there is really no “scientific” definition of intelligence, either. So since “race” and “intelligence” are more or less meaningless terms, by your theory- my statement was no so much “wrong” or 'racist"- it was simply meaningless.

However- I have my doubts as to collounsburys agenda here. He brings up stuff about the PIT thread where gaudere attempted to show I was unreliable. And of course Ben has been spreading that “big lie’ about me for quite some time. However- I certainly did not agree with gauderes “general conclusions”- and in any case WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT THREAD HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ONE!!! And, i ask him directly to show me just one generally recognized dictionary defintion that would allow him to call me a racist- and his reply? “DDG has already addressed this…”- yes she has. She came up with two dictionary definitions, and made up one herself- none of which fit me or my statements. And then he continues “… I doubt if there is any real reason to engage you in a debate or even a discussion”. What has he been doing the last 2 pages? Collounsbury- You come in here- make ad hominem attacks, make heavy use of inapproriate profanity, and call me a “racist”- and refuse to back your statements up. Then- you expect us to accept your word for it on stuff like genetics. If you want to be the 'voice of scientific reason” here- you have failed. I could have accepted collounsbury as our expert here- but now i can’t beleive a single word he has posted. If you stop with the personal attacks, agree my statement was not “racist”, and apologize for the completely non-relevant ad hominem attacks- then maybe i could accept your “facts”. I am certainly able to admit my statement was "wrong’ or more correctly “based on outdated, no longer currently accepted science”. BUT until then- I have to “consider the source”- and that “source” ain’t looking too good so far. So, Collounsbury- if you want to be taken seriously- stop with the personal attack crap. That is more or less what Izzy & Spoofe have been saying, also.

Biggirl- same thing. You want to debate ‘race’ seriously? Then stop with the personal attacks.

Quixotic- again- the same thing. Incidentally- i actually went out & got a copy of Dame Kenyons book- and it supports me 100% She even posits a possible wall around the “Jericho” that Joshua MIGHT have attacked. All the other folks were able to come up with was secondhand quotes. If you still think I am wrong- read “Archealogy in the Holy land”= then come back & we will talk. However- since i had poor sources in that debate- I was unable to show my point very well- which I admit.

But- not everone uses the genetics definition of "race’. The US Government certainly thinks "races’ exists, and will codify & count folks by race. A coroner, when doing a examination of a skelton from an unknown person- can nearly always identify the “race’ by skeletal characteristics- and for purposes of helping to identify the person- will post something like “Female, black, late 40’s, 5’6”, around 140lbs, etc”. True- maybe “race” exists only as a “cultural” construct- but it is a construct that would seem to have everyday practical use. Maybe it is a construct that is scientifically invalid- once some of the folk here stop screaming so loud we can’t understand them, we can look at that.

[system]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
Let us assume collounsbury & his cites are right about the inablity of genetics to make a clear differentiation between “races”- ie there is no clear dividing line, and thus- for the purpose of genetics- “race” does not exist. Thus- since ‘race’ does not 'exist"- there can be no differnces in intelligence- between a differnce that does not exist -using this definition. However, even if i agree you are right- this does not make me a “racist”- in fact- by that definition, it proves I am not. And, the arguements seem to go that there is really no “scientific” definition of intelligence, either. So since “race” and “intelligence” are more or less meaningless terms, by your theory- my statement was no so much “wrong” or 'racist"- it was simply meaningless.

headaches. Daniel, you are dense or deliberately obtuse. Race does not exist as a coherent biological category (no internal genetic consistency): differences in underlying genetically determined capacity for intelligence may or may not vary according to population but certainly is not to be expect to vary according to “races” which do not share internal consistency (not as averages either folks).

Differences in intelligence as you put it, however, might not be genetically determined and ergo might vary according to larger populations if they share common environmental limitations.

Intelligence is not a meaningless term, simply a poorly defined and understood phenomena.

None of this is simply meaningless, you simply are refusing to grapple with the issue honestly.

However- I have my doubts as to collounsburys agenda here. He brings up stuff about the PIT thread where gaudere attempted to show I was unreliable. And of course Ben has been spreading that "big lie’ about me for quite some time.

Yes, I am part of some bizarre anti-Daniel consipiracy. I brought up the subject in the context of my lack of regard for your honesty in arguing a point. I consider it well-nigh impossible to hold an honest debate with you. Your current ranting illustrates why.

But- not everone uses the genetics definition of "race’. The US Government certainly thinks "races’ exists, and will codify & count folks by race.

Race as a social construct, like ethnicity. My comments are confined solely to the false presumption that what is popularly known as race describes a coherent biological grouping. That’s it. I know folks who believe so strongly in this old myth have a hard time with that, but there it is.

A coroner, when doing a examination of a skelton from an unknown person- can nearly always identify the “race’ by skeletal characteristics- and for purposes of helping to identify the person- will post something like “Female, black, late 40’s, 5’6”, around 140lbs, etc”.

False. Tom and I had the very same discussion with our dearly banned Peace. I frankly don’t feel like retyping the same old same old, so in case anyone thinks I’m bluffing on all this please see pages 3 and 4 of the Peace pit thread, if memory serves.

True- maybe “race” exists only as a “cultural” construct- but it is a construct that would seem to have everyday practical use. Maybe it is a construct that is scientifically invalid- once some of the folk here stop screaming so loud we can’t understand them, we can look at that. **

Frankly, it is more of a hinderance than anything, but it is deeply rooted.
Zwald:

When you do me the courtesy of following some links, I’ll expend the effort to do some homework for you. Otherwise, I simply note that I too busy and I am sick of dredging up the same old information in every one of these motherfucking threads where the same bankrupt arguments are repeated over and over. Those truly interested can feel free to follow up, with some simple clicks of the mouse.

[eponymous]

I just want to clarify a couple of points in my previous post:

The Kalihari bushman are actually closer in genetic makeup to the negritos of southwest Asia (surface features are similar).

I meant to say that surface features (skin color, hair type, etc) of the Kalahari Bushman (commonly referred to as the Khoisan) are similar to the negritos of SOUTHEAST Asia. However, their genentic makeup is quite dissimilar.

…tell me there can be a meaningful difference in intellectual capabilties between Caucasians versus Negroids versus Mongolids…

What I mean is any meaningful difference that has a basis in biology/genetics. Meanigful differences in intellectual capabilties can and have been found among “races”. But they can be attributed largely to environmental, cultural, social, or economic factors - NOT genetic factors. When these are accounted for, mental abilities do not differ significantly.

zwaldd - I can think of one example where outward physical appearance does correlate somewhat with mental capabilities. Those are people with Down’s Syndrome (they have an extra chromosome). But I personally don’t know what causes Down’s Syndrome - random gene mutation? I can’t think of any examples/studies that show certain populations have a tendency to produce people with Down’s Syndrome. I think when and where it does occur is pretty much the same across populations (that is, it’s random). If that’s the case, the a genetic predipostion for the syndrome can be ruled out. But I don’t really know. Is Down’s Syndrome a heritable trait? Anyone?

[SPOOFE]

Spoofe, please tell me what it was about my posts that was not clear and did not get the point that you have just stated across.

Oh, it was just the whole thing about “definition” of race. As I read through the thread, early on I noticed zwaldd say that “race” isn’t a scientific term, so there isn’t a “scientific definition”… then there were continued insistances that “race” be defined, etc. I suppose you simply missed that point.

Anyway, I believed that haggling over what defines a “race” (it IS just a convenience for society’s sake) wasn’t cogent to the debate. It seemed like the whole thing had reached a stalemate. But I guess it is sort of pretentious for me to jump in and shout “No no, you’re debating all wrong!” and for that, I apologize.

Then again, I was fascinated by the whole concept of finding a link between genetics and intelligence (and the nature of intelligence in general), which is why I figured any hang up on a side-point would be a simple waste of time.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**
However- I have my doubts as to collounsburys agenda here. He brings up stuff about the PIT thread where gaudere attempted to show I was unreliable.

**

Actually, it’s the Pit thread where Gaudere overwhelmingly proved that you are unreliable.

**
And of course Ben has been spreading that "big lie’ about me for quite some time.

**

DITWD, do not smear my reputation again. I’m getting awfully tired of your harassment.

-Ben

[Jalapeno_On_A_Stick]

Asians moving to America (hispanics too) after a generation or possibly 2 (with no inter-racial breeding) that the people seem to get bigger, taller then their ancestors?

Perhaps environment (education, eating habits/quality of nutrition etc.) does make a huge difference in not only the physical but also the intellect.

There is no “smarter” race or even a more physically dominant race. People are basically a product of their environment. Genetics is such that even dwarfs (little people or whatever the pc term is) produce offspring that are of normal height. (btw- isn’t the tallest man in the world white?). My point is that there are so many factors housed within a humans DNA that you can’t neccessarily say what 2 peoples offspring will look like. Whomever is in their family tree and has provided their DNA along the line is just as likely to have some influence on someones characteristics as the parents themselves. Too, the way they were raised and fed could easily stunt someones growth from reaching it’s full potential. Also, those Sumo dudes don’t exactly look petite to me.
warning
the above comments were made by someone that doesn’t neccessarily know what the hell he’s talking about. but wtf, it sounds good to me.

[Gadarene]

Daniel:

The Bell Curve may very well be wrong- however, the authors were not considered racists before they wrote it, nor did the study have a racist agenda. The authors are called “racists”- simply becuase they published a work that many strongly disagree with. And the book has NOT been discredited as a study- altho many do not like the book or its conclusions.

To add to DDG’s cites on this matter, may I suggest a book that, in my mind, thoroughly details the bad science and intellectual dishonesty that went into The Bell Curve? It’s called Measured Lies, and it dissects Herrnestein and Murray chapter-by-chapter from here till next Sunday, using essays from some of the country’s most prominent educators and social theorists.

Read it…won’t you?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *

No, you’re wrong. They’re called “racists” because their book was a racist book.
It wasn’t until late 1995 that the most damaging criticism of The Bell Curve began to appear, in tiny academic journals.
Not circular at all. “A racist is someone who expresses sentiments of racism.” They expressed racist sentiments, so they were labelled “racists”.

And- show me one line, one post where I have characterized any individual on the basis of his “race”. I have not.

You’re absolutely right. You haven’t looked at a Negroid person and said, “Ah, he must be taller and faster than white boys”. But what you HAVE done is looked at an entire collection of people, those with “Negroid” characteristics, and said, “Ah, they must be taller and faster than white boys.” That characterization, that judging, of an entire group of people according to what “race” they are, is what we call “racism.” And people who practice it are called “racists”.

I have not even said than any races are “better” at anything else than another race…

Yes, you did. You said “Negroids are taller and faster than other races”. Implicit in this statement is the belief that being taller and faster is good.

**…then it is NOT racist to say that “on the average, Blacks are taller than Orientals”. **

You’re right. I agree with you on that.

But what you HAVE done is looked at an entire collection of people, those with “Negroid” characteristics, and said, “Ah, they must be taller and faster than white boys.” That characterization, that judging, of an entire group of people according to what “race” they are, is what we call “racism.” And people who practice it are called “racists”.

And if some one thinks that being taller is “better”, say for basketball, then one COULD conclude that “on the average, Blacks are better at basketball”- without nessesarily being a “racist”.

You can say, “Blacks are better at basketball” as long as you aren’t saying, “Blacks are genetically predisposed to be better at basketball”, as long as you aren’t saying, “Blacks are genetically taller, faster, and better natural athletes than whites, so therefore they are better at basketball.”

And I do not do that, nor have I ever.

Um, saying, “Negroids are taller and faster than other races” IS doing that.
stop saying things like, “Negroids are taller and faster than other races”?
**

Go back -read my posts _ I have never said that Blacks are 'faster" than anyone else. I did say- that some have shown by STATISICS that certain African TRIBES appear to be faster. There has been speculation of why one African tribe has produced so many of the worlds fastest runners. SOME folk think is becuase of their genes. Some have also speculated that is is culteral- that this tribe honors fast runners- and folks train from childhood. Others have made other speculations. And- this is not all africans, nor all blacks- just one tribe. Since a 'tribe" could very well be a small enough population to share a certain gene- maybe it is genetic, or maybe it is culteral, or environmental- who knows? In any case- i have never said that “Blacks are faster than…”.
However- on the average- there certainly are differences between “races” (even if race is just a 'cultural term), at least in minor outward physical characteristics such as skin color & height. One could not say, to be completly correct- that “blacks are taller than…”- but one can say with certainty, and without being in any way a ‘racist"- that the “average height of blacks is greater than the average height of whites”. And- why is being taller “better”? Can I say to another guy- hey, I am 6’ tall, and you’re only 5’8, thus I am “better”? Don’t be ridiculous.

And, how do you get that saying that “blacks are taller than whites” makes someone a “racist”? Next- your new definition: "that characterisation, that judging, of an entire group of people according to what "race’ they are, is what we call “racism”. You mean if I say that “Blacks are characterised by having dark skin” I am a “racist”? The US government, in official publications list such characterisations, based upon minor outward physical characterisics. Even if “race” exists purely as a cultural definition- those minor, outward physical char. are what defines the “race”. In fact, Oxford defines “Negroid”: “characterizing a member of the Negro(black) race, esp in having dark skin, tightly curled hair, and a flattish nose”. Are the editors at Oxford all “racists”?

Now, as to the “Bell Curve”- much great research have been financed by sources which are not very nice. The Bell Curve, itself- was not financed by those quite disreputable sources. However, some of the research that the Bell Curve used- was. Some folks think that funding from certain sources “taints” the research. Most do not.

Now on to the Bell Curve being discredited. All the cites I checked- were “Book reviews”. A book review is hardly a scientific paper that could “discredit” a scientific thesis. And, all the early criticism I read did go along the lines of “Any one who could come to those conclusions must be a racist, thus the book is racist, and thus wrong”, which is hardly solid scientific criticism. Note the line from above “it was not until late 1995 that the most damaging criticism … began to appear, in tiny academic journals”. EXACTLY. And, this was criticism i did not read or know about. Note that I even said that I had some doubts as to the validity of the studies statisics- as it is real easy to prove almost anything with stats if you can “cook them”. However, for years- all attacks on the Bell Curve were ad hominem attacks, such as some “book reviews”. And those types of attacks will not, and can not “discredit” a scientific study. And, anyone who thinks they can- is guilty of fighting FOR ignorance, instead of against it. Now, it appears that my doubts were correct- some actual scientific studies have shown big problems with that studies numbers- and i applaud them.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury

I brought up the subject in the context of my lack of regard for your honesty in arguing a point. I consider it well-nigh impossible to hold an honest debate with you. Your current ranting illustrates why.
**

And this is exactly my point. Even tho this is the PIT- you wish to make some serious points, and bring up some interesting arguements. Fine- I will happily debate you- until you start with the cheap personal attacks, the unneeded profanity, the ad hominem aguements, and the name calling. If you want your posts to be taken seriously- then post appropriately. I do not have enough time to debate with “assholes”. Now- I am not saying you are an “asshole”- but certainly your posts here have many of the normal earmarks of such. Do you really expect to be taken seriously by someone you are screaming “fucking racist” at? Can anyone expert to hold “an honest debate” with YOU when you use those kinds of tactics? Calm down. Apologize for the personal insults- and i am willing to listen to you.

[TwistofFate]

Think of it this way… Pablo Picasso was a great painter. Albert Einstein was a great scientist. Who had a greater intelligence?

This was what I was trying to say.

wow… I can actually agree with Spoofe on something!!

[hawthorne]

Posted by DitWD
Do you [ie Collounsbury] really expect to be taken seriously by someone you are screaming “fucking racist” at?

But he actually said:

Daniel’s generalization was indeed racist as I read it. I’ll add that it was probably based simply on old fashioned misinformation rather than racism on his part, but it is completely incorrect.

That’s not screaming “fucking racist”, is it? No, it’s DitWD being misleading. :rolleyes:

DitWD
Can anyone expe[c]t to hold “an honest debate” with YOU when you use those kinds of tactics? Calm down. Apologize for the personal insults- and i am willing to listen to you.

It is your reputation as a bona fide debater that is once again at issue here, not Collounsbury’s. The repeat of your slur against Ben has close to finished you off for me I am afraid.

This thread is really fucking depressing. Tomndebb, Biggirl, Collounsbury, Gaspode and others spent a long time nailing these arguments to the wall in great detail in the various peace threads just a few weeks ago. Those threads are still there, people have linked to them and most of people in this thread were here then anyway. I doubt that anyone was under the illusion that peace was going to read and learn, but I assumed that posters here would. But no, same old shit. [fish called wanda]Disappointed. [/wanda]

[Danielinthewolvesden]

picmr- “you ignorant slut”. I did not say that Collounsbury called me a “fucking racist”. I asked him if he could expect to be taken seriously by someone he was yelling that at. However, he did call me a 'racist", and has used unnessesary profanity, thus the query was reasonable.

My slur against BEN? So- you have no problems with bens continued personal attacks against me? His constant use of his “big lie”, and even repeating a version of it again, here? That is ok- but my mentioning that I disaprove of it is wrong? And that I am tired of ignorant pissants like you believing Bens “big lie”, and continueing to spread it? When he stops his "Big lie’ propaganda, and apologizes for it, then I will stop mentioning he is wrong to continue it. Yes- those are personal attacks. But I am not trying to convince you- it is clear that you are a buffoon, and a cretin, so it is hopeless.

collonsbury has right here, in this very thread, right on hand: used ad hominem arguements, personal attacks & needless profanity. Mature, intelligent folk do not do these things when debating. Maybe that is why few listened or were convinced in his rant about “peace”- i did not bother, nor will i read those arguements, as they are indelibly tainted. But, he was still angry here- so I have offered him a chance to calm down & maybe apologize.

[system]

I have concluded commentary is hardly worth the effort, but thanks picmr

This thread is really fucking depressing. Tomndebb, Biggirl, Collounsbury, Gaspode and others spent a long time nailing these arguments to the wall in great detail in the various peace threads just a few weeks ago. Those threads are still there, people have linked to them and most of people in this thread were here then anyway. I doubt that anyone was under the illusion that peace was going to read and learn, but I assumed that posters here would. But no, same old shit. [fish called wanda]Disappointed. [/wanda] **

Precisely my feelings. Just getting someone to read the bloody threads seems impossible, let alone process new info.

And check out the new Blacks and Sports thread in GD. I hope I can be pardoned for a desire to bash my head against a wall, over and over.

[zwaldd]

Zwald:

When you do me the courtesy of following some links, I’ll expend the effort to do some homework for you. Otherwise, I simply note that I too busy and I am sick of dredging up the same old information in every one of these motherfucking threads where the same bankrupt arguments are repeated over and over.

ok, collounsbur, we’ll do it your way. i asked you to cite a study that explains known correlating traits across populations and why that doesn’t leave open the possiblity of other correlating traits. in one of your motherfucking threads, you said “Chamla, Marie-Claude. Les Populations anciennes du Sahara et des régions limitrophes, étude des restes osseux humains néolithiques et protohistoriques Paris, Laboratoires d’anthropologie du Musée de l’homme et de l’Institut de paléontologie humaine, 1968”.
i don’t see how that applies.

happy now?

[hawthorne]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
And check out the new Blacks and Sports [link added] thread in GD. I hope I can be pardoned for a desire to bash my head against a wall, over and over.

Good job nobody told you about The most inherant;ly cruel race? (sic) that is also on the front page of GD. I think we may need Cecil to weigh in on this topic.

[pldennison]

Amazing. Simply amazing. The lies never fucking end when it comes to DITWD.

Just a few posts up, he says to Collounsbury:

"Do you really expect to be taken seriously by someone you are screaming “fucking racist” at?

The clear implication is that Collounsbury is yelling “fucking racist,” and that he is yelling it at DITWD.

picmr, not being the only one who has noticed that the words “fucking racist” have not been yelled at DITWD or anyone else by Collounsbury, quotes what he actually said:

Daniel’s generalization was indeed racist as I read it. I’ll add that it was probably based simply on old fashioned misinformation rather than racism on his part, but it is completely incorrect.

Then, **DITWD[/d] has the balls to come back and say:

I did not say that Collounsbury called me a “fucking racist”. I asked him if he could expect to be taken
seriously by someone he was yelling that at. However, he did call me a 'racist" . . .

Unbelieveable. Let’s break it into two parts:

1. I did not say that Collounsbury called me a “fucking racist”. I asked him if he could expect to be taken
seriously by someone he was yelling that at. So, in a post devoted to why he isn’t reading Collounsbury’s links or listening to him, he asks this question as a purely rhetorical device. He’s not accusing Collounsbury of yelling it, mind you, but asking, if he did, would he expect to be listened to? Riiiiiiight.

**2. However, he did call me a 'racist" . . . **. Did he? Let’s go to the tape just one more time: " . . . it was probably based simply on old fashioned misinformation rather than racism on his part . . ." Collounsbury specifically said that while DITWD’s statement as read was racist, but not because Daniel is a racist, but that his information was outdated. He specifically says that Daniel is probably not a racist. He said it in plain black and white, and yet the little scumbag comes right back and says Collounsbury called him a racist.

Daniel, you are a liar. You are fundamentally dishonest. To claim, before the entire SDMB population, that Collounsbury said the exact opposite of what he said is a lie. How many times are you going to try to get away with this before you give it up?

[system]

*Originally posted by picmr *
**

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
And check out the new Blacks and Sports [link added] thread in GD. I hope I can be pardoned for a desire to bash my head against a wall, over and over.

Good job nobody told you about The most inherant;ly cruel race? (sic) that is also on the front page of GD. I think we may need Cecil to weigh in on this topic. **

Bastard. I’m not going to get involved in that one. This topic is a god damned tar baby.

Most inherently cruel race? Clearly the human one.

Zwald:

I think you are taking that reference out of context.

Given the Chamla article content, I would suspect I was providing this in the context of defining races and the question of fixed differences. The Chamla research, on paleolithic populations in North Africa, Sahara and the Sahel (northern reaches of sub-Saharan Africa) indicated she was unable to find clear racial populations in any of the zones, as based on skeletal remains.

The cite is relevant to illustrating, in a non-genetic context, the history of population contact and gene exchange.

Hmm, however, come to think of it, it suggests the problematic for your hang up. Let’s see you use the phrase, “explains known correlating traits across populations and why that doesn’t leave open the possiblity of other correlating traits”.

First, as I recall you want Sickle Cell to be correlated to black populations – how are we defining the population? That helps bring clarity and changes the answer. I of course have already noted that Sickle Cell ( a single allele as I recall, fairly simple recessive trait: get both and you got anemia, get one and in general you have some protection from malaria) is diagnostic of populations with long exposure to Malaria. Find a population with long-term exposure to malaria, you find sickle-cell. Without knowing more we can’t be sure if this was selected for independently or not, or whether the trait spread through good old fashioned sex. (that’s what its for, no?)

Second, correlation of other traits would logically depend on the trait(s) being responsive to similar factors, whatever they were, of selection. We should note that intelligence and brain function are clearly multi-varient, meaning there will be numerous alleles which effect or control their function and expression. We should ask ourselves to what extent or why any significant package of alleles affecting intelligence would be selected for by malaria exposure, which is off course the selective pressure for the sickle cell alleles. (I.e. carriers survive and live at least marginally better than non-carriers in malarial zones. Our history of screwing everything has ensured a fairly decent distribution over time for the relevant trait.) I can’t see malaria selecting against intelligence, so we need something else. One might hypothesize something in the environment, unrelated to malaria, would coincidentally effect the package of alleles related to the underlying genetic capacity for intelligence. However, this does not strike me as terribly likely, given the wide range of malaria, the genetic diversity of the populations concerned, and

So, it is not a question of impossibility, but reasonable likelihood rationally assessed. My opinion, but edwino would be better to give this since I am a mere reader of the literature wheras edwino is working to be an actual researcher, is that this is pretty fucking unlikely. Sure, just like maybe there are little guys hidden in Venus, it could be the case, but the evidence points against such an alignment of the stars being possible (note: I’m talking about on the level of ‘races’ – not more restricted populations)

Now, as for me wasting my time getting cites re % expression of malarial traits in non-US populations, you’ll have to (1) do better than one out of context citation (2) give me a weekend or so to waste doing the research (3) be understanding that I do have a real job, however much I am neglecting it at the moment so please do be patient. But I do appreciate that you started some reading. Do let me know how the cites follow through.

PS: On the Daniel issue. Let’s drop it. I see nothing productive coming from such exchanges. I think everyone concerned knows how the debate will turn out.

[zwaldd]

ok, i’m going to address eponymous’s cites. he provided these quotes in response to my request for one or more studies proving that visible traits (like skin color), cannot possibly correlate with intellectual capacity. i’m omitting parts of the quotes for clarity, so eponymouse, if you think i’ve omitted something relevant, let me know.

One of the criticisms that Nesbitt levels against the Bell Curve is that the authors neglected to consider 6 of the seven in any serious way. And what do the seven indicate? That there was no meaningful difference in the IQ scores of of whites and blacks tested.

i was under the impression that IQ could be explained culturally. your score on an iq test can reflect your intelligence capacity, but it can also reflect what kind of learning you’re exposed to. an IQ test doesn’t determine one’s intellectual capacity, it determines how well they did on the test. as has been pointed out, there’s many different kinds of intelligence. while i acknowledge that may make it impossible to determine one’s intellectual capacity, it doesn’t rule out the possibility of different intellectual capacities between people scoring the same on a test.

Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population.

again, this is easily attributed to the learning environment within that population.

Rationale of study - 1) The “black” population of the United States consists of from 20-30 European genes and 2) Africans and Europeans differ in blood group genes sufficiently to be able to obtain a measure of the degree of “Europeanness” of an individual’s heritage. Under a genetic hypothesis, the more the European genes, the higher the IQ should be.

Findings - correlation between estimated European heritage and IQ for a sample of 288 young blacks in Philadelphia was a trivial and nonsignificant .05.

again, we’re talking about how people did on an iq test. i believe environment plays a large part in how well you do on these tests.

“The authors mention the study only in a note at the end of the book, and mention it only to dismiss it on the grounds of self-selection; one does not know about the intelligence of the white ancestors and the study is not very probative because, if the white ancestors were particularly unintelligent, it might be no advantage for a black to have European genes. But of course, there is no reason to assume that white ancestors who entered into unions were particularly unintelligent, and once again, the nature of the self-selection would have to have been extreme to produce the results.”

doesn’t sound like any kind of proof of intellectual limits.

My suggestion - check out “The Bell Curve Wars”. The articles are listed at the back of the article by Nesbitt. If you REALLY want me to, I can list those mentioned in the Nesbitt article.

i really think the problem is that we disagree on what is required to prove something impossible. i was also looking for cites that explain why some visible traits correlate with others if it’s not a genetic link. did you find anything on that?

[Arjuna34]

*Originally posted by picmr *
**
This thread is really fucking depressing. Tomndebb, Biggirl, Collounsbury, Gaspode and others spent a long time nailing these arguments to the wall in great detail in the various peace threads just a few weeks ago. Those threads are still there, people have linked to them and most of people in this thread were here then anyway. I doubt that anyone was under the illusion that peace was going to read and learn, but I assumed that posters here would. But no, same old shit. [fish called wanda]Disappointed. [/wanda] **

If it’s any consolation to Tomndebb, Biggirl, Collounsbury, and Gaspode, I read the entire peace thread when it happened, and learned a great deal from the well-written and informative posts. I’m sure there are other dopers who also were watching and learning

The patience Collounsbury has exhibited in the peace thread, and now this one, is extraordinary, IMHO.

Arjuna34

[system]

*Originally posted by zwaldd *
i was also looking for cites that explain why some visible traits correlate with others if it’s not a genetic link. did you find anything on that?

I’m not sure if I am understanding your question here: what visual traits are you talking about?

In general, however, if your question is about linkages between traits without necessary common descent, the answer would be common selection factors. Brown skins might correlate weakly with malarial resistance because of common environmental factors, i.e. if malaria is found only in a certain tropical environment which also might select for darker skin, you would see a co-selection with any real direct linkage.

That’s what I was trying to get at above.