So racist beliefs (hierarchy of intelligence of races) is not racism because you haven’t directed it towards someone? What would you say if I told you that preaching these racial beliefs is an action; one directed towards everyone here. And one up for judgement. Would you not understand that? If you preach race theory, people will judge you for this. This is not unfair, no?
What if someone always votes for candidates preferred by African Americans, and supports reparations for slavery? That makes no difference?
‘‘I think African Americans, in general, are intellectually inferior to white people. But it’s totally not something you should take personally - I want what’s best for your people!’’
Yeah, that’s going to go over well.
How is it spurious? It shows, very clearly, that there doesn’t have to be a genetic explanation. Genes don’t have to be involved for this phenomenon (a difference in average test scores between two groups) to occur. It doesn’t mean necessarily they aren’t involved, but it shows very clearly that a gap can exist without genetic influence.
So why assume that genes must be involved when we don’t know the genes? Why would you want to take the position of David Duke when there’s no genetic data in support of it? Why aren’t yours, and Murray’s, (and Harris’s, apparently) standards higher, such that genetic evidence would be required, for supporting such a hypothesis?
This isn’t an either/or scenario. You don’t have to say environment is all the explanation. I certainly don’t – I don’t know what all the factors involved are. But I find it absurd to assume, without actual genetic evidence, that genes are responsible for this particular achievement gap – between, say, whites and blacks in America – when we know for a fact of the existence of many other achievement gaps which are not explained by genes at all.
So why not just wait for actual good data on this subject to adhere to a conclusion?
We don’t have to wonder what America would be like if most or all white people believed that black people were, on average, inferior in genetic propensity for high intelligence. John Lewis and other older black people know exactly what America would be like in this scenario, since that was the America of their childhood and young adulthood.
Actually I did read that, and almost all of the points raised there were brought up and addressed by Harris and Murray during that podcast.
You keep making assumptions, and you keep being wrong about them.
I would actually be fine with that, if the school reform activists would also wait and see. But they have already ddecided that it is axiomatic that the inner-city black kids with low test scores have just as much innate potential for the kind of aptitude measured in those tests as the white kids out in the suburbs have. They proceed from that axiom to the theorem that the test scores only differ because educators are “failing” these students. If they would stop making that unfair smear of dedicated and hardworking teachers and administrators, I would be more than happy to drop the whole thing.
Straw man. I made it clear that I believe in Gardner’s multiple intelligences, and that I consider it unfair that standardized tests zero in on certain ones that advantage white and Asian kids. I would consider a jazz legend like Art Blakey to be every bit as much of a genius as Stephen Hawking.
And there are un fact a lot of black teachers and administrators who do believe the “reformers” are insisting on an unreasonably high standard. These black educators are apparently guilty of that “soft bigotry of low expectations” themselves. :rolleyes:
This is really dumb because I replied to the very words from Harris and Murray that you typed from the podcast. I did not assume, I have even heard those fig leafs before. The point I made was that in reality nothing new was coming from Murray was spot on, and this being the pit a dismissal was ok to do.
It is still ok, based on the still ashollish behavior of the OP of demanding others to hear a long podcast, like if he has not done so and is only trolling. In reality you are better than him for typing to one of their points.
Shoot, not enough edit time. What I mean is:
This is really dumb because I replied to the very words from Harris and Murray that you typed from the podcast. I did not assume.
I have even heard those fig leafs before. The point I made was that in reality nothing new was coming from Murray and that was still spot on, and this being the pit then a dismissal of what they said was ok to do.
It is still ok to dismiss it, and this also based on the still asshollish behavior of the OP by continuing to demanding to others to hear a long podcast, One only gets the idea that he has not done so either and he is only trolling. In reality you are better than him for typing one of their points.
The value of a human being shouldn’t be reduced to a single characteristic, and as far as I have seen here the only people doing that are the ones built of straw.
Yes, the reaction to GMOs is similar, but I also noticed some similarities to Climate Change denial and anti-Evolution rhetoric.
For the first I’ve seen arguments similar to: person A saying there is a statistical body of work that supports a trend of increased global temperatures and then person B chiming in to say “But it snowed here yesterday!”. Plus the usual accusations of the person presenting the statistical analysis of having a hidden agenda and all that fun.
For Anti-evolution I’ve seen similes to things like people admitting on one hand that heritability of traits is a thing but on the other hand denying that they can’t create enough divergence to create a measurable change on the characteristics of a population.
Nope, you are just showing your gross ignorance about how academia saw the affair:
And really Ale, I do know about climate change deniers, and dealt with GMO critics. Claiming that the consensus is a different one is one of their basic sleazy moves, just like many other pseudosciences.
The best sprinters are from Jamaica. Pretty consistently, in fact. What, specifically, about Jamaican genes causes them to be such good sprinters?
Same question about all other nations that have a specific sport or discipline they are known for excelling at - and there are quite a few.
Bonus points if you catch the head-slapper “duh” answer as to why certain states seem to excel in certain sports that have taken on cultural significance there.
Let’s not forget doing a Gish Gallop of trying to pick holes in the case for the “nature” side (which side is really a nature/nurture combo) by pointing to ways the evidence is not ironclad…while at the same time offering up no solid evidence at all for this Blank Slate “everyone is equal in potential and it’s all about nurture/environment/socialization” argument.
Whatever, dude. As I say, I’m a dedicated follower of his podcasts (the only podcaster I regularly give money to on Patreon). The idea that I would want to talk about it but not listen to it? Please.
Last summer, I actually did transcribe parts of his podcast two different times for the purpose of posting here, about 800 words each time, in June and July. But it would take a lot more this time, and I’m just not up for that.
Also note that when someone asked about the Flynn effect, I pointed out that they discuss this very topic on the podcast (and that was, IIRC, at least an hour in).
GIGO, from your Slate excerpt:
Tell that to my mom, a retired sociology professor. She will strenuously argue to this day that IQ scores are completely meaningless.
Here’s that Gish Gallup. By this logic, no one should have been able to talk about heredity at all until the human genome was mapped.
Try this thought experiment (and try to be intellectually honest while doing so). Let’s say we somehow took away all knowledge of sports from the “Blank Slate” crowd, and then asked them to speculate what would happen if countries did compete with each other in modern Olympic Games. Do you think they would predict that arguably the biggest glamour event of the entire Games would be dominated by a small, poor, mostly black island nation with a long legacy of living under colonialism? Or would they predict it would be a richer country with a large population, one that was a former colonial power, still engaging in dollar diplomacy and neocolonialism?
Even within our own country, wouldn’t they predict that domestic sports leagues would be dominated by those who had grown up able to afford expensive coaching and high tech training, not to mention being able to afford equipment, travel to tournaments and so on? Yet somehow that’s not what happens. Curious.
BTW, going a bit meta here, I have posted before that groups like Rationalwiki are ok to use on the pit, I only pointed out that one needs to check the cites anyhow, and usually they are not missing the mark as much as their critics claim.
But the reason why I mention this is because different issues like GMOs and Climate change have been mentioned to point at what identifies the deniers of science like the Climate change deniers or the deniers of the safety of GMOs.
About that, here is what RationalWiki points out:
The point here is about what I use to guide me when looking at sites that are more correct than wrong. Checking what they concluded with issues like GMOs, and climate change is a great test. those issues do trip liberals and conservatives and what they report about the issues tell me that they are a group that indeed is dedicated to check with experts in those fields. Now I admit that their condescension is turned up to 11 so that is one of the reasons I use them mostly on the pit.
But the most important point here is this:
Other sites that are more serious and less out there than Rationalwiki that I use are similar in tone with places like Snopes. Dedicated to crush ignorance and pseudoscience in general. And they agree with what experts are saying about GMOs, Climate Change,** and how discredited Murray and others remain.
**
http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html
That figures, you are still being a jerk on that, in any case no one has asked you to do a complete transcript, only that if you do think that they are the beesnees then it is your job to post a few of the main points that you think are important. And not just retreads of already replied fig leafs coming from Murray.
Okay, let’s dig into some of this.
This is actually a refreshingly different tack than many of the “deniers” have taken on this thread. And it is a valid point, that Sam has made many times: whatever the validity of the data, isn’t it basically just a dick move to publicize it? I absolutely see this criticism, but my concern is, as I keep saying, the massive harm churned up by the “school reform” movement, which has taken over two consecutive presidential administrations (don’t know what is happening with that in the new one and probably don’t want to) and which drags the reputation of a lot of dedicated educators through the mud. If they will stop, then I’ll be right there saying we should just quietly sweep all this under the bed. Until they do, I’m going to take up this mantle, uncomfortable though it certainly is.
Again, this is fair. I try my best to disassociate myself with all the really scummy “alt-right” assholes who associate themselves with so-called “race realism”. But that’s not easy, for sure.
Such data consists mainly of correlations. And while correlations should convince orthodox empirical scientists of nothing, to the racist researcher, correlations are the heart and soul of their work.
Oh dear. This is where things get hypocritical real fast. Remember, I grew up with social science professors as parents (anthropology and sociology), and I was living with my wife (then my girlfriend/fiancee) during her last year of grad school, getting her master’s in sociology. I spent a lot of time with her cohort and with her professors at social functions, and read the material she was assigned for her seminars. And anti-racist sociologists are the most guilty of anyone you’ll find of conflating correlation with causation. A couple examples, both facepalm-worthy, both of which came from NPR interviewing sociologists and treating their conclusions as presumptively valid:
(1)
Correlation: The number of times a poor black boy is suspended in high school is strongly correlated with the likelihood he will do a stint in prison by age 21.
Proposed Solution: Stop suspending teenage black boys so much, and voila: they’ll be less likely to end up in prison later.
What Should Have Been Obvious: The high school suspensions and later imprisonments are not cause-effect at all. They are both effects of criminal behavior, markers for “juvenile delinquent” personalities.
(2)
Correlation: The vocabulary of young children varies positively with the number of books in the home.
Proposed Solution: Back up truckloads of books and bring 'em into the homes of “at risk” children. No joke. I’m pretty sure this was actually implemented! :smack:
What Should Have Been Obvious: Again, having large numbers of books in a home is not the cause of a kid’s large vocabulary, it is a marker for a parent or parents with a high IQ, which is heritable by their children.
ORLY? Well, blow me down.
Huh? 
Inconsistent how? Again: I used to work for a company that contracted with the state to spend a lot of money on services for adults with intellectual disabilities. I worked at a house where two such men lived. Their rent, food, and health care were all fully paid for by the state, and the state also paid my wages and those of several others to accompany these guys 24/7 (so 168 hours a week of payroll, just to “staff” these two guys, not including the various people employed further up the chain to work on the behalf of larger numbers of “consumers”, as they were euphemistically called). This is in a red state; and no one that I ever encountered proposed that these guys (one of whom had an unambiguous genetic condition, that being Downs Syndrome; the other BTW was a black dude from inner city St. Louis) should be cut off the government teat because they were genetically damaged goods anyway. We don’t live in a Nazi-style country, folks.
Oh jeez. :rolleyes: First of all, I didn’t hear any discussion of criminality on that podcast. Secondly, it’s apparent that because the Blank Slate crowd makes the error of ascribing virtually all of human behavior to nurture/environment, they assume their critics are equally extreme and ascribe it all to genetics. This. Is. Not. True. FFS! Again, anyone who listened to the podcast would have heard both Harris and Murray explicitly say otherwise.
Now, Sam did surprise me (because I usually think of people like Pinker ascribing nature and nurture roughly 50% each) by saying intelligence is “roughly 50-80% genetic”, IIRC, and the upper end of that does sound awfully high to me.
Well it is facepalm worthy alright, but that is when seeing you think that it helps your case.
I was aware already that regarding the war on drugs one good reason why it is so unfair and should end is that for the same incidents blacks are more likely to face jail time than white people.
And yes, as I suspected one of the reason that example of yours is considered is because one finding was that also for the same incidents white kids also got it easier than the minorities.
What it should be obvious: you got your idea from the spin coming from extremely right wing sources, and possibly coming from people with very unsavory and bigoted agendas.
And digging deeper, do not miss this close to the end of the cites and notes in the Skeptical Dictionary cite: