You write of the high cost of juvenile incarceration as though it were a bad thing. America needs jobs, and private prisons are a rapidly growing industry. Donald Trump promised to employ laid-off coal miners … we might assume many will become prison guards. Money from taxpayers; sadistic red-necks put to work — what’s not to love?
True, the wasted life of the juvenile could be considered a “minus,” but only to the kid and his parents. These aren’t Donald Trump’s kids.
I’m going to try to summarize some of the assumptions necessary for the premise to be true:
There are genes influencing human intelligence
These genes include genes whose presence varies between humans.
The effect of this variation is large enough to be detected.
These genes vary in frequency between populations
The variation and genetic effect is large enough to be detected over the effects of nutrition, social pressures, epigenetic changes and differences in lifestyle.
Some of the arguments advanced seem to boil down to “If assumption number 1 is true, that proves the premise”. Which I don’t think follows. To me, assumption number 1 seems fairly solid. The rest of them, particularly number 5, seem far more shaky.
Note that there are other assumptions here, such as the assumption that “Intelligence” can be treated as a single trait. Which seems shaky to me as well. As far as I am aware, intelligence is a concept invented by humans as an overall descriptor covering a large number of traits. Spatial aptitude, memory, mathematical reasoning, empathy, vocabulary and linguistic ability etc are all traits that have been showed under the “intelligence” umbrella.
It also seems likely that these traits are polygenetic and probably the genes involved are pleiotropic. Possibly even with one another. So you could have a gene that resulted in increased spatial and mathematical reasoning at the cost of reduced “social intelligence”.
To me, it seems that any difference in the frequency of some of these genes are going to drown in even small differences in measurement technique and how you weigh these components against one another when assembling your overarching concept of “intelligence”. Long before you even get to the effects of assumption 5, which to me seems like they would be large enough to drown any signal anyway.
This analogy only works if Fs are frequently awarded in a highly arbitrary manner, and this arbitrary manner led to a lot more African-Americans getting Fs due to the racism. And African-Americans notice this, which leads to morale sinking even further.
This post from SlackerInc from a few years back has it right about race – Sam Harris is just plain wrong that race is “primarily biological”:
It’s a shame that your views have shifted towards the white supremacists since then.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. :smack: You’re not even trying here.
From BPC’s citation immediately above:
“Jamaica massively outperforms the much larger population of all of West Africa in sprinting, where the genetic advantage is actually endemic.”
Sadly, I think you’re wrong.
Wait…what?
I’d like to hear more about this little gem.
SlakerInc, care to expound?
Here’s one of his posts (from another thread):
Here’s one from this thread (snipped all but the relevant portion):
Another from this thread (also snipped):
Nice. :rolleyes:
Well, I was trying to be generous.
More seriously, I’ve seen octopus posting in several threads here, and while I don’t often agree with his conclusions, he usually reaches them after a bit more evident consideration.
Christ, is there ever use talking to crackpot racialists? There’s no scientific citation that one can give that could overpower the mental fantasys that they use to justify racial theory.
“intrepid East Asians and Northern Europeans self-selected for intelligence by great environmental pressures due to travel…flimflamflimflam”
Melanin theory redux. Racist idiots bathe in shit like this, reason will never reach them.
Ironic, given their superior intellect.
By that standard American Indians, Polynesians & Australian Natives should be powerful psionics.
Pardon me if I don’t too much weight on the say so of some person that can’t seem to keep his story straight.
“Having conditioned its audience to view IQ as all-important, The Bell Curve then manipulates statistics in a way that makes IQ look bigger, and everything else smaller, in determining Americans’ life-chances.”
Later on:
"At the beginning of The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray declare that “the concept of intelligence has taken on a much higher place in the pantheon of human virtues than it deserves.”
Which narrative is true, the one were they downplay the importance of IQ levels or the one were they supposedly push the idea of the superiority of the white race due to higher average intelligence?
Or how about these two?
“what you’d most want to know from a policy standpoint–how much education can increase opportunity–isn’t dealt with in the book, except in two obscure footnotes. Both would seem to support the liberal, pro-education position that Herrnstein and Murray say is futile.”
“Herrnstein and Murray concede in the footnotes that scores tend to rise with the subjects’ education”
One or the other, which one is true? Do they concede education rises IQ and thus opportunities or they say the whole thing is futile?
I haven’t read the book, but in the podcast Murray explicitly and emphatically stated that environmental factors, like education, influence IQ levels so clearly one of the two men is playing fast and loose with the facts, and since one is speaking for himself and the other is telling us what he thinks the other man meant, I’ll go with the first hand source, thank you very much.
And which one is right, the last paragraph I quoted or this one?
“The chapter of The Bell Curve on policies that might be able to overcome the fate of a low IQ focuses mainly on whether early-childhood programs like Head Start (most of which aren’t run with raising IQ as their primary goal) can raise IQ significantly over the long term, and sorrowfully concludes that they can’t.”
The former says they didn’t deal with the point of how educational policies can affect IQ, the second one talks about a whole chapter dedicated to just that.
And again after recognizing that they did concede education can rise IQ the author says:
“As an example of where the kind of analysis Herrnstein and Murray didn’t do can lead, a new study by Jay Girotto and Paul Peterson of Harvard shows that students who raise their grades and take harder courses can increase their IQ scores by an average of eight points during the first three years of high school.”
You may want to take his clearly biased, partisan, self contradictory critique and interpretation of the book at face value, but I have higher standards than that.
Well orcenio, I’m aware of how unlikely is to convince the ones that have an agenda, what I get from this interaction is to learn new things and tell others what nincompoops they are.
Like in this case we have a dunce that pretends to know what is science. In this case his sorry narrative has to be rescued at the expense of yet again showing all that he would not know what science is even if it bites him in the butt.
Suffice to say that if he was correct the peer review would had caught a basic mistake as the ones he claim.
Many organizations like the NY Times and even Freakanomicsrespect the National Bureau of Economic Research (N.B.E.R.)
If they think that no rigor was applied to that research they are welcomed to face the peer review by publishing a counter paper, of course we all know that people like SlackerInc, Ale, **Salvor **and others would rather run to [del]their mothers[/del] make a book rather than face the mean peer review.
Is that the only gene that matters? Or are there others?
And I’m not posting long posts in this thread because it’s not going to even come close to resolving anything. I just don’t like definitive simple statements in a multi variable problem.
Oh. I’d never stumbled upon that. I wondered where his talk about a non-racist white pride had come from in the comic threads. I’d just known him as the guy who was liberal but had issues with religious freedom, ala Bill Maher.
It does indeed seem like he is a racialist, peddling all of these discredited ideas. I’ll give him props–he was more subtle about it than most who come here.
Sorry, dude. White people have no shared ethnicity. The very idea of white people is relatively recent (talking a few centuries). And who gets to be included in the white group has changed a lot since its development.
Race isn’t real. The only reason why it seems real to minorities is that their shared burden of discrimination has given them a common cause. When you look similar, you get treated similarly.
White people have never had to do that. There is no threat to our well being, so we never really grouped together ethnically. The only people who do try to do it are people who feel threatened by other races. But there’s no reason to do so.
Once you realize that being white is not an ethnicity, everything falls into place, and you realize why white people are treated differently.
(Well, in white-majority nations, anyways. Obviously, things are different in other countries. In Japan, for example, there is a need for Gaijin to group together and act as a common ethnicity, despite their actual different cultural backgrounds.)
Stil, point is, once you realize this always happens with the majority, “normal” race/sex/etc, then you stop feeling like you’re being mistreated, and can focus on making things equal for all.
It was a lesson I thought more people had learned, until Trump was able to leverage racial tensions like he did.
I’ve thought the same thing the few times I’ve checked out stormfornt after being accused of being a member. If that’s white supremacy it’s not very impressive.
I just noted also that ****Ale ****thinks that muddling the water with what one Academic (yes that was not “just one person”) will make the whole racial cherry thing alright.
Not gonna happen as it is clear that that article is only the tip of the iceberg that sunk Murray.
But even before going to peer reviewed science, the Meta point I was making stands.
There is really no good explanation coming from them to explain why groups that do properly identify hoaxes, pseudoscience, frauds and other malarkey also do crush their hobby horse.
Who is “them” and what “hobby horse”?
BTW, pointing out the internal inconsistencies of an argument is the exact opposite of muddling the waters.