What premise?
IMO, #1-#3 are certainly true.
#4 (if you’re talking about measurable differences) may or may not be true, and I don’t know that it’s even possible to assess how likely it is that it’s true.
#5 is very likely not true at this time, although it may become true at some future point.
Meh, the missed point is that many other groups, besides Rationalwiki, there is Skeptic Magazine, The Skeptics Dictionary. Scientific American. And others that independently do check about what experts are saying about an issue. They are not impressed at all.
Murray is not the mainstream. And doing a very weak counter to one article from an Academic of the time then is not enough.
From the Skeptic:
I think one data point and study that keeps being ignored that accounts for many variables is the data on siblings.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3083428?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
You can still take iq data from siblings, usually there will be some differential, you can then track performance over time on different measures of outcomes.
This really is, as Murray described, an elegant control as siblings come from the same households, same families, same socioeconomic status, went to the same schools etc etc.
It’s a natural control to weed out many of the variables the obscurantists on the effects of iq toss out to intentionally create dust clouds of clarity over. And what did the study find? iq made a clear difference, and merely holding many other variables constant like near identical home life and socioeconomic status and schooling etc etc did not blunt the effects of the difference iq makes on peoples outcomes.
This data is a near deathblow to the idea that differences in iq do not matter, or can be easily explained away if we just had people with different iqs raised in the same environments with the same advantages. This is not even racial, presumably most siblings are of the same race, and still they see differential outcomes based on one stat, iq.
I know we do not like this, but that is not a reason to deny the almost certain reality of this being the case. And moving forward, you have to decide what to do about it.
My answer, as before, vastly ramp up funding and research for human enhancement.
If I am right, then failing to do that will FAIL to actually help populations of people liberals claim they give a fuck about helping. It is not enough to feel good and noble, I demand we actually DO good, and if higher iq will go a long way in helping people do better in life, and that is not doled out equally, then we need to figure out a way to alter nature ourselves.
Pretending there is no likely effect of these differentials is an abdication of any self respecting liberals duty in my view. Because if you are wrong (you are), it leaves the rotten status quo in place.
:rolleyes: Once again, “Jamaica massively outperforms the much larger population of all of West Africa in sprinting, where the genetic advantage is actually endemic.”
I.e. the prevalence of the genetic advantage of fast-twitch muscles is greater among West Africans than Jamaicans, yet Jamaicans are the ones who dominate sprinting at the world level, not those West Africans supposedly already endowed for sprinting greatness. Ergo, other non-genetic factors more strongly determine a given population’s prowess at any given athletic skill than genetic factors.
I really don’t know how to spell this out any simpler…
I’m not aware of any significant opposition or denial among liberals that IQ test scores can be different between siblings, and that those who score higher on IQ tests might have better statistical outcomes on average.
I love how Andy acts like he has dug up some long-suppressed dossier on me, rather than mostly recent posts I’ve made on another thread in this same forum. :rolleyes:
For *one kind *of high intelligence. I have said repeatedly that I think it’s unfair that other types of intelligence are not captured by those aptitude tests. I also said jazz greats like Charles Mingus are every bit as genius as Stephen Hawking. I’m sure it was just an oversight on your part to leave out that context. Similarly, I’m sure you just forgot to link to the comments of mine you quoted. You presumably weren’t purposely engaging in dirty pool, like Sam Harris’s many adversaries who love to quote him out of context. :dubious: [ETA: How does the parenthetical “and Asians” fit into the picture you are trying to paint?]
But just to rectify your oversight, here are some other things I said in that thread:
Not my fundamental epistemological beliefs about the nature of reality, but my desire not to pile on to a group that has already been dealt several shitty hands. The school reform movement (which is far more powerful than you seem to grasp) forces my hand with their fundamental axiomatic belief that any school, with any population of students, should be able to attain so-called proficient scores on aptitude tests.
And you have thrown shade at me a few times, questioning my true motivations. Why would you think I would be so blunt on so many points, including very controversial ones, but then be disingenuous or coy about what I really think? No matter how much someone may disagree with my views, I would have thought I had at least earned the bonafides of plainly saying what I mean and meaning what I say. I’m married to a teacher, and therefore to a member of a teacher union (two of them, in fact). And this is my third consecutive calendar year of making a point on the SDMB of complaining about school reformers for the same basic reason. But you’re going to imply that it’s all disingenuous and not something I truly feel passionate about? Just because you don’t care about it or don’t think it’s important does not mean everyone is the same as you.
Once again, something that was extensively discussed on the podcast. I don’t remember exactly what analogies they used, although it had something to do with physicists and marathon runners I think. But I will just use my own. It revolves around the concept of “necessary but not sufficient”. For sprinting as for many things (including intelligence), this is true both for innate potential, and for environmental influences, cultural norms, and individual effort (or “grit”, although that seems to be a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors). You must have both.
So here’s an analogy. To make a good soufflé, you must be a fairly talented chef who has had a lot of practice and instruction from others. But you also must have a supply of eggs! If you don’t have those, all the practice and work will not magically create a soufflé.
So. West Africans have “eggs”. Jamaicans have “eggs” too. Jamaicans really do something with them that West Africans do not. But Europeans and Asians do not have “eggs” (except for one curious outlier, a French man who can sprint very fast); therefore they are done before they even start.
This is really fucking embarrassing for you. Your proof that one group lacks the eggs and one group lacks the practice IS EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING GODDAMN PROOF.
If X doesn’t win an Olympic medal and is black, X isn’t trying hard enough.
If Y doesn’t win an Olympic medal and is white, Y isn’t talented enough (but is so totally scrappy!)
You are ignoring an important point that we are talking about populations and not individuals. Only a small percentage of West Africans and Jamaicans have the potential for Olympic level performance, regardless of training and nutrition.
In any event, I guess I’m so dense that I’m failing to see what your point is. Spell it out, please?
[ETA: I think what you are still missing in calling them “EXACTLY THE SAME” is that lacking one piece of the puzzle counts you out from the moment of conception, while the other one is still in flux depending on your upbringing and individual interest.]
I am right there with you, but this is going to be politically radioactive for some time before it creeps in through the back door of a gradually expanding notion of what qualifies as a genetic disease.
Certainly not my intention. And before I get into the below discussion, I’ll note that I’m not calling you a racist. I see no indication that you have any malice towards any racial or ethnic group, and I see no reason that you aren’t honestly representing your views on education.
But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think some of your views on race are both incorrect and highly concerning – bad beliefs from bad people is pretty damn common, and pretty normal… but bad beliefs from decent people? That’s much, much more concerning, and since it’s much more correctable, I think it’s worth addressing directly.
I think you think I’m calling you racist. I’m not (see above). Nonetheless, none of these quotes, and neither your delineation of “types of intelligence” nor your praise of other ethnic groups, excuses your assertions in any way whatsoever. I’d say your reliance on stereotypes (you really chose a black jazz musician as your example of a black genius? Really?), which appears to be totally unconscious, only adds to the wrongness and potential for damage of your beliefs on the topic.
Again – do you really think it’s coincidence that you have pride in your ethnic heritage, and you believe that your own ethnic heritage is “on top” in a characteristic (in this case a type of intelligence) that you very clearly place a lot of value on? Do you understand that lots of people, historically and today, have believed that their ethnic group is “on top” in some intrinsic and valuable trait, usually relating to intelligence or moral character? Do you think you’re exempt from the possibility of bias towards your own group?
None of these are relevant in any way to my points. I’ve seen no indication from you that you have malice towards any other ethnic group, and I never stated you did.
I have no issue with criticism of this movement, and it has no bearing on anything I’ve said.
When have I questioned your motivations? When I said your views have “shifted towards white supremacists”, I meant on the biological validity of race, as well as a racial/ethnic hierarchy of intelligence. Your views really do appear to have moved closer to those of David Duke and other white supremacists, which I would hope is a warning sign to you that these views are both incorrect and harmful. It wasn’t a slam on your motivations in any way.
I take you at your word. I just think you’re human. Humans who believe one (or two or three) ethnic or racial group is superior in some fundamental way usually belong to one of those supposedly superior ethnic groups. I don’t think this is coincidental for anyone, including you.
I’ll ask again – do you really think it’s coincidence that the two groups (blacks and Native Americans) treated by far the shittiest in America, up to modern times, are the two groups at the bottom of most outcome statistics?
Why do you believe in these genetic differences in types of intelligence with no evidence? We don’t know what genes are responsible for high intelligence, whether it’s broken into different types or not, so why would you conclude that outcomes now are somehow reflective of a genetic hierarchy when, through history, those outcomes have been all over the place? What’s special about now?
So, again, I’m not attacking your motives. I’m not saying you bear any ill will towards black people or any ethnic group at all. I’m saying that you should strongly consider that your belief in ethnic pride is very heavily influencing your belief in your own group’s superior intelligence, in whatever type or categorization you use. I’m saying that it’s ridiculous for you to conclude that one race or ethnic group has superior genes, on average, for any type of intelligence when we have no idea what those genes are, much less how prevalent they are in different groups.
And I’m still saying that Sam Harris is colossally wrong when he says race is “primarily biological”, and that you should be capable of admitting that Harris really can be wrong, and while he’s a very smart guy, his ego (a very common trait with successful people) might be holding back his ability to call himself out when he makes mistakes.
We certainly have more people who believe race has nothing to do with biology.
Rachel Dolezal proves that. Transsexual? Move over, transracial is in.
I am one of the weirdos that think race is biological. I took a dna test, got around half black, quarter asian, and a fifth middle eastern. But maybe I’m wrong and it had nothing to do with biological markers and it was just a social construct. Same with populations in general, Swedes are just as likely to get sickel cell compared to populations in Africa, since as we all know, race and biology is just a social construct.
People, do you see the insanity and flawed thinking here? Stop being so insecure, most of you are whiter than snow. I’m the one who gets more stigma than you based on perceptions of group differences in aptitude and I’ve come to terms with it and don’t try to do everything in my power to deny the obvious. This does not imply you need to throw your lot in with the alt right and racial separatists. It does not even mean you need to bring the topic up for discussion in polite company, you can ignore it in real life. No one said it was a pleasant topic. But if you are in a position to do research, you better god damn well start funding and focusing on the right areas. If you want stigmas to lessen, it would be useful if the actual measured differences between groups was a lot lower. That will do far more to remove stigmas than trying to assert them away and pretend there are no differences.
Populations aren’t race. No DNA ancestry test says “black”. Sickle cell isn’t a black disease - it’s more common among anyone with ancestry in warm and wet areas, which includes lots and lots of non black populations (and some black populations actually have low instances of sickle cell). So yes, there are white populations with higher rates of sickle cell than some black populations.
We don’t know the genes for high and low intelligence. There are probably hundreds or thousands or more. We don’t know a single one, aside from perhaps a few genetic diseases that cause mental disability, much less their prevalence in different populations.
With this in mind, and considering that through history nearly every group has been on top or on bottom at some point in some place, it’s ludicrous to conclude that one race has better genes for intelligence on average. No, not obvious at all.
Mmm… that’s sort of what I was getting at. Except that West Africans have even more “eggs” than Jamaicans and still make an inferior “soufflé” to their Jamaican cousins. Nothing to do with either Europeans or Asians.
It’s a good question about Rachel Dolezal. How can she be a fraud if there is not even a fuzzy biological boundary of race? And we do all agree she’s a fraud, right?
This is the kind of question you would be able to answer if you spent some time seriously engaging with this issue. Do you want some book recommendations not written by white men who think black people are stupid?
Has there ever been an ideology that rejected objective analysis of nature (AKA science) in favour of dogma that didn’t cause more harm than good because of it?
The stunting of human progress during the middle ages at the hands of the Church, the millions of deaths in the Soviet Union thanks to Lysenkoism, the current damage to the planet by Climate Change denialism, etc, etc…
It’s all rooted in the same toxic soil, ideology trumping reality.
So intelligence has a genetic factor, and that can lead to statistical differences in average intelligence between groups of people, so what? In actual practice the differences are too small and too dependent on other variables to become noticeable in anything but the most extreme ends of the scale; the only ways that can become a problem is if either you use that as a justification to discriminate people (let’s call it the far Right option) or if you try to force equality of outcomes (the far Left option).
Demanding actual genetic evidence for conclusions about genetics is objective analysis. Anyone making such a conclusion already, when we know nothing about what these genes are, much less how prevalent they are in various groups, is rejecting science and objective analysis.
Race is a social construct. This doesn’t mean that it’s entirely arbitrary. One good way of looking at one’s “social race” is, “how am I treated?” And Dolezal is white. Really, really, really white. She looks like a northern Maine housewife with a spray tan. There’s no way anyone mistakes her for actually being black, and thus there’s no way she gets exposed to any of the typical consequences of being black.
And that is the only gene responsible for high end sprinting? No other gene? Just that one?
Plus that doesn’t mean that that one gene, even if it were only that one gene, doesn’t provide a larger proportion of the difference. Assume that the West Africans lack the so-called culture and culture provides 10%. That 10% is still a huge difference in the top end even though it’s only 10%. In other words, you don’t know. Regardless of that cite you don’t know, I don’t know, no one knows what percentage genetics plays or what percentage culture plays. To claim otherwise is bad math or bad intent.
Additionally, the gene, again with the assumption that only one gene makes the difference which I don’t find realistic, can lead to different distribution of sprinting ability that may not be reflected in the top 0.001% of the two populations but can be seen in the mean. The top 0.001% being a function of optimal genetics and environment.
Throw me in the pool as an infant and chase me with a shark and I’m still not beating Michael Phelps after 25 years of that environment.