You can claim *you *would never mistake her for actually being black (although even that is dubious, since it’s all based on 20/20 hindsight). I think I would have taken her as mixed race and identifying as African American based on how she looks here. But I also don’t know, because like most people, I never heard of her until she was outed by her parents.
From a local TV station’s report when the controversy hit (EWU is Eastern Washington University):
So she got a degree from a HBCU, taught a bunch of “Africana Studies” courses at a state university, and was elected to lead the local branch of the NAACP. But “there’s no way anyone mistakes her for actually being black”? Sure you don’t want to take another pass at that one? :dubious:
OK, I appreciate that. Thank you for clearing the air. I had similarly seen you as more honorable than many others who are coming at me, so I was taken by surprise and even hurt by what I apparently incorrectly perceived as insinuations of bigotry.
I don’t think you really understand how much I respect jazz greats though. I was not using hyperbole to say they are on a genius level with Nobel prize winners in physics. I would trade in my math and verbal aptitude (assuming I can still be in the normal range) to be able to blow (and improvise) like Coltrane.
Thanks. I hope you’ll take the time and respond to the rest of that post.
This is fine, but it doesn’t alter any of my previous criticism. That some jazz greats are black, and relatively fewer great scientists are black, isn’t an indication of genetic potential of black people for various types of aptitudes. Society could very well be subtly funneling people towards and away certain professions and fields based on things like race, as it very clearly has in the past. We have no information on the genes for these various aptitudes, much less the prevalence of these genes in various groups, and therefore we’ve no data to make any conclusion about genetic potential for these aptitudes in different populations.
I’ll tell you what, you come up with an explanation of how traits are passed on from parents to children without the intervention of genes and I’ll buy you the plane ticket to Stockholm when you go there to pick your Nobel Prize.
This doesn’t have anything to do with my points. Genes can have effects on humans. Different people have different genes. That doesn’t mean that we know for a fact that some groups have superior genes for intelligence.
Yep, like pointed many, many times before that is a bit that “scientific”* racists just keep on ignoring pathologically.
**Must **be their genes…
And once again, these guys really can not tell that one can not pick and choose science, they are really projecting when they find that indeed the mainstream does not appreciate the likes of Murray and others; and so they have to fall into their ignorance and project it into the ones opposed to them.
In line with previous findings, the matriline of Jamaica is almost entirely of West African descent.
…
The great majority of the profiles observed in Jamaica could be allocated to L sub-Saharan haplogroups (97.5%), a result echoing past studies showing very few non-African maternal lineages in Jamaica.
Let’s see, thinking that intelligence is an inheritable trait, that would naturally lead to some populations having differences in average IQ but this effect would be negligible on the face of environmental factors, and so no group should be discriminated on that basis makes me a racist.
Like I said before you love to make assumptions about other people, you just paint yourself as an idiot in the process.
Your method for assigning who has the most “eggs” (genes) seems to be based on the race/ethnicities who are among the highest performers. In doing this, you downplay environmental factors…but only when it goes against your argument.
Let’s go back to the Jamaicans. Members of this ethnic group are disproportionately represented among people who have genes that favor sprinting (I actually don’t know this is true; this is just supposition). At the same time, we see that Jamaicans are disproportionately represented among Olympic winners.
But when we look at West African tribes that sourced the Jamaican population, these people appear to be even more overrepresented among those with sprint genes. And yet they are not overrepresented among Olympic winners.
How should we square these results? You seem to say the reason West Africans aren’t Olympic winners is obviously the result of their environment, because clearly they have the right genetics. Jamaicans are putting resources in churning our Olympic winners while those West Africans have other fish to fry. Like keeping their kids from getting malaria for the 11th time. Or something.
So why doesn’t this conclusion extend to all disparities that we see? At this time, we have no evidence that “smart genes” distributed differentally across racial or ethnic lines. In the absence of such evidence, wouldn’t the safest conclusion be that environmental factors account for the disparities we see?
The Jamaican example shows how quickly you’re willing to make convenient exceptions to the “genetics account for performance superiority” hypothesis when it suits you.
I’m not calling anyone in this thread a racist. But if you think we can conclude that a certain group has superior or inferior genes for intelligence without knowing what these genes are, much less how prevalent they are, then I’ll call you bad at understanding science. It’s a hypothesis – but until we have actual data on these genes and who has them, then that’s all it is.
Knowing how, not only the mainstream, but even the groups that bust ignorance for a living are not amused with Murray and others… I have more than just a guess when I tell you that the one doing the painting is you, and to yourself.
If you genuinely believe that the results would be negligible when other factors are in play, then you are saying you don’t have the experimental data to back up your idea. And thus you have no way to determine which group, if any, has better intelligence genes.
The one thing we can be quite sure of is that it’s not divided along racial lines, for the simple reason that races are not a genetic construct.
When you bring up these ideas in the context of “scientific racism,” yeah, people are gonna assume you promote racist conclusions. Because that’s how this sort of stuff is actually used.
If you’re saying “intelligence is at least partly genetically determined, but we don’t know how this effects different subpopulations” then you’re not really saying anything to disagree with. That is the mainstream.
The problem is when you try to use “evidence” when you admit the results are negligible. Negligible means that any differences are so small that they don’t actually affect anything. And, if nothing is affected, you can’t have evidence.
BTW **Ale **does not know how to read, like **iiandyiiii **I have not denied that there can be a part of intelligence that is an inheritable trait. That does not exclude what we said indeed. Of course one of the points I made is that Murray and others use scientific fig leafs that they use to pretend that their agenda is just of a scientific nature.
They seem to willfully ignore that modern pseudo scientists **do **grab bits of science to sound plausible to others.
The most impressive polymath of the modern world can say that the moon landings were filmed in the Arizona desert, that the World Trade Center was brought down by preplanted explosive charges, that vaccines cause autism, etc etc ad nauseam, without making any of these assertions any more true.
(Oh, and you don’t get to counter “Sam Harris never said any of that stuff” without having listened to each and every word he’s ever uttered. You set that standard in the OP, you’re going to be held to it yourself.)
This is a particularly ridiculous example, even by the standards you’ve set on this thread.
I’m sure that, for example, if the perpetrators of the existing live-action Dr. Seuss movies somehow convinced the executors of his estate to let them try again, there would be many perfectly justified declarations to the effect of “I’m not gonna waste my time watching that!”
According to your logic hereditary conditions for which a gene or genes causing them have not yet been found are not real.
According to your logic Darwin was wrong until the exact mechanism through which traits were inherited was discovered.
And so on and so forth.
It’s beyond dispute that there is a strong element of heredity in intelligence, this can only be mediated through genes, if you want to call this a hypothesis, as I said, you will need to come up with a new theory of on how traits are passed down that doesn’t involve genes.
We know for a fact that there are marked variations in traits among population groups across the world and this too is determined by genes.
Then, for you to be right and me to be wrong you need to describe the mechanism through which different populations somehow manage to maintain an exact parity between IQ levels.
I don’t believe such mechanism exists, what magic would had been at play play to keep Andeans, Australian Aboriginals and Ainus at the exact same level?
There is going to be variation, that’s how genetics work; just declaring that there is no intelligence variations among populations is dogma, the exact opposite of science.
This is why I mentioned that people that oppose this notion are taking a page from the anti-evolution camp, I see the argument of well, yes, intelligence has a hereditary component but surely this can’t lead to a statistically significant difference between populations! as being equivalent to the Creationist dodge of conceding “micro” evolution but rejecting it can lead to “macro” evolution.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, either you reject the notion that intelligence has a significant hereditary component or you recognize that by that mechanism distinct populations will have different baseline IQ levels.
You may argue how much difference there may be and what, if anything should be done about it, but that’s a different matter.
No. You’re still not understanding my logic, apparently. You’re saying “Group X has superior genes for intelligence to group Y, on average”, without knowing what those genes are, much less how prevalent they are in groups X and Y. How could you possibly know this? How could you know that test score differences are caused by genes rather than culture, society, education, racism, or a million other factors, if you don’t actually know what the genes are? A very few of these might be able to be corrected for, experimentally, to some degree, but the vast majority have not been so far, and even the corrections tried so far aren’t perfect.
I’m not calling this part a hypothesis. This doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said.
This also doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said, though we don’t know for a fact that every single human characteristic necessarily varies genetically between all population groups. If there are genes for sense of humor, we don’t know for a fact if one group has “better” funny genes than another. If there are genes for thumb flexibility, we don’t know for a fact if one group has better thumb flexibility genes than another. And so on. There are a nigh-infinite number of human characteristics, and we only know the genes and variations for a very small number of them, and intelligence ain’t one of these.
I’ve never claimed that “there is no intelligence variations among populations”.
None of this has any relevance to anything I’ve said. It doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said.
You’ve presented no evidence that any particular group has superior genes for intelligence to any other. Black people might very well have the best brain genes and we wouldn’t know it, if racism is significant enough. Or maybe the Inuit. Or the San bushmen. Or Tibetans. Or all the descendants of my grandfather. Or a million other groupings. Or maybe, since intelligence is so critical to human survival and reproduction, and no human groups are truly isolated, the best brain genes have distributed themselves among every group, or almost every group, or most groups, etc. Certainly Africans, Asians, and Europeans have been exchanging genes for thousands of years and more. I’m not discounting any of these possibilities, or others, since we don’t know the genes.
Maybe some groups have superior genetics for various traits, including intelligence. I’ve never denied this possibility. But until we know all the genes for those traits, and how prevalent they are in different populations, we won’t be able to conclude this about any particular groups. And it still boggles my mind why so many people want to pretend science can state with confidence that any particular identified group has superior genes for intelligence than any other when we don’t know what those genes are.
