Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame)

[Salvor]

@iiandyiiii

It’s very clear to me and many others, and I think the data overwhelmingly supports this, that black people in the US face very significant obstacles in every level of achievement as compared to most other groups. I don’t know about assuming that test scores must be equal, but I think policies should keep the data in mind that strongly suggests that racism is still a real force in our society, and opportunity really isn’t yet equal.

Are you conceding that it’s not reasonable to claim, without actual genetic data, that white (or European) people have superior genes for intelligence, on average, as compared to black (or sub-Saharan African) people?

There is genetic data, you just don’t accept it.

Intelligence genes discovered by scientists

The effects of any single gene is small, but they clearly can add up to something larger. And unless you want to assert that all populations on the earth have identical frequencies of allele combinations that lead to greater intelligence (absurd) then you ought to see this as evidence of a genetic basis for some of the differentials we see.

But you and others here are not neutral parties, you are liberally minded people with one difference with myself. You let your preferences for reality to cloud your expectations.

Liberals tend to have an external locus of control, and so of course people like you and others like to focus on aspects like differential treatment in society (EXTERNAL) like lingering racism, differential effects of wealth over generations, etc etc

Conservatives like to focus on internal measures of control like behavior, but they are more open to genetic differences as well, they just seem less fucks if some individuals do worse because of it.
But ever present resistance to any genetic influences is not based on some neutral reading of the data, it’s based on your preferences about the external world and its influences being the key in differentials. I think you and others are intellectual cowards, your grade your expectations on a curve based on what you’d prefer.
Turn your gaze away from genetic differences, what about these studies that show some environmental links here here and here. Smoke smoke and more smoke, so clearly we can’t **“know” **out to a hundred decimal places if genetic differences are REALLY the cause of the persistent difference in scores and outcomes we see. The gaps have narrowed after all. Not all the way, but never mind, (inconvenient that, ignore it, not evidence of non environmental influence, more environment talk, must be that, I NEED it to be that !!!).

I do not need it to be that. I want it to be that, and I see you, and others who throw smoke up on these issues as roadblocks to acknowledgement of reality, and working towards fixes. If I am wrong, we still focus on environmental improvements and the genetic areas will turn out to be a bust.

If you are wrong, and your massive focus on environmental factors over everything else will NOT FIX THE GOD DAMN PROBLEM of gaps in outcomes. Do you GET that? Do you not care?

I want these gaps closed or VASTLY narrowed, I want to see JUST as many black people in stem fields as any other group based on their percentages in the larger society. That, more than any of your USELESS assertions, will diminish stigmas against black people and their capability as a group, actually SEEING NO difference in society relating to achievement vs other groups.

But we don’t know for sure, we don’t have absolute proof, ignore the fact that Nigerians that are even blacker than American Blacks do much better academically. Still black, blacker than most of us American blacks. But perhaps that population has some genetic difference compared to the rest of the black population in the US due to a combination of the selections of immgiration and coming from certain tribes that are more elite to begin with?

LA LA LA LA (fingers in ears) LA LA LA LA, society, environment is the driver to focus on.
Failures. Useless. Does nothing to help a damn soul, just want to feel good and put a warm blanket around ones ideological assumptions. These people are as bad as Trump voters.

[tomndebb]

@SlackerInc

This looks like a good argument in isolation; but if this is the standard you are going to hew to, you will have to throw out any civil rights enforcement based on protected classes (for race-based classes) or disparate impact (based on race). Right? If you don’t think so, I’ll be very interested to see how you square this circle. :dubious:

While biological race in humans is predicated on beliefs that originated in errors of previous centuries, people continue to act on those beliefs. In order to protect people from discriminatory actions, we rely on the societally created definitions, not on biology. The societally created definitions are based on appearances that do exist, but which result in believers in “race” to lump together such disparate groups as Western Africans, Khoi-San, and Australian aboriginal peoples–people who were never lumped together, even by the race promoting biologists of yesteryear.
If some twit chooses to take oppressive actions against people based on appearance, then it behooves the government to use the erroneous categories that the twit will recognize in order to protect the groups so oppressed.

Not only is my claim correct “in isolation,” it is correct.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

Yet Hispanic kids were helped markedly by the Freakonomics intervention, while black kids were not (I just don’t believe you would have predicted this). Male same-sex couples, regardless of race and living in major metro areas, are significantly less likely to be poor than are different-sex couples in those metros. Women have gone in just the past few decades from much less likely to have advanced degrees to much more likely. Young women in urban metros earn more than their male peers. These are all groups that faced a sickening level of discrimination in the very recent past (not that it’s all gone). Just take a look at Mad Men.

So are women and gay men somehow more resilient than African Americans (leaving aside the obvious intersectionalism)? Even though we got our first black president before our first female or (openly) gay president? (Doesn’t that black president go a long way in counteracting the “signs and signals” you are talking about?)

And your explanation seems especially strained as it pertains to affluent black families. These are people who have already made it despite the headwinds you are referring to. And very few of them have won the lottery or made it big in entertainment or sports. We’re talking mostly about black professionals and their kids.

I don’t think you are getting all of my hypothesis. Each of these subtle set of signals that kids get will be different depending on their own background – and it won’t be the same in intensity or character for every group. Not all groups are subtly told by society that they’re stupid, aggressive, and dangerous – black boys get that signal by far the strongest, if my hypothesis is correct. That’s going to lead to different outcomes than a signal that they’re weak and flighty (as girls might receive), or an ever-weakening signal that they’re going against God’s plan (as LGBTQ kids might receive). Wealth might mitigate these signals to some level, but they’ll still be present and strong, especially in the case of such a long-standing and overwhelmingly discriminatory history as oppression against black people. Individual examples like Obama don’t say anything to the larger picture – he had a rather unique upbringing, for one thing, and extraordinary talent can always overcome these obstacles, no matter how big they are.

Anti-black (and probably anti-Native-American) discrimination really is a special case in American history. Through the centuries, Americans and American society really has devoted an utterly enormous amount of resources, blood, sweat, effort, time, legislation, cultural practices, etc., towards white supremacy over black people and Native American people. It’s orders of magnitude different than oppression towards other groups, even as significant as those have been. Do you really think it’s coincidence that these two groups, about as genetically distant from another as two populations can be, are the two groups that are at the very bottom of most achievement statistics? Did America just happen to pick most on the two stupidest groups of people in the world, or is it the reverse – America picked on Native Americans a ton because they were in the way, and black people a ton because they were useful as slave labor, and this has shaped society such that they face the greatest obstacles for success?

[GIGObuster]

Well, **Salvor **just did brand himself as a “not even wrong” ignorant.

I’ll let somebody else explain to him that that is not what **iiandyiiii ** is talking about. **Nowhere **on the cited article there is any mention of races having different genes for intelligence.

[SlackerInc]

On what basis do you determine whether someone belongs to a protected class?

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

On what basis do you determine whether someone belongs to a protected class?

It is not automatic, and takes time, but that is decided when people that were not protected are being mistreated just for their race and color as well as national origin, sex, or religion.

And no, they did not imagine why things like the civil rights act was needed:

http://www.ebony.com/black-history/the-destruction-of-black-wall-street-405

Today marks ninety-two years since as many as 300 African Americans lost their lives and more than 9,000 were left homeless when the small town was attacked, looted and literally burned to the ground beginning in 1921. It’s impossible, however, to realize what was lost in Greenwood, which was affectionately known as “Black Wall Street.”

The Greenwood community seems almost imagined when we examine it through a historical lens. The oil booms of the early 1900’s had many moving to Tulsa for a shot at quick economic gains and high life, and African Americans hoped to prosper from the new industry as well. Tulsa, like many cities and towns throughout the US, was hostilely segregated, with African Americans settling into the northern region of the city. As we often saw before integration, Blacks in the area created entrepreneurial opportunities for themselves, which housed an impressive business center that included banks, hotels, cafes, clothiers, movie theaters, and contemporary homes. Greenwood residents enjoyed many luxuries that their White neighbors did not, including indoor plumbing and a remarkable school system that superiorly educated Black children.

It was pure envy, and a vow to put progressive, high achieving African Americans in their place that would cause the demise of the Black Mecca many called “Little Africa”, and its destruction began the way much terrorism, violence and dispossession against African Americans did during that era. A young White woman accused a young Black man of attempted sexual assault, which gave local mobs and White men acting as police just cause to invade the unsuspecting community. On the malevolent and horrifying attack, Linda Christenson writes the following:

“The term “race riot” does not adequately describe the events of May 31—June 1, 1921 in Greenwood… In fact, the term itself implies that both blacks and whites might be equally to blame for the lawlessness and violence. The historical record documents a sustained and murderous assault on black lives and property. This assault was met by a brave but unsuccessful armed defense of their community by some black World War I veterans and others.

[iiandyiiii]

@Salvor

There is genetic data, you just don’t accept it.

Intelligence genes discovered by scientists
The effects of any single gene is small, but they clearly can add up to something larger. And unless you want to assert that all populations on the earth have identical frequencies of allele combinations that lead to greater intelligence (absurd) then you ought to see this as evidence of a genetic basis for some of the differentials we see.

But you and others here are not neutral parties, you are liberally minded people with one difference with myself. You let your preferences for reality to cloud your expectations.

Liberals tend to have an external locus of control, and so of course people like you and others like to focus on aspects like differential treatment in society (EXTERNAL) like lingering racism, differential effects of wealth over generations, etc etc

Conservatives like to focus on internal measures of control like behavior, but they are more open to genetic differences as well, they just seem less fucks if some individuals do worse because of it.
But ever present resistance to any genetic influences is not based on some neutral reading of the data, it’s based on your preferences about the external world and its influences being the key in differentials. I think you and others are intellectual cowards, your grade your expectations on a curve based on what you’d prefer.
Turn your gaze away from genetic differences, what about these studies that show some environmental links here here and here. Smoke smoke and more smoke, so clearly we can’t **“know” **out to a hundred decimal places if genetic differences are REALLY the cause of the persistent difference in scores and outcomes we see. The gaps have narrowed after all. Not all the way, but never mind, (inconvenient that, ignore it, not evidence of non environmental influence, more environment talk, must be that, I NEED it to be that !!!).

I do not need it to be that. I want it to be that, and I see you, and others who throw smoke up on these issues as roadblocks to acknowledgement of reality, and working towards fixes. If I am wrong, we still focus on environmental improvements and the genetic areas will turn out to be a bust.

If you are wrong, and your massive focus on environmental factors over everything else will NOT FIX THE GOD DAMN PROBLEM of gaps in outcomes. Do you GET that? Do you not care?

I want these gaps closed or VASTLY narrowed, I want to see JUST as many black people in stem fields as any other group based on their percentages in the larger society. That, more than any of your USELESS assertions, will diminish stigmas against black people and their capability as a group, actually SEEING NO difference in society relating to achievement vs other groups.

But we don’t know for sure, we don’t have absolute proof, ignore the fact that Nigerians that are even blacker than American Blacks do much better academically. Still black, blacker than most of us American blacks. But perhaps that population has some genetic difference compared to the rest of the black population in the US due to a combination of the selections of immgiration and coming from certain tribes that are more elite to begin with?

LA LA LA LA (fingers in ears) LA LA LA LA, society, environment is the driver to focus on.
Failures. Useless. Does nothing to help a damn soul, just want to feel good and put a warm blanket around ones ideological assumptions. These people are as bad as Trump voters.

Your analysis of my motives and thinking is piss-poor. You act as though I don’t want to see research done – I welcome research. In fact, I’ve pointed out specific research that refutes your hypothesis – the Scarr study shows that the amount of African ancestry within black children has no correlation to their IQ test scores. Less-African black people score the same as more African black people, according to this study. Maybe it’s not perfect, but I’d welcome more such studies. I want to get to the truth and help people just as much as you do – and unlike you, I’m not making assumptions, and I’m not ignoring studies. I actually don’t know the answer. You seem to be certain, despite not knowing any (but maybe a few) of the genes, and not knowing who actually has these genes.

Your cite says nothing about who actually has these genes – where they’re more or less prevalent. It does nothing to refute anything I’ve said. I’ve never denied that genetics can influence intelligence. I’ve never denied that different people have different genes. I’ve never denied that different groups might have different prevalence for various genes and gene sets.

You’re taking outcomes NOW, not outcomes 50 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 500 years in the future, but NOW – and insisting, without knowing the actual prevalence of these genes, or even what most of these genes are, that these outcomes NOW reflect the genetic differences between populations. Not outcomes in the past, which were different, but outcomes NOW. Why is now so perfectly special? Why not tomorrow? Why not 500 years from now? Or better yet, why not when we actually know all the genes for intelligence, and we know all these genes’ prevalence in different groups. My assertions and hypothesis do nothing to harm progress towards this goal – I welcome such research. If the findings in the future refute the Scarr study, and my hypothesis, that will be very useful information. But why are you insisting we know for certain what those findings will be? You’re the certain one, without data. I’m not certain about anything.

[SlackerInc]

If one of Dolezal’s 32 great-great-grandparents was of 100% (90+%, whatever) sub-Saharan African ancestry, but she had no other such ancestors within the past several thousand years, would she be in a protected class?

[tomndebb]

@SlackerInc

If one of Dolezal’s 32 great-great-grandparents was of 100% (90+%, whatever) sub-Saharan African ancestry, but she had no other such ancestors within the past several thousand years, would she be in a protected class?

Probably not. She does not have the appearance of anyone with the background of a protected class and she was not raised in a black neighborhood where she might have actually been discriminated against (depending on her appearance).

Where do you think you are going with this? There are quite a few people who had enough European ancestry to pass as white. I do not recall anyone going out of there way to expose them or any of them trying, now, to claim scholarships or take advantage of anti-discrimination laws.
If you are saying that the situation has a lot of fuzzy boundaries and that bad decisions are made on that basis, I doubt that anyone would disagree with you. If you are trying to say that nothing should occur without 100% scientific certainty, I will note that human society does not work that way in any instance (noticed any gender discussions in statehouses or courts, lately?), and that the efforts to address inequalities are simply efforts that generally work, buy occasionally fail.

[SlackerInc]

@tomndebb

Probably not.

What if she were raised by her grandmother (1/8th of whose ancestry would be sub-Saharan African), who often told her bedtime stories about the stories *her *grandmother (who had 50% sub-Saharan African ancestry) used to tell *her *about childhood memories of her whole family getting freed from slavery by advancing Union troops?

@tomndebb

She does not have the appearance of anyone with the background of a protected class

You keep saying this (or maybe it was someone else earlier), but I linked to a photo where (to me at least) she does look like a light-skinned African American woman; and clearly the people who elected her to head a regional chapter of the NAACP, and the university that hired her to teach “Africana Studies” classes, thought she did have that appearance.

@tomndebb

and she was not raised in a black neighborhood

I don’t know what kind of neighborhood she grew up in, but I do know she had a couple black (adopted) siblings, and was married to a black man.

@tomndebb

Where do you think you are going with this?

That I support protected classes, as well as supporting reparations for slavery. But I think it should be decided on an objective biological basis, now that we have the technology to do so. Decide on some threshold (12.5%, the old “octaroon”?) of sub-Saharan African ancestry, and arbitrary though it will always be whatever standard you pick, deny a claim if someone is at 12.49%. But you can’t approach it that way if you stubbornly insist being “black” or “African American” is entirely a social construct.

[wonky]

People get confused because the term “protected class” makes them think that some people are protected and some are not. We all belong to protected classes. The protected classes include (with some variation) race, sex, color, national origin, religion, familial status, age, citizenship, etc.

You cannot illegally discriminate against someone for being black. You also cannot discriminate against them for being white. The same rules apply. Their race is not an allowable basis for discrimination.

So yes, Rachel Dolezal is a member of a protected class. It is impossible not to be.

[SlackerInc]

@jsgoddess

So yes, Rachel Dolezal is a member of a protected class. It is impossible not to be.

This is highly disingenuous. In my post, I said the following:

*f this is the standard you are going to hew to, you will have to throw out any civil rights enforcement based on protected classes (for race-based classes) or disparate impact (based on race).

Following the links (the first to archive.gov, the second to a legal dictionary), you get the following:

Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII’s protected classes.

Since I clearly referred to “civil rights *enforcement *based on protected classes”, I’m going to call you on this and ask you to cite examples of when a Title VII lawsuit filed on behalf of a straight white mainline Protestant man of northern European ancestry has ever succeeded.

Furthermore, at the glossary from the first link there is also the following definition:

Under Represented: Inadequately represented in the work force of a particular activity. This term is used to describe the extent to which women and minorities are represented in particular grade levels and job categories. The percentage of women and minorities in the labor market is used as a standard to determine under representation. For example, suppose there are 100 GS-12’s at an agency; three of them or 3% are black. However, the black labor market for GS-12 positions at that particular activity is 15%. In this case, blacks are under represented at the GS -12 level.

If there is no objective standard for race, how on earth could a precise percentage ever be established or litigated?

[wonky]

@SlackerInc

This is highly disingenuous.

I was going to explain it again, but life is too fucking short. You’re a ridiculous person. I’m cringing every time I read one of your posts, so I think I’ll stop doing that.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@jsgoddess

People get confused because the term “protected class” makes them think that some people are protected and some are not. We all belong to protected classes. The protected classes include (with some variation) race, sex, color, national origin, religion, familial status, age, citizenship, etc.

You cannot illegally discriminate against someone for being black. You also cannot discriminate against them for being white. The same rules apply. Their race is not an allowable basis for discrimination.

So yes, Rachel Dolezal is a member of a protected class. It is impossible not to be.

Quoted because clearly it wasn’t read the first time, and really, it’s all that’s required as a response to SlackerInc’s post.

[SlackerInc]

LOL

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Salvor

There is genetic data, you just don’t accept it.

Intelligence genes discovered by scientists
The effects of any single gene is small, but they clearly can add up to something larger. And unless you want to assert that all populations on the earth have identical frequencies of allele combinations that lead to greater intelligence (absurd) then you ought to see this as evidence of a genetic basis for some of the differentials we see.

Okay, so now we have a gene frequency which might have something to do with intelligence. Great. How do we go about establishing that any given population has that particular gene expression? And don’t say “look at their IQ scores”, because if we wanted to correlate certain genes with IQ scores, we could just scoop up everyone who exhibits those genes and treat them like shit to ensure they don’t get too “uppity”, and boom, a population whose average IQ is way below the norm.

But ever present resistance to any genetic influences is not based on some neutral reading of the data, it’s based on your preferences about the external world and its influences being the key in differentials. I think you and others are intellectual cowards, your grade your expectations on a curve based on what you’d prefer.

Nobody here is rejecting that IQ could have a genetic component. What we’re rejecting is the facile notion that this correlates well with race. Because race isn’t even a thing in genetics.

Turn your gaze away from genetic differences, what about these studies that show some environmental links here here and here. Smoke smoke and more smoke, so clearly we can’t **“know” **out to a hundred decimal places if genetic differences are REALLY the cause of the persistent difference in scores and outcomes we see. The gaps have narrowed after all. Not all the way, but never mind, (inconvenient that, ignore it, not evidence of non environmental influence, more environment talk, must be that, I NEED it to be that !!!).

Dude, we know that environmental factors matter.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Turkheimer_et_al___2003_.pdf <- Study examining socioeconomic factors in IQ heritability
Flynn effect - Wikipedia <- The Flynn Effect, which really should be enough all on its own
The Impact of Minority Stress on Mental Health and Substance Use Among Sexual Minority Women - PMC <- Minority stress can cause mental disorders, which don’t exactly do wonders for one’s IQ

The fact is, we know that environmental factors can play a huge role in a person’s IQ. We know that many of the environmental factors one would expect to play a role with IQ correlate quite well with race, caused by systemic racism that continues to this day.

What we don’t know is whether genetic factors for IQ correlate with race. Because that’s never been proven. Only ever asserted. And race still isn’t a fucking thing.

[Salvor]

@GIGObuster

Well, **Salvor **just did brand himself as a “not even wrong” ignorant.

I’ll let somebody else explain to him that that is not what **iiandyiiii ** is talking about. **Nowhere **on the cited article there is any mention of races having different genes for intelligence.

I am assuming too much. Assuming people can follow a basic thread. Like hearing that a water reservoir burst on the top of a mountain and expecting the residents below to realize that implies that their homes at the base of the mountain might get flooded. You see, there is this thing called gravity, and water flows downward. Did I need to write those steps out? I guess I need to on this topic since people who I know know better turn their brains off. I feel like I am trying to lead a horse ever closer to the edge of a cliff, or at least what they perceive is the edge of a cliff so they start to resist being moved in that direction under their own power and literally need to be dragged.

I need to explain why the existence of genes that contribute to higher or lower intelligence is **reasonable **evidence to me that group differences exist. Those genes, just like all other genes, are heritable. And unless the frequency of beneficial genes for intelligence remain constant across both individuals and populations, we ought to expect to see some differentials that were based on the combination of those genes. Perhaps a hundred genes influence intelligence in a positive direction, and another 50 in the negative direction, what happens to a child that has a higher frequency of the genes that influence intelligence in a positive direction? Is that child more likely or less likely to pass on genes that confer higher intelligence compared to a kid that had fewer of the high iq genes and more of the low iq genes? Over tens of thousands of years of human migration and separation, do any of you expect that the allele frequency of genes that contribute to intelligence to stay constant?

Did other complex traits do that like height? Do the Dinka people have the same height as pygmy people? And if not, is that more than likely based on different frequencies of alleles that contribute to height in addition to environmental factors?
I feel like I’m being too long winded here, but this is pretty basic stuff. Traits vary, and over time they can have clusters of higher or lower concentrations in different populations, even if there was no positive selection for a trait, just through random chance and separation you could easily get some population differences with enough time. It is freakishly unlikely in my mind to expect complex traits that vary based in part on genetics, to be identical across all populations. Because different populations have different gene combinations, otherwise they would be indistinguishable genetically from other groups.

[random6x7]

@Salvor

I feel like I’m being too long winded here, but this is pretty basic stuff. Traits vary, and over time they can have clusters of higher or lower concentrations in different populations, even if there was no positive selection for a trait, just through random chance and separation you could easily get some population differences with enough time. It is freakishly unlikely in my mind to expect complex traits that vary based in part on genetics, to be identical across all populations. Because different populations have different gene combinations, otherwise they would be indistinguishable genetically from other groups.

Assuming that the various genes do have as much of an effect as you think, and that the exact gene combos do vary in populations that at least somewhat overlap with race categories (two huge assumptions), you still haven’t proven that the races have different intelligence levels. Birds, bats, and bees all have different genes that allow them to fly, but they all do it.

Also, not convinced that different populations would differ all that much in intelligence genes anyway. Intelligence is the major marker for us - why would that be subject to more selection pressure than, say, walking bipedally? Besides, we are a very young species that experienced a major population bottleneck less than 100k years ago. We are genetically undiverse, and our major differences tend to be pretty shallow. Height is going to be much easier to change than something as amorphous and complex as intelligence.

[mr.jp]

@Evil_Economist

In the case of African v. European, we have an actual scientific study showing no measurable relationship between percentage of African heritage and average IQ.

Cite?

[Evil_Economist]

@mr.jp

Cite?

The study has already been cited repeatedly in this thread. In fact, it gets cited repeatedly in every thread where intelligence and IQ are “debated”.