Ok, but the populations with the highest IQ settled in areas where they could not survive the winter without engineering innovations that were unnecessary in Africa.
Are you familiar with the phrase “begging the question”?
Never heard of it. :rolleyes:
But I’m sure it can’t at all be applied to the various rationalizations made as to why, even with otherwise powerful interventions, the black student population’s test scores don’t rise significantly.
Apparently not.
they’re not rationalizations, they’re explanations.
The word “rationalization” would be better applied to one of your “just-so” stories about how white people migrated because of innate curiosity (wat?), and their intelligence was enhanced by the need to survive in the harsh climates (those harsh European climates, lol) that they migrated to. *That’s *a rationalization.
The Inuit have the highest IQs? I did not know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Jews were relatively mildly overrepresented in the NBA when it had de facto limits on black players. Black players now dominate the sport under more or less of a meritocracy to a far greater extent than Jews ever did.
There’s no reason the debate about group genetics has to be limited to averages, either in theory or in practice. When the large under representation of people of black African descent for example in top Silicon Valley technical positions is pointed out, with the implication it must be due to malign social factors that public policy can somehow solve, that’s not dealing with an average. Although it’s just as obvious the literally average person of any background can’t be a Silicon Valley superstar as it is that the literally average person of any background can’t make the NBA.
I realize that a total ‘chips fall where they may’ approach can’t be used in every case where it’s possible group genetics have anything to do with a result. That might in some cases have a little to do with the result, but other more tractable things have much more to do with it. It’s always going to be judgment. But I don’t accept your idea that skewed representation by group among highly gifted individuals never comes under the cloud of something ‘we’ have to fix with govt intervention. Representation by group in the NBA never seriously comes under that cloud nor should it. But some other cases of skews in the highly gifted by group, which we don’t actually understand the reasons for and could also include group genetics in part, which again IMO is hard to avoid as part of the explanation in NBA case*, do come under that cloud sometimes.
*which again is not just ‘top athletes’ and not even just who can score and rebound X and Y, but which white players in their overall game resembled the games of LeBron, MJ, Dr J, or extend that list a few dozen more great black players in the general category of highly athletic/creative guard/fwds in that general size range. Which white players were really like them? Basically none, the limited number of outstanding white NBA players had a different kind of game, though again so did some other great black players. Same is seen in certain positions in football, like the almost complete absence of white NFL defensive backs. When you get down to particular types of players or specialized positions, group genetics seem to be part of the explanation, or it requires mental gymnastics or scoping back out to generalities to get around it. So why would that reason be put out of the question for apparent racial skews in the people who have certain special gifts in other endeavors?
As noted already, you continue to ignore that studies showed that it was just a rationalization made by people full of prejudice.
Also, there is evidence that shows that powerful interventions **do **make a difference.
Like Greece and Italy?
I think it is far harder to survive in the rainforest or in a hot desert than the arctic. Therefore the people with the highest IQ come from the tropics. Game over.
Whereas I see the explanations that black people have suffered under racism, but Hispanic people have not, as tortured rationalizations and the true “just so” story.
One might see each of us as being at loggerheads from across an ideological chasm. But your side is clearly motivated by ideology (and an understandable one), whereas I am being pragmatic. I would prefer it if black kids already scored just as high as everyone else. That would eliminate the anti-union “school reform” movement better than anything. Or if interventions like the one in Freakonomics worked spectacularly, I’d say “OK, awesome: let’s hurry and implement these in every high poverty black school and get this shit taken care of.” Absent all that, I’m hoping that genetic engineering will make the whole problem go away within a few decades.
If there is something at that UNZ link that specifically refers to the study described in Freakonomics, please quote it. I read over a thousand words of it before I got to this part, where the stupid was so strong I knew there was no point in continuing:
Oy. :smack:
Are you even reading the whole thread? I have said at least twice that I endorse the Camden superintendent’s assertion that the extra funding they have gotten for the past 20 years has definitely made a difference, just not in test scores. Which is just the same as the item you are citing there, which talks about improved outcomes in various ways but says nothing about test scores.
It’s a protected class, which kind of makes it a thing. But admittedly, laws don’t always get things right. Do you think disparate impact actions under Title VII should not be a thing?
Oh, we’re trading anecdotes now? Cool, my turn. I am a member of the Triple Nine Society. Only one in twenty of those who are eligible for MENSA membership are also eligible to join TNS (though it sounds like you are among them, congrats). TNS has about two thousand members, and I have seen photos of hundreds of them in snapshots of meetups and Facebook avatars. To date, I have seen just one black face, a young woman’s.
Someone can pipe up if there has been a dramatic change in the climate of East Africa, but when I lived there (due to the altitude) it was neither a hot desert (rarely climbing above the 80s, with rivers and lakes and a rainy season) nor rain forest (try grassy savanna).
Blast, I just wrote a super long reply to Salvor, and then stupidly hit refresh without actually posting it. I guess my ancestors lived it up on the beach.
Anyways. Pleistocene population movements aren’t generally explained by curiosity, or better climates, or wars. It’s generally put down to population pressure. The people who actually started ranging further may not have been randomly selected, but we have no way of knowing how they decided to move further away. They probably weren’t moving all that far anyway. This was a slow process, not analogous to the US’s westward expansion. Oooh, interesting, you guys had me reading up on the Out of Africa hypothesis, and it’s been updated since I was in school! They added the Toba event! Assuming this is correct, the original settler population was tiny, but so was the total human population on Earth. Which makes it even less likely that the settlers had vastly different genes, but does suggest it wasn’t merely population pressure that inspired the move. Or maybe it was because things were so crappy at that point that no where could support many people? Who knows! Prehistory is fun!
Salvor, why does the variation in intelligence suggest that genes are behind it? There’s a lot of variation in human diets, but almost anyone could survive just fine on almost any traditional diet. Also, why would the genes behind such an important trait as intelligence be so variable in the human race, especially considering our overall lack of genetic diversity? Look at another trait that has both a genetic foundation and a cultural expression - language. There are certainly people who, due to genetic abnormalities, are incapable of speech for one reason or another. And speech relies on a number of genes that regulate a wide variety of systems, in our brains and in the forming of our lips, tongues, hyoid bones, and so on. Individuals vary greatly in their ability to use language - compare Shakespeare with Trump. However, there is no known difference in any populations in their ability to use speech. No matter how much jerks may sneer at African American Vernacular or foreign languages, there are no full-blown languages that are objectively inferior to any others.
Also, I’m seeing lots of talk about intelligence and relatively little about what it actually means. IQ tests are hopelessly culture bound and don’t demonstrably prove anything. Even if you show that there’s a correlation between IQ tests and life achievement, you haven’t shown anything but that people who do well in something a culture thinks is important will do well in that culture. Are IQ tests even comprehensively testing the sorts of intelligence our culture prefers? There’s more than just the “regular” intelligence, body intelligence, and musical intelligence that have been mentioned so far. Do we even have an objective definition of intelligence? Even the definitions given for the multiple intelligence theory are culture-bound. Am I going to find the same sorts of groupings logical as a Hopi or an Ainu person? Are we all going to find the same patterns? And, if not, why am I right and not them?
You do know that black people and Hispanic people have had a vastly different history in the US, don’t you? This is not to downplay the racism that Hispanics have had to deal with, but it’s hardly “centuries of enslavement and brutalization, with a thin veneer of ‘maybe you’re kind of human’ laid on top”.
“Hispanic” is not even a race.
As pointed by others, that is what deserves an Oy! :smack:
I was not respoding to the Freakamomicks study, but to your latest say so, of course, as usual you have no good counter for it so you fall for the idea of not getting a joke.
(as an aside: I remember reports that tell us that a good sense of humor is a sign of good psychological health, good news that gene therapy will deal with your condition, not sure about the one where you ignore science.) 
Have YOU?
No really, only a deluded fellow would reach to claim that you agree with the example I gave that make you look like an idiot after you claimed that “even with otherwise powerful interventions, the black student population’s test scores don’t rise significantly.”
So, I contradicted that, you then came here claiming that you gave examples of powerful interventions. And then you said that I was not reading the thread. :rolleyes:
So make up your mind, do the interventions work or they do not?
People were never harmed based on any “objective biological basis.” The populations unnecessarily helped and populations unfortunately harmed by any such considerations would shift, a bit, from the current situation, but the new rules would not be more fair.
The problem is that the discriminatory behavior was based on social constructs, not biology. Substituting biology for the current system does nothing to improve the selection process. There are a lot of people out there who got lumped in with “colored” based on erroneous, (and often deliberately false), decisions by the likes of Dr. Walter Plecker. The “One Drop Rule” actually turned a number of people who had been white (by law) in the 19th century into colored people in the 20th century. How does a DNA test change their history?
LMAO! You win the thread.
But they aren’t *that *variable–it just seems like it when we zoom in. I used to work as a staff member at an “ISL” where two guys lived who had what was then called mental retardation and is now called “intellectual disability” or ID. Their ID was severe enough that they were judged by the state as being incapable of handling their own affairs or spending any time completely unsupervised. But they did not need help bathing or using the bathroom, they could carry on perfectly reasonable conversations with you, and could read at least basic texts. That’s smarter (in those areas) than any creature on Earth, perhaps the universe, as of a few hundred thousand years ago, a blip in time. Yet they were pretty far on the left end of the “bell curve”. Small differences make a big difference because of the way we have organized human civilization.
We could endlessly parse “objectively”, but I do believe some languages are inferior to others (or, more precisely, they have various strengths and weaknesses and which is better depends on how you weight those). And I’m not necessarily tipping the scale to my own, or to the one used by those with the highest IQ. I agree that sneering at AAVE is jerky. My targets are elsewhere.
Chinese calligraphy is beautiful, but extremely inefficient with a steep learning curve. And the lack of past or future tenses makes it impoverished, kind of “telegraphic” or “Tarzan/Tonto” speech. (I honestly don’t see how you can express yourself carefully and precisely without not just basic past and future tenses, but others like pluperfect and future conditional.)
English also is inefficient, with too many synonyms and ridiculously random spelling/phonics. But it does have the advantage of grammar that is not as complicated as the otherwise elegant Romance languages.
Russian is good, with its clear, precise orthography and its elimination of unnecessary words like articles and the present tense of “to be”. But I’m not so sure declension is a great idea. I’m very sure it’s not a good idea to have 15 cases, as Finnish does. (Jesus.)
Excellent questions.
We must organize and divide; It’s the human thing to do. Let’s just do it better and give everyone something to feel good about. Taking a cue from “multiple intelligences” arguments and also nerds, we should measure for Strength, Stamina, Agility, Intelligence and Charisma. Each race also gets a fun bonus pending confirmation of widely held assumptions.
White People: +Organized Violence
Black People: +Expression
Yellow People: +Record Keeping
Brown People: +Endurance
Bonuses for multi-racing and more!
In Colorado where I used to live you’d get like 10-12" of rain per year. So there’s a lot of Sun, but the snowmelt fed a lot of water into the rivers. Sometimes you’d have fog, but no more than once per year. There’d be hail too and sometimes tornados.
You’re not being pragmatic, you’re just ignoring the scientific evidence because it contradicts your world view. Basically you’re a slightly different flavor of anti-vaxxer.
:smack:
We’re having a discussion here, please try to keep up. Race, the social construct, obviously is a thing that exists. Race, as in genetic races of human beings that are in any way sensible genetic subdivisions, do not. This is not a hard concept to wrap your head around. People can visibly see black skin. They can’t see genes.