You are a very dishonest poster. Not once have I claimed genetics determines everything. I have always said genetics plays a role in the development of every portion of an organism. I’d love to see any of you intellectually dishonest people explain how a biological organism can generate a brain or a liver or a toe without genes playing a part.
You understand that IQ scores often go hand in hand with how wealthy or developed a country is: the Flynn effect is strongly seen in countries that have recently seen rapid economic growth.
So on talking about “asian” test scores, for example, you have to be more specific: if we’re talking developing countries or failed states then no, their IQ scores aren’t significantly higher than “others”, but they may be once their economies grow.
You can actually do empirical research on these questions, by doing pilot programs and matching them with controls. But even if you don’t, because you think it takes too long or whatever, these people are pushing these changes in school policies based on what they claim is hard research data, not “common sense and compassion”. (It’s not my common sense, BTW, that failing to suspend teenagers for serious acts of violence, vandalism, etc., does them or their classmates any favors over the long run.)
Yes, even I. (You do realize that I genuinely believe myself to be operating from a place of fairness and compassion, right?)
You and everyone else seem to have avoided my “what if you’re the baddies” question. What if it’s not the fault of teachers and administrators that test scores in so-called “failing schools” don’t rise? Do you think that school profiled in Mother Jones should be punished or closed down?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope, I did, but thanks for showing all what a coward and a poisoner of discussions you are.
*Really, that sketch from comedian David Mitchell makes clear who the baddies are, the Nazis, and indeed the implication there can not be left with no comment. That was just about what I have seen many scientific racists project to the ones that oppose to them.
The point is in humans our behaviour is largely learned, not in our genes.
And anyone with recent european descent should definitely emphasize that aspect, because otherwise, based on our history, we’re sick, sadistic monsters.
Good point, Mijin. Although I would hasten to point out that we are also the people who have done the most to advance the philosophical and legal structures behind civil liberties and human rights. We contain multitudes.
Meanwhile, Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan have rallied to Sam’s defense.
Pinker:
Sullivan:
And of course there is the response to the Vox piece that Klein refused to run, written by Richard Haier, the editor of the scholarly journal Intelligence:
So we come full circle, The OP doing the same misguided maneuver of the original post: ‘you hear this and then discuss… no, I will not point to what was the main point.’ What Could Go Wrong?
And so we can see also that even the defenders of the scientific racists are not as enthusiastic but equivocators X 10, 'never mind that the evidence is iffy, lets continue applying a scientific patina to see if it will stick,** if not in the scientific community**, at least in the current political environment that is so ripe for racists to apply their social “solutions”
Now, I have plenty of experience on other discussions related to science to realize that that means that he is a researcher that is not active in their field anymore. Too many of those in the fringe sciences to count.
As for Andrew Sullivan:
What a great choice to show this has nothing to do with racism!.. Not!
I haven’t “avoided” that question because I never attempted to address that issue. I’m just here for fighting the ignorance on drawing unwarranted inferences about race, genetics and intelligence from racial-group differences in IQ test results. If that particular dispute is now resolved, I’m happy to let the argument over school disciplinary approaches proceed without me.
Just for kicks, I submitted my 23andMe genetic info to a site that looks for markers associated with intelligence. I’m as white as can be: both sides English/Scottish /Irish. I worked as a SW engineer for years, have 12 patents, and had SAT scores in top 5%. Your typical computer nerd.
I started a thread in GD for this link, but I think it fits into this conversation as well:
Notably:
That last part is key. I’ve heard a lot of justification from various “blacks = genetically inferior in intellect” advocates, in past threads, referring to data that shows test scores (and other outcomes) for children of wealthy black families are significantly lower than those of wealthy white families. I think it’s a weak justification anyway (if society treats people unequally based on race, then outcomes are not necessarily going to be equal), but this new data might blow even this out of the water, especially if the test score data looks the same as the income data (hopefully researchers will look at that as well soon). This shows that black girls reach the same incomes (or even slightly higher, in the graph) as white girls raised in families with the same income, though black boys do considerably worse than white boys raised in families with the same income. If black girls, on average, perform just as well (or even slightly better) as white girls raised with the same family income, then it’s hard to see a rational argument that those black girls are inherently inferior in intellect on average. And if black girls are inherently the same (or slightly better) in intellect compared to white girls, then what possible mechanism could render black boys inherently genetically inferior in intellect to white boys, on average?
GIGO, please look into “fair use”. I post long quoteboxes myself, but I put significant effort into snipping everything I possibly can.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s obviously not resolved. Can you at least admit that on this topic, you bend over backward to avoid Ockham’s Razor, as though you think it’s going to cut your jugular?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quite the contrary. Ockham’s Razor would actually favor the **non-**genetic explanation of measured racial differences in IQ test scores.
Namely, since we don’t have any scientific evidence that racial category has a genetic impact on test scores, but we have plenty of evidence that racial category does have a social impact on test scores, the simplest resolution would be to assume that non-genetic social factors account for all the difference.
I don’t advocate making that assumption, because I think it’s stupid to prematurely assert any particular solution to a problem that we still don’t fully understand just because we’re looking for a simple answer. But there’s no question that if we were just looking for the simplest answer, the non-genetic hypothesis would provide a way simpler explanation than the genetic one.