First, thanks for that andros, and the early support.
And I have to add that as shown SlackerInc can not deal even with shortened quotes, or simpler sentences. I do have issues with grammar, but I try to improve. But then SI then tries stupidly to pretend that the people I quoted are also hard to understand.
Oh well, when Murray and their ilk showed to be spectacularly wrong about Hispanics that already demonstrated how stupid it was to try to polish that turd, but some just can’t let go.
Well, he lacks brilliance, so his other options is bullshit. It’s a good thing for him this isn’t a scratch and sniff board. Good thing for us too.
What exactly does “willing to endorse more generally the prospects” mean, and exactly which experts are stating exactly what views that you’re lumping under that description? Your link to a (very tentative) discussion of, apparently, a survey of attendees at an intelligence research conference seems AFAICT only to be summarizing their personal opinions on what the author openly concedes “is not proven thereby, but certainly not disproven, and the possibility remains open, and can be investigated by genetic research”. Which, AFAIK, nobody here is disagreeing with.
I repeat:
A lot of people still seem determined to talk about the former, whose existence nobody AFAIK is disputing, as though it were the latter, whose existence AFAIK remains unconfirmed.
Your guess is correct.
This is an extremely long thread and I haven’t read every single post in it, and don’t remember every detail of the posts that I have read. Are you referring to the article you cited in this post from nearly 150 posts back?
I’ll wait for your confirmation of the article identification before I take the time to read it, in case what you’re referencing turns out to be something else.
Such as indirect “evidence that could be consistent with a genetic basis for racial-group IQ test score differences”. I don’t believe there is yet any direct “evidence that actually indicates a genetic basis for racial-group IQ test score differences”. But the indirect evidence is still evidence, and of sufficient quality that the take home message for most researchers is that we still don’t know enough to draw conclusions about the role of genetics in between-group test score differences. The environmental basis for test differences is similarly poorly understood, but few researchers feel that culture and social-economic status alone are sufficient to explain the differences.
Yes, Kimstu, that’s the one. Interested readers should also note that when excerpting from that article in that post, I inserted several snips rather than just throwing up a wall of text. I noted in my criticism of GIGO that I can tend toward long excerpts myself, but whenever possible I take care to snip out all but the most relevant parts. I have never seen GIGO cut down a quote in any way.
Let’s also all keep in mind that we are not (or should not be) talking here about whether you are fully convinced that there is at least a partially genetic cause for racial IQ differences, but whether it is within the bounds of reasonable scientific debate to hold that view. Most of you are way out over your skis in your hostile denunciations, mockery, and hoots of derision. A simple “I’m not convinced” or “I find these other scientists’ view more persuasive” would be a far more tenable position.
I would even accept “it may be true, but they shouldn’t talk about it out of common decency”. This was Sam’s position for a long time. It would still be mine if it weren’t for the important issue of so-called “failing schools”.
There’s direct evidence (the Scarr study, for example) that contradicts the genetic hypothesis to explain racial disparities in test scores. There’s also plenty of indirect evidence (the Flynn effect, for example) that conflicts.
:dubious: Then stop trying to tell people who aren’t convinced that they’re just “refusing to see” the facts or “bending over backward to avoid Ockham’s Razor” or “abandoning scientific parsimony for the sake of political correctness” and so on.
If you agree that it’s tenable to be unconvinced “that there is at least a partially genetic cause for racial IQ differences” because of the lack of scientific evidence solidly supporting that hypothesis, then you shouldn’t be scolding people for remaining skeptical about unproven speculations, selective inferences, correlations without demonstrated causation, and similar sub-scientific arguments.
Anyway, off to read that abovementioned article now.
I haven’t read the Scarr study, but I don’t dispute there are studies that directly support the hypothesis that environmental factors affect test score outcomes. But even the APA review stated that these factors don’t explain the whole difference. The Flynn effect suggests that within-group IQ averages are mutable, and thus subject to intervention, but Flynn himself has said that his results don’t apply to the question of what role genetics play.
I think the answer really is “we don’t know”, and my real concern is the same as what Slacker just said and what Sam Harris has been saying all along. Which is that a portion of the leftosphere are trying to stifle the science by insisting that the genetic hypothesis is junk science and by insisting that anyone who even discusses the evidence for it is a racist. GIGO did a pretty good job of demonstrating that tendency by posting smears upthread of two pretty respectable people who have dared to come out in defense of Sam.
Postcript - I see that you actually said that the Scarr study contradicts the genetic hypothesis rather than supports the environmental one. Important distinction.
So OK, fair enough. But Richard Haier cast some doubt on adoption studies (like Scarr) in his response to the Vox article, so even that line of evidence may be flawed.
The Scarr study I’m referring to was not an adoption study. I’ll try and dig up the link.
I did it before, and also on Post #990, just to show all that you are inept not only at seeing cuts but to also at not following cites to read the rest.
[snip]
Speaking again of the “failing schools”, you continue to avoid that the Newark example you pointed out came to be because there was corruption in those schools, do you realize you are complaining in reality about **not **intervening when corruption is the issue? And then later I pointed that it was not a good example for the issue at hand, because interventions like that were inadequate because the families of the students are not helped directly, nor the community involved properly.
And you are still ignoring that Murray and many other scientific racists were dead wrong about the Hispanics in other more involved interventions.
Here is the Scarr study I refer to:
In short, they looked at a population of black (African American) children, gave them intelligence tests, and through some older but still valid blood-test ancestry techniques, tested blood for degree of African ancestry, and found no correlation between test scores and amount of African ancestry. I think this was a particularly good way to set up the experiment – there’s no concern about racism or cultural/societal affects on these kids because they’re all seen as the same sociological “race”, and thus when correcting for income and other normal factors, they can reasonably conclude that any differences left might be genetic. And they found that whatever variations existed in this population had nothing to do with the amount of African ancestry (which can vary widely in African American populations).
Thanks.
That’s the same Scarr that did the Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study, which is what I was thinking of.
Anyway, I see no reason not to take this study as one valid point in contradiction of the genetics hypothesis. It would take the weight of more (or better) evidence than this to convince me, but I’ll grant that even one point of apparently direct evidence is significant when the opposing hypothesis has none.
Indeed. And Murray, Haier, Harris, etc. should be asked about this. But neither of us has gotten an answer for why the question cannot be debated civilly with both sides offering arguments and evidence, rather than jeering and shouting down anyone not on the PC side.
:dubious: A-HEM.
The jeers are deserved after Murray decided that the Hispanics will not improve and have low IQ children, and he defended guys that proposed that like Richwine… back in 2013.
You just debunked him with your own cite from the Chicago intervention.
That is not the PC side speaking but the side looking for logic and reason in science.
What is just as meaningful as looking at IQ differences iwithin black populations is looking at differences in whites. Has this article been posted?
Here is a pertinent excerpt:
According to the authors, the same pattern has been seen in other white groups. The common factor in all is economic disparity: the more affluent people are the higher their IQs. Remove the economic disparity and the IQ disparity disappears as quickly as one generation.
You don’t even have to look to the past to see this. Does anyone assume whites in the southern U.S. test the same as Northern whites? Isn’t it folly to jump to the genetic theory to explain this when it makes more sense to think of environmental factors? If we think in this way when we see disparities between whites, we should also think in this way when we see disparities between whites and blacks.
Double post
Well we’ve now got a Harris-Klein podcast to look forward to, and relatively soon. Sam said it would happen “in a couple days” on his last podcast. I’m expecting more jeering and shouting than civil debate. I hope I’m wrong.
No one is making the claim that environment has no impact on physical organisms.