The Chicago intervention and the one that millionaire did in Florida shows that rat avatar is closer to truth, you, not so much.
Fair enough, andy: score one for sub-Saharan African technology. That is indeed impressive.
Let’s note though that, your valid point aside, it’s bullshit for you to duck arguments when you lack a counterpoint, on the excuse that you are not going to engage with a racist, and then jump back in when you have something good (which that cite absolutely is). That’s super weaselly, dude.
I would not at all be surprised if they are very smart. But as for their not being an empire, I think where they are located simply lacks the natural resources to make a superpower.
Asians are smarter than Europeans.
Pot, kettle. Just like andy, you are ducking out when you can’t withstand my arguments; like him, you’ll probably duck back in to fire a shot when you have better ammunition.
It is hard to not be all over the place when trying to debate someone who won’t actually put hard boundaries to their claims, but uses ambiguity to justify selection bias.
You are just cargo culting ideas.
-
A Study shows that there is a correlation between identical twins and fraternal twins suggesting an inherited component for IQ tests.
-
IQ tests show that socio-economically disadvantaged groups tend to score lower on IQ tests.
-
Studies show that adoption into less socio-economically disadvantaged groups of parents improves IQ tests.
#1 even if 100% valid does not relate to the distal cause cause of #2. They aren’t even related and weren’t even testing the same thing.
#2 and #3 demonstrate a possible connection of a proximate cause, which may hint at a distal cause for the differences but does not prove what the distal cause is.
Neither is perfect, but your attempt to map #1 to #2 just doesn’t work, it is just Cargo Cult Science
So these “blacks” are evolving faster than us “whites”?
You have proven nothing there, especially seeing as YOU STILL REFUSE TO DEFINE WHAT WHITE IS.
I will not concede a point when you can’t even define what your damn claim is.
Give me a testable definition of what “white” is and we can start to move to common ground, but “people I like and/or identify with” doesn’t count here.
Others are doing just fine refuting your arguments; I’m just jumping in when I think something is missed (i.e. the Haya, your baseless assertion about the IQs of African countries, etc.).
Seriously, just consider, please consider, that this belief you have about black people comes from cultural/societal/parental teachings and influence, and not actual data on black people (which you appear to cherry pick only to confirm your pre-held notions). Jumble up 6 continents or so with random assortments of geography, random flora and fauna, random microbiota, and a bunch of people with approximately the same intelligence (who still have trade and other connections with neighboring continents, including exchange of DNA), and just through random chance (and environmental differences), without any difference in average intelligence, some of them will develop societies and technologies and stuff like that at different paces. Throw in centuries of massive oppression and brutality, and it’s nuts that anyone could think that technological development, or academic test scores, or some other non-genetic measure, would reflect biology as opposed to this uber-complicated mess of environment, culture, and hugely influential oppression and brutality.
To be clear, I’m not saying definitively that all groups have exactly the same genes for intelligence. Just that this non-biological data presented by Murray and others couldn’t possibly tell us anything about the biology and genetics of groups, because our society and cultures and environments are so massively complicated and powerful.
Further, your pride in your own ethnic heritage is weird and not normal (and IMO a harmful and damaging belief), and you should recognize that people with feelings of ethnic pride are of course going to believe in the general supriority of their own groups and inferiority of others. That you think a few other groups are also intelligent doesn’t excuse this at all.
Rat avatar, your point about adoption studies would only be valid if I (or anyone) were claiming environment had no role to play in IQ. Those same studies find that while adoption into high-SEC families “improves” IQ, the adopted children score significantly lower than their siblings who are biological offspring of the high-SEC parents. Thus showing that IQ is a mix of nature and nurture. Not that “IQ is largely biased, and differences disappear when you control for social and economic factors”, which is what you claimed.
I have no idea what you are talking about with blacks “evolving faster” than whites.
Well good for others that you tell them who you are instead of figuring that out.
Of course I have to say that in the past one scientific racist in the SDMB ended outing himself as a holocaust denier later. Really dude, the path that you are choosing is not going to end well.
I’ll probably regret giving you another chance, Slacker, but I’m holding out a tiny hope that you’re better than posters like (Holocause denier and white supremacist) Chen019 and (banned) New Deal Democrat, who revealed his true character when he said about black people “Savage conditions breed people who are currently revealing their savagery everywhere in the world that they live”.
No one says you have to respond to every point I make. But you specifically declared you were out when I tried to pin you down on something YOU said. To do that and then jump back in later when you’re on more solid ground is shady.
This is so completely wrong. Parental influences? As I’ve said many times, that would be college professors, of sociology and anthropology, who took an extreme “nurture” side of this debate (and my still-living mother still does, completely disputing the validity of IQ).
Cultural? You mean the very liberal college towns I grew up in? Or the high school with one black kid in the whole school, adopted by a white family, who was the valedictorian at an elite public school?
I believed the same things my parents did well into my twenties. So you’re barking up the wrong tree there.
A tiny hope? In the past you’ve consistently acknowledged that I bear no animus toward black people. So why would this hope be so tiny?
No idea what your parents believe, but kids are often the last to realize the biases of their parents.
Why didn’t you mention them in your “top tier of most intelligent” or whatever? It’s weird statements like that one that demonstrate your utter lack of self-awareness.
But you didn’t just grow up in a college town; you grew up in America. You grew up in the modern world. You grew up consuming the same TV/music/media that I and many others did. I don’t pretend that this had no influence on how I see race, gender, religion, etc.; you shouldn’t either.
It’s not just about animus, as I’ve said multiple times. The hope is so tiny because you’ve failed to budge your preconceived notions about this no matter the evidence, or incredible weakness of those you cite.
I’m not making any particular claim. I’m just pointing out the following (Ezra Klein’s main point, in fact), which you’ve continued to ignore:
It’s nuts that anyone could possibly think that technological development, or academic test scores, or economic statistics, some other non-genetic measure, in this modern world and society, would necessarily reflect biology as opposed to this uber-complicated mess of environment, culture, and hugely influential oppression and brutality.
It was nuts for slavers to make that claim, nuts for Jim Crow and segregation supporters, and it’s still nuts now. We have no data on the actual genes and genesets responsible for high intelligence, much less their prevalence among different population. In such a massively complicated, and massively tilted, society, there’s no way to know anything at all about inherent group differences in intelligence without that genetic data.
My parents were marching with militant black Marxists in the ‘70s. Trust me, that’s the wrong tree. My beliefs developed from adult intellectual curiosity.
As for my high school vaedictorian, I would consider him among those who are “quite intelligent”. No one at my high school is among that “top tier of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met”.
But you know what? Come to think of it, I did meet Maya Angelou, and had a lengthy conversation with her (this was shortly before she became mega-famous by speaking at the 1993 inaugural). She would qualify, so I misspoke.
Maybe your preconceived notions/biases/bigotries affect your memory, too. Such things can be crippling, and I strongly recommend casting them off.
It is not an extreme “nurture” standpoint.
This seems to be part of the core portion that you are missing.
There are differences between individuals, and there are differences between groups.
Choose any two humans in the world and they will differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). The variation between isolated populations on separate continents is only about 10% of that genetic variation between the populations. Thus, the great majority of genetic differences is found between individuals, even within the same group and only a much smaller portion of extra changes will be found between individuals from two different continents.
You are putting way more stock in the differences between races than actually exists, and I am sure this is why you haven’t provided a real definition of what makes someone white
The fact that humans are amazingly homogeneous at the DNA level, combined with the fact that between-population variation is modest, has significant implications that do not bode well for the claims of racists.
One has to resort to serious cherry picking to find patterns while ignoring the reality about the distribution of variation between individuals in a group and other groups. So unless you can find a specific marker that is specific to a particular group making a claim that 10% of .01% or 0.001% of genetic differences is responsible for minority groups lower test scores just doesn’t fly.
To summarize again, your genetic distance from your fellow white person is much larger than your distance from the rest of the world. You cannot simply pick and choose metrics and then assume that they map to arbitrary, undefined groupings of who you self identify with and come up with a scientific relevant conclusion.
As a fellow white person, I would like to claim all the distance I can get.
Obviously, if the environmental factors included “societal discrimination against black people,” then obviously adoption wouldn’t close the gap, because adoption obviously doesn’t change skin color.
I would characterize people’s IQ by how quickly they followed the above argument:
Category 1: I would think that a person with an IQ more than one standard deviation below the average wouldn’t understand the above argument no matter how much it was explained to them
Category 2:I would think that a person with an IQ from one SD below the mean to one SD above the mean would understand this argument once it was explained to them, and would come up with this argument on their own eventually after a little thought
Category 3:I would think that a person with an IQ more than one SD above the mean would come up with this argument on their own immediately, and if they disagreed with this argument would still mention it because they would assume it was what everyone else was thinking
You have obviously failed to qualify for category 3.
Evil, the adoption studies were not about race, just IQ. I’ve been having a sidebar with rat avatar about this, please try to follow.
Rat avatar, 0.1% sounds small until you recall that only 1% of our genome is different from chimps. So that becomes 10% of the difference we have with chimps, and your “one-tenth of that” is one percent of that difference. If you don’t think 1/100 of the difference from chimps can possibly account for a significant portion of the racial IQ gap, I don’t know what more to tell you.
It’s not about whether it can, it’s about whether it does. With the incredible complexity of environment, culture, society and oppression, as well as directly contradictory evidence like the Scarr study, any belief that it does is based on feeling, not evidence.
Then you agree that rat avatar’s argument was a poor one, even if you have the same conclusion.
Once again that would be like saying that Velikowsky was correct, but no. In reality uniformitarianism remains the best explanation of what we see on the earth today, even if sometimes catastrophes take place, Velikowsky like Murray does not need to be taken into account, nor respected at all. Likewise, geneticists like Reich have no problem on telling racists like Murray that they have no scientific evidence (yep, even if the data they misleadingly use is good) to reach for their racist stereotypes.