You mean this sidebar:
You don’t think you and rat avatar are discussing race IQ differences?
Tell you what, provide your single strongest piece of evidence that proves there must be a genetic component to race IQ differences.
Your English is getting worse, Gigo. That was little more than gibberish.
Nice try. I say the conclusion best fits the evidence we have so far, and is best in keeping with what Sam called “scientific parsimony”. I have said the other side is arguable. What I have also said is that the other side has no right to say my side is beyond bounds, “pseudoscience”, etc.
So…you are conceding that there is absolutely no scientific proof that there is a genetic component to race IQ differences?
Just following up on this. I’m still interested in the answer.
What I was arguing was rat avatar’s statement that IQ “differences largely disappear” when you account for environmental factors. I was referring to the adoption studies touted in the Vox piece, not the interracial ones rat avatar cited.
Those are interesting, but you do realize that if you go with those, you make a move that may be out of the proverbial frying pan into the fire? Because if black kids adopted by white families do so well (as my high school classmate did!), and particularly if they are adopted young, that is an indictment of black culture. Those kids are, as you or someone pointed out upthread, still being treated as black by everyone in school and on the street.
It’s true that you can blame a broken black culture on centuries of slavery and Jim Crow. But if this is true, it still means schools are not to blame, which I’ll again remind you is my principal dog in this fight. If this cultural factor turns out to be key, and social workers need to start teaching black parents how to raise their kids like white parents (as radioactive as that sounds politically), fine. Just as long as we stop blaming so-called “failing schools”.
I would not agree with “absolutely no evidence”. No proof? I agree with that. I would pretty much align myself with Haier on these points. But as the guy in the NY Times noted, we will have the proof—one way or another—pretty soon. And I know which way I would bet.
As Kimstu noted, it is an issue that has very little to do with the issue at hand, except to show once again what idiots Murray and their ilk are.
La la la!
Is that what it means? Provide the proof you have that the entire environmental gap is due to “black culture” and not, say, the school system.
As as the Slacker shows here, he really did miss the other main point from Reich: even then the racists will not be right.
Chances are that genes that some will point as for intelligence will be missed among bright people because as it was pointed before, there are many different kinds of intelligence and [del]uniformitarianism[/del] environmental factors are still present.
Native Americans does not seem to carry any Denisovan DNA. It seems quite possible that the admixture events with the Denisovans were late indeed.
Well, not precisely. It is believed that humans endured in refugia in Spain and Italy, from which they expanded after the warming. They were, of course, not the only populations to have expanded at the time.
The thing is, I don’t actually see a big premium on adaptability even at the edge of the migration wave. It was not a brave tribe going forth into an unknown environment after a rousing speech by its chief. It was a few couples going over past the next hill to set up its own household in a pretty much identical environment. Over millennia, the edge would advance very far and into quite different environments, but individuals would be moving such a short distance that they wouldn’t notice. There would be very few cases of moving into entirely new ecologies.
What is more, even if they had moved into an entirely new region, adaptability would only pay off at the start. Once you’ve adapted, which would generally be a few generations, learning from your parents would be the big skill for tens of thousands of years.
On the subject of retaining genetic traits, the mixing after the end of the Ice Age has been extreme, compared to the norm. I know there is one population in East Siberia that seems to demonstrate a very long-term unmixed continuity, and there are a couple of others, such as the Kalash and Ju’honsi but such populations are very much the exception today.
Take Otzi. He was of Anatolian farmer stock, a people that expanded from todays Turkey with agriculture from about 6000 BC. This was a group that spread out across Southern and Central Europe mostly replacing the two hunter-gatherer types that had lived there before. Some absorption of the hunter-gatherers into the population, but the Anatolian farmers is about a 95 % match for Sardinians who seem to be a relic population. The farmer group stopped for about a thousand years before getting into Britain, but replaced the hunter-gatherers there almost totally when they did.
The expansion slowed when getting towards northern Europe (it seems reasonable to assume that the further north you go the less payoff you get from agriculture). So the group known as Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers preserved a bit more of their genetics, especially in the east Baltic.
The Anatolian farmers themselves were a mix of a few older groups that I don’t remember offhand. Lots of Neanderthal DNA. It is being actively reduced by adverse selection so the percentage is going down.
The Anatolian farmers were replaced or mixed with themselves by steppe pastoralists that started to expand a few centuries after Otzi died. These pastoralists were a mix of Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, a very old offshoot of the Western Hunter-Gatherers, and a people from the direction of Iran, sprung from the same population that supplied part of the Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers.
It is all mix upon mix upon mix, human beings moving much faster than genetics can respond to.
I can’t get into the pdf, but the abstract I’d call… eccentric. Extremely eccentric. It certainly does not fit with other research. “Present‐day genetic, phenotypical and linguistic differences are largely related to discontinuity of and impeded migration between human source populations during glacial periods, rather than simply geographical distance, and in the post‐glacial period there has not been enough time for displacements and admixture of human populations to completely blur these differences.”
This is…uh. I would not want to try to argue with a linguist that todays language differences are "largely"related to ice age barriers. We know for a fact that the post-glacial period has churned the genetics like a blender. And phenotypes? I suppose they may have been relatively stable in Australia, but in Europe most of the current phenotypes did not exist!
What we do know is that there has been massive shifts in phenotypes in Asia, Africa and Europe.
And I will have to mention that I do not post for you, you silly person, but for others that need to be warned about dunces like you. And for me to learn news things. Things like geneticists who tell others what racists Murray and their ilk are only to see those racists grab those opinions and think that they defend what they are spewing.
That is grasping at straws indeed.
Or…and hear me out on this…adopted children in general do well because families that adopt children are high achievers socio-economically. Which is probably why adopted white children also do so well (but for some reason you haven’t claimed that’s an indictment of white culture).
Yes, which would explain why they don’t do as well as adopted white children.
You’re choosing to just ignore the evidence that black schoolchildren are treated differently than white schoolchildren? Bold move Cotton, let’s see if it pays off.
Is this not the logical conclusion, if black kids adopted by white families have such higher IQs than black kids who stay in black families?
BTW, I will only be on the board until 5 p.m. Central time, just over an hour from now. Then I will be back Monday afternoon or evening. I made a resolution months ago to disconnect from the online world on weekends, but like an alcoholic or struggling dieter, I relapsed. I am now attempting to go back on the wagon. All of which is to say, talk amongst yourselves, or at least don’t expect a response before Monday night if you aim something at me after 5.
Yes, black schoolchildren have significantly more money spent on their education than do white children in the same district. This is exactly the opposite of the situation before Brown.
No, it is not.
What do you mean by schools here? Do you mean the buildings, the faculty, the administration, the students, the grounds, the extracurricular programs, the community?
I understand that you have a dog in this fight, in that your spouse is a teacher and take much flack for her students failing. But that’s not unique to black schools or students. White parents scream at teachers for “letting” their kid fail their class. It’s a shitty part of being a teacher, and it doesn’t reflect well on parents that they blame the teacher, rather than their kid or themselves, but if that is your main dog in the fight, that it’s not the teacher’s fault, then we can all go home now, I don’t think that anyone in this thread blames the teachers.