There’s a difference in IQ scores between those who live in rural and urban areas. How come no one preaches genetic difference in intelligence based on “geographic groups”. These racial theories are directly based on erroneous beliefs on racial genetics. Human variation has not borne out grouping people into Black/White/etc races.
Also renaming ‘race’ into ‘population’ is an idiots way to avoid address that core illegitimacy of race theory. But don’t worry, Harris and Murray make this stupid mistake at the 57:00 mark.
Yes, for the simple reason that I did check what do they cite. Deal with it just as the OP told us to do it by us doing the work. So as the OP said “Do that, and I’ll make you a promise that I’ll engage you on any and every point you ask me to. Don’t do it, and I’ll pick and choose. Your call.”…
Actually that was said just to show that you also have to look at who you are trying to support in this “discussion”, but clearly you are just doing the kill the messenger fallacy. In any case, I did cite the reasons why most researchers do not think that Murray should be given much attention.
I’m pretty sure that Murray talks about the rural-urban divide too in Coming Apart. I haven’t read it though.
There are clearly population groups of humans that differ significantly genetically. You can google PCA Europe or something to see an illustration. This is not a social construct. I can see the argument that race is, though.
“Should we study this ‘Forbidden Knowledge’ that’s, like, totally true.” isn’t a serious skeptical question. How about questioning its basic validity. God knows race theory has libraries of detractors (not that any of Harris’ audience would know as he repeatedly, and repeatedly stated the counterfactual to that point).
Murray talked about this very thing! I get the sense that he sees rural working class whites as sorting themselves into their own taxonomic subgroup, as the more intellectually talented among them have over the past few decades removed themselves from those areas and their gene pools and sorted themselves into high-IQ kinship groups in places like NYC and especially Silicon Valley. The kinds of places Judis and Teixeira called “ideopolis counties” in their 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority.
I’ve listened to 40 minutes so far. If I can, I’ll get to the rest later. I’m very disappointed in Harris’s tonguebath – no real critical questions at all like the ones I suggested in post #47. A lot of obsequiousness and praise for crap science (IMO, anyway). So far, at least. Maybe in the rest he suddenly changes tactics and starts actually challenging Murray (on the crap science – not on “whether we should study it”).
Care to respond to my post #59, or at least 40 minutes worth?
I have the sense that this is far more true now than it was five or ten years ago.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Spare us your tales of “woe is me” from both of you!
**SlackerInc **is getting **deserved **flak not only for telling others to produce the subjects to a discussion to the PIT (even here, it is **your **job), but also for thinking that we should ignore history. And you also are acting very disingenuously for not realizing that we are indeed in the pit.
I brought it to the Pit because I don’t trust that it can be discussed elsewhere without risk of running into some kind of moderation against “hate speech”. As for “thinking that we should ignore history”, what the hell is that about?
You need to read post #100 to see the history of where many are coming from regarding Murray. And you are then a very naive dunderhead if you still think that the pit was not going to get you flak. You need to deal with it too or you will get shot down.
OK, so when you’re speaking as “a scientist” you’re not actually speaking as a scientist with respect to IQ tests, or intelligence, or distribution of intelligence, but only wrt genetics? So for instance, you would only be speaking authoritatively to the question of “are black people a race”? (I assume the answer is “no”)
I will not be speaking with particular authority in either of those questions. I have knowledge about genetics, but I think the question of races as a concept is more a question of language and history.
To the person complaining that most people here probably haven’t read The Bell Curve: I bet most people here have never read a single paper or book by Peter Duesburg, and yet every last one of us would be entirely justified in slagging that idiot off.
I think that being in the scientific world, having a lot of experience with statistical analyses, having familiarity with differences between populations etc, gives me a different perspective in reading Murray than probably most of the population. It’s not hugely important, I agree. Ofc even if I were an “IQ scientist” or whatever, I could be wrong.
I’m also quite familiar with the research in the area, and although there are still differences of opinion, Murray is definitely within the mainstream in his claims. The reception he has gotten from the non-scientific public is in my opinion totally out of proportion. To me it seems sort of similar to the public reaction to GMOs which the public absolutely hates, even though the scientific mainstream doesn’t consider it particularly risky.
What’s so convincing about Murray’s position? We know zilch about what genes and genesets are actually responsible for high and low intelligence in healthy humans (we might know a little about some genetic conditions with symptoms that include low intelligence), much less their prevalence in various populations. There is specific experimental evidence, with techniques looking at genetic ancestry (albeit using an older technique) that directly refutes his conclusion. An old study, to be sure, but there aren’t any more recent that refute its findings. We know for a fact that IQ test scores change over time within the same population. That means that IQ test scores for African Americans now are roughly the same, on average, as the IQ test scores for white Americans in certain past decades. And the two groups in the US that generally perform most poorly on average in various statistical outcomes (black Americans and Native Americans) are also the two groups that have – by far – been treated the worst in American history. Is that really just a coincidence?
With all this in mind, it seems totally ludicrous to conclude that genes are the final explanation for test score gaps in the US. Perhaps it’s a reasonable hypothesis to start from, but that’s all – how could we possibly conclude this hypothesis is true when we know so little about what genes are actually responsible for high and low intelligence?
When you say “within the mainstream” do you mean his claim that there are IQ differences between certain groups, or his claims that those differences are due to genetic characteristics of those groups?
[QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet]
To the person complaining that most people here probably haven’t read The Bell Curve: I bet most people here have never read a single paper or book by Peter Duesburg, and yet every last one of us would be entirely justified in slagging that idiot off.
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t seen Twilight, either.
(I actually think I did read The Bell Curve, along with the Moynihan report, in grad school. There’s a reason they’ve been relegated to the dustbin of history.)
Nope, you’re the liar here, troll. In fact, I remember now that you’ve long been both. I had forgotten you since you removed yourself from the Elections forum (your job there having been successfully completed, I assume).
