The fact is that you are not able to follow why we are here and you are really lame for going away from the OP point.
Again, you resort to conspiracy theories to get your beef going, if your intentions were just related to an specific science issue you would not go to ad nauseum repetition of points that remain inconclusive or unrelated to genetics.
The anti AA stance and other silliness comes from brasil84 and his opposition to “liberal” solutions (NCLB was a bipartisan idea and pushed by Bush) the other idiot mentioned in the OP. And yes, you are really dumb for ignoring that your sidekick is doing that.
I have come to the conclusion that liberals are no more devoted to facts than conservatives. They just think they are because facts have a liberal bias (I know, right?). When facts conflict with conservative results, conservatives minimize them (evolution is JUST a theory, right?) and inject uncertainty into them (a LOT of things can explain how we recovered from the Great Depression, it was probably the Reagan tax cuts that did it) and undermine the credibility of the sources of those facts (did you know that there is an email where the scientists ADMIT they are making it all up?). When liberals are faced with an IQ gap that cannot be entirely explained away by environmental differences, they resort to similar tactics so that they can ignore inconvenient facts, they just don’t have to do it as frequently as conservatives so they’re not as good at it. But, practice makes perfect.
Sure the science on IQ gaps between races is not waterproof but the evidence is pretty compelling. It is certainly not as easy to dismiss as people want to believe.
Very easy to do then guys like you resort to strawmen, this is about the third time where I mention that there is a problem, but it is not just related to what you are pushing, there is no complete dismissal, only a nuanced note that you are really dumb to use inconclusive evidence to overturn many of the solutions societies are using to help deal with the problem.
If the evidence was so compelling as you claim to, then most scientists and the vast majority of the experts would agree, as it is, it is always the same old, same old cites and sources used again and again.
And, using the idea that “liberals” are pushing this is really retarded. Many conservatives and scientists that are not liberal do not agree on the things that you think should be “compelling”.
Denigrating another’s assertions while failing to effectively support your own is a sign of an inability to actually debate the subject at hand. Your supporting cites have all failed to provide solid evidence for a genetic trait that both increases human intelligence and is tied to the so-called racial groupings. This has been pointed out to you by others and yet you continue to be pugnacious and, dare I say, hateful.
What does it gain you to continue your crusade of intemperate fear and loathing of people that superficially are dissimilar to your own phenotype? Does it make you feel superior to paint an entire subset of humanity with the brush of your self-satisfied ignorance?
My evidence is admittedly anecdotal. I am not a sociologist, but I grew up in a city that in 50 years went from virtually complete segregation to one that has integrated the various peoples into a rather cohesive working culture. I have seen direct observational evidence of the pernicious effects of the subcultures that rob children of their true destinies. I have heard my godson being bullied by other children because he chose scholarship over ghetto slang and gangs.
I pity you and others who are too caught up in their own hatred to realize that we are all humans, each of us gifted and cursed in many diverse ways. You add nothing but bile to the solution and your ways will fortunately be eclipsed as the younger generations truly learn what it is to be one people, strong in their diversity and willing to learn from those different from themselves.
Can you give me an example of this? Just give me the post number.
Lol, nice attempt at poisoning the well. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I am motivated by pure unmitigated hatred. It doesn’t affect the strength of my arguments one bit.
I pity you and others who allow their wishes to substitute for reality; who substitute emotion for reason; and who confuse niceness with truth.
You are incorrect. There is zero genetic evidence of any difference in intelligence. While there do exist disparate outcomes (educational, economically, and criminally), a number of pieces of evidence point to non-genetic solutions (see links provided in the GD threads about Frank Sweet)- including differences in parenting skills, differences in teachers’ expectations, and an “oppositional culture” peer pressure (all three, unfortunately, being remarkably hard to eliminate), while there is no genetic evidence of differences in intelligence at all. I’m not ignoring anything. I recognize that it’s possible that part of the explanation could be genetic- this is a testable (though challenging) hypothesis. But proponents of this hypothesis have gone no further then making the hypothesis- it hasn’t been tested. And there’s no reason whatsoever to accept an untested hypothesis.
No, it’s not compelling (for a genetic explanation). It’s easy to dismiss, because there’s no genetic evidence for it, and the hypothesis has not been tested.
You’re exactly right, asshole. I won’t even give you one. You are on my ‘ignore’ list, by your own criteria.
That may [and likely is] be the definition you use, but the rest of us have a more useful definition. We don’t post stupid things, and expect that it will be given any credence whatsoever. You, on the other hand, don’t appear to care how stupid you come across. Here’s a helpful hint. Everyone sees you as an idiot. By your own criteria. Check your website. You posted them, there.
I do not engage this poster, for the same reasons he gives for ‘ignoring’ people, using his own criteria for putting people on the ‘ignore’ list. “I can not address the issue the poster brought up, therefore I will ‘ignore’ it. Then I ‘ignore’ him the same way he ‘ignores’ everyone else.”
Howard Gardner identifies at least nine “axes” of personal intelligence, completely independent of one another, i.e., an individual can excel in linguistic intelligence and still be practically retarded in spatial intelligence or in musical intelligence, etc.
Post 137 is unnecessarily dismissive. Designating a person that disagrees with you with a tag such as ‘liberal’ merely points out your inability to handle disagreement without reverting to the actions of an adolescent.
You are an unreasonable little man with an out-sized ego who apparently wishes to project his own insecurities upon others.
Furthermore, I am not driven by either intellect or emotion, but by a sane amalgam of the two. As a scientist, I have found that mere intellect will rarely gain you any true insight into any problem, much less those dealing with people.
But, I predict you will discount my position because it is not your own.
Reasoned discourse is fundamentally based upon an ability to learn from the points of view of those who do not share your own. The fact that you are driven by fear is apparent in your every post.
You can not win this argument. You should never have even tried. There are places where people who share your views are allowed to regularly spew their hatred for ‘The Other’ to each other. May I suggest you explore those venues rather than pollute this one with your anger and hostility.
Jesus, yes, add me to the list of people ignoring that bumwipe bozo.* Brazil84’s “Grand Inquisitor” style – “Answer my Question! Answer my Question!” is tedious. It’s a childish attempt to play Socrates – and done with such staggering ineptitude as to beggar (and bugger) the imagination. (And if one does answer his questions…he rejects the answers!) He’s far from the lowest toad on the SD totem pole, but he certainly ranks in the bottom third.
*(Clarity is so damned vital! What I first wrote implied I wanted to be added to your “ignore” list…not at all the case!)
That’s wrong, but you are weaseling. Your claim was that “Your supporting cites have all failed to provide solid evidence for a genetic trait . . . .” Ironically you are unable to back up your own claim.
Nonsense, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that’s all true. It doesn’t affect my argument at all.
If that were the case, you would not leap to conclusions about my motivations based on your own “anecdotal” observations regarding race.
What area of science are you in? Do you work for a university? A lab? What did you get your PhD in, where, and when?
Given your weaseling, it’s not entirely clear what your position is. I do understand that you think I have bad motivations and that I am a bad person. My response is – so what? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I am a bad person with bad motivations. It doesn’t undermine the actual evidence underlying my position.
It depends on what your criteria are for winning. To my mind, if an opponent is unable or unwilling to have his position pinned down and scrutinized, then I have won. To my mind, if an opponent is unwilling or unable to lay out the principles behind his reasoning and then apply those same principles to other situations, then I have won.
Thank you for your suggestion, however I will continue to post here. You are of course free to ignore my posts.
Unlike some of you, I DO use my ignore list, and threads like this are a fucking goldmine. Thank you, OP, for getting a couple of new-to-me people to come out of the woodwork.
I admit only skimming the thread, but just about how many times were “liberals” (or similar groups) accused of denying that disparities exist? Twenty? Thirty? It seemed like a lot, in reference to something that wasn’t happening.
Why did you quote me? I just gave an accurate, objective analysis of the data as presented by the wiki on that study. Not sure why you thought I was injecting politics into it.
I do not think anybody is dismissing the presence of an IQ gap between people in the social group known as black and the people in the social group known as white. The main difference here is in explanation. You have people like myself taking the approach that environmental explanations have a history of being tested and the results can be applied to improve outcomes for everyone.
Then you have those who think it just has to be genes, or that there is some complex nuance involved (without specifying what the nature of that nuance is). The “genetic evidence” provided by this second group amounts to one thing: historically, black people in America come from different ethnic groups than white people in America. That’s the extent of the genetic evidence and its valid interpretation. Everything else beyond that is pure speculation. Coupled with this speculation is the most astonishing levels of ignorance regarding the study of genetics by people who purport to be students or eager hobbyists in the field. Yet they are not students of this field, but people who abuse the field for an agenda. They’re not “studying the genetics of intelligence and the genetic architecture of ethnic groups with respect to test scores design to measure intelligence”. Instead they are saying " ‘BLCKS R DUMB’ (I forgot how Honesty typed it out) and here is some genetic sounding stuff I got to ‘prove’ my ‘theory’ ". See the difference? The latter is a person who doesn’t actually give two shits about intelligence or genetics. They only want to add scientific trappings to their racist beliefs.
They don’t understand basic things, like the field of importance for them in understanding individual differences in IQ is behavior(al) genetics, not the population genetic studies they frequently point to. If they knew they were “students” of behavior genetics they might actually read an article or two and see how the association studies they sometimes reference are only the most basic tip of the iceberg. They’d know of the 1000s of studies that found an association between an allele of a gene or genetic marker and variability in some behavior only to be matched by a study that could not find such a relationship. Behavior genetics requires the analysis of the steps from a potential gene locus to the expression of a protein in a tissue that results in the modification of behavior. In all these many tiered processes of expression you have interaction between these processes and the environment. This is very hard to do and the field is hardly out of the gate on intelligence and has hardly scratched the surface on human intelligence. To say that there is any genetic information available to extrapolate to test score differences between human social groups is just a lie or the ignorant ramblings of a racist pseudoscientist.
And by the way, given the way you presented detractors’ responses to established science in evolution and global climate change, you are the one ignoring the data for an agenda.