I must have missed it - where did someone post that no black people could ever become doctors on their own merit?
Maybe I misunderstood you - is this what you are claiming?
Regards,
Shodan
CP said
Unless I’m misreading this, this is stating that black people underperform for reasons of “nature or nurture” unconnected to socioeconomic factors, the implication being that the reason for the underperformance being something intrinsic to black people (although CP stops shy of absolutely claiming a genetic cause here). Followed by the paragraph I quoted above, the conclusion I’m drawing is that CP is saying that black people can’t compete with white people due to this intrinsic intellectual (or similar) inferiority and thus would almost never be able to get into good medical schools on their own merits without the “boost” of AA.
If you have a different interpretation of what he wrote - or if he would care to clarify - I’d be interested to hear it.
Just to clarify - nobody (except you) said “none of those black people could possibly be smart enough to become doctors on their own merit”, and your allegation that he did say it is false. Correct?
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t allege he said it. I alleged it was a implication that followed directly from his statements. If you’re having trouble understanding the difference, I could try explaining it again.
So, just to clarify, according to you, Gyrate actually said that CP actually said that “none of those black people could possibly be smart enough to become doctors on their own merit”. Correct?
He now claims it was a logical inference from what CP posted. It wasn’t, but that’s what Gyrate said.
Regards,
Shodan
From just a jawbone, likely not. But from a complete skeleton, it has happened.
Yes, they “prefer the term ancestry”, just a different label. Would it make your bamaboozled mind happier to use "ancestry?
Not I, the** US Government.**
Ask the US Census, or just read the damn cite, which makes it pretty clear.
Because one 'self identifies" *as *“mixed”, how else?
I never made any claim about 95%, you’re just putting words in my mouth. aka “making shit up”.
They can be legally identified with 100% certainly. Not biologically identified, why do you think that? Why do you think Amerinds can be biologically identified with close to 100% certainty?
People who self identify can be *self *identified with a very high level of certainty. I never claimed anything esle.
How does one get “social” from just bones? Isnt some degree of Anatomy and Biology going on there?
You are quite often “bamaboozled”, it appears. It’s kinda sad. Have you seen a Doctor… no… a sociologist?
“Loaded” questions are hardly “simple”. Even from someone who claims to be “bamaboozled”.
Please explain how “How many races do you, personally, think there are?” is a “loaded question”.
One you’ve still not answered, BTW.
Also, learn how to split up the goddamn quote boxes, your replies are nigh unreadable.
Well, since he wont accept any answer but "one, yes, it’s loaded and biased. And of course you know that.
I did. I quoted the US Census. What else has meaning?
Here.
“If these institutions were to choose their students solely on test scores and college grades, it is clear that in the intense competition for places at medical schools in the United States, African Americans would be at a severe disadvantage in relation to the highest scoring whites. Under these circumstances no blacks would be admitted to the nation’s most selective schools of medicine.”
While I commend your frustration, I speak from experience of many years on a Medical School Admissions Committee.
Perhaps.
Except that it is only “historically disadvantaged” blacks or native americans.
Not, for example, “historically disadvantaged” asians.
There needs to be a special consideration for blacks; not just “historically disadvantaged” groups. If nurture is the explanation, we need to find out what it is about Grampa’s disadvantaged-ness that now extends to Junior’s scholastic achievement even if Junior is highly advantaged socioeconomically to the whites and asians who are out-competing him.
Just to be clear: CP does claim that a genetic cause is far more likely than is a nurturing one for the outcome differences we see in academic skillsets (and many athletic skillsets) between self-identified whites and blacks.
What CP does not claim is that the exact genetic combinations are worked out. This then, leaves room that CP is wrong. (He isn’t, but it leaves room for it. 
)
The only thing that you demonstrated is that you did rely on that article many times before, even when the source already pointed to many other reasons other than IQ regarding that gap. (And even I found more from the JBHE explaining the reasons for that gap by not using genetics in previous discussions).
The fact is that you always return to repeating what was noted, but not the explanations (that do not include genetics) that even the Journal of Blacks in Higher Educations reported also then. Nowadays this is just evidence that you will never learn.
Yup, there’s all different kinds of historical disadvantage. A centuries-long history of being actual chattel slaves, with literally no more rights than livestock, creates a pretty culturally entrenched form of disadvantage.
I know no such thing. He might think any other answer is scientifically wrong, sure, but he’ll certainly accept it’s your answer. When you give it.
Are you saying you don’t want to say what you really think just because it might be wrong?
My emphasis.
Well, science, for one.
I did give my answer.
And how many races do you say there are? How many does “science” say there are?
I must have missed it. How many races did you say you, personally, believe exist, again?
One.
I don’t know about this scare-quotes “science” you’re talking about, but science (or at least, scientific representative bodies in relevant disciplines) say “One” - like the AAPA quote given above. You know, the one where you chose to respond by wandering off into some kind of diversion about, of all things, racial purity.
Yeah, when I hear a person talking about “pure races” and “mixed races”, my first thought is always “That sounds so … scientific”:dubious:
I accept the US Census’s definition for legal and social reasons.
Apparently you do not. You answer “human” I suppose? And of course then you oppose Affirmative Action.
So, if a person Self-Identifies as "mixed’, they are wrong, is that correct? You can’t Self Identify as “mixed” in your view?
What does that have to do with the conversation? We were talking about races in a scientific context, no-one here has said they don’t believe in socially-constructed race. Which is all the Census considers: "The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. "
Not for the purposes of taxonomy or genetics, no.
On census forms? No, they’re not asking for my biological race. If I was in the US, I’d pick “Other”, since the US Census doesn’t cover my ethnicity.
No, I’m a big supporter of AA, but biological race has nothing to do with that.
No, of course you can - I, for instance, am mixed. Because I’m a mix of two different distinguishable ethnicities (one of which is itself a mixed ethnicity). I just don’t mistake my ethnicity (Coloured) for my race (Human) and I recognize when people are saying race but mean ethnicity…