# Race is non-existent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100 "2012-12-05T18:28:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/781 "2013-02-10T05:15:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is a ridiculous assumption; why would the change be linear? And considering the Flynn effect- that _every_ group’s IQ test scores have increased over time, this isn’t surprising. In fact, black people in 1995 had the same test scores, on average, as white people in 1945- so whatever intelligence category (not “mentally challenged”, by the way) that this particular score would fall in would apply to both white and black people, in 1945 and 1995, respectively. Which really makes a persuasive case that black people in 1995 have the same “environment” with respect to intellectual development as white people did in 1945. > > This is laughably false- both for what Flynn said and what you call mentally challenged and retarded (seriously- are you just taking wild guesses now?). Just wildly ignorant and totally incorrect about how IQ test scores have usually been evaluated. And I’ve made no particular claims- I just brought up a chunk of data that shows the gap has shrunk; you’ve blown it out of proportion because you think (with your very weak grasp of IQ and how it’s evaluated) you can score points on it. > > You are very, very wrong about what I think (yet again- please, just stop). You’ve stated that black people are, on average, inherently genetically less intelligent then non-black people. I see no reason to believe that black people are on average, genetically (or by any other measure except, perhaps, test-scores- and I am highly skeptical that any test score provides more than a very vague notion of actual overall intelligence) less intelligent. And by the test-score measure, black people are likely about as intelligent as white people were 50 years ago. I think you are confused about what Flynn is saying. His whole premise rests on extrapolation that is fairly linear. He doesn’t know when the gap closure began, and in fact one of the problems with the whole Flynn hypothesis is that one has to create an arbitrary start and stop point lest we all be retarded at point X back in time, and all be geniuses in the future. I get what he is trying to say about rising IQs, but I think he has spun and confused and conflated and extrapolated data to come up with nonsense. The rough parameters for what an absolute number for IQ correlates with in terms of practical cognitive function haven’t really changed. Generally 80-85 means you are a fairly dull person, mentally. To accept the Flynn hypothesis, you have to accept that, prior to 1972, black americans were below this level. Forget the numbers, and realize that the functional category would be considered to be borderline retarded–i.e. significantly mentally challenged–at 79. There simply isn’t evidence that large segments of the population–black and white–were basically stupid back then, and as I’ve pointed out, other scores such as academic exams which are widely administered and standardized do not support this rising IQ notion. But…more importantly, I want to push the point that you as well as I believe that blacks are inferior for intelligence. I think it’s genes. You think it’s environment. You think everyone is getting smarter than they used to be, and you think blacks are 50 years of progress stupider than whites. I showed you ACT scores from the last 5 years. They are totally flat for blacks. I showed you ACT scores from the last 15 years. They are still totally flat. Where is this rising IQ being used, exactly? You. like me, hold to a position that there is a substantial and real difference between these two SIRE groups. For some odd reason you find it more comfortable to blame environment that genes. And for some odd reason you find that explanation more tenable even though high SES blacks continue to underscore low SES whites on academic exams. ---
**Author:** ![IceQube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@IceQube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IceQube)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/782 "2013-02-10T05:17:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I’m a little curious – do you dispute that \*\*generally \*\*speaking, blacks underperform on standardized tests like the SAT, LSAT, GRE, etc.? Yes. As explained above. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/783 "2013-02-10T06:11:17Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You. like me, hold to a position that there is a substantial and real difference between these two SIRE groups. For some odd reason you find it more comfortable to blame environment that genes. And for some odd reason you find that explanation more tenable even though high SES blacks continue to underscore low SES whites on academic exams. It is not odd, considering that once again there is no genetic evidence presented, as mentioned many scientists ans experts have seen the data, and they agree with Flynn, Nesbitt and many others. The “odd” thing is that besides the scientists the people that look at pseudo science in general still report that ideas like yours are indeed pseudoscience. > **[List of topics characterized as pseudoscience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience)** > > This is a list of topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers, either currently or in the past. Detailed discussion of these topics may be found on their main pages. These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. > Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scie... > [@](#): > > Scientific racism – claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races, or alternatively the claim of “classifying” individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races or ethnicities [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological\_determinism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological_determinism) > [@](#): > > Biological determinism (often shortened to “bio-determinism” and used synonymously with biologism or genetic determinism) is a common fallacy that implies that biology does and should completely dictate human behavior or the behavior of a certain subset of humans, such as black people or males. A frequent formulation is along the lines of, “Humans evolved to do this; it’s natural.” It is considered to be a form of pseudoscience or folk science. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/784 "2013-02-10T10:02:10Z")
> [@IceQube](#): > > Yes. As explained above. Bolding mine. Ok, so in your view, if a test like the SAT were administered to representative samples of blacks and whites, it’s pretty likely that there would not be a perforamance gap. Do I understand you correctly? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/785 "2013-02-10T13:37:50Z")
> [@IceQube](#): > > You’re asking for a counterargument?? :dubious:. Please. False premise. You’ve provide no argument in the first place. The LSAT scores are not necessarily representative across the board - whites, blacks, etc. Don’t generalize from a self-selected sample to an entire population. This applies to all the test scores you’ve cited. SATs are not randomly administered. The MCAT isn’t randomly administered. Self-selected populations take these standardized tests. Your foundation is in science and basic statistics has clearly been built on quicksand. You are correct about this statement: SATs, MCATs, LSATs and so on do not represent a pure cross section of their SIRE subsets. (This is not, by the way, what the original disclaimer on the LSAT you quoted was talking about) You are confused about the ramifications of your statement, though. All of these academic tests are administered to students who make it far enough along in the system to take them. By the time you get to the MCATs, say, you’ve got a fairly small sample of an overall group. However, if you required required ALL the SIRE group to take the test, the difference among SIRE groups at the highest level tests would be huge. Much much larger than it is now, using only the subgroups who take the tests. The dropout rate in high school is much higher for blacks. Performance on the SAT and ACT (which are as broadly administered as any academic tests) shows huge underperformance for blacks. Right now more advanced tests only use the highest-performing SAT-takers; that’s the only group that gets that far. Throwing in the rest of the population would vastly increase the LSAT or MCAT gaps. Take a look at [these ACT scores](http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr11/pdf/ACTScoresOverTimebyRaceEthnicity.pdf) and imagine what would happen if you made all those black students take the LSAT. In turn, take the ACT scores and imagine what would happen if you made all the dropouts take the tests. The score gaps on these sorts of exams are already minimized by limiting the test administration only to the “self-selected populations” who take those standardized tests. But there isn’t a secret pocket of brilliant people who aren’t taking the tests. The ones who aren’t taking the tests are the weaker students, and these are by far over-represented in the black population at large. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/786 "2013-02-10T13:45:02Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I think you are confused about what Flynn is saying. His whole premise rests on extrapolation that is fairly linear. He doesn’t know when the gap closure began, and in fact one of the problems with the whole Flynn hypothesis is that one has to create an arbitrary start and stop point lest we all be retarded at point X back in time, and all be geniuses in the future. Flynn and others have noted that increases in IQ tests have slowed down and perhaps stopped. But the rise itself is completely accepted and uncontroversial. > [@](#): > > I get what he is trying to say about rising IQs, but I think he has spun and confused and conflated and extrapolated data to come up with nonsense. The rough parameters for what an absolute number for IQ correlates with in terms of practical cognitive function haven’t really changed. Generally 80-85 means you are a fairly dull person, mentally. To accept the Flynn hypothesis, you have to accept that, prior to 1972, black americans were below this level. Forget the numbers, and realize that the functional category would be considered to be borderline retarded–i.e. significantly mentally challenged–at 79. Wrong again. “Borderline retarded”, “Significantly mentally challenged”… where do you get this stuff? You’re just way way off. Whatever “level” black people were at, the numbers show that white people were at about 50 years before. It’s just a test score. > [@](#): > > There simply isn’t evidence that large segments of the population–black and white–were basically stupid back then, and as I’ve pointed out, other scores such as academic exams which are widely administered and standardized do not support this rising IQ notion. The “rising IQ notion” is widely accepted. Other standardized tests are “calibrated” periodically too, but may or may not show the same sort of increase as IQ tests. I agree that there’s no evidence that people were “basically stupid” back then- but their IQ test scores were a lot lower than they are now. Which means… people with lower IQ tests are not necessarily “stupider”! > [@](#): > > But…more importantly, I want to push the point that you as well as I believe that blacks are inferior for intelligence. No, I don’t. Yes, there’s a test-score gap, including in IQ test scores. No, I don’t believe that this gap is necessarily indicative of a difference in intelligence, whether the cause is genetic or not. > [@](#): > > You think everyone is getting smarter than they used to be No I don’t- I (and Flynn, and pretty much _all scientists_, even guys like Rushton) believe that everyone’s test scores rose for much of the 20th century. And I, and Flynn, believe that black people’s IQ test scores rose faster than white people’s. > [@](#): > > and you think blacks are 50 years of progress stupider than whites. No, I think black people, on average, score lower on IQ tests by “50 years of progress”; such that black people’s scores are about the same as white people’s scores from 50 years before. I hold no position on the relative stupidity between populations. > [@](#): > > I showed you ACT scores from the last 5 years. They are totally flat for blacks. I showed you ACT scores from the last 15 years. They are still totally flat. Where is this rising IQ being used, exactly? Flynn and others have noted that the “Flynn effect” has slowed down and maybe stopped, at least for some populations. So for 5 and 15 years ago, I don’t know if IQs have actually risen. Moreover, some have suggested that, since the late 1990s, IQs may have gone _down_ by a small amount, at least in some countries. If you had ACT scores from 1972 and 2002 that might be interesting to look at, but we’d also have to know if the tests are “calibrated” periodically, and what the trend is for this calibration. If ACT scores were unchanged for this period, then that would be an interesting data point to explore. > [@](#): > > You. like me, hold to a position that there is a substantial and real difference between these two SIRE groups. I hold a position that the test-score gap exists. And I hold that there are many other non-genetic factors, in environment, culture, and other “nurture” factors, that differ for white and black people. That’s it. > [@](#): > > For some odd reason you find it more comfortable to blame environment that genes. And for some odd reason you find that explanation more tenable even though high SES blacks continue to underscore low SES whites on academic exams. LOL- I’ve explained this “odd reason” over and over again- there is no genetic evidence for the genetic explanation. Yes, it’s “odd” to ascribe something to genetics, when we haven’t found a single gene (no, “neuro-biological function” genes do not count; and even those genes don’t give any data about which ones are “better”) in support. You gotta find the genes for intelligence, find the ones for “high” and “low” intelligence, show that they differ in prevalence between populations, and show how they correlate to intelligence. So sorry that I’m not part of your “black people are inferior” club- I know it must be lonely. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/787 "2013-02-10T13:51:01Z")
You’ve made some progress though- you’re admitting that you do consider black people to be, on average, inferior. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/788 "2013-02-10T13:53:11Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/789 "2013-02-10T13:54:11Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/790 "2013-02-10T13:55:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is not odd, considering that once again there is no genetic evidence presented, as mentioned many scientists ans experts have seen the data, and they agree with Flynn, Nesbitt and many others. > > The “odd” thing is that besides the scientists the people that look at pseudo science in general still report that ideas like yours are indeed pseudoscience. > > [List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience) > [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological\_determinism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological_determinism) I think you are missing the point, because you think the point I’m making is the reason for the gap. The point I was making is…the fact of the gap. iiandyiiii thinks there is a very large gap in IQ–intelligence tests–between blacks and whites in the US. He believes this gap is currently about 15 points for adults. He believes this gap in 1972 was 21 points, with an average black adult IQ in 1972 of 79. Extending Flynn’s assumptions previous to 1972 makes black adult IQ’s even lower. iiandyiiii believes all of this is environmental. I believe much of any gap (I tend to focus on academic test outcomes) is hereditary. But he still believes in this huge gap, even for intelligence testing. I find it odd that he wants to ascribe differences to environment when SES gaps do not support that contention; even odder that he seems to think environmental explanations are somehow nobler than hereditary ones. I take a lot of heat–even to the point of being ridiculed as racist–for my conclusion that human populations differ in skillsets because they differ biologically. The implication of those who do the criticizing is typically that we are all of equal intelligence, and only opportunity separates us. Once you admit that intelligence itself, as measured by IQ, differs among populations, I think you lose any high ground you thought you had. And I am absolutely stunned by the acceptance of the actual numbers, frankly. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/791 "2013-02-10T14:05:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’ve made some progress though- you’re admitting that you do consider black people to be, on average, inferior. Just to remind you once again: you also consider black people inferior. If you are going to insist on presenting pithy summaries as pejoratively as possible in an effort to smear the other poster, have at it. Here’s my summary for iiandyiiii’s position on IQ under those rules: **Adult blacks are markedly inferior to adult whites for intelligence. Intelligence scores are well-established and non-controversial, and blacks still have a huge gap relative to whites. Specifically, the average adult black intelligence score in the US is 85. It was 79 in 1972**. Again, the difference between us is why we think blacks are “inferior.” It’s not a question of which of us thinks that inferiority exists. Neither genetic heritage nor environment is the fault of an individual, so I don’t see any moral high ground here. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/792 "2013-02-10T14:05:50Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I think you are missing the point, because you think the point I’m making is the reason for the gap. The point I was making is…the fact of the gap. > > iiandyiiii thinks there is a very large gap in IQ–intelligence tests–between blacks and whites in the US. He believes this gap is currently about 15 points for adults. He believes this gap in 1972 was 21 points, with an average black adult IQ in 1972 of 79. Extending Flynn’s assumptions previous to 1972 makes black adult IQ’s even lower. 2002 is not today, but the IQ test scores show a similarly-sized 1 SD gap that most other tests do. Flynn’s “assumption” (or his widely accepted Flynn Effect) is widely accepted but only applies for recent history. Flynn does not report that this effect has applied for all of history. > [@](#): > > iiandyiiii believes all of this is environmental. I believe much of any gap (I tend to focus on academic test outcomes) is hereditary. But he still believes in this huge gap, even for intelligence testing. I believe a test-score gap exists- including for IQ tests. That’s what the data shows. I don’t believe the gap is “huge”. > [@](#): > > I find it odd that he wants to ascribe differences to environment when SES gaps do not support that contention; even odder that he seems to think environmental explanations are somehow nobler than hereditary ones. LOL- no, there’s no nobility, except perhaps that I don’t believe black people are, on average, inferior, and you’ve admitted you do. > [@](#): > > I take a lot of heat–even to the point of being ridiculed as racist–for my conclusion that human populations differ in skillsets because they differ biologically. Boo-hoo… cry me a river. > [@](#): > > The implication of those who do the criticizing is typically that we are all of equal intelligence, and only opportunity separates us. Once you admit that intelligence itself, as measured by IQ, differs among populations, I think you lose any high ground you thought you had. Dude, it’s a test-score gap. Answers on a sheet of paper. It’s not magic. > [@](#): > > And I am absolutely stunned by the acceptance of the actual numbers, frankly. “Stunned” by the acceptance of data. Unfortunately, not out of the ordinary for you. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/793 "2013-02-10T14:10:40Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Just to remind you once again: you also consider black people inferior. No I don’t. Stop saying false things about me. > [@](#): > > Here’s my summary for iiandyiiii’s position on IQ under those rules: > > **Adult blacks are markedly inferior to adult whites for intelligence. Intelligence scores are well-established and non-controversial, and blacks still have a huge gap relative to whites. Specifically, the average adult black intelligence score in the US is 85. It was 79 in 1972**. This is incorrect for many, many reasons. This is not my position- I don’t believe black people are inferior, and I don’t believe the test-score gap implies superiority or inferiority. I don’t believe IQ scores are “intelligence scores”. And (you keep repeating this) the “85” comes from 2002, not today. > [@](#): > > Again, the difference between us is why we think blacks are “inferior.” It’s not a question of which of us thinks that inferiority exists No, the difference is that you think black people are inferior. I do not. I believe that the test-score gap exists, but I do not believe that this implies anything at all about inferiority or superiority. You are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/794 "2013-02-10T15:46:02Z")
It is iiandyiiii who is determined to apply the label of “inferior” to make the positions as pejoratively stated as possible in the hope that my position will be rejected out of hand by those whose altruism wants everybody to be equal. This is a good rhetoric trick, but in this case he is hoist on his own petard. In common language, we would consider a speed of 9 seconds for a 100 meter dash superior to a speed of 10 seconds, and we would say the individuals who performed that 9 second dash were superior to their comparison group. We could equally say, although we don’t typically use such pejorative language, that the group averaging 10 seconds was inferior to the group averaging 9 seconds. IQs are designed to measure cognitive ability. They are a distinct class of tests from academic test scores designed to measure retention and mastery of taught content. An IQ test measure intelligence; academic tests measure knowledge, with a much greater correlation to the opportunity to garner that knowledge. This distinction is commonly lost on the public, who in daily use frequently praise someone as “smart” if they know an obscure fact, when they should be praising him as “knowledgeable.” “Intelligent” is the opposite of “dumb.” “Dumb” is not synonymous with the opposite of “knowledgeable,” which is “ignorant.” OK. **What iiandyiiii holds is that adult american blacks are inferior to american whites for intelligence as measured by the IQ tests we use to quantify intelligence. Markedly inferior, with an average adult black intelligence score of 85**. There isn’t a way to spin this, other than to simply deny that iiandyiiii considers blacks inferior to whites and asians for intelligence. But he does. He has to accept this data because it underpins his nurturing argument. iiandyiiii wants to accuse the Pedant of calling blacks inferior because of their inferior performance on academic tests, but he doesn’t want himself to be accused of calling blacks inferior because of their inferior intelligence. For some reason, he thinks that if your inferior intelligence is due to nurturing and not nature, that’s not “inferior.” Why yes, iiandyiiii; yes it is. If my mom feeds me bacon, my coaches expect me to fail because I’m too fat to train, and I give up running because I accept an oppositional culture that says I’ll never be an athlete, I am still inferior if I can’t run as fast. I just have a different reason. iiandyiiii does not think blacks have inferior genes for either academic skillsets or IQ tests, on average. The Pedant does. I believe gene prevalences differ by population, and that at least with respect for the skillset that drives outcomes for academic exams, white and asian population have a greater prevalence of genes coding for superior performance on that skillset. But for differences in intelligence–intelligence; not just mastery of academic content–iiandyiiii takes the position that adult blacks in america are markedly inferior in intelligence. A full standard deviation inferior; and going back 40 or 50 years, even more inferior. We may be left with an argument of how much intelligence is hereditary and how much is genetic, but it’s silly to pretend that only the Pedant “thinks blacks are inferior” when iiandyiiii cites their average adult IQ as 85. This is one of my complaints about this sort of debate. It takes 700 posts to wring out of the opposition what they really think because it’s so hard to get behind the spins. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/795 "2013-02-10T15:55:26Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It is iiandyiiii who is determined to apply the label of “inferior” to make the positions as pejoratively stated as possible in the hope that my position will be rejected out of hand by those whose altruism wants everybody to be equal. LOL- forgive me for quoting your own words. I guess that really touched a nerve, eh? You had gone this long without actually calling black people “inferior”… but when I point out your slip, you get all strange on me. > [@](#): > > OK. **What iiandyiiii holds is that adult american blacks are inferior to american whites for intelligence as measured by the IQ tests we use to quantify intelligence. Markedly inferior, with an average adult black intelligence score of 85**. False, incorrect, wrong. Quit projecting. > [@](#): > > There isn’t a way to spin this, other than to simply deny that iiandyiiii considers blacks inferior to whites and asians for intelligence. Yes, I do deny blacks are inferior for intelligence, unlike you. Sorry you’ll be all alone in your club. > [@](#): > > He has to accept this data because it underpins his nurturing argument. This data does not say that black people are inferior. I do not consider scoring lower on a test “inferior”. > [@](#): > > iiandyiiii wants to accuse the Pedant of calling blacks inferior because of their inferior performance on academic tests, but he doesn’t want himself to be accused of calling blacks inferior because of their inferior intelligence. For some reason, he thinks that if your inferior intelligence is due to nurturing and not nature, that’s not “inferior.” No, I don’t think black people have inferior intelligence. > [@](#): > > iiandyiiii does not think blacks have inferior genes for either academic skillsets or IQ tests, on average. The Pedant does. Yes, you believe black people have inferior genes. I don’t. I don’t think they’re inferior on average; you do. > [@](#): > > But for differences in intelligence–intelligence; not just mastery of academic content–iiandyiiii takes the position that adult blacks in america are markedly inferior in intelligence. A full standard deviation inferior; and going back 40 or 50 years, even more inferior. LOL- no, this is not what I hold. Wrong again! > [@](#): > > We may be left with an argument of how much intelligence is hereditary and how much is genetic, but it’s silly to pretend that only the Pedant “thinks blacks are inferior” when iiandyiiii cites their average adult IQ as 85. This is one of my complaints about this sort of debate. It takes 700 posts to wring out of the opposition what they really think because it’s so hard to get behind the spins. Exactly. I took more than 700 posts for you to admit explicitly that you believe black people inferior. I’m sorry that I disagree with you. No, I don’t think IQ tests are magic, and I don’t think their scores tell one anything about superiority or inferiority. ---
**Author:** ![Shiloh2013](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@Shiloh2013](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shiloh2013)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/796 "2013-02-10T16:04:37Z")
> [@Vaffanculo](#): > > On the contrary, I can’t think of any important attribute which isn’t likely to have race-specific distribution frequencies, for example – > > - cultural forms and achievement > - sociability > - intelligence > - mental health patterns > - maturation speed, from gestation onward > - aggressiveness vs. cautiousness > - impulsivity vs. delayed gratification How do these “race doesn’t exist” people explain sickle cell anemia? ---
**Author:** ![Shiloh2013](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@Shiloh2013](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shiloh2013)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/797 "2013-02-10T16:05:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > LOL- forgive me for quoting your own words. I guess that really touched a nerve, eh? You had gone this long without actually calling black people “inferior”… but when I point out your slip, you get all strange on me. > > False, incorrect, wrong. Quit projecting. > > Yes, I do deny blacks are inferior for intelligence, unlike you. Sorry you’ll be all alone in your club. > > This data does not say that black people are inferior. I do not consider scoring lower on a test “inferior”. > > No, I don’t think black people have inferior intelligence. > > Yes, you believe black people have inferior genes. I don’t. I don’t think they’re inferior on average; you do. > > LOL- no, this is not what I hold. Wrong again! > > Exactly. I took more than 700 posts for you to admit explicitly that you believe black people inferior. I’m sorry that I disagree with you. No, I don’t think IQ tests are magic, and I don’t think their scores tell one anything about superiority or inferiority. They do about intelligence superiority and inferiority. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/798 "2013-02-10T16:05:48Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Just to remind you once again: you also consider black people inferior. > > If you are going to insist on presenting pithy summaries as pejoratively as possible in an effort to smear the other poster, have at it. Your second sentence has some merit in the context of the argument; (I do see too much _ad hominem_ against you for my preferences). iiandyiiii has relied on presuming motive when he has launched his _ad hominem_s regarding inferiority, (just as you have presumed motive when you have hurled your “egalitarian” claim). However, I can find no instance in this thread that supports your first sentence. You can use _ad hominem_ fallacies just as your opponents can, but if you assert an idea as fact, you still need to be able to cite it. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/799 "2013-02-10T16:11:32Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > How do these “race doesn’t exist” people explain sickle cell anemia? What needs to be explained? Sickle cell isn’t a “black race” thing it’s a “[genetic condition that affects those whose ancestry comes from areas with high incidents of malaria](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Sickle_cell_distribution.jpg)” thing. A slightly more complex and accurate concept, yes. But such is science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/800 "2013-02-10T16:32:56Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I think you are missing the point, because you think the point I’m making is the reason for the gap. The point I was making is…the fact of the gap. > > iiandyiiii thinks there is a very large gap in IQ–intelligence tests–between blacks and whites in the US. He believes this gap is currently about 15 points for adults. He believes this gap in 1972 was 21 points, with an average black adult IQ in 1972 of 79. Extending Flynn’s assumptions previous to 1972 makes black adult IQ’s even lower. > > iiandyiiii believes all of this is environmental. I believe much of any gap (I tend to focus on academic test outcomes) is hereditary. But he still believes in this huge gap, even for intelligence testing. I find it odd that he wants to ascribe differences to environment when SES gaps do not support that contention; even odder that he seems to think environmental explanations are somehow nobler than hereditary ones. > > I take a lot of heat–even to the point of being ridiculed as racist–for my conclusion that human populations differ in skillsets because they differ biologically. The implication of those who do the criticizing is typically that we are all of equal intelligence, and only opportunity separates us. Once you admit that intelligence itself, as measured by IQ, differs among populations, I think you lose any high ground you thought you had. And I am absolutely stunned by the acceptance of the actual numbers, frankly. And once again you show all in this thread itself direct evidence that you are not reading. No, the point stands, this is \*\*the \*\*straw man, \*\*iiandyiiii \*\*and the majority of the scientists (and this can be said as meta cognition sites and other scientists report it is the case) The gap is acknowledged, and it does not lead them to report that genes are the driving force of the differences in intelligence between races, (and even there the vast majority of biologists and geneticists agree on dumping the old race definitions) What you also forgot to read: > **[Opinion | All Brains Are the Same Color (Published 2007)](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html?_r=2&)** > > Interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in I.Q., sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. > [@](#): > > A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class whites. > > Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case Western Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community College tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability to learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had substantially more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but when participants were tested on their ability to learn new words, either from dictionary definitions or by learning their meaning in context, the blacks did just as well as the whites. > > Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to recognize similarities and better facility with analogies — when solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more likely to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was prior knowledge only that differed. It is that consistency what separates the pseudoscience from the science, There is more than just one research made, and as everyone can check, your point that there was only one was bullshit. So there was more research that shows that genes are not a good way to explain the gap, it is not strange that even at the meta cognition levels, of sites that do bother to check for what the experts do actually report, the conclusion remains, Rushton, Lynn, and many other sources you rely on are pushing pseudo science. > [@](#): > > Scientific problems with biological determinism > [edit] Statistical fallacies > > On the scientific level, it often comes packaged with numerous fallacies common to the fields of biology, statistics, and psychology. Biological determinism usually involves the fallacy of division, i.e. the application of a statistical trend to pre-judge an individual case. The fact that Chinese people tend to be short,[5] however, does not mean that basketball superstar Yao Ming should hang up his shorts and go home. Other common fallacies generally revolve around misinterpretations of the biological science of the day. > [edit] A “gene for” x > > The phrase “the gene for x” is often used in discussions of genetics. This terminology may be confusing for laypeople and is often misrepresented in popular science. It is rare that a trait will be monogenically determined. Take disease, for example. So far, only about two percent of diseases with a genetic component have been able to be linked to a single gene.[6] The expression of a genotype is usually described by a norm of reaction, i.e., the pattern of phenotypes produced by a single genotype due to environmental variation.[7] This environmentally induced variability is known as “phenotypic plasticity.”[8] Thus, the phrase “gene for” is usually shorthand for “a gene that increases the likelihood of inheriting trait x” and not a statement that trait x is monogenically determined.[9] > [@](#): > > Recent advances in biology > > Recent findings in a number of areas of the biological sciences have painted a picture of biology that is far more nuanced than biological determinism lets on. One area of research that has generated many new findings is evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo” in geek-speak, which concentrates on individual development and phenotypic change in relation to evolution. Studies of gene regulation and expression in evo-devo conceptualize genes as “switches” that may be turned on or off at certain points in time due to environmental factors.[15][16] Epigenetic factors also play a role in inheritance. Epigenetic inheritance occurs in instances where something is inherited, usually patterns of gene expression, without any change to the underlying DNA or genetic structure. Inherited changes in DNA methylation and histone modification are mechanisms by which epigenetic inheritance can occur.[17][18][19] While the phenomenon of neuroplasticity is not a recent discovery and has been known since the first half of the 20th century, current neuroscientific and neurobiological research into this topic continues to chip away at oversimplified notions of hard genetic determination of cognitive capacities and behavioral traits, which has been dubbed “neurogenetic determinism.”[20] > [edit] Essentialism > > Research in cognitive science suggests that biological determinism may be in part the result of certain cognitive biases, psychological essentialism in particular. The posited biological “essence” of humans has shifted over time, from blood to genes. These “essences” are thought to be responsible for determining a person’s “innate” potential or constituting the individual’s identity.[21] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=41)