Ummm, I was clearly referring to the process “by which smoking causes lung cancer”
No it isn’t. Here’s the exact quote:
my bolding
I was clearly referring to the process “by which smoking causes lung cancer.” I never referred to a “process of smoking cigarettes.”
Kindly apologize.
I agree, especially given the context. Here’s what you had said:
Of course, I would have thought that Honesty was simply strawmanning you, i.e. pretending that you said something different from what you actually said.
But it seems he really does believe that all humans have essentially the same alleles but for some undisclosed reason have different blood types, eye colors, and so on.
EVERYONE back off on the personal comments.
Stick to discussing the arguments, facts, and logic and leave your personal views of other posters out of this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
And are you saying you think skin color,ethnic background etc. is a way to judge? I know personally people of other colors who are very intelligent, and many who call them selves white who are not. Color has nothing to do with a person’s intelligence or capabilities,nor the kind of person they are, in my opinion, you can’t judge nationality, color,religious beliefs etc. by one one person does. There is good and bad in all.
What their life experiences they had seem to dictate weither they are acting good or bad. I don’t know why some people hate and some are caring, but I don’t think it has anything to do with their nationality, color, or education, maybe their upbringing?
I don’t understand this question. Are you asking me about what public policies I think ought to be in place in terms of ethnic or racial discrimination? Whether a person’s ethnic and racial background provides information about other attributes? Something else?
I do too. So what?
If by “color,” you mean “race” as that term is normally used, then your claim is empirically false. You are confusing your own wishes with reality.
I agree. This doesn’t contradict anything I have said. If you wish to respond to something I have said, please read what I say and respond to what I actually say. Please do not respond to what you imagine or wish I have said.
This is a false statement.
Is your claim that SIRE groups have been measured to have equal IQs and outcomes, or would have equal IQs and outcomes if opportunity were to be normalized?
The first is factually incorrect.
The second is conjecture.
Neither. I’m saying that the claim that it’s been empirically proven that race corresponds to intelligence and abilities is false. Which is what I’ve been saying all along- that there’s no supporting genetic evidence for your hypothesis.
However, I’m quite interested in the data from here, linked above, which, among other things, says this about the “test score gap” (I already quoted this above, but I’ll do it again here because I think it’s good stuff):
This is particularly notable, from what I just quoted (bolding mine):
bm
You keep jumping around between an incomplete, inaccurate definition of “nurture” and other terms, like “opportunity”. Maybe it’s not clear in your mind which is which, or you see them as entirely interchangeable.
Since we’re back on IQ, here’s a wealth of analysis that casts doubt on your claims, analysis done by a confirmed right wing ideologue yet.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2012/07/what_do_iq_diff.html
To summarize, the data just doesn’t support your claims on race and IQ. The causes of these outcomes are complex, and the outcomes are themselves highly variable.
I own the book by Jencks and Phillips on the the “Black-White Test Score Gap.”
In the introduction, they argue that this gap does not appear to “be an inevitable fact of nature,” and they rest this conviction on three premises:
*1. Scores for black children rise if white people raise them.
2. Nonverbal IQ tests are “sensitive to environmental change.”
3. B-W differences in academic achievement have narrowed in the 20th century.
*
I agree with all three of these premises, for the most part. There’s no question environment has an influence on outcomes. The question is, “Why does the gap persist even with equivalent environments?” and I don’t find that question adequately–or even close to–resolved with introducing a biological explanation. Moreover, in less sensitive areas such as certain athletic endeavors, I note much less anxiety over attributing performance outcome differences to genetic factors (except where attributing such differences opens the door to performance differences for intellectual pursuits.) Also, the narrowed academic gaps are confounded by affirmative action–formal or informal–and by a persistent marked gap in STEM sciences (as measured, for example, by PhD candidates in STEM fields) that is disproportionate to the gap in more subjectively-measured fields. Finally, what about the asian-white gap for quantitative fields? How does one go about explaining that without resorting to a biological advantage?
For the Sweet essay, from which those other points are taken, I don’t think I have the source from which the points are quoted. I also note that you didn’t put these quotes in:
1. One cannot argue away the U.S. Black/White test-score gap by saying that tests are culturally biased
2. The U.S. Black/White test-score gap is not caused by poverty or ignorance. Children of high-school dropouts exhibit the same gap as children of those with postgraduate degrees. Children of wealthy Black families exhibit the same gap as children of poor Black families. Children of college-educated Black families exhibit the same gap as children of uneducated Black families.
3. Formal schooling is irrelevant to the U.S. Black/White test-score gap. The U.S. Black/White test-score gap is not due to differences in public schools.
The Sweet essay discards out of hand a genetic component. * “The U.S. Black/White test-score gap lacks a “racial” genetic component. The gap is not “racially” genetic, not even a little. This is not to say that the ability to get high scores is not hereditary. It is. Dumb parents have dumb kids and vice-versa. But no hereditary component correlates with U.S. endogamous group membership.” * However, it does not detail any actual genetic arguments one way or the other, including arguments to show why gene prevalences should be different among SIRE groups if we look at the history of human migration patterns, and look at gene prevalence differences for other sorts of genes among SIRE groups.
There are isolated examples of successes here and there, and I’d bet there are isolated examples of exceptions to almost any generalization. But ultimately, it does not appear the gap actually gets closed at any broad level. Given that it seems unreasonable to suppose that genes within isolated populations should remain the same as the common ancestral population, and given that we all agree certain skillsets are hereditable in the first place, I find a genetic explanation as the simplest and most consistent one for broad averages in outcome differences.
(Gotta run. Back tonight, possibly.)
“conjecture” is being overly charitable to the extent it carries the connotation that there is a reasonable chance the claim in question is actually true.
It’s like the conjecture that cigarette smoking is actually harmless and the real problem is that there is a common gene which simultaneously increases the risk of lung cancer and enhances the enjoyment from the fine taste of cigarette smoke.
None of these points refute any of my points.
The last statement does not necessarily follow from the first two. And not only is there no genetic evidence in support of your hypothesis (the point that I have been arguing for most of this thread), there is lots of evidence against it- such as the lack of a test score gap between black and white 1st generation immigrant children, and the lack of a gap between adopted black and white children with white parents. And the lack of a correlation between the presence of sub-Saharan admixture and the test-score gap, along with a correlation between self-identity and the gap, suggests that self-identity has a lot more to do with different outcomes then does genetics.
The Sweet article sums it up:
And later:
I don’t know the cause and cure of the black/white test-score gap, or other disparate outcomes. And I’m pretty sure you don’t know it either.
First, as with anything, one needs to look at the actual studies. As I mentioned, I don’t have the studies Sweet is citing. What I try to look at is the quality and breadth of a study. We are talking about large averages for crude categories when we talk about a “race based gap.” So I would not be the least surprised to find superior performance from an immigrant group against some other baseline group in a narrower study. Surely the best and brightest of a given source population are the ones who are most likely to get the emigration ticket out of the host population. On the other hand, SAT data that I (and Sweet reference) is an “all-comer” kind of study for populations being looked at.
I listed the citations around poverty, cultural bias and schooling for you because they are common putative reasons brought up (you may have invoked them yourself on occasion) for non-genetic reasons for the black-white gap. It’s nice to see them acknowledge in your own cite, so I hope you don’t invoke them again.
I am really curious about this statement: “Millions of ethnically Black Americans lack sub-Saharan genetic markers. They do. The gap follows self-identity, not genes.” What is the source of it? And is Sweet saying that "millions of ethnically black americans don’t derive a significant part of their ancestry from sub-saharan africa? If so, where does he think they derive their ancestry from? Are there millions of Navin Johnsons out there, or was this data simply culled from DNA testing that happened not to have a very broad cross-section of sub-saharan genetic lines? Were all those millions actually Swedes or something?
Finally, the idea that many whites have some recent sub-saharan ancestry and many US blacks have some recent european ancestry is well accepted. We would expect that such genetic admixing yields intermediate results for the averages on (for example) psychometric testing for those groups, and as it turns out, it does. Jensen and others use this as support of their genetic hypothesis. I don’t think anyone contests the idea that there is some sub-saharan-european genetic admixture in much of the US population; generally more european ancestral genes in the black population than sub-saharan in the white population (black and white being defined by self-identification).
If, by “no genetic evidence” you mean no identification of the exact gene variants involved in differences, you are right. This is not the same as saying there is “no evidence,” since it is a reasonable assumption that confounding variables can be studied and normalized.
I suspect the black-white (and the asian-white) gap will be with us for the forseeable future, efforts to eliminate notwithstanding.
In the interim, I remain concerned that if we insist such a genetic explanation does not exist, we will lose social policies such as race-based AA that help ameliorate the effects of a genetic difference.
That’s fine- I’m sure we all like to look at the best studies.
Are you not surprised by the findings that black and white immigrant children (from various regions, 1st generation) have no test score gap?
Ok. The three hypotheses that Sweet says have “stood the test of time (and data collection)” are differences in parenting skill for younger children, lower teacher expectations for slightly older children, and “oppositional culture” peer-pressure for adolescents.
Presumably, something to do with identifying oneself as black. Sweet probably thinks those it’s largely do to those three things I quote from him above.
Yes, this is what I mean. And whether “confounding variables” can be normalized or not, I don’t believe they actually have been. I think this is an absolutely monumental task, and would require something on the order of the fertilization-to-adulthood robot-biosphere “experiment” I’ve outlined.
You’re free to suspect whatever you want. Based on the biases you’ve shown, I’m free to believe that your suspicions have little to do with reality.
I believe most people who support race-based AA do not believe in the “genetic explanation” for disparate outcomes, so I do not share your concern. I believe most people who support AA believe that it helps to counteract the weight of systemic and historic discrimination, as well as continuing racism in society- not any sort of genetic difference.
The word race is not truly what a person’s skin color is,to me there is only one Race, and that is the Human race. Perhaps because we put people in different catagories then it is okay to see them as inferior or suprerior? I am sorry you didn’t understand my reply, I felt it was. Who decided what one calls race? Wasn’t it used as an excuse to have a reason to look down on people or maybe think some are better than others? There is good and bad in all people, we all make mistakes. Some are born into families that have more oppertunities etc. but that is(in my opinion) no reason to judge them as worse, or better than me, or others.
I have lived by and worked with people of most colors of skin,nationalities,etc. I found them to be no different in goodness. some had oppertunity to an education , live in good neighborhoods come from good and abusive families but I feel they enriched my life.
Except of course, when it would serve a Leftist agenda to distinguish between different races.
Perhaps . . . so what?
Lol, perhaps that made sense in your head?
Good for you, congratulations on your wonderful life experiences.
The reason I find these unpersuasive is not just that they are so soft. If we look at historically black universities (in which these sorts of cultural pressures should be diminished), we see scores that are worse than for black students at integrated universities (as, for example, MCAT or LSAT scores).
It’s pretty clear the primary determinant of student performance is student ability and not student environment.
Across the entire country (and the world, for that matter), the general pattern is always the same, and the rank order for SIRE groups is always the same. Isolated exceptions might exist, but those isolated exceptions (Sweet’s unreferenced immigrant population studies, for example) never seem to hold up when examining large groups.
For example, in the last 20 years, millions of students have taken the SAT. Hundreds of thousands have taken the LSAT and MCAT. Tens of thousands have had opportunity to pursue advanced STEM fields. And always, at every opportunity level, the same pattern exists for outcomes.
For example, (Hi, You with the face!) in athletic endeavors, millions of wannabes from all groups have NBA or NFL or track dreams. And always, at every opportunity level, the same pattern exists for outcomes.
A similar pattern exists across the world in all sorts of political systems; all sorts of cultural heritages.
I find isolated studies less persuasive than the broad pattern, and for this reason I do not expect the black-white gaps to diminish past their current point until we are homogeneous for our gene prevalences.
Why should they necessarily be diminished? And there could be a myriad of other reasons why students at HBCUs might score lower.
And it seems pretty clear that student ability depends on a lot of things, including parental involvement as a young child, teacher expectations, and peer-pressure.
More disparate outcomes. You know, we’ve all agreed these exist. This discussion is about trying to explain them- every time you bring up more disparate outcomes, you’re just wasting your own time.
<more disparate outcome stuff snipped because it’s pointless to read more about something we all agree exists>
What you find persuasive is irrelevant to me. You have no evidence. The gap exists- please stop telling me about the gap. Your biases are clear. You’ve made up your mind.