Just a reminder that you have yet to post a single cite supporting Sweet’s position that genes do not play a role. Begin with the first-gen immigrant studies, if you don’t mind. There are such studies, and I’d be interested in knowing which ones you find so persuasive. I am also still waiting for the cite supporting the idea that “millions of black americans have no sub-saharan markers.” I would like to understand that comment better, since the thrust of a genetic argument is essentially a statistical one arguing that there are gene prevalence differences among SIRE groups, and that in the US, a SIRE group of “black” roughly corresponds to about 80% of sub-saharan ancestry (on average; Navin Johnson excepted) and a SIRE group of “white” roughly corresponds to well over 80% european ancestry on average. “Millions of black americans without sub-saharan markers” seems to be at odds with that, although not necessarily. I’d still be interested in seeing your cite for that. I believe upthread all you came up with was that Mr Sweet has appparently seen such a study.
Surely you don’t simply believe everything you read that supports a pre existing bias…
Also, are you able to make a comment on my question about oppositional culture and HCBUs or higher education?
So you’re saying that the points which support your point resonate, and those that don’t support your point don’t resonate? No, you don’t say. [sarcasm]Truly you are a marvel of scientific thinking.[/sarcasm]
There is no evidence for your explanation. You’re reduced to trying to pick away at other explanations, and you’re very bad at that too. You’ve made up your mind without any evidence or data. You’ve decided that the test-score gap is immutable, after just a few decades of half-hearted (due to political compromise and just plain incompetence) attempts at closing it.
I do not consider the study of genes demeaning in any way, to anyone.
We do not choose our genes, and in any case, the gene average of a population is not a statement about the genes we own as an individual.
Being proud, or ashamed; feeling elevated or demeaned about who your parents are is about as ignorant as you can get. Do you go around mocking kids with Down’s or complimenting beautiful women on their good sense to be born beautiful?
I wonder what the test-score effects would be of telling children that their population has inferior genes for intelligence. That sounds like a study you’d be particularly disposed to doing- CP. Round up lots of children, and divide them into two groups (it doesn’t even matter what population). Tell half of them that they belong to a population that has, on average, inferior genes for intelligence. Then teach both groups the same curriculum, and test them. I wonder if a gap will occur?
Or, perhaps, having classes for Honor Students or Advanced Placement, and regular classes. Or boys and girls basketball. Or University of Chicago and UIC.
My guess is that most of us figure out on our own where our particular potential is, and pursue attainable goals. Some do learn the hard way. I’d say it’s exceedingly unusual to have anyone never even try because of some sort of “group average” information made available to them. “Say what, sir? I can’t go take my shot at basketball because I’m asian? Good day, sir. I’ll be getting back to practice now. Love the game.” I realized early my NBA dreams were bust, as was my chance of having real success in mathematics. Decided to pursue other areas. And I never gave two bits of what the average was for my population. Why would I care about that?
Regardless of the effect, mother nature does not care.
I understand how super neato it would be if we all had the same genes. But we don’t. How to handle breaking that news, and what secondary effect it has, is a whole other issue.
Different genes does not mean different inherent genetic potential for intelligence. You may think you know, but you have no idea.
You have zero evidence that different populations have different inherent genetic potential for intelligence. It’d be super neato if we actually had any evidence that some races were inherently genetically dumber on average. But we don’t. I’ve tried breaking that news to you, and based on your reaction, it seems pretty clear that the secondary effects of that information might be profoundly damaging to your psyche.
A persistent, repeatable outcome difference for hereditary skillsets including psychometric testing, quantitative test scores for millions upon millions of testees across every SES stratification, political system and national structure; coupled with
Clear and convincing evidence that gene prevalence varies within the comparison populations; and that
Genes and gene prevalences are driven by evolution; and that
Among the groups of genes shown to exhibit positive selection pressure are genes for neuronal function; and that
The only confounding variables against a genetic hypothesis are poor parenting for small children (even among wealthy SES subgroups) and poor teacher expectation (even among teachers who from the underperforming cohort) and oppositional culture (even within academic institutions composed entirely of the underperforming cohort); and that
Within either group, intelligence is clearly genetically driven, and even within a family of children from the same parents, raised in the same household, differences are demonstrated to be genetic without identifying the exact gene."
Apparently it is only at the level of population comparison for SIRE groups that we are supposed to abandon our ability to recognize the obvious. If we were assigning a superior skillset to the Ashkenazi over a different white cohort, we can talk about it. Only if SIRE groups are involved is it taboo to consider genetic differences by far the most likely explanation.
Perhaps if you simply continue to repeat your mantra that there is “zero evidence,” folks will not examine the mountains of evidence.
Perhaps if you keep parroting that theme, you’ll be as successful as the creationists in arguing that we are all basically the same gene pool, recently created and unevolved from a world that was created 5,000 years ago, instead of being products of human evolution 200,000 years in the making, separated by time and migration and gene pools.
Nice try [note- it was not a nice try]. None of this is actually evidence for the genetic explanation, and 1. is not only way overblown (it’s a few decades of data largely restricted to a few parts of the world), but 1. is the test-score gap- the question for which an answer is sought. 2 through 4 say nothing about intelligence for different populations, you have a weak understanding of the hypotheses in 5 (and yes, there’s plenty of evidence that teachers from the “under-performing cohort” have the same lowered expectations as other teachers), and 6 says nothing about intelligence for different populations. All you’ve got is re-formulating the question into a statement- you don’t get to answer “why does the test-score gap exist” with “it exists because of different genetics- and my evidence is that there is a test-score gap between different populations”. You’ve got nothing. Zero evidence for the genetic explanation.
More of this silly smear, coming from the guy who must take on faith his belief in the average genetic inferiority of certain populations, because there’s zero evidence for it. No, my friend [note- you are not my friend], it is you who have much in common with the Creationists, truthers, birthers, moon-hoaxers, and flat-earthers. You have no positive evidence for your assertion (just like them), you are reduced to picking away at the competing explanations (just like them), and you are failing miserably for all to see (just like them).
Note that we are not talking about only a “test-score gap,” which usually refers to standardized academic tests. We are talking about psychometric tests such as IQ tests, across dozens of political systems. We are talking about real-life performance differences such as sports and academic professions. We are talking about professional achievements such as the over representation of asians in quantitative sciences. We are talking about inventions and patent applications; whole-scale national successes for scientific endeavors or technology. Creation of wealth. Political conquests. All the way down to a firefighter’s exam…
Exceptions to the patterns of population successes that we see remain exceptions superimposed on the same pattern, over and over again. We do not see persistent enslavement of the clever by the less clever. Where that occurs as an exception, the general pattern returns. We don’t see conquest of populations who can create and absorb technology and manage knowledge transfer by populations who cannot. We do not see the short end of the conquest stick sometimes with one SIRE group and sometimes with another; it’s always the same ones who end up on the bottom.
It would appear the same SIRE groups always get the same lousy parents, the same low-expecting teachers, and the same opposing cultures. Because there certainly is no evidence that it’s genes…other than the stubborn repetition of the same pattern over and over and over again, over time and boundary. Oh; and also what evolution teaches us about genes and positive selection for advantageous ones in separated groups. Oh; and also the fact that everything we have measured proves there are gene prevalence differences. Oh; and also the NBA and Olympic sprinting. (Hi, ywtf!)
Since it’s not genes, I guess these patterns will be disappearing Real Soon Now.
Ahh, the “look at history and civiliation” canard. Looking back on all of human history, we can find periods where peoples of every color were both at the top or at the bottom- whether it’s high Chinese civilization, the Nubians/Kush conquering and ruling Egypt, European dominance, or many others, there is no trend of any particular “population dominance”. Ancient people of every color and region made major discoveries and inventions. What that teaches me (and most prominent scientists) is that for recent history, the major tool of adaptation for humans has been culture. Romans dominated Europe for centuries because their culture was superior (militarily and economically speaking), not because their genetics were. And German tribes overran the late Roman Empire because of cultural, not genetic reasons. Egypt conquered Kush (and was later conquered by Kush) for cultural, not genetic reasons. And so on- in China and Japan and Korea, in the New World, in Africa, and everywhere else. Cultures that utilized resources better out-competed (directly or indirectly) other cultures, and their members lived longer and had more offspring, often absorbing the surrounding cultures. And culture is affected by many things- local resources, climate, local parasites and germs, in addition to the innovation of individual people. The test-score gap (or other gaps) may show certain groups at the top or bottom, but in history these same top groups may have been the oppressed and geopolitical “losers” for centuries, and in different periods those bottom groups may have ruled and done their own oppressing. Culture explains these things very well- genetics does not.
We shall see. I see no reason to believe that such things, which have over the course of human history fluctuated wildly (or, for things like the test-score gap, have only been measured for a miniscule fraction of human history), just happen to be set in their “natural values” right at this moment.
Wow, you guys must be thick as shit if you can’t pull that piece of crap argument apart without resorting to more than 100 posts of confused, poorly-informed blather, and making yourselves look like frothing-at-the-mouth racists into the bargain. I’m very much against affirmative action in principle and practice, but people like you guys make the other side look coherent and reasonable even when they’re talking crap.
They might very well disappear, sooner or later. We don’t know. That’s the point.
bolding mine
Lynn was as convinced as you are that the Irish were inherently, genetically inferior in terms of intellectual ability. He was proven wrong. But the Irish were really, really stupid for a long, long time. As late as the 70’s, they still hadn’t climbed out of the pit.
Ease up on Lynn, he was really, really wrong about a whole lot of things. He was convinced he could estimate the IQ of entire nations with a single study of 40 students (or, in some instances, zero studies). And he’s one of the racialists’ favorite researchers.
You may need to account for affirmative action. If you have lower-achieving minorities who get into these schools based on AA (or inflated normalized grades) then they would be expected to perform more poorly on tests “four years further on”.
Was Irish stupidity essentially universal in space and time? For example, were Irish-Americans significantly stupider than other European-Americans, for example Italian-Americans? Were there massive efforts to raise up the Irish-Americans to the levels of other European-Americans which failed again and again? And is the average IQ among Irish people now the same as it is for other European groups?
If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then you have a valid point.