That sounds like the old joke of an old bragging guy that once claimed:
*Old fellow: “Over here sir, I defeated a boxing champion and a chess champion.”
Kid: “How did you managed such feat?”
Old Fellow: “Well, I defeated the chess champion in boxing and the boxing champ in chess”*
The point is that I bring the positions ethics and politics fellows have nowadays regarding this issue, of course in the end you have to agree on what they claim as in reality your position is a complete loser in political and ethical areas.
And then you claim to agree with most of the scientists that you quote.
**
But you will still “beat” all their conclusions. **
That is what fear smells like, and your invitation to others to read what you claim to agree in the end is also another tactic seen by creationists and climate change deniers, “sure read the article, it shows that I’m correct” is classic Lord Monckton.
In this case is to discourage others to see how your premise can not be tolerated in a civilized world, and it goes against what scientists report, once again, even what you posted recently was cheeked, there is no references to intelligence genes. the most sincere thing to say is that indeed one can make inferences, but they is no concrete genetically evidence that genes influence an intelligence difference among “races”, and then the point is attempted to be missed, but as a civilized person you have to agree.
Must that data be from a perfectly egalitarian Scottish society?
As per our earlier exchange, we seem to be largely in agreement, but I think most of the disagreement you have in this thread is due to your insistence that there is “zero evidence”. There’s been plenty of evidence, but again, you seem to be conflating it with proof. You might characterize the evidence as weak, but that doesn’t mean it does not exist.
My apologies again. I’m having a bit of trouble parsing this out.
If you think the litmus test that makes a scientific premise plausible is whether or not the civilized world is willing to tolerate it, I understand why you are confused about the difference between truth and wishful thinking. (Hint: start with Galileo and his nutty notions, which challenged the paradigms of that civilized world)
I’ll need you to try and restate the part above for me to understand your point, I’m afraid. I’m not trying to “beat” any scientific conclusions. I’m arguing that the egalitarian world is coming around to the existing conclusion that populations vary by prevalence for significant genes because evolution drives all genes, and because separated populations have different degrees of penetration for advantageous genes. And I think your boy Tim Wise is wising up to that, if you read his entire post.
Have you come up with a reasonable theory why some previously oppressed groups do well and others can’t close the gap? Or why the same group seems to remain permanently on the bottom SES/oppressed/social outcome tier across all population juxtapositions?
Bad luck, maybe? Can’t possibly be due to “group genetics,” of course. No siree; those past oppressions due to bad luck mean even if you are wealthy and educated now, you are still going to perform poorly on outcome tests. Oh…well; you are going to perform poorly on current outcome tests if you were black and oppressed, even though you are now privileged. If you are any other group and were oppressed before, why that prior oppression won’t have any effect whatsoever on your current outcomes. Prior oppression is a special case, just for one SIRE group. But definitely not genes. Definitely not. No evidence of that, certainly. :dubious:
There are plenty of hypotheses, including your “blacks are dumber, genetically, on average”. I don’t even need one of my own- I’ll withhold judgment until a hypothesis has actually been well tested (and, of course, until the results confirm it).
I hope you’re not too exhausted after that. Knocking down straw men can be tiring.
Ah the Galileo gambit, also preferred by creationists and climate change deniers, I do sense a pattern here.
Galileo brought evidence, the best you can bring is just an effect, an effect that has no supporting genetic evidence and other solutions have more support and effectiveness.
And you are still missing the point, ethically speaking and politically speaking he is indeed right, and the conclusion is how irrelevant your position is IF it had some value.
And no, the main point coming from you is that there is evidence of a significant genetic intelligence difference among races, not what the scientists are reporting there, and then you claim that your position leads to no significant change proposed on what society is doing now in dealing with the gap issue.
Talk about a pathetic point, at least others do stand by their reprehensible solutions to deal with the problem.
GIGObuster, earlier I summarized some of my key points:
(by CP):
“We are many diverse populations which have diverged from one another starting almost a couple hundred thousand years ago, with extensive mutations of genes in all of those populations. Those mutations are driven into prevalence by factors such as environmental pressures, population bottlenecks, genetic drift, natural catastrophes wiping out large proportions of populace, and positive selection pressure for advantageous mutations. Homogeneity of prevalences among diverse groups has been limited by migration patterns, in turn due to things like climate changes and natural “gates” that open and close based on these large-scale climate changes. In the past few thousand years, there has been increased mobility because of technology, but gene prevalence differences among populations remain, and there are many good examples.”
As I asked you earlier, will you be clarifying which of these positions are creationist in nature?
I also think you may have confused my with someone else, since you said,
(by GIGObuster) “then you claim that your position leads to no significant change proposed on what society is doing now in dealing with the gap issue”
The “reprehensible solution” I have proposed is to retain race-based AA, on the assumption that there are gene prevalence differences among SIRE groups which drive outcomes that cannot be overcome any other way.
And thank you for repeating what I said, it is really a pathetic point then for you to make a lot of noise when in the end there is no demanding of change whatsoever.
And this also remarks on the other meta point I made, it seems that you are afraid of criticizing the sidekicks that you have here, they are not shy on the reprehensible solutions they propose, so besides your creationist tactics and misleading accusations that we do not use evolution, you need to get clean of your sorry sources and your supporters.
Controlling for SES doesn’t eliminate group differences. Environmental factors (e.g., lead poisoning, malnutrition, disease burden, etc.) are not typically found at higher SES levels – at least in the post-industrialized world — and yet it has consistently been found that the Black-White difference is as high at higher SES levels than lower levels. If environment explained a substantial portion of the gap, then in proportion, the gap should be smaller at higher SES levels, which it is not.
Cultural factors like media depictions, stereotypes, etc, as well as things like teacher expectations, have not been controlled for, and may not differ based on SES levels.
Nothing in the link you gave (which is a link to the blog of a very odd troll who searches the internet for these sorts of discussions so he can copy and paste huge swaths of racist glurge) seems to address brazil84’s claim. I followed the link to Hayworth, and the paper is behind a paywall, but the abstract doesn’t seem to address it either.
JSTOR registration is free if you want to read the whole thing, but basically it says it’s probably material differences that account for outcome differences because Ogbu’s oppositional cultre does not stand up to scrutiny. But of course there are plenty of studies saying that controlling for material differences makes no difference either.
The search goes on for the mysterious non-genetic explanations…
Piling on a bit, here is one more cite that adds two to the one I just mentioned, plus the study itself. This particular study finds that oppostional culture may be a consideration for gender, but not race.
“This paper examines the educational
attainments of blacks, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Britain in the context
of oppositional culture theory. Using empirical evidence from a nationally
representative survey, limited support is found for Ogbu’s framework. In terms of
the school performance of blacks, the direction of attitudes and behaviour supports
his thesis, but the extent of them does not. The responses of the south Asian groups
cast further doubt on the utility of the thesis. Ogbu predicts that Indians will exhibit
significantly different attitudinal and behavioural patterns to Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis; this is not supported by the data…
There are a number of reasons why one would expect rigorous empirical research to fail
to replicate Ogbu’s results. A central problem with his research is that he did not
systematically compare black students with white students.”
The explanation as to why Blacks are losing ground proves elusive. Fryer and Levitt (2004) test a wide range of hypotheses, finding some empirical support for only one explanation: differential school quality across races. When the data are extended to cover an additional two years of schooling, however, the support for even this hypothesis weakens. We also explore whether the growing racial test score gap could be attributed to the inherent difficulties in testing achievement at especially young ages, or the possibility of increasing importance of home inputs for the development of higher-order thinking, but can provide no compelling evidence confirming these hypotheses either.
Were there some particularly egregious examples of “racist glurge” for which you would like to provide opposing evidence? Or is anything contrary to an egalitarian view automatically assigned to that catchphrase, and anyone who posts such things a “troll” ?
Weakens the theory, but it is more likely that the only alternative you push.
Fryer and Leviit (2006) come later to also point out that the genetic argument is not much likely “The fact that the raw differences in test performance across races are so small, however, makes this argument [that genetic differences are at the root of racial gaps in intelligence] largely moot.”
To be more clear, I have to correct that last bit.
Your cites are many times proper, but there is a spin given to what the scientists are saying, or there is a lack of understanding of the conclusions, or conclusions are ignored, or we get “half of the picture” points. These and more are typical methods that I have seen before being made by creationists and climate change deniers.
If it was as clear as you claim things are, then it would be easy to get cites from related scientific organizations that agree that there is more merit on concentration on genetic differences in intelligence that in looking at solving environmental and economical differences that appear in societies.
