Race is non-existent

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

Regardless of whether the reason is a lousy environment or a lousy gene donation from parents–neither of which is the individual’s fault–you consider “black people” markedly inferior mentally, with half their entire population performing under an IQ level that is at the border of mentally challenged.

Jeez, nearly everything you say about me and my beliefs (and many other things) is incorrect. You are damn good at being wrong.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

with half their entire population performing under an IQ level that is at the border of mentally challenged.

Another thing you’re wrong about- different categorizations of IQ test scores. You’re way, way off on this.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

You are either confused by a technical clarification or trying to make an entire case out of a molehill. But I suggest you stop using emoticons that give the impression you are gobsmacked with horror that I would not notice my obvious error and can’t read english. It just makes your counter argument look even feebler.

I only smell fear when you have to reach for that straw.

@Chief_Pedant

If you are trying to pretend that, because the subgroups are voluntarily self-identified there is some secret data out there showing that the SIRE group of black actually performs equally on these various exams, but preferentially chooses not to identify themselves as black, you are either naive or grasping at the most pitiful straw I’ve seen grasped at in the thread so far.

Too late, you already did, and grasping the one from the racialists is even worse.

@Chief_Pedant

Here’s the straw you are clutching at:
“As a result, differences in LSAT performance across regional, gender, or racial/ethnic subgroups cannot be attributed to those subgroups in general, but merely to representatives of those subgroups who chose to take the LSAT and identified themselves as belonging to those subgroups.”

This is technically true. A minor portion of all test takers choose to opt out of self-identification, so there is always an “other” category. It’s pretty silly that you would clutch onto this as a possible reason to discard all the data.

Every leading researcher in this country accepts these race category data. Every individual in the field trying to improve results accepts this data. The gap according to SIRE group is real, it’s wide, it’s persistent, and it’s resistant to closure. It is not an artifact caused by opting out of self-disclosure for SIRE category.

The point that “Every leading researcher in this country accepts these race category data” is bullshit on the point at hand, regarding genetics and a difference of intelligence between races, and many already confirmed that. Once again, you continue to stumble on the silliness that a sociological gap is based on genetics.

@Chief_Pedant

The ignorance you show in smacking yourself with a little emoticon as if you’ve suddenly stumbled upon an obvious error that thousands of other researches missed suggest a rather naive and undereducated grasp of the problem.

Piffle.

The error that you continue to push is that sociological or IQ differences are mostly driven by genetics, your insistence that those results make it a genetic fact remains weapons grade willful ignorance.

@Chief_Pedant

Here’s an ACT gap graphto give you a better idea of the size of gap being struggled with by educators. Perhaps the pretty colors and nice picture will help you abandon the idea that there’s no real data such a gap exists. This gap, seen in every widely-administered academic exam, is not just an artifact resulting from the preferential choice of black students not to self-identify. In the case of the LSAT, such self-identification gives them a leg up in the admissions process.

And then the bullshit strawman again, although now I can say with very good authority and with evidence that : You need to learn to read. I already did acknowledge the gap, when you resort to the same strawman even when it was already dealt with, it is you who demonstrates to all how pathetic your fallacies are getting. But I mentioned before, it is not my problem if you reach for them.

Incidentally, before you continue it has to be remarked that the last article I quoted show that it was also bullshit to claim that:

“But this is a single, small, old study, not reproduced anywhere else. Going on nearly 60 years later, this study of under 200 kids is still the main one cited to support this point. Where are the rest? The answer is that they don’t exist.”

Because that article points at other more recent research done with mixed race people.

So, beside reporting that your strawmanning and bullshitting has to be stopped ( and also the silly emoticon complains ) I still recommend you to read properly.

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.

And once again, we can see yet another reason why skeptical and reason sites, that consult experts and report on why things like Astrology, antivaccination, anti GMO and many others agree that people like Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Lynn and other Pioneer funded trolls pushed pseudo science. Once again what you are spectacularly missing is that other researchers looked at the data from the racialists and came with other conclusions, conclusions that won the day for the majority the scientists at large.

Frontiers | This I believe: we need to understand evolution, adaptation, and...

The implications of the modern, genetically-based theory of evolution by natural selection for our own species are particularly profound. All humans belong to a single species and share a common descent, there is great genetic diversity in all human populations, and no human group enjoys a monopoly on the traits that allow for humans to be a successful species. Nor, because of the way genes, adaptation and evolution operate, was it ever true that there were (or are) “master races” or even “superior races”: environments change, and what is advantageous at one time and place will not necessarily always be so. Evolution is thus a powerful scientific bulwark against racism (even though, admittedly, it has been misrepresented and misused in the service of racist agendas).

Genes interacting with the environment leads us to the third important concept for biological literacy: the phenotype. Properly understood, the phenotype is not the textbook simplification “what you see,” but the result of the effect of genes plus the environment plus their interaction (That last component is rather of more interest to specialists than the general public). Both genes and environment play a role: East Africa produces a disproportionate number of distance runners partly because of the small and lightweight bodies of its inhabitants, but also because of a culture that values running and regards competitive running as a ticket out of poverty.

Genetic determinism is thus false and should be avoided. Perhaps there is no need to stress that point, given the excesses of Nazism and other genocidal ideologies; “genetic determinism” is deservedly often used as an epithet. Genes and other biological factors produce organisms, but they do not determine them. The soundbite version: we may be 100% genetic, but we’re not 100% determined.

But environmental or cultural determinism is also false and should also be avoided: even highly environmentally-influenced human traits, such as personality, sexual orientation, intelligence, aggression, and the like, still are phenotypes, with genetic as well as environmental components influencing their expression. Yes, the Tarahumara of the canyons of northwest Mexico value running to such a degree that they are famous for their 48-h jogs covering hundreds of miles. But recognizing the cultural forces at work here should not preclude asking the physiological question of whether the Tarahumara are genetically equipped to process energy more efficiently than the rest of us. If we are cultural determinists, we will never think to ask that question.

An understanding of the true meaning of the concept of phenotype would lead us to a better understanding of not only basic biology, but also prickly issues of race, sex, and behavior. Consider the recent election season, in which there were a fair number of women, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender candidates for office. How often did you encounter, explicitly or implicitly, the misguided idea that their genetically-based characteristics either qualified or disqualified them? Such incidents remind us how useful the concept of phenotype actually is. I repeat: we are 100% genetic—but not 100% determined.

Evolution, adaptation, and phenotype. If teachers could do a better job teaching these concepts, Americans would be more biologically literate, which—dare I hope?—might lead to more thoughtful conclusions about what it means to be human.

[IceQube]

@Chief_Pedant

You are either confused by a technical clarification or trying to make an entire case out of a molehill. But I suggest you stop using emoticons that give the impression you are gobsmacked with horror that I would not notice my obvious error and can’t read english. It just makes your counter argument look even feebler.

If you are trying to pretend that, because the subgroups are voluntarily self-identified there is some secret data out there showing that the SIRE group of black actually performs equally on these various exams, but preferentially chooses not to identify themselves as black, you are either naive or grasping at the most pitiful straw I’ve seen grasped at in the thread so far.

Here’s the straw you are clutching at:
“As a result, differences in LSAT performance across regional, gender, or racial/ethnic subgroups cannot be attributed to those subgroups in general, but merely to representatives of those subgroups who chose to take the LSAT and identified themselves as belonging to those subgroups.”

This is technically true. A minor portion of all test takers choose to opt out of self-identification, so there is always an “other” category. It’s pretty silly that you would clutch onto this as a possible reason to discard all the data.

:dubious:

You missed my point by a country mile. The scores are those of a self-selected population of “blacks” and therefore unlikely to be representative of all blacks. Had the scores been of those of a random sample of blacks, the scores would likely be more representative. :smack:. You’re the one clutching at straws, having to shift the debate to a discussion about emoticons. I don’t believe any debater has ever pointed out the other debater’s facial expression in a serious debate.

[GIGObuster]

@IceQube

:dubious:

You missed my point by a country mile. The scores are those of a self-selected population of “blacks” and therefore unlikely to be representative of all blacks. Had the scores been of those of a random sample of blacks, the scores would likely be more representative. :smack:. You’re the one clutching at straws, having to shift the debate to a discussion about emoticons. I don’t believe any debater has ever pointed out the other debater’s facial expression in a serious debate.

When Team Rushton has to reach for the same limited and already beaten Monstrous arguments in a game Pokemon ;), it is no wonder that they would have very little else to go on and resort to complain about smilies, they turn a very sad effort into a pathetic one.

But then again, it is not my problem.

[brazil84]

@IceQube

:dubious:

You missed my point by a country mile. The scores are those of a self-selected population of “blacks” and therefore unlikely to be representative of all blacks. Had the scores been of those of a random sample of blacks, the scores would likely be more representative. :smack:. You’re the one clutching at straws, having to shift the debate to a discussion about emoticons. I don’t believe any debater has ever pointed out the other debater’s facial expression in a serious debate.

I’m a little curious – do you dispute that generally speaking, blacks underperform on standardized tests like the SAT, LSAT, GRE, etc.?

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

No, it’s not a reasonable conclusion, because there’s no evidence that supports the genetic explanation to the exclusion of other explanations. Zero.

You keep saying this, yet it is still not true. You act as thought there have been ZERO studies that have controlled for non-genetic explanations. Now, I agree that it may be the case that all differences we see can be explained by things that are non-genetic—but for each study done that controls for non-genetic factors that fails to eliminate discrepancies, they become evidence giving weight that there are genetics at play. Not proof, evidence.

So, wold you please stop with this plainly wrong assertion. It’s really not helpful to the discussion. And that’s because it is flatly incorrect.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

You keep saying this, yet it is still not true. You act as thought there have been ZERO studies that have controlled for non-genetic explanations. Now, I agree that it may be the case that all differences we see can be explained by things that are non-genetic—but for each study done that controls for non-genetic factors that fails to eliminate discrepancies, they become evidence giving weight that there are genetics at play. Not proof, evidence.

So, wold you please stop with this plainly wrong assertion. It’s really not helpful to the discussion. And that’s because it is flatly incorrect.

And there studies that show that the evidence you claim is not there. The best one could say is that there is contradictory evidence, so logically it is then the geneticists the ones that we should consult to see if there is support for one or the other.

As the geneticists reported:

What Our Genes Tell Us About Race

The debate over race and intelligence has a long and tarnished history, although that doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate scientific question to address. However, the debate has taken place almost entirely outside modern genetics, falling instead within the realm of psychology (such as work done by Arthur Jensen).

Some writers would have you believe that science is converging on a consensus that the ‘IQ’ gap between various races is genetic (and that liberal conspirators are trying to cover it up). That claim is false. Researchers have not identified a single genetic variant with an impact on intelligence that falls along population lines. In fact several studies have recently tested variants in genes that appear to be involved in controlling brain size. No correlation with intelligence was found. Yes, genetics does play a significant role in intelligence, and many other traits.

But there is simply no genetic evidence (and I mean real genetics, not psychology) for genetic differences in intelligence between human populations.

The pseudoscience then comes by insisting that contradictory (and most psychologists report it is very weak for the racialist researches) evidence demonstrates evidence for a genetic basis of intelligence differences between races.

[Chief_Pedant]

@IceQube

:dubious:

You missed my point by a country mile. The scores are those of a self-selected population of “blacks” and therefore unlikely to be representative of all blacks. Had the scores been of those of a random sample of blacks, the scores would likely be more representative. :smack:. You’re the one clutching at straws, having to shift the debate to a discussion about emoticons. I don’t believe any debater has ever pointed out the other debater’s facial expression in a serious debate.

It’s a risible contention that, because some test takers choose not to self-identify with a SIRE group, the remaining groups which do put that self-designation down are not representative.

The number of individuals who do not self-identify–even on the LSAT–is very small, typically under 3% most years. For example, in [URL=http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/research/tr/pdf/tr-10-03.pdf] 2008-9, out of over 100,000 LSAT takers, only 734 made No response to a self-identification (P 19). This group scored extraordinarily high, so one would have to postulate that only a tiny group of only black geniuses elected not to self-identify. It’s a ridiculous hypothesis, and no researcher accepts it.

If you are talking about a random sample of all blacks, you are even further off. The subset of LSAT takers is a highly specialized subset of students who have had the opportunity for preparatory schooling. But of course, all across academia, from elementary school to post-graduate medical education, the exact same pattern of performance by SIRE group is going to hold true.

Perhaps you would like to cite some data you find more representative, instead of advancing nonsense.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

Frontiers | This I believe: we need to understand evolution, adaptation, and phenotype
“The implications of the modern, genetically-based theory of evolution by natural selection for our own species are particularly profound. All humans belong to a single species and share a common descent, there is great genetic diversity in all human populations, and no human group enjoys a monopoly on the traits that allow for humans to be a successful species. Nor, because of the way genes, adaptation and evolution operate, was it ever true that there were (or are) “master races” or even “superior races”: environments change, and what is advantageous at one time and place will not necessarily always be so. Evolution is thus a powerful scientific bulwark against racism (even though, admittedly, it has been misrepresented and misused in the service of racist agendas).”

I’ll try not to mock your sense of smell, and just focus on this example. It would appear you love rhetoric but are a little light on data. Data.

You see, the fact that we are a single species and all have “great genetic diversity,” and that no human group “enjoys a monopoly on the traits that allow for humans to be a successful species,” and the fact that “there are no master races” is all lovely rhetoric.

It’s also totally irrelevant. It’s just pap for the masses.

We do have subpopulations of humans that differ for prevalences of genes, including genes that code for neurobiological functions. It’s true that what is advantageous now may not be advantageous tomorrow. Maybe cognitive thinking is really important now and if the civilized world goes south, strength and speed will be more advantageous. So what?

The question we are trying to wrestle with is whether or not there are genetically-driven disparate average skillsets for outcomes among human populations with disparate gene pools containing disparate prevalences for genes. The rest of that paragraph is just crap that does not speak to that issue at all.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I’ll try not to mock your sense of smell, and just focus on this example.

You see, the fact that we are a single species and all have “great genetic diversity,” and that no human group “enjoys a monopoly on the traits that allow for humans to be a successful species,” and the fact that “there are no master races” is all lovely rhetoric.

It’s also totally irrelevant. It’s just pap for the masses.

We do have subpopulations of humans that differ for prevalences of genes, including genes that code for neurobiological functions. It’s true that what is advantageous now may not be advantageous tomorrow. Maybe cognitive thinking is really important now and if the civilized world goes south, strength and speed will be more advantageous. So what?

The question we are trying to wrestle with is whether or not there are genetically-driven disparate average skillsets for outcomes among human populations with disparate gene pools containing disparate prevalences for genes. The rest of that paragraph is just crap that does not speak to that issue at all.

In other words, you only have rhetoric and no evidence that genetics influences the intelligence differences between races.

But we already knew that, and we learned that you are not capable of acknowledge the that what you posted recently was bullshit. It is not my problem that you want to pretend that the recent affirmations of yours were not strawmen of what I was saying about the gap, and that you only reported complete misrepresentations and omissions of what the researchers cited said.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

You keep saying this, yet it is still not true. You act as thought there have been ZERO studies that have controlled for non-genetic explanations. Now, I agree that it may be the case that all differences we see can be explained by things that are non-genetic—but for each study done that controls for non-genetic factors that fails to eliminate discrepancies, they become evidence giving weight that there are genetics at play. Not proof, evidence.

So, wold you please stop with this plainly wrong assertion. It’s really not helpful to the discussion. And that’s because it is flatly incorrect.

There have been ZERO studies that have controlled for all non-genetic explanations. It’s true that there is some portion of the gap that certain non-genetic factors, like economic status or parental education, fails to explain. But the failure of any particular explanation, like economic status, does not strengthen any other argument in particular more than the rest. So one could say that the failure of economics to explain a portion of the gap strengthens ALL other explanations equally- so the genetic explanation is not strengthened at all relative to the remaining explanations. There is no evidence (yet) that supports the genetic explanation that doesn’t also support many, many other non-genetic explanations- so it’s a wash. So functionally speaking, there’s no evidence. None. Zero.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

We do have subpopulations of humans that differ for prevalences of genes, including genes that code for neurobiological functions.

This tells us zero about intelligence, and zero about which populations’ particular neurogiological genes are “superior” or “inferior”. “Neurobiological functions” does not equal intelligence.

Maybe cognitive thinking is really important now and if the civilized world goes south, strength and speed will be more advantageous. So what?

And there is zero genetic evidence for differences in genes for “cognitive thinking” (is there another type of thinking) between populations.

The question we are trying to wrestle with is whether or not there are genetically-driven disparate average skillsets for outcomes among human populations with disparate gene pools containing disparate prevalences for genes.

And there is no evidence for your explanation- no evidence that supports the genetic explanation that does not also support many other non-genetic explanations.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

There have been ZERO studies that have controlled for all non-genetic explanations. It’s true that there is some portion of the gap that certain non-genetic factors, like economic status or parental education, fails to explain. But the failure of any particular explanation, like economic status, does not strengthen any other argument in particular more than the rest. So one could say that the failure of economics to explain a portion of the gap strengthens ALL other explanations equally- so the genetic explanation is not strengthened at all relative to the remaining explanations. There is no evidence (yet) that supports the genetic explanation that doesn’t also support many, many other non-genetic explanations- so it’s a wash. So functionally speaking, there’s no evidence. None. Zero.

Sigh.

The differences we see are either attributed to:

1. cultural factors
2. genetics
3. some combination of the two

But the only point of issue here is whether or not genetics accounts for some portion of the differences that cannot be corrected for even if ALL cultural components are controlled for . So, for the discussion that we’re in right now, it’s between numbers 1 and 2.

So, we have genes on the one side and a host of cultural factors on the other. You seem to agree that IF we were able to control for ALL cultural factors, and the differences persisted without change, that that would indicate that genes are responsible.

I think we agree so far, correct?

Assuming so, then lets say there are X number of cultural factors. And one by one we control for them, in isolation and in combination. Every time one of them is found to be moot, we agree that it acts as a piece of evidence giving support to both all the remaining cultural factors and to genes as being the factor.

Again, I think we agree thus far, correct?

But there’s another way to look at it that you seem to not be doing. And it doesn’t negate our agreement up to this point. It’s that the for each study that controls for items on the list of cultural factors and is proven to be moot, the likelihood that the genetics explanation is correct goes up. So each study that controls for environment and fails, is a piece of supporting evidence that the genetics explanation is correct. Yes, it also increase the likelihood that the other cultural factors are the cause, too, but that does not mean that the likelihood of the genetics explanation hasn’t gone up, as well.

The substance of your comment agrees with this. If one of the controlled studies fails, ALL remaining reasons—including the genetics explanation—increases. Thus, every failed controlled study is evidentiary support that genes may, in fact, be the cause. Otherwise you must hold the opinion that the likelihood of genes mattering doesn’t go up one iota whether you do studies that control for environmental/cultural factors or not. That until you can control for every single permutation of every not genetics factor, that the genetics explanation has gained a bit of support. So, say we have 100 items we want to control for, you’re position necessitates a position that even if 99 of the items are tested and controlled for and failed to explain anything, that the genetics explanation is just as likely to be true at that point as when zero items on the list were tested and controlled for.

Sorry, but that defies logic.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

The substance of your comment agrees with this. If one of the controlled studies fails, ALL remaining reasons—including the genetics explanation—increases. Thus, every failed controlled study is evidentiary support that genes may, in fact, be the cause. Otherwise you must hold the opinion that the likelihood of genes mattering doesn’t go up one iota whether you do studies that control for environmental/cultural factors or not. That until you can control for every single permutation of every not genetics factor, that the genetics explanation has gained a bit of support. So, say we have 100 items we want to control for, you’re position necessitates a position that even if 99 of the items are tested and controlled for and failed to explain anything, that the genetics explanation is just as likely to be true at that point as when zero items on the list were tested and controlled for.

Sorry, but that defies logic.

Indeed, so why you choose to ignore the item that has geneticists telling you that the genetic evidence is not there?

As pointed before, you are continuing to ignore that inconvenient fact. If there was logic involved it is clear that as many other researches point out, environmental factors can not be eliminated, so they are still supported.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

Sigh.

The differences we see are either attributed to:

1. cultural factors
2. genetics
3. some combination of the two

But the only point of issue here is whether or not genetics accounts for some portion of the differences that cannot be corrected for even if ALL cultural components are controlled for . So, for the discussion that we’re in right now, it’s between numbers 1 and 2.

So, we have genes on the one side and a host of cultural factors on the other. You seem to agree that IF we were able to control for ALL cultural factors, and the differences persisted without change, that that would indicate that genes are responsible.

I think we agree so far, correct?

Assuming so, then lets say there are X number of cultural factors. And one by one we control for them, in isolation and in combination. Every time one of them is found to be moot, we agree that it acts as a piece of evidence giving support to both all the remaining cultural factors and to genes as being the factor.

Again, I think we agree thus far, correct?

But there’s another way to look at it that you seem to not be doing. And it doesn’t negate our agreement up to this point. It’s that the for each study that controls for items on the list of cultural factors and is proven to be moot, the likelihood that the genetics explanation is correct goes up. So each study that controls for environment and fails, is a piece of supporting evidence that the genetics explanation is correct. Yes, it also increase the likelihood that the other cultural factors are the cause, too, but that does not mean that the likelihood of the genetics explanation hasn’t gone up, as well.

The substance of your comment agrees with this. If one of the controlled studies fails, ALL remaining reasons—including the genetics explanation—increases. Thus, every failed controlled study is evidentiary support that genes may, in fact, be the cause. Otherwise you must hold the opinion that the likelihood of genes mattering doesn’t go up one iota whether you do studies that control for environmental/cultural factors or not. That until you can control for every single permutation of every not genetics factor, that the genetics explanation has gained a bit of support. So, say we have 100 items we want to control for, you’re position necessitates a position that even if 99 of the items are tested and controlled for and failed to explain anything, that the genetics explanation is just as likely to be true at that point as when zero items on the list were tested and controlled for.

Sorry, but that defies logic.

No, it all depends on how you categorize the different explanations. If you categorize it into something like this to explain the test score gap:

a) parenting issues
b) economic issues
c) cultural issues
d) other

Then by eliminating economics, you strengthen the parenting, cultural, and “other” explanations (which would include genetics). But it’s completely disingenuous to pretend that eliminating economic issues strengthens any particular individual explanation- by “strengthening” all the other explanations, it strengthens none of them in relation to each other. By the same token, if we were to eliminate geography (such as urban vs rural) as an explanation, which might fall into the “other” category, we could say we actually weakened the “other” category of explanations (which includes genetics). This is disingenuous too- it really just depends on the categorization. Because the categorization can go any way imaginable, eliminating one possible explanation of a set of an unknown number of potential explanations is not actually helpful for any other particular explanation- it’s helpful in general because it narrows it down and eliminates possibilities, but it can be framed in such a way to strengthen or weaken ANY group of explanations, depending on how they are categorized.

Another problem is that we don’t have a limited set of explanations. There may be lots of types of explanations that haven’t been tested for or even proposed.

All this together is why I say that sociological data cannot tell us anything about genetics, and for the remaining gap that has not been explained, eliminating things like economics does not strengthen any other explanation in relation to the rest. Depending on how you categorize it- whether you put genetics into the same category as the explanation that was just eliminated or not, you can say that the category was “strengthened” or “weakened”.

So I could say it another way. There is evidence that weakens some of the other explanations for the test-score gap. But there is no evidence for the genetic explanation. No positive evidence. And in order to treat the genetic explanation, which is just one possible explanation out of potentially a very large number, as anything more than a hypothesis, positive evidence (which would be genetic evidence) is needed.

[Vaffanculo]

@iiandyiiii

No, there’s not that many things that race is a factor for.

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

[iiandyiiii]

@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

There’s no evidence of any genetic correlation between race and intelligence, sociability, “cultural forms and achievement”, mental health, aggressiveness, or impulsiveness. No, there’s no evidence black people are, on average, genetically less intelligent, more aggressive, more impulsive, etc.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

There have been ZERO studies that have controlled for all non-genetic explanations. It’s true that there is some portion of the gap that certain non-genetic factors, like economic status or parental education, fails to explain. But the failure of any particular explanation, like economic status, does not strengthen any other argument in particular more than the rest. So one could say that the failure of economics to explain a portion of the gap strengthens ALL other explanations equally- so the genetic explanation is not strengthened at all relative to the remaining explanations. There is no evidence (yet) that supports the genetic explanation that doesn’t also support many, many other non-genetic explanations- so it’s a wash. So functionally speaking, there’s no evidence. None. Zero.

The explanations you have advanced for what you say is an IQ gap of a full standard deviation–15 points–between whites and blacks are these:
Poor parenting for small children.
Poor teacher expectations.
Oppositional culture.

You advance these three explanations even in the face of data showing that wealthy and educated blacks have children who underscore white children from poor and undereducated parents on, for example, the SAT. Specifically, the SAT scores of blacks with family incomes of over 80,000 dollars per year are below the scores of whites with family incomes of under 10,000.

The idea that your explanations stand to explain these enormous gaps, and that these enormous gaps even in the face of full reversal of SES status, is a stretch.

The idea that there is “zero” genetic evidence, when we have these huge gaps resistant to SES status, and evidence that 1,800 genes or more are are positively selected for, and cluster among different SIRE groups for different functions–including neurobiology–makes your statement that there is “zero” evidence unsupportable.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

The explanations you have advanced for what you say is an IQ gap of a full standard deviation–15 points–between whites and blacks are these:
Poor parenting for small children.
Poor teacher expectations.
Oppositional culture.

You advance these three explanations even in the face of data showing that wealthy and educated blacks have children who underscore white children from poor and undereducated parents on, for example, the SAT.

I’ve offered other suggestions too, but I’m not really pushing any explanation. I’m just pointing out that there’s no genetic evidence for your genetic explanation.

The idea that your explanations stand to explain these enormous gaps, and that these enormous gaps even in the face of full reversal of SES status, is a stretch.

They’re not “my explanations”, as I’ve said- I’m just pointing out the massive weakness of yours. I’m not confident in any particular explanation, unlike you.

The idea that there is “zero” genetic evidence, when we have these huge gaps resistant to SES status, and evidence that 1,800 genes or more are are positively selected for, and cluster among different SIRE groups for different functions–including neurobiology–makes your statement that there is “zero” evidence unsupportable.

There is zero genetic evidence for your assertion that, on average, black people are inherently genetically dumber. None of the stuff in this paragraph constitutes a single piece of genetic evidence (or any sort of evidence) for this assertion. No, neuro-biological do not mean intelligence, and differences do not imply one is superior or inferior. So zero evidence.