There’s evidence for differences in test scores, but test scores don’t tell us anything about genetics. There’s also good evidence of no correlation whatsoever between African admixture and lower test scores, when nurture factors due to race are held constant. That’s nigh-infinitely stronger evidence, in terms of telling us something about genetics, than any test score data alone, which is all that the “blacks are dumber” crowd has got.
A complete understanding of every single gene in the human gene pool related to these traits, how these genes affect human behavior, and their prevalence among every ethnic group that constitutes humanity.
We’ll see, but I think the white supremacists are too cowardly to actually risk doing the science – I don’t think they’re particularly interested in the science, in fact. The “blacks are dumber” crowd could have recreated the Scarr study with more modern methodology pretty easily and cheaply – it’s not a particularly complicated study – but they’ve chosen not too, for decades.
If the folks who made these claims didn’t consistently ignore and dismiss good science, and make claims about genetics based on entirely non-genetic data, then maybe I’d “like to hear” their claims a little better. But as long as they continue with this pseudo-scientific approach that just so happens to match, in tone and (lack of good) methodology, the non-scientific white supremacist “racial science” of the past, I’m going to continue to “not like to hear” their bullshit racist claims.
Well, there’s more than that, and there’s also more than the fact that adoption studies show similar gaps in test scores that persist when African-American children are adopted into white households. There’s plenty of evidence that when you’re looking at a single population (let’s say, a single population of white people) at least 50% of variation in intelligence is due to genetics, with probably another 20% the effect of prenatal environment. I don’t know the extent to which the differences between different ethnic groups are attributable to genetic difference, but my prior is to assume that it’s not zero. When I see a random white person and guess their IQ to be 115, im going to accept as my prior that the difference between my IQ and theirs is largely or mostly genetic in origin. Likewise, when I see two white populations that differ in IQ (say East and West Germany in 1961, or for that matter in the opposite direction today) My prior is that the difference is mostly genetically based. I’m not sure why I wouldn’t make that assumption when the person is non-white. Like you, I think I probably don’t give much of a hearing to arguments from the opposing side, since I’m generally unimpressed with the evidence and reasoning.
I think hereditarians would be delighted to run a study correlating West African admixture to intelligence, certainly I would, since it would settle the issue one way or another. Until then, we will just have to wait and see, and we can set our bets whichever way we prefe.
Which tells us nothing about genetics, especially if (as I believe) society and culture still treat black and white people profoundly differently, whatever the race of their parents.
Then why haven’t they done it? It wouldn’t be that hard at all.
You admit there is evidence. Good. But you are wrong to say this is all there is. I have no desire to hijack this thread, so I suggest you read those older threads and remind yourself of the other evidence (does high-level scholastic achievement ring a bell?).
And as I think you know, evidence that points to one scenario does not magically eliminate the evidence that points to another scenario.
Yes, I admit there is evidence for differences in test scores, which has always been very clear and I’ve never denied. I don’t believe this is evidence for any conclusion whatsoever about genes for intelligence. As far as evidence that points to one conclusion or the other about the genes for intelligence, the Scarr study (and a few other lesser known studies, I believe) is the only such evidence that I know of on this question.
Moderator Note
This seems to be turning into a debate about race and racism. This is ATMB, not GD. I know we can’t talk about how racism applies to the rules here without a certain amount of discussion of racism itself, but let’s steer this back around to an ATMB appropriate topic, or move the debate to a new thread in GD.
Which has got fuck-all to do with whether certain Fundie Christians today think Jews don’t worship the same god as themselves.
Plus the whole Jews For Jesus conversion drive, that just screams “It’s OK, they worship the same god”, doesn’t it?
Have you even been to Cuba? And visited the poorest of the poor there?
I haven’t, but I have friends who have. It’s an OK country, I’m not on some kind of anti-Cuba trip, but better for the poorest slice of society? Than European welfare states? You have to be fucking joking.
By the exact same measure you used to trumpet Cuba, don’t ‘forget’ that little detail.
As I pointed out, so did/do the shittiest non-lib dem countries. Nazi Germany. Soviet Russia…
That’s why all those former Soviet states in Europe were so prosperous then, and the change to liberal democracy hasn’t led to any uptick for them, has it?
Ha ha ha. Pull the other one, it has bells on.
I think you’ll find lots of people happy to live in South Africa rather than any of those places. I work with 3 European immigrants out of 30 people in this office, for example. Plus 7 African ones.
Guns, germs and steel.
That’s why the Communist bits of it are the most prosperous, right…?
Sure. Whatever you say.
I agree that this is the best approach. I don’t know if he was serious, but given that the endless discussion on the topic has led to nothing but one race realist thread after another, is deeply insulting to various minorities, geneticists, younger non-minority people, non-racists, and causes poor misunderstood people to be tarnished with the label of “racist” for acting exactly like a racist, it just makes sense to have a permanent Pit-based location for it.
So since some can’t act like rational adults debate has to be ruined for everyone? Let’s turn this into who can shout the loudest and most obscenely like at a college campus protest? Controversial things belong in GD because if everyone agreed on a subject there’d be no debate.
Uh-oh. We need some muscle over here …
I think we might be looking at this issue the wrong way. If someone is labeling someone a ‘racist’ as a way to de-legitimize an argument or a point of view, then it ought to be moderated. People sometimes have unpopular viewpoints about individual members of ethnic groups or perhaps even ethnic communities themselves, but I don’t think that it’s always appropriate to label someone a racist.
But there are times when someone is just being a racist douchebag. “Obama is the Food Stamp President! Blather blither blather!” I think it’s then within the boundaries of fairness to point out that someone is guilty of having potentially racist attitudes. I would probably go along with moderators who say that, even then, it would be best to measure one’s rhetoric, but I would also be slow to pull the trigger on a poster who reacts to comments that are patently offensive. After all, I’m guessing that some of our posters are probably not white. Others might be married to people who aren’t white. Some posters probably have more skin in the game than others.
Critiquing entitlements is racism now?
“Obama is the food stamp President” is “critiquing entitlements” like “your mother’s a $2 whore” is a thesis about genealogy and economics.
Obama’s in the top 20% of US presidents, maybe top 10%, but given that we haven’t ever had a president I like, he’s still a pretty terrible leader.
Be that as it may, calling the person racist for that statement is part of why people are rolling their eyes at folks who see racism and hate everywhere. It’s hard to take the Trigglypuffs of the world seriously anymore.
I am on record as noting that the Teabagger opposition to Obama was not inherently racist, (although a lot of racists signed on). However, a claim that he is the food stamp president is based on the frequent, but false, generalization that food stamps are handouts to black people. There are any number of entitlement programs with which one may disagree, yet not one of them was begun under Obama.
Ah. My family and many of the white families I knew were on food stamps. That’s partially why I don’t see that as a black thing.
Moderator Action
This has turned into a generic debate about racism, which is not an ATMB topic. I am therefore going to close this. Anyone who wishes to continue the discussion/debate about racism may start a new thread in a more appropriate forum or may join one of the many already existing threads.
Thread closed.