Reasons Africa is "lagging behind"?

[tomndebb]

@Dreen

Many of Chen’s posts consist of him copy and pasting various studies and little else. He won’t articulate any of their points, or even those for himself- he merely drops in to cut and paste quotes from various studies and lets them speak entirely for themselves.

Then challenge him on his lack of direct involvement or report him for plagiarising, but do not accuse him of spamming in an open post in this forum.

[ /Moderating ]

[Chen019]

@Dreen

I thought I’d pop in because I came across this discussion like I invariably do with so many others- I google some paper relating to psychometrics or recent genetic research, or some concept, and I, invariably, find some jackass racialist trolls spamming some discussion board that’s often only meagerly related to nature-nurture issues. This is no exception.

I’ve seen Chen around quite often. I remember first seeing Chen getting shot down in a discussion relating to natural selection and IQ, and how the astoundingly pathetic reaction so many racialists had over the Lahn controversy was highlighted.

Now we have this discussion. Asking whether “genes play a role” in international differences between nations is one huge false dichotomy because the very agency in this regard are human beings who’s behaviors are underpinned by genes. A better question to ask is something like “Among whatever differences we see among populations, how deep-seated are they? How heritable, how malleable are they?” or “Whatever differences that do exist, and regardless as to how heritable they are, how predictive are they of such differences?”

The former question is abit obvious- obviously a group of sociopaths, or a nation ridden with crime, aren’t going to do well in the long-run, so this invariably comes down to the issue of IQ. And invariably you’ll see people spouting golden lines of thought like “well, uh, see, the SS africa is a dump because the average genotypic IQ is around 70 and not much else! Case closed.” (nevermind how the academics who parrot that figure never seem to make their minds up as to whether it’s genotypic or phenotypic, or how the things like malnutrition, disease, parasites etc. that predominate throughout SS africa would probably make their average IQ’s far lower if their genotypic IQ’s really were around 70 etc.)

And one big non-sequiter is how people are divided and pigeonholed in this discourse. Look at this thread. We have propagandistic creeps like Chen spamming the same articles about how humans are still evolving, with the subtext of “hmmm… humans are still evolving, and the evolution hasn’t been equal for everyone. Since those changes are reflected in genes, and genes are by definition “genetic” and “inherited”, that means these differences are going to be deep-seated and immutable, and therefore hereditarianism is true.”

Do you think Greg Clark’s work is relevant to this kind of debate? He doesn’t even mention iq, but selection for ‘middle class’ traits.

Social Darwinism: 21st century edition

[Mijin]

@Chen019

Do you think Greg Clark’s work is relevant to this kind of debate? He doesn’t even mention iq, but selection for ‘middle class’ traits.

I don’t have the time to go through his data right now to see how he supports his conclusion, but it’s certainly interesting.

I just wanted to say, if we’re going to talk about genetic differences (and this seems inevitable, as many don’t even want to consider non-genetic causes it seems), it’s right to broaden it beyond IQ.

As I’ve tried to say upthread, there aren’t many jobs in poor countries that require a high IQ (in fact, I’m skeptical about how many jobs in the West really require a high IQ).
On the other hand, many countries are devestated by widespread corruption. Therefore, if we’re talking genetic causes, I wonder why so little of the discussion goes towards innate honesty, say, and so much towards IQ.

[Dreen]

@Chen019

Do you think Greg Clark’s work is relevant to this kind of debate? He doesn’t even mention iq, but selection for ‘middle class’ traits.

Information Processing: Social Darwinism: 21st century edition

Yes, I do. I’m not well read on his work, though.

But that had little to do with what I said overall.

[MrDibble]

@Chen019

Do you think Greg Clark’s work is relevant to this kind of debate? He doesn’t even mention iq, but selection for ‘middle class’ traits.

Are these his ‘middle class’ traits?

patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work

[Chen019]

@MrDibble

@Chen019

Do you think Greg Clark’s work is relevant to this kind of debate? He doesn’t even mention iq, but selection for ‘middle class’ traits.

Are these his ‘middle class’ traits?

patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work

Yeah, he describes them here:

The highly capitalistic nature of English society by 1800 – individualism, low time preference rates, long work hours, high levels of human capital – may thus stem from the nature of the Darwinian struggle in a very stable agrarian
society in the long run up to the Industrial Revolution.

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/capitalism%20genes.pdf

[MrDibble]

Some things in that paper I don’t have a quibble with, other things he just gets wrong, like pre-IR English diet (see e.g. *Food in Early Modern England *by Joan Thirsk for a debunking of this). Never mind the unstated assumption of a continuous progression from H-G through agrarian to early modern industrial, which in no way reflects history. But in general, I can buy his general thesis of a certain amount of selection for traits that are more beneficial in a more industrial-structured society, sure. But I wouldn’t tie it quite as closely to reproductive success or heritability as he does, I’d like to see more work done on it, and I think even then, it fails to account for Africa in particular lagging behind (which I’ve never been convinced of, anyway), which seems to be the issue of contention.

Also note that some people may not see adoption of Clark’s “middle-class values” and all that that entails as a necessary good, or the only way to avoid the Malthusian Trap. I know I don’t.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@BrainGlutton

@even_sven

Actually, yeah. West Africa’s medieval age resembled Europe’s, with great kingdoms and empires.

Not quite like Europe, though. It is possible to speak of a “European culture” encompassing all the different national cultures, but it is not possible to speak of an “African culture” at any time in history. Africa never had the unifying factors of a common religion or a common language of scholarship.

This could be a valid point. Not only did Europe have a common language of scholarship, but the vernacular languages were, for the most part, fairly closely related to one another. As for the Romance languages; by 1000AD they had lost their mutual intelligibility for the most part, yet individual names for languages were only beginning to be used. Most people still said la lingua Latina to denote Spanish, Italian, or Romanian, with the precise meaning variable according to context. After 500 more years, the synergistic effect of standout individuals like Shakespeare or Copernicus tended to be furthered by Europe’s relative cohesiveness when compared to Africa.

[Dreen]

The problem with Clarke’s work is that I’ve seldom heard a clear cut definition of what he’s arguing. It seems to be either that he argues differential breeding of the upper classes led to cultural changes that fostered changes in personality with varying genetic basis’, or that differential breeding was the prime cause and culture did little. Which I find extreme, considering how many of the traits he discusses aren’t that heritable.

[ralph124c]

I think that most of Africa (unfortunately) will always remain poor and backward. The big reason is, there is no way that Africa will ever go through an industrial revolution, as Europe, N. America, Japan (and now China and India) are experiencing. This is because Africa lacks capital-the money it earns is sucked away (by kleptocratic governments). Also, suppose you are an African entrepreneur-you set up a factory to make clothing, let’s say-till you find the Chinese can undercut you by a big margin. There is also the problem of governmental corruption-running a legitimate business in Nigeria is probably very difficult to do.
I also think that China sees Africa as a raw material supplier only-they have no interest in setting up factories there to make stuff (these would compete with factories in China). Hence, Chinese firms will continue to follow their successful model-extract raw materials and pay for them with exports of finished products-that way Africa will always be a consumer, and not a producer.

[Mijin]

@ralph124c

I think that most of Africa (unfortunately) will always remain poor and backward.
…
Hence, Chinese firms will continue to follow their successful model-extract raw materials and pay for them with exports of finished products-that way Africa will always be a consumer, and not a producer.

I wouldn’t use the word “always”.

A big change to the picture for example will be when labour costs in asia are high enough that it becomes worthwhile to outsource manufacturing to africa. Labour costs are certainly going up in asia (even in china, with its vast, untapped rural population), though it will of course take a long time for this to happen. This is part of africa’s problem today – they’ve missed the boat (no offence intended) that’s rocketing many countries to prosperity.

Buying resources from africa may not appear to help the continent long-term, but for many years people were incredulous about china becoming wealthy. How can you get rich paying unskilled people a pittance to sell items for a pittance?
I’m sure with good governance you could build prosperity from initially just being a primary producer. The problem is, it seems to only take one bad egg among several well-run countries to drag the whole lot down.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Chief_Pedant

If, instead, we pretend that there are no innate differences and only opportunity creates the functional differences we see, we aren’t going to have any women firefighters. We aren’t going to be able to get black kids into medicine if they come from wealthy backgrounds; they’ll be asked to compete with eurasians from similar backgrounds and they won’t come anywhere near that level of competence–they aren’t currently competitive even with eurasians from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If most women can’t meet the physical criteria for being a firefighter then fuck it we’ll have fewer female firefighters. If blacks disproportionately don’t have what it takes to be a doctor then fuck it we’ll have fewer black doctors but I don’t think this is the case.

I can entertain the notion that there may be genetic differences in IQ between races, I doubt there is enough of a difference to explain the vast differences in income, education and wealth.