# SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 29, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489 "2012-05-29T22:59:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 58
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1141 "2012-06-08T17:22:19Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > There was a major review article in American Psychologist (Feb-Mar 2012) on intelligence. It was a comprehensive review of IQ and g, including evidence for genetics, environment, social class and heritability, biological factors, interventions, and group differences in IQ. It considers evidence from Rushton, Lynn and discusses Ashkenazi Jews. > > In terms of Black-White differences it concludes that there is no direct evidence that supports a genetic hypothesis. It noted that studies of American Asian and White cultural groups found the same mean IQ but a one-third higher standard deviation on SAT scores and a higher rate of professional attainment among the Asian American group. > > It’s simply not possible at present to explain IQ differences between distinguishable groups via genetics. Social factors are far and away better explanations. > > If one wants to attend to the science of things, of course. Racists’ mileage may vary. I usually think that on any complex subject the consensus of experts is more likely to be correct than incorrect. In the case of genetic differences between the races professionals in the field want to maintain good relations with black friends and colleagues. Charles Murray has become independently wealthy from the sale of his books, so he can say what he pleases. Until anyone can publicly agree with him without fearing economic or social sanctions it cannot be said that there has been a dispassionate discussion of the matter. Until blacks behave and perform as well as whites the burden of proof should be on those who claim that racial gaps are not genetic. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1142 "2012-06-08T17:25:40Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Because the links are right there in those posts that anyone reading can follow - it was good to illustrate how dishonest you are. > > But it is so great a burden on you, to merely click those links and have a paragraph to read, it could distract you from your game of rhetoric. Lol, very convenient for you that your killer argument was in the post of someone I just put on my ignore list for dishonesty. Seriously, if I’m so dishonest, why can’t you take 5 seconds to cut and paste this killer paragraph? Then I won’t have any excuse at all not to read it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1143 "2012-06-08T17:29:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Wow **iiandyii** , welcome to the club! Sorry I’m a bit late with the congratulations, but I was skimming the thread and must have missed your election a couple of pages back. > > _modest cough_ Not to brag or anything, but I believe I was one of the first posters to make **brazil84** ’s ignore list here on the Dope, several years ago. I’m not quite sure but I think it was in a climate change thread. > > It’s a bit of a coveted distinction around these parts, as it attests to not only an extensive sequence of informative factual posts in at least one long thread refuting **brazil84** ’s arguments, but also an accurate analysis of various logical flaws in his arguing style. > > A lot of Dopers score one or the other of those in the course of **brazil84** threads, but to get on The List you have to be able to do both more or less simultaneously. > > Well done, and I’m sure other club members will be along shortly to offer their congratulations! > > ETA: Oh, I forgot to mention that in consequence, you are now entitled to use the phrase “Ignored by **brazil84** ” in your sig if you so choose. Personally I think it looks just a _liiiiittle_ show-offy, but hell, you won it so why not wear it! I had no idea I was now part of such a prestigious club! What an honor! ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1144 "2012-06-08T17:35:11Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Until blacks behave and perform as well as whites the burden of proof should be on those who claim that racial gaps are not genetic. Yet another demonstration that you have zero genetic evidence. Do you use the same reasoning to explain why the Amish murder rate is so much lower then would be expected for their population? Or why Nigerian immigrants to the USA achieve higher levels of education and achievement then average? Your conclusion is based on your feelings, not data. The data says that African Americans have lower test scores, and higher crime rates then average. That’s all it says- it says absolutely nothing about genetics. Most of the rest of the data you’ve cited, like the Lynn study, is crap. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1145 "2012-06-08T17:36:35Z")
[quote=“brazil84, post:1142, topic:623489”] Lol, very convenient for you that your killer argument was in the post of someone I just put on my ignore list for dishonesty.[/quiote] It is quite evident he was put on your ignore list for inconveniencing your rhetoric game playing. It is very easy, all you need to do is go to the link and click. Your behaviour tells us all we need to know of you. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1146 "2012-06-08T17:38:03Z")
And I add that I have no killer argument, I merely noticed that your claim earlier was false, that the information was provided very clearly in a very simple two links. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1147 "2012-06-08T17:38:27Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I usually think that on any complex subject the consensus of experts is more likely to be correct than incorrect. In the case of genetic differences between the races professionals in the field want to maintain good relations with black friends and colleagues. You really keep outdoing yourself for stupidity. I expected a conspiracy theory, but I did not expect that it would be motivated by trying not to hurt our friends’ feelings! > [@](#): > > Charles Murray has become independently wealthy from the sale of his books, so he can say what he pleases. Until anyone can publicly agree with him without fearing economic or social sanctions it cannot be said that there has been a dispassionate discussion of the matter. Um, I hate to break it to you, but one doesn’t need to be wealthy in the US to say racist things freely. > [@](#): > > Until blacks behave and perform as well as whites the burden of proof should be on those who claim that racial gaps are not genetic. Well, that’s fine, because the burden of proof is kind of what science is about. And the burden of proof is amply met in support of alternate hypotheses and not a genetic hypothesis. Do you see the irony in saying on the one hand that the burden of proof should be met, and on the other hand disregarding all the proof in favor of a theory for a conspiracy of social kindness? You are both disgusting and abjectly stupid. You’re a racist joke. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1148 "2012-06-08T17:38:42Z")
> [@Heart\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And in fact, we have good reason to believe (3) is not true. For it to be true, we would have to show that the group of NPSs has some genetic correlation. We would have to find some gene or pattern of genes that is present in nearly all NPSs and absent (or far less prevalent) in all NESs. Why? If we don’t, then it makes no sense to talk about NPSs as a genetic group. If it makes “no sense to talk about” Group X as a “genetic group,” (by your standards) it is nonetheless possible that an observed disparity between Group X and some other group has a genetic basis. For example, suppose I divide the world into 3 groups: Race 1: {People born on Ceylon; People born in China between 1950 and 1970; People who self identify as “Puerto Rican”} Race 2: {People who hold citizenship in Scandinavian countries; People born in US states which border Canada; and Ashkenazim} Race 3: {Everyone else} Would you agree that by your standards, “it makes no sense to talk about” these groups as “genetic groups”? Would you agree that if you picked people from these 3 groups at random and made measurements, the average measurements (for some attributes) would vary between groups? Last, would agree that some of these disparities are due in part to genetics? * * * Also, is it your position that there is a gene (or pattern of genes) which is present in nearly all Ashkenazim and which is absent (or far less prevalent) in non-Ashkenazim? If so, what is it? If not, then is it your position that it makes no sense to talk about Ashkenazim as a genetic group? ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1149 "2012-06-08T17:38:53Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > … > Ashkenazi Jews have genetic markers that point to the Israelites who lived in Israel 3,000 years ago, and to other populations. What matters about them is that they have the highest average IQ of any racial group, and that this can be explained by fairly unique population pressures lasting from at least the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Are you actually proposing a quantifiable change in human intelligence in a population over the course of 1200 years? Really? What are your metrics? And while I am asking, please define what you think the word ‘race’ means when you use it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1150 "2012-06-08T17:40:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > [Linkety link](http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Nisbett-et-al.-2012.pdf) to “Online First publication” version. Thanks Kimstu. Serves me right for assuming there would not be a free access version online. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1151 "2012-06-08T17:44:19Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > It is quite evident he was put on your ignore list for inconveniencing your rhetoric game playing. No, I caught him in a contradiction and he weaseled and strawmanned. The fact that you deny this is telling. > [@](#): > > . Your behaviour tells us all we need to know of you. As does yours. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1152 "2012-06-08T17:45:25Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > And I add that I have no killer argument, I merely noticed that your claim earlier was false, Please quote the claim I made which was false. This is necessary so that I may understand what exactly you are saying. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1153 "2012-06-08T17:45:58Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > No, I caught him in a contradiction and he weaseled and strawmanned. The fact that you deny this is telling. Nope, there was no contradiction, liar. You haven’t even tried to post it, because it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1154 "2012-06-08T19:55:55Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > There should never be any sanctions against telling the truth. I don’t think people aer just trying to spare people’s feelings here, they believe that you do not provide sufficient evidence to support the claims that you are making. You point to differences in average IQ between African Americans and other Americans after controlling for socioeconomic status and say “see the IQ differences are genetic” You are confronted with the fact that there is a history of racial prejudice and cultural decay that can account for a lot of that difference. So you point to a book that claims that the avereage IQ of some population in Africa is 54 as evidence that this differences is not unique to blacks in America but exists everywhere. When people point out how implausible it is that any large popuilation of people would have an average IQ of 54, you go back to the beginning of your argument and repeat the differences we see among blacks and whites in America. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Those who explain away persistent racial differences in average aptitude and behavior certainly seem to believe in the Egalitarian Hypothesis, or at least an approximation of it. I don’t think anyone thinks that all people are actually created equal with equal talents and abilities. I think a lot of people think that any differences between large groups of humans are more likely the result of environment rather than genetics, especially when issues of race are introduced. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > …and black people, then as now, made up about 12% of the population (8.8 million out of 76.1 million total). If your argument holds water, the crime rate should have been roughly comparable; after all, black people are genetically predisposed to murder and pillage, you say. > > Strangely, it wasn’t. How do you explain that? Well, you don’t have the KKK to keep them in line anymore. :eek: > [@Mijin](#): > > If that’s the argument, yes. As I said though, some supporters of AA are of the mindset that there are differences so _that’s why_ there should be positive discrimination. > > So if you’re against AA, as I am, then asserting that some races are brighter than others is not the way: it doesn’t necessarily refute AA _even if_ everyone agreed that the assertion is correct. The underlying rationale of AA has always been to counteract the effects of racism. If it can be proven that the achievement gap betweenr aces is the result of innate differences in ability and not racism then AA is no longer necessary. Any attempts to extend AA beyond the point when racism is causing an achievement gap is dystopian [Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron) > [@](#): > > No; the whole “orientals are even smarter” thing is just to give a veneer of objectivity (starting with the book and continuing with NDD). > You notice that at any provocation NDD goes back to saying, basically, “show me a black guy who’s equal to a white guy”. And in discussing the “gaps” between races he has stressed several times that the gaps between whites, “orientals” and Jews are small, whereas the gap to black people is very large. He also points out that Jews and “orientals” have small penises to kind of make up for it. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The criminal justice system was harsher then. Also, the family structure was stronger. It seems like you are ready to accept environmental factors as significant determinants in crime rate when it supports your conclusion. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Genetics is a factor. Whether the crime rate goes up or down the same races have higher crime rates, and the same races have lower crime rates. > > It is the same way with the illegitimacy rate. And you can’t think of any environmental factor that would explain this persistent gap? ---
**Author:** ![Heart\_of\_Dorkness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/4bbf92/32.png) [@Heart\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heart_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1155 "2012-06-08T20:44:55Z")
First, let me get this out of the way: > [@brazil84](#): > > Also, is it your position that there is a gene (or pattern of genes) which is present in nearly all Ashkenazim and which is absent (or far less prevalent) in non-Ashkenazim? > > If so, what is it? > > If not, then is it your position that it makes no sense to talk about Ashkenazim as a genetic group? I have no freakin’ clue. As I said, I know almost nothing about genetics. I’m just here for the logic. > [@brazil84](#): > > If it makes “no sense to talk about” Group X as a “genetic group,” (by your standards) it is nonetheless possible that an observed disparity between Group X and some other group has a genetic basis. > > For example, suppose I divide the world into 3 groups: > > Race 1: {People born on Ceylon; People born in China between 1950 and 1970; People who self identify as “Puerto Rican”} > > Race 2: {People who hold citizenship in Scandinavian countries; People born in US states which border Canada; and Ashkenazim} > > Race 3: {Everyone else} > > Would you agree that by your standards, “it makes no sense to talk about” these groups as “genetic groups”? Yup. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that should be true by anyone’s standards. > [@brazil84](#): > > Would you agree that if you picked people from these 3 groups at random and made measurements, the average measurements (for some attributes) would vary between groups? Sure, that sounds entirely plausible. > [@brazil84](#): > > Last, would agree that some of these disparities are due in part to genetics? Well, it depends. If you’re talking about an attribute that is known to be determined at least partially by genetics, such as, say, height, then yes, I would say that a disparity between the groups’ average heights is probably due in some way to genetics. But otherwise, I wouldn’t just assume that genetics is involved, even in part. But where does that get you? No one in the world disagrees that: 1. some traits are partially or entirely genetically determined, and 2. these traits can vary widely over the whole human population, so therefore 3. randomly selected groups of people can have different \*average \*amounts of these traits, which would, of course, be attributable to genetics And then what? Let’s say it so happens that the vast majority of people who self-identify as Puerto Rican have a gene that makes them exceptionally tall, and the only way someone can become so exceptionally tall is by having this gene. This gene can be found randomly throughout the other races, but nowhere else in Race 1. But since almost every Puerto Rican is exceptionally tall, they tip the scales for Race 1, so that Race 1 has by far the greatest average height of all the races. Now what does this tell you? Is a given person from Race 1 likely to be exceptionally tall? That depends entirely on how likely they are to be Puerto Rican. If you encounter an exceptionally tall person, are they more likely to be Race 1? That depends on how many Puerto Ricans there are versus the total number of exceptionally tall people in other races. If you have someone from Race 1, and someone from another race, who is likely to be taller? That depends on the chances that each of them is exceptionally tall, which, again, all depends on how this gene is distributed through the total population. Depending on how many people we’re talking about, and how tall is “exceptionally tall”, it’s possible for Puerto Ricans to be a minority among exceptionally tall people, and even a minority within Race 1. That’s the thing about averages. Depending on the context in which they’re used, and the sample size from which they’re drawn, they can be illuminating, misleading, moot, or completely nonsensical. So even though we know Race 1 is tallest on average, it’s not useful to talk about “Race 1” as a group when we’re talking about the genetic basis of height. It doesn’t tell us anything else. It makes a little more sense to talk about the Puerto Rican subgroup of Race 1, because almost all of them have the exceptionally tall gene. But in that case, why focus on only one portion of the people who have this gene? Why not just talk about the group of all people who have this gene: The Exceptionally Talls? Or, we could tweak it and say that the gene is only rarely found among non-Puerto-Ricans. Then, it would make perfect sense to talk about Puerto Ricans as a genetic group. If you know someone is Puerto Rican, you can be relatively sure that they have the gene, and if they have the gene, they are almost certainly Puerto Rican. But even then, the fact that they call themselves Puerto Rican is _irrelevant_, genetically. The only reason they’re a “genetic group” is that they _almost all have something in common, genetically, that most other people do not have_. If you drew a line around all the Exceptionally Talls, and one around all the Puerto Ricans, there would be almost complete overlap, or in other words, an extremely high correlation, between “Puerto Rican” and the exceptionally tall gene. So now, let’s say that Race 1 is not only tallest on average, but they also have the highest average in some other trait, like skill at bowling. But we know averages can be misleading, so we do some _more_ measurements, and find that, across the board, a bowler at a given skill level within in Race 1 has a personal average 100 points higher than someone at that skill level within any other race. That is, the best Race 1 bowlers have a 300 average, and the best bowlers of any other race have about a 200. The worst Race 1 bowlers have a 100 average, and the worst bowlers of any other race are throwing straight up gutterballs. And there is a relatively equal spread of worst-to-best in each race. It’s clear: Race 1 really does have better bowlers. So what do we make of this? Do we say, “Well, they’re also tallest on average, and that’s genetic, so this must be, too?” (Hint: that would be idiotic.) No, we consider all factors that might have an influence on bowling skill, including genes, and look for correlations. And when we look at the genes, we find that there’s no one thing that Race 1 has in common that most other people don’t have. We can find some genetic subgroups in Race 1 that have little to no overlap with other races, but many in Race 1 don’t have these traits, and we can find things that are common throughout Race 1, but also present in other races. So, we can’t make a correlation between any genetic features and the incidence of bowling skill, and we are forced to conclude that genes cannot be responsible for Race 1’s bowling superiority, and further, that Race 1 is not a “genetic group” per se. So when I say it makes no sense to talk about “black people” as a genetic group, what I mean is, there is no genetic commonality that correlates to that group of people. If I were to look at everyone’s genes and start grouping by similarities, my understanding (and I should mention, in case you missed it, that I know very little about genetics) is that I would probably find a few genetic sub-groups that fall entirely within the group “black people”, several other genetic groups that have some members within “black people” and some members in other racial groups, and some genetic groups that would entirely encompass “black people” as well as a bunch of other people in other races, possibly whole other races. But at no point would I encounter single genetic group or collection of smaller groups that even comes close to corresponding to just “black people”. This does not mean you can’t look at someones genes and say, “This person is probably black,” or at least, “This person has black ancestry.” As far as I know, you certainly can [NB: It bears repeating; I know almost nothing about genetics]. But all that means is that they have some genetic attribute that is more commonly, or even exclusively, found in black people. This is _not_ the same as saying it’s found in all, most, or even a significant minority of black people. “Most of the people who have X are black” != “Most of the people who are black have X”. To be able to make an educated guess about something based on genetics does not mean that thing has a genetic basis. As with my earlier example, it’s entirely possible to guess what language someone speaks by looking at their genes. But that’s only because genetics, like many other things, can be influenced by social factors. Anyway, to sum up, yes, you can create any groups you like, based on any criteria, or lack thereof, that your little heart desires, and you will likely be able to find some trait which, when measured, produces different averages for these groups, and which is influenced at least in part by genes. And that, plus four bucks, will get you a cup of coffee. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1156 "2012-06-08T20:50:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Last, would agree that some of these disparities are due in part to genetics? Possibly. AND THAT’S EXACTLY THE POINT YOU’RE MISSING. It’s possible those disparities are due, in part, to genetics. But absolutely ZERO evidence has been shown for it. According to **NDD** the null hypothesis should be there IS a genetic difference and we need to show with 95% confidence that no such difference exists. No, fuck it. That’s not what he claims. That would actually be an improvement. He claims there’s actual evidence for the positive proof without showing it. But that’s NOT proper science. A proper null hypothesis is that no such genetic difference exists and that a result with a 95% confidence level (heck, even one with 50% would be better than what either he or you have shown so far, which is zip/zilch/nada) should be produced that demonstrates such a difference. It’s bog-standard basic god-damned science, and you don’t seem to get it. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1157 "2012-06-09T00:48:56Z")
"It’s bog-standard basic god-damned science, and you don’t seem to get it. " I tried to get him to state what his academic background was. He dodged, replying “I can read, and I can think”, giving himself too much credit by half. He’s igorant, and it’s Chinatown. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1158 "2012-06-09T01:18:21Z")
> [@Heart\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I have no freakin’ clue. As I said, I know almost nothing about genetics. I’m just here for the logic. That’s a bit of a surprise to me since you earlier stated this: > [@](#): > > We can find some gene patterns that are found almost exclusively in small sub-groups of black people, but the majority of black people do not have those gene patterns. We can also find gene patterns that are found in the vast majority of black people, but are also found in many, many other populations Where did you get this knowledge from? And can you tell me the “sub-groups of black people” you were referring to? > [@](#): > > Well, it depends. If you’re talking about an attribute that is known to be determined at least partially by genetics, such as, say, height, then yes, I would say that a disparity between the groups’ average heights is probably due in some way to genetics. But otherwise, I wouldn’t just assume that genetics is involved, even in part. Fair enough. (Of course it is known that intelligence is determined at least partly by genetics.) > [@](#): > > But where does that get you? Very far, as you will see in a second. > [@](#): > > Let’s say it so happens that the vast majority of people who self-identify as Puerto Rican have a gene that makes them exceptionally tall, and the only way someone can become so exceptionally tall is by having this gene. This gene can be found randomly throughout the other races, but nowhere else in Race 1. But since almost every Puerto Rican is exceptionally tall, they tip the scales for Race 1, so that Race 1 has by far the greatest average height of all the races. Sure, and let’s further assume that there is a group of people, I will call them the “Pure Environmentalists” which insists that the height gap between Race 1 and Race 2 is purely a result of differences in environment. > [@](#): > > Now what does this tell you? It tells me that the Pure Environmentalists are wrong. And that they can whine all day long about how “Race 1” is an arbitrary grouping; that it is “not genetically useful”; that it’s “invalid”; and so on. But they are still wrong. > [@](#): > > So even though we know Race 1 is tallest on average, it’s not useful to talk about “Race 1” as a group when we’re talking about the genetic basis of height. It may or may not be useful, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Pure Environmental claim is wrong. And that you can put a lot of effort into giving everyone the same degree of nutrition, but you will not close the height gap. > [@](#): > > But in that case, why focus on only one portion of the people who have this gene? Why not just talk about the group of all people who have this gene: The Exceptionally Talls? Because everyone in society obsesses over the “height gap” between Race 1 and Race 2. So the question needs to be answered – is the height gap purely environmental, or is it substantially genetic in origin? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1159 "2012-06-09T01:59:18Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > Are you actually proposing a quantifiable change in human intelligence in a population over the course of 1200 years? Really? What are your metrics? > > And while I am asking, please define what you think the word ‘race’ means when you use it. Yes. IQ tests, and the Ashkenazic record of intellectual achievement. A race, or in the case of the Ashkenazim a racial group, is a fairly stable gene pool lasting for at least many centuries. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1160 "2012-06-09T03:12:51Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > A race, or in the case of the Ashkenazim a racial group, is a fairly stable gene pool lasting for at least many centuries. There aren’t any of those. Humans fuck around way too much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=57) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=59)