They do not have to be. What they demonstrate is a clear pattern of racial differences regarding crime and intelligence. Because this pattern is so universal it is rather clearly genetic. I doubt that most of those who claim otherwise really believe what they say.
There is nothing sneaky about the insults thrown at me by those who do not want me to draw attention to racial differences regarding intelligence, crime, and sexual responsibility.
All they need to do to prove that I am mistaken is to prove that blacks behave and perform as well on the average as whites. Because they cannot do that, the insults keep coming. :eek:
I’m pretty sure it’s not that simple. There used to be an online test where you would try to place people into racial categories but alas I can’t find it - perhaps someone else will post a link - but most people struggled to place people into such “obvious” categories.
One of the examples that keeps cropping up is the Ainu people of Japan. To look at them it seems obvious that they are at least partly of Caucasian genetic stock. Except that they aren’t. Phenotypes are not genotypes, and to assume that there is an obvious correlation between the two has been shown to be wrong more often than right.
No one is saying that traits such as physical ability and intelligence have nothing to do with genetics. The problem is that “black people” aren’t a genetic group; in fact, even the most obvious populations of “black people” comprise a far more diverse collection of genotypes than Europeans do. So you can’t really say anything about “black people” as a whole based on genetics, because they aren’t all remotely alike genetically.
On a side note: we’re seeing more players of East Asian descent as major sports stars now (Jeremy Lin, Park Si-Jung, Yao Ming etc). Does this mean that their genetic makeup is changing?
<sigh> Yeah, I’ve seen similar. But what does it prove, apart from the inability of some people to comprehend complex social issues?
Not only am I not saying that, I specifically did not say that. I said that it “has a lot more to do with socio-economic circumstances than with genes”, and there’s a much heavier correlation between disruptive classroom behavior and poverty stricken, broken homes. And one can find anecdotes (yes, I know) of individual instances where the schools or individual teachers have intervened to provide the child with support and positive adult role models and the child’s behavior has improved dramatically, which would not be the case if this sort of thing was genetic in origin. I’m sure there are children with genetic problems causing trouble but there’s no evidence that this is typical across entire racial groupings and far more evidence that it is environmentally-driven.
And we’ve already told you why this would prove nothing about genetics. And the handwaving keeps coming.
What would you accept as scientific evidence that racial differences are caused genetically?
What I would accept as scientific evidence that racial differences are not caused genetically would be blacks behaving and performing as well as whites in the United States, and prosperous, well functioning democracies in black majority countries in Africa and the Caribbean.
A specific pinpointing of the genes responsible for “intelligence”, “crime” and “sexual irresponsibility” would help. That’s just off the top of my head. Get cracking. **Smeghead **already provided you with a methodological walk-through in the other thread which should get you started on sound, actually scientific bases.
That is ridiculous. I do not understand how you do not see that is ridiculous. There are 1,001 explanations for disparities among racial groups, chief among them being poverty. If you’re going to reject all of that evidence then you’re going to have to explain, in detail, why you reject it.
You really seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, so I’m not holding my breath.
Indeed; you only have to look across to poor whites to see similar poor results in scholastic achievement and crime statistics. In the US black people account for a disproportionate amount of the poor, but it’s the fact that they’re poor and poorly educated that more strongly correlates with the problems mentioned than their race. Middle-class black families don’t suffer from these problems to the same degree (although they’re hardly free from discrimination), and strangely enough their kids tend not to grow up to be uneducated crackheads.
When the waves of Irish immigrants came over to the US in the late nineteenth century you saw the same accusations aimed at them: they were lazy, stupid drunken criminals. Now they get a party in their honor every year. Blacks have historically had a far worse hand dealt to them and it’s going to take a few more generations for the problems to even begin to be addressed. Of course, it’ll take even longer if we start making public policy based on poorly-supported assertions.
…well, aren’t they ?
(D&R)
I’ll have you know that I know many Irish people and none of them are stupid or criminal.
So defined, you must see how that is the obvious default position and any contrary hypothesis has the burden of proof?
No, do lets. Rcial group implies biological unity, ethnic group does not.
…with subsequent admixture, but OK
…now. Historically, seemingly not.
I don’t get how you reach this conclusion from the previous two data points. Ashkenazi have presumably had substantial continuity genetically, yet their vaunted intelligence is only coming to the for in the last century. Which is…just when they started getting into the US and Israel…
Of course not - but perhaps ones (great- great- grand-)kids do.
In that vein, I’m wondering if the Ethiopian Jews are now performing better that they’re in a developed country.
Holy shit, I so very rarely see someone just blindly argue by assertion with a straight face.
I’m not sure. It’s tempting to assume, a priori, that all things are equal. On the other hand, given that many physical traits vary from race to race, the reasonable assumption (without knowing anything more) is that psychological traits vary too.
But it’s kind of an academic question since the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the egalitarian hypothesis is false.
Well, by NDD’s theory that just proves that the Irish evolved really really sooper dooper fast:
“The thing, above all, that a teacher should endeavor to produce in his pupils, if democracy is to survive, is the kind of tolerance that springs from an endeavor to understand those who are different from ourselves. It is perhaps a natural human impulse to view with horror and disgust all manners and customs different from those to which we are used. Ants and savages put strangers to death. And those who have never traveled either physically or mentally find it difficult to tolerate the queer ways and outlandish beliefs of other nations and other times, other sects and other political parties. This kind of ignorant intolerance is the antithesis of a civilized outlook, and is one of the gravest dangers to which our overcrowded world is exposed.” B.Russell.
To ‘the new deal democrat’: I doubt anyone wants to get into a great historical debate with you about the whys and wherefores of racial inequality, seeing as you called a ghetto ‘decadent’, such an endeavor would seem a little futile and mad. I mean, I’m not down with the kids, but i watched The Wire once, and it ain’t so decadent on me telly! AND what’s that about civil rights legislation? surely you’re not hinting it was detrimental??
Also…genes vs. memes…Either there’s something fundamentally different about us -in which case, let’s all be civilized and polite, or we’re all totally subject to some kinda independent weltanschauung 
…also, kudos for being such a horrendous knob-end. xx
I strongly disagree with your views on race, but at the very least I believed you came by them honestly and may not deserve some of the hostility you face here. But you ignore the substantive portion of my post and state, categorically, “those theories are obviously wrong”? Just like that? Your views just are so obvious that no one who disagrees could do so honestly? I tried to treat you properly and without insult — but if you really don’t wish to take your arguments to a level of sophistication beyond “Rusthon says so” and “no, you!”, then AFAIC the sharks can have you.
Well what do you mean by “really believe”? Do you mean believing in something strongly enough that you are willing to bet your own resources on it being correct? If so, then yes, very few people really believe in the egalitarian hypothesis. Hardly anyone seriously expects that NCLB will actually “close the gap” or that the need for affirmative action will fade away, or any of this nonsense.
On the other hand, I would guess a lot of the people accusing you of being a racist could pass a lie detector test with flying colors while making the assertion that any racial differences in achievement are due to non-genetic factors. Which is logically equivalent to the egalitarian hypothesis.
See, it’s possible for the human brain to simultaneously believe contradictory propositions.
I give up. I tried. I knew it was probably futile. Get an education, or consider taking Olive’s suggestion. You don’t seem to be capable of absorbing any of the information directed to you. What you are doing in this neighborhood is beyond me, because you clearly don’t think you have any ignorance to be fought.
I wasn’t aware that the three had been subjected to the same battery of intelligence tests, or that you were privy to the test results. That must have been difficult to arrange.
If we were discussing boxing, of course, then one could infer that Ali would probably excel. If the measurement were “best spank bank material for lonely nights in brazil84’s bathroom,” then— well, that one’s a toss-up, actually.
But we aren’t discussing boxing or masturbation, at least not directly. And should the day arrive when the U.S. population is ranked according to boxing ability, and a black majority seeks to shape public policy and allocate funds based upon the perceived genetic basis for white inferiority at boxing, you will perhaps have a point.
At any rate, your Person A > Person B focus is a red herring because New Deal Democrat isn’t talking about the superiority of individuals, or discussing individuals at all. What he’s doing is:
-
Defining an arbitrary group called “blacks” that apparently consists of people with dark skin who look sorta Negro (and let’s toss in those freaky albino blacks too while we’re at it),
-
Drawing a box around them with a fat crayon,
-
Using his University of Google training to cherry-pick cites that “prove” that this or that subgroup inside the Giant Box is of inferior intelligence, commits more crimes, or is otherwise unsavory,
-
Declaring this to be conclusive proof that everyone in the Giant Box is genetically inferior to everyone outside it.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m not sure what you are talking about here – what charts and figures have I cited?
[/QUOTE]
It was an expression. You appear content so far to play teacher’s aide to NDD’s Scientific Racism 101 lecture.