Spectacularly. I have never claimed that “genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups”. If others have claimed that in this thread, I certainly don’t recall it - they may well have but it wasn’t me.
What I have said is that NDD’s attempt to attribute certain traits and behaviors to genes in populations which do not share genes is blatantly flawed, that his evidence involves serious confirmation bias, erroneous assumptions and data that is just plain wrong, and that he has ignored data to the contrary.
Only in frustration.
If the “groups” don’t exist, then how can you make a scientifically relevant claim about them? That makes no sense. You’re trying to conflate two entirely different sets of criteria and claim they’re the same. If you’re clustering populations by other traits (phenotypes, geography, socio-economic background) you can try correlating by those, but you can’t extrapolate to traits they don’t share.
This is a bad argument: “Population X share a phenotype and a geographic and cultural background. They do Y. They must therefore also share a genotype to which we can attribute Y.” Do you not understand why this is a bad argument?
I can’t get my head around these bizarre questions. If you’re talking about a genotypical grouping, then you don’t get to pick and choose some members of that grouping and exclude others based on which ones demonstrate the traits you’re trying to prove, at least not without scientists pointing and laughing at you. Either your criteria are robust or your conclusions are nonsense.
I think iiandyiiii’s comment is relevant here:
You don’t get to gerrymander the data.
Your whole post, and particularly the questions about studying non-existent groups, reminded me of a quote by Charles Babbage:
This is what you and NDD seem to be proposing - that sloppy methodology and slapdash data of dubious quality could somehow produce a rigorous proof of anything.
You are noticing there another common denominator that science deniers have, in the end they are just peddling conspiracy theories to explain why there is no obvious support of their views among scientific organizations, active experts and academic professors.
The only explanation left for them is to believe that there are many experts that are forced to conceal their views or that are conspiring to fool the public.
So you are saying that he might be right about the genetic basis for the black/white iq gap, but that his conclusions do not follow from his analysis?
I don’t know, since I’m not yet sure what you mean when you say that a group doesn’t exist.
Let me ask you this, do the following groups “exist”?
(1) All persons born on the island of Ceylon between the years 1950 and 1970
(2) All persons who hold citizenship in a Scandinavian country
(3) Ethnic Germans
(4) Ashkenazim
(5) Mongoloids
(6) Labrador Retrievers
(7) All persons with type O blood.
Anyway, please answer my question – it’s a simple yes or no question so that I can understand your position.
Sure. Has anyone in this thread made that argument? Or are you simply setting up a strawman?
It’s a perfectly reasonable question. You asserted that a group exists as a genetic grouping if it has “common or related genotypes.”
Since all humans have common or related genotypes, it follows by your definition that any subset of the human species exists as a genetic grouping.
For example, the following set of people {people born on Ceylon + people who reside in New York City} all have common or related genotypes since they are all human beings.
I assume that you meant something more with your definition which is why I am asking you the question.
Again:
And do people outside of the grouping have to lack such common or related genotypes in order for the group to “exist”?
He’s also telling you, “I have better things to do that attempt to fill in the deficiencies of your education. You’ll have to get off your ass and work on that yourself. However, I will take a bit of trouble to supply you with a road map. You can thank me later.”
These are not useful genetic groupings. People who live in New York are not likely to be more closely related to each other (if you pick 2 random NYers) than any random New Yorker is from any random non-New Yorker.
And by the same token, the term “black”, or even “sub-Saharan African” is not a useful genetic grouping- because any random 2 “black” or “sub-Saharan African” people may not be genetically closer than one of them is with a random non-African.
By “not useful” I mean it doesn’t tell you anything, and it’s essentially impossible to isolate distinguishing characteristics. New Yorkers do not have distinct genetic markers that set them all apart from non-New Yorkers. And sub-Saharan Africans do not have unique distinct genetic markers that set them apart from non-Africans.
This is even more true for Africa- except for the tiny amount of Neanderthal DNA in non-African populations, every single gene and DNA marker outside of Africa also exists inside it. Africa contains 100% of human genetic variation (except for the Neanderthal DNA). Any region outside of Africa (when we’re talking about lineages) will have < 100% of human genetic variation.
I certainly agree that one should get information from different sources, and examine different points of view.
However, I do not see an ulterior motive influencing the behavior of those who maintain that global warming is a serious problem. I guess they could get funding from companies who make solar panels, windmills, and so on. The fossil fuel industry has far more money to hand out.
The idea that the vast majority of climatologists who agree that global warming is a problem are part of a conspiracy against the free enterprise system hardly needs to be discussed.
On the other hand, those who argue against what you call “the Egalitarian Hypothesis,” do have ulterior motives to state publicly what they do not really believe, or at least have doubts about. To begin with, it can be dangerous in many professional environments to dispute the Egalitarian Hypothesis. As you can see from the venom that has been directed against me, many people simply do not want to have a calm and rational discussion about this, a discussion where facts and logical reasoning matter.
Many prefer to scream about racism, and to claim that Charles Murray is a racist hack, when he is really a respected political scientists who has had articles published in publications like The New Republic, Commentary, The Public Interest, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and The Washington Post.
Also, whites do not want to offend black friends and co-workers. One cannot easily say, “I think you are a member of an inferior race, but I like you anyway.”
Further- this (the greater genetic diversity in Africa) is essentially exactly what the “out-of Africa” theory predicts. Imagine that, 200,000 years ago, there was one population of humans in (roughly) south-eastern Africa (call it Group A).
For the next approximately 150,000 years, Group A split into many groups that lived all over Africa- so now Groups, A, B, C, and so on populate Africa. Some groups are more closely related to each other than others are.
Around 50,000 years ago, people from a few groups (let’s say groups X, Y, and Z) left Africa and started to populate Asia, Europe, and eventually, Australasia and the Americas. Groups X, Y, and Z (and the groups that descend from them at various splits and bottlenecks) together don’t have nearly the genetic diversity that Groups A through Z (portions of which all live in Africa- though some may have died out). And even more interestingly- some Groups in Africa, like the remnants of Groups X, Y, and Z (some of which stayed in Africa) and the Groups most closely related to them, are more closely related genetically to the people that have now populated the non-African continents than they are to certain other African Groups.
I document my important assertions. Those who flame me seldom do. Their invective and lack of general information reveal the deficiencies of both their education and their character.
Irrelevant. It is possible to distinguish suckling pigs from stray dogs by DNA analysis; according to that which attempts to pass itself off as logic in your utterances, this supports the claim that Borges’ “Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge’s Taxonomy” is a sensible classification system.
The attempts to rationalize the cherry-picking get thinner and thinner with each iteration…
Now, what did I tell you before about inserting some padding between mutually exclusive statements? Remember: you don’t have to actually respect the reader’s intelligence, but you do have to put on a credible pretense of doing so. It’s one of the rules of polite society.
Oh, and Chinese people resolve business disputes with violence? Must be a problem with their genes…
Well what’s your test for deciding whether a grouping is a “useful genetic grouping”?
Is it essentially your two random people test?
And do you agree that if I pick two random white people, they are likely to be more closely related to eachother than if I pick a random white person and a random non-white person?
The idea that the vast majority of geneticists who agree that “race” is not a useful term in genetics are part of a conspiracy against the “race realists” hardly needs to be discussed.
There are no genetic markers that distinguish “whites” from “non-whites” or “sub-Saharan Africans” (or blacks) from “non-sub-Saharan Africans” (or non-blacks).
Members of some racial groups tend to perform better than members of other racial groups on all the tests of intellectual ability and learning however they are designed. These different test results conform to different levels of performance in the class room and on the job. That is what matters.