The problem is that bad policy is being made on the assumption that the Egalitarian Hypothesis is correct. For example, if blacks disproportionately fail a promotion exam for firefighters, this is used as evidence that there must have been racial discrimination.
It’s correct that some people cannot handle the truth.
The definition of “race” you use is genetically invalid. But populations do have validity in genetics- so this is the evidence that I would accept:
First, an identification of all the genes that are involved in intelligence (or at least the most important genes) and propensity for criminality, and exactly how these genes are involved (which ones of them are active when “turned on” or combined with specific other genes, and so on), and how they relate to environment and upbringing. Then detailed, broad genetic testing of various populations (not races), showing that certain populations have significantly varying numbers of these genes. Then detailed, broad surveys and testing that shows that the previous analyses have predictive power.
This is genetic evidence. You’ve supplied zero genetic evidence- not even a single gene. Real science is hard.
I would re-think my beliefs if somebody somewhere successfully “closed the gap” in a manner which was verifiable, long-lasting, repeatable, and statistically significant.
It’s not like billions of dollars aren’t being spent to do this.
As far as demanding the identification of a specific gene goes, that’s silly. Long before anyone knew anything about DNA it was possible to correctly conclude that some traits are genetic.
Besides which, I doubt such evidence would convince a True Believer in the egalitarian hypothesis. I mean, if they find a few genes (alleles actually) which strongly correllate with higher intelligence; and they find that those alleles are present in much higher frequency in whites than in blacks, would it shake the beliefs of folks like iiandyiiii? I doubt it.
specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm…
Consider an observation furtively voiced by many who interact with civil servants: that government is riddled with people who have been promoted to their level of incompetence because of pressure to have a staff with the correct sex and ethnicity in the correct proportions and positions. Are these just anecdotes? Or should we be worrying about the effects of affirmative action on the quality of government services? (77) It would be helpful to know the answers, but we will not so long as the taboo against talking about group difference prevails.
Private employers often pay lip service to affirmative action. Nevertheless, they know that if they do not get the most capable employees their competitors will. Affirmative action is only a problem in government employment. Civil servants ought to be respected. They ought to earn that respect by passing stringent civil service exams and by performing competently. There should be no effort at race norming.
As evidence against what you aptly call “the egualitarian hypothesis” mounts screams of “Racist!” will increase in volume. Fewer people will pay any attention. Eventually the walls of political correctness will be torn down as dramatically as the Berlin Wall was, and it will once again be safe to say in public what most people have always known to be true.
How do you judge behavior and performance? Performance doing what?
Also, you’ve been given evidence that your cites are crap and you’ve not accepted any of them. So, truthfully, I don’t give a shit what you say you’ll accept, you’ve not proved your point and others have bashed it to smithereens.
I’ve always wondered what it would be like to have delusions of grandeur and persecution…
Nothing’s stopping you from approaching a group of black men in public and informing them they are members of a genetically inferior race. In fact, I strongly encourage you to do so. Don’t forget your collection of irrefutable scholarly citations. I’m sure they’ll be convinced.
You and others who flame me on this issue resemble cowardly members of a lynch mob. You feel brave as part of a howling mob, but you could not hold your own against me in a formal debate before dispassionate debate judges and an audience of people who had no emotional stake in the controversy, and was looking for evidence to make up their minds.
Comparing the people who disagree with you to a “lynch mob”, while arguing that “the negro race” is intellectually inferior? Without evident irony?
It’s not debate. It’s not trolling. It’s performance art. I salute you, sir.
Well, I hear he wouldn’t have a chance of survival in the UK.
The young black men both of us have reason to avoid would not understand the scholarly citations.
Violence can silence the truth, but it cannot change it into falsehood. Eventually the truth is recognized, and it becomes safe to state it in public.
I judge behavior and performance by crime rates and mental aptitude test scores.
My cites include data compiled by the FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
and the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
On this board I have spoken out against AA, gender quotas and the like several times. I haven’t needed to suggest “blacks are teh dumb” to do it.
Conversely, there are some people who think there are aptitude differences and they support AA for that reason. So it’s not like pro-AA and the Egalitarian Hypothesis are coupled.
I maintain the central motivation in saying “this group has a lower average IQ than that group” is really to justify “Your group is inferior, and you are inferior to me because you belong to that group”.
ETA: And you see how NDD has just given an example of just this point? “The young black men both of us have reason to avoid would not understand the scholarly citations.”
I was talking about people trying to interpret information in a way that justifies their bigotry. Not handling the truth implies something different to this.
You’re definition of race has no basis in biology, as we’ve conclusively shown- speaking of the “black” or “Negro” or “sub-Saharan African” race has no validity, genetically speaking, as we’ve shown conclusively. You’ve shown zero genetic evidence, and I’ve explained in detail what I mean by genetic evidence.
Besides discredited books and research like Lynn’s, you’ve shown test scores and crime stats. All you’ve demonstrated is, statistically, African Americans in general have lower incomes, lower test scores, and a higher crime rate. This says nothing about any “genetic” propensity- at various times, many different ethnic groups have shown lower incomes, lower test scores, and a higher crime rate. Statistically, the Amish have a very low crime rate relative to their population- does this mean that the Amish have a genetic propensity for lower crime? No. It says nothing about Amish genetics.
Only in your mind have you won anything. Your cites do not support your argument. You can’t support an argument about genetics without genetic evidence.
Real science is hard.
I didn’t specify “young black men.” Address a group of black professors or businessmen and tell them the same thing. You won’t, because no matter how “safe” it becomes to “speak the truth,” it will always be safer for cowards to hide behind their keyboards.
There should never be any sanctions against telling the truth.
One only hopes it would turn this way (sorry for the subtitles, didn’t find the original. The guy interviewed is a KKK grand wizard or whatever they call themselves)
Then put your money where your mouth is and do it.
It is difficult to know who NDD and Brazil84 think they are duping by this egalitarian hypothesis straw man. There has been no argument of individual egality, there has only been very extensive evidence that their races they are proposing are not coherent and that their own data and arguments lack any consistency. They claim criminality of “the blacks” but ignore contraditory data like the low crime of some African countries. It is all the ad hoc argument.
It certainly does indicate genetic propensities toward inferior intelligence and crime.
In 1900 the United States was full of impoverished immigrants from Europe. The murder rate was estimated at 1.2 percent per 100,000 inhabitants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_to_1999#1900s
Currently it is 4.8 percent, after rising to 10.2 percent in 1980.
Clearly other factors influence the crime rate in addition to poverty. An important factor is the likelihood and severity of punishment. Since 1980 the prison population has tripled.
In 1900 several hundred people were executed every year. Conditions in prisons were worse than now. Police frequently beat suspects under custody. This was an obvious violation of the Forth Amendment. It also seems to have been effective.