Look up “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”.
Says you, with no evidence.
You’re using “percent” wrong. There is zero genetic evidence in all these cites. And you haven’t addressed how your use of “race” contradicts genetic data.
Yes, I really don’t understand this. brazil84 is waging a one-man war on the fervent proponents of the Egalitarian Hypothesis, who number exactly zero in this thread. Who is he talking to?
The imagined groans of all the wraiths he’s “banned,” presumably.
I’d never heard of it before brazil84 posted about it and I haven’t any urge to find out what it is.
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.
It is clear it is a straw man because it is easier to make self congratulations, than to present any clear idea of what the races they are claiming are in a fashion that is scientific. I do not even understand the crime argument because it is entirely contradicted by the evidences internationally.
What is that approximation? Is it another of the not defined things you use to hide from the incoherences of your arguments and to ignore that you have no data?
The majority of the argument against you is simple science that says the races are not genetical and coherent.
But you ignore the inconvenient refutations of your American based claims.
Nah, if NDD had an IQ of 54, he’d already be gone, having taken his laptop into the shower or crashed in mid-post while driving down the freeway or some such misadventure.
It’s a specialized form of willful blindness, not generic stupidity, that enables someone to actually operate a computer while remaining oblivious to the obvious absurdity of the claim that a long-existing society is composed of people with an average IQ of 54. This phenomenon is why you see otherwise normal and functional people who believe in Moon-Hoaxism or Birtherism or 9-11-Truthism or any of a plethora of other flapdoodle.
Well, if you’re going to admit up front that all your statistics are irrelevant because they compare things that should not be compared, I guess we can wrap up this thread.
I’m trying to imagine a telepath with an IQ of 54. I guess if such a person encountered someone who ranted and raved “I will destroy you!”, the subsequent pronouncement “I sense anger” would, in fact, be an insightful revelation.
The really laughable thing is that NDD apparently still doesn’t understand why we are roundly mocking his arguments.
The reason, for those just tuning in at home, is that they resemble past discredited arguments in the same vein, differing only in that the new assertions (e.g. a long-functioning society of people whose average IQ is 54) are even less credible than the old ones. NDD is in the position of someone who is following a series of 200-MPG carburetor hucksters, all of whom have been hooted off the stage, and proceeds to make his pitch for his 2000-MPG carburetor.
That just makes it all the more laughable that the author could have made up any number at all, and chose a facially absurd one. It’s like a child asked to explain what happened to the cookies, and spinning a tale about a theft by space aliens instead of trying to blame his little brother or something.
…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?
Man, this thread moves fast.
You’re getting vaguely warmer but not yet close. I’m saying two things here:
-
“Black” and “white” as NDD appears to define them do not exist as genetic groupings. As such, I’m not saying what you say I’m saying any more than if we were discussing whether there was an IQ gap between “green” and “blue” people.
-
I am not automatically assuming that comparisons of any two group of people using any particular criteria will (or indeed will not) produce results showing statistically significant differences.
It means it doesn’t exist. “One whole race of black people who share commonalities of genotype that are not shared by non-blacks” is not a real group.
Yes. The criteria are in the descriptor.
Yes, assuming that we’re not quibbling about which countries are in Scandanavia and what constitutes “citizenship”.
I am aware of people who identify as “ethnic Germans” as a cultural group. I believe this is a self-reported category, however - you’re an ethnic German if you say you are.
A more tightly defined cultural group. Also (if the evidence cited in this thread is correct) it is a specific genetic grouping. Note that the two definitions of the group will heavily overlap but are not necessarily exactly the same.
As an arbitrary designation by Rushton/NDD? Sure. On a genotypical basis? Not remotely.
I know nothing about dog breeds and make no arguments about them so whatever the kennel club says constitutes a labrador retriever is fine by me.
Again, the criteria for inclusion is in the category.
So 1, 2, and 7 contain their own criteria. 3 is self-reported. 4 can be self-reported or by other cultural or genetic criteria (as long as you define the criteria you’re using). 6 has various professional bodies defining the criteria for inclusion. Which leaves 5, a term previously used in various contexts and now largely discarded as meaningless except by a few fringe researchers and followers. It exists as a group according to whatever NDD said upthread, but it does not share a exclusive commonality of genotypes. So now what?
It is pretty much NDD’s basic argument. Take a group linked by appearance (sub-Saharan Africans) or country (Chinese) or socio-economic groups (American blacks, Jews). Throw out various statistics about those groups. Assume that the statistics show something about genetics. Check out post #1020 for a recent example.
Umm…I think you’ve misunderstood something. Or you’ve excluded a middle somewhere.
Yep, excluded middle. You seem to be skipping the idea that one can group people by genetic characteristics at some level between “individual” and “everybody in the world”. No one is saying that there aren’t. We’re just saying that NDD’s way of doing so is wrong.
You can certainly talk about people born on Ceylon (Sri Lanka, surely?) who live in NYC as a subculture or as a sociological grouping. But if you want to talk about their genes, as distinct from people not in that group, you’d have to be able to demonstrate that there are in fact a coherent and distinct group genetically first.
It depends on your criteria. But if you want to demonstrate Trait X as characteristic of Group Y AND not characteristic of Group Z, then you had better be able to demonstrate the difference between Group Y and Group Z. And if your claim is that the difference is genetic, you need to be able to establish the genetic difference. If you need that in monosyllabic terms, that’s closer to “yes” than “no”.
So it seems to you that people who disagree with you vaguely agreed with something like this other thing that no one has actually cited? I don’t know whether you’re strawmanning or just really confused.
Here, as they say, is the thing. The vast majority of the arguments made against you say nothing at all about differences in racial groups. What they do say is that your argument is poorly constructed, your data is questionable at best and manufactured at worst, your criteria are ill-defined and your citations are largely irrelevant. We’re not saying everyone is equal; we’re saying that all you’ve proved repeatedly is a fundamental failure to apply the scientific method correctly.
And that would be true even if the genetic differences between populations do exist.
I think that we can all agree that as mammals maintaining our temperature is important for brain function.
As the human race entered Europe, the decreased surface area of attached earlobes helped reduce the surface area that was exposed to the cold northern air.
This allowed those individuals with attached earlobes brain to function better, thus we need to round up all the danglers and force them onto plantations for their own good.
Cuz them danglers are a cummin for our JORBS!!
Are there any politically controversial issues where your views go against those expressed by the majority of the people you hang out with? Just wondering.
On that glorious day, the Arizona studio where the moon landings were filmed will be opened to public tours, the Bush Administration apparatchiks who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks will be arrested for treason, and Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate will be encased in the Smithsonian.
Really, are you utterly oblivious to how much your excuses that people reject your arguments becuse of bias and conspiracy (rather than because they have been tried and found wanting) makes you sound like a crank?
Are there any consequences to this claim? Or is it simply an observation you are making?
Lol, that doesn’t shed any light on what you mean.
So any group which is described by criteria “exists” in your view?
Umm, does “ethnic Germans” exist or not? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Umm, does “Ashkenazim” exist or not?
Does “Mongoloids” exist or not?
I see nothing in post 1020 which contains this argument. Can you quote him where he does so?
I’m not skipping any ideas – I’m simply trying to apply the criteria you laid out.
You asserted that a group exists as a genetic grouping if it has “common or related genotypes.” Agreed?
And do you agree that all humans have “common or related genotypes” by virtue of being members of the same species? (Simple yes or no question)
Therefore, it follows that any subset of humanity you care to choose will be a group of people with “common or related genotypes” Agreed?
Therefore, by your criteria, such a group “exists as a genetic grouping.” Right?
And what are the criteria for determining whether a group is “coherent and distinct”?
Is it the same as for determining whether a group “exists”? If it’s something else, please tell me.
We’re talking about your criteria here – not mine.
All I am trying to do with my question is nail down your criteria for determining whether a group “exists” or not. You have asserted, in essence, that “blacks” does not “exist.”
What is it about blacks as a group makes you conclude that the group does not “exist”? And does the same reasoning apply to other groups?
Turning back to the example of firemens’ examinations, if (1)society accepts that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites; and (2) black scores on the examinations are completely in line with this gap, do you agree it would weaken the argument that there must have been racial discrimination?
So you are pretty confident that NDD is either Oriental or Ashkenazi, correct?
Call it whatever you want – the fact that some people might misuse the truth about racial differences does not make it any less true.
Apparently not you.
So you accept that intelligence and other important psychological traits may not be equally distributed among the races in terms of genetic predisposition?