No, I’m using it as a very specific term for Levin’s thesis that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, and that we should shape our public policy based on that “fact,” ideas for which you expressed admiration. This is the epitome of racism, independent of my opinion. (Which, admittedly, is not particularly enthusiastic.)
Statistically, blacks score poorly on IQ and IQ-proxy exams than whites, is black genetics to blame?
Could you elaborate on that term (preferably in another thread)? As it is, neither Levin nor I argue that Blacks are “genetically inferior to whites.” We both point out that, on average, Blacks are intellectually (as defined psychometrically) inferior to whites – which they are – *and contend that this intellectual inferiority is, in part, conditioned by genetics. * Let me quote Levin:
Inferior with respect to intelligence versus inferiority per se. Blacks (in as statistical sense) are inferior in intelligence – the question is “Why?”
Also, there are different types of intelligence, and the type that is measured by IQ tests is just one type.
My statements seem pretty clear in that discussion.
You want to pretend that there are coherent “races” about whom we can make qualitative statements. I pointed out that no group large enough to be identified as a “race” has such coherent qualities.
Then you went off on a tangent about subspecies, trying to claim that they are the same (or not the same–you were unclear) as “races,” while I pointed out that serious biologists do not recognize any separate living “subspecies” in humanity, so playing word games to substitute “race” and “subspecies” is just that–a word game not supported by evidence.
I am sure that there are differences among different human populations. Since I have never seen any reputable discussion of IQ testing that persuades me that it is more than a cultural indicator of education, I don’t buy into the claims that “Group X is smarter or dumber than Group Y.”
Finding that there are limited populations that are more susceptible to obesity than other limited populations only indicates that certain situations (i.e., obesity in your link), may have a genetic component in addition to a cultural component. Claims for intelligence that ignore such factors become a priori claims in the hands of racialists (remember how much you dislike a priori logic), and that is without even going into the issues of extrapolating limited results from one geographically identified group to multiple larger groups falsely included in an imaginary “race.”
Is it possible that “intelligence” (if we ever find a uniform way to measure it accurately), is, on average, greater or less in one group or another and that that difference is genetic. I would say yes. Given the wide disparities in testing outcomes and the lack of controls to actually examine the data, I would say that such is far from being demonstrated at this time.
And, since the goups identified at this time as “races” are not sufficiently internally similar, any extrapolation from the current mixed bag of testing results to broad declarations about “races” is just foolish.
You said this upthread:
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Intelligence is certainly hereditary.
[/QUOTE]
That seems to create a conflict doesn’t it? How can a trait both be genetic and it not manifest itself in large groups in ways that we’d eventually see a difference? Do you hold the same for all physical traits?
Not really. It doesn’t require elaboration. It actually couldn’t be clearer.
Understood. Blacks are not genetically inferior to whites, they’re merely inferior and it’s likely due to genetics. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize for mistaking you and Levin for racists.
On the other hand, by some physical metrics, they appear to be clearly superior to whites.
More suited for physical labor, one might conclude.
Curiously, neither Levin’s nor Chuck11’s primary focus appears to the perceived genetic advantages blacks have over whites, and how we might shape public policy to best reward them for their superiority. I assume this is a topic for future scholarship, after we nail down exactly what makes them so dumb and prone to criminality.
Or multi-million dollar sports contracts?
Maybe they will. Maybe someone else interested in the issue will. Do you ask why a doctor who is researching breast cancer why he isn’t researching brain tumors?
And they sure dance good too, don’t they?
If he advocated treating breast cancer by slashing funding for it, and wished to discuss the benefits of segregating cancer sufferers into their own communities, I would probably have a number of more pertinent questions to pose first. And if he wasn’t even a breast doctor to begin with, my first question might be why he was so obsessed with tits.
I do look forward to your thesis on treating societal ills in the black community by awarding everyone a multi-million dollar sports contract, however. You might actually find a good reception there.
Some do, yeah.
Your analogy is based on a very, very long slipper slope.
Funny you should say that. A black friend of mine (super-smart by the way) often says that he wishes that blacks would never play sports. Hi reasoning is that it gives a huge swath of kids false hope. Better that they don’t dream of hitting that jackpot and buckle down in school.
By the way, I share you concern about the ramifications of this type of research. It’s not hard to imagine it put to ill use. At the same time, I’m of the mind that the more information the better. All knowledge is good.
Is it at all possible that slavery again has more to do with the AA proclivity for sport success? I forward this hypothesis. During the more than a century of the practice, what essentially happened was that africans were under selective pressure such that the physically weak and unable to bear the burdens of >16 hr work days either died off or were lynched off. This would result in the selection of strength genes which would lead to the selection we see today where there’s an increased sports success.
And now, with these people uneducated as to the past, when they see the correlation between skin color and physical prowess, they automatically assume it has to do with skin color when in reality it is simply a selection phenomena. I am not debasing the ignorance here because i can understand why americans see only through the lens of americentricity.
A simple examination of other ‘black’ populations not subjected to the evil of american slavery will enlighten anyone that there is not a causative relationship between the color of the skin and sports success. I posit that the correlation is not dependent on skin color but another cause, american slavery.
Another piece of data to support this idea is that though many olympic runners are black, most come from specific areas of Afirca where the history served to select for good runners. Thus it is not the blackness that is the cause of the excellence in running. It is simply human error and our proclivity to try to categorize people by skin color that leads to this false assertion that blacks are better at sports. It is not the melanin that causes success at sports, rather the history of the maltreatment of the blacks that selected for bigger stronger more durable american blacks.
Now that we are no longer under this selective pressure, you will see less of this color duality.
Eh. I call that the banal charge of racism. Traditionally, racism meant believing that some races were intrinsically inferior. For some it still does. For example, Webster defines it as:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
I make no such claims. In the same way, I don’t claim that I am inherently inferior to the class of all individuals that are genotypically healthier/more intelligent/more athletic/ more handsome than me. Even were I to associate genetics with inherent worth, I would not identify intelligence with superior value. I’m not particularly intelligent, as measured by IQ tests, so I’m not about to say that that’s the mark of human worth.
The distinction between intrinsic superiority and conditional superiority (i.e. superiority at y or in trait x) seem so obvious that I can only conclude that you’re being disingenuous in arguing line.
Lynching happened after slavery. It was a mob punishment inflicted on black people (although not only blacks) who were in the wrong palce or got uppity with the wrong whites or were seen with a white woman or tried to vote. Slavery also lasted several centuries, not one.
Now back to this fascinating discussion of why black people are dumber and more athletic than white people. Sure in the past used to believe this kind of thing for racist reasons, but today it’s not racism, it’s science, I swear to gosh. We can see in this very thread that it’s impossible for science to be distorted by people’s preconceived notions.
No, it isn’t. Besides the fact that the timeframes simply aren’t long enough to have any significant impact on human characteristics, there’s no evidence of any breeding in the manner you suggest. The ability to suffer in the fields isn’t really a measure of fitness in any way that relates to competitive sports. And let’s not forget that poor whites were working under the same conditions.
We have Blacks, we have Whites, and now we have Straw. Can you point to even one poster who has opined that science cannot be distorted or used for ill? Go ahead, just one.
I’ll wait.
I didn’t say anyone had said it. I was commenting on the fact that a couple of posters here will trot out any survery or paper or factoid that they believe supports their point of view no matter how transparently flawed or incorrect it is.
The obvious way, IMO, to “shape public policy to best reward them for their superiority” is to limit quotas and let the market forces prevail. The arguments against this is that average disproportionalities, in certain areas, are a result of “discrimination.” I suggest an alternative cause.
