Yes, I read Levin’s “don’t get me wrong— I’m not saying being dumber is necessarily a bad thing!” disclaimer, and found it about as sincere as your paraphrasing.
If intelligence is of negligible value as you imply, it’s a wonder so much effort is being devoted to measuring it and determining its purported causes. If the results were different, and blacks scored statistically higher than whites on IQ tests, would you be researching race-based/genetic explanations with the same enthusiasm? It’s difficult to imagine.
you are right. I just have my own definition of lynching, dont ask me why, I take any white person hanging a black person as a lynching. so i consider runaway slave hanging or punishment of slaves by hanging as a lynching.
And though slavery did last several centuries, I was only referring to the time period when there was a United States.
I don’t mean to sound stupid, English is not my first language and I am not a born and bred American.
Which makes some sense, but that isn’t how the term is generally used. Lynching was mob justice and it was separate from slave owners punishing their slaves.
The selection pressure you referred to would have existed before the U.S. did, though. I agree that the idea doesn’t pan out.
insufficient timeframe? how so? I would say even within the short period of transport from African to American shores, selective pressure was significant. ships carried hundreds of slaves (preselected mind you) and with an average 15% mortality rate, only the stoutest survived.
And contrary to your opinion, there exists factual evidence of selective breeding by slave owners. Of course they were not specifically selecting for basketball prowess but the physical qualities they were selecting for would cross with success in the sports field.
And though poor whites did work under same conditions, they were not subjected to the same selective pressure as whites who could not endure the work were not killed off and so could contribute to the ‘white’ genetic pool.
Because it didn’t last long enough and wasn’t concentrated enough to make a difference on an evolutionary scale. And if the selection pressure from the slave ships was that intense, you’d expect African-Americans to have much greater resistence to diseases than white people - and as far as I know, they don’t. This would also have no effect on basketball and sprinting.
Suppose there are two groups of dogs. One on the south side of town and one on the north side. The south group consists of 90 great danes and 10 poodles. The north group consists of 90 poodles and 10 great danes. Here are the questions:
[ul]
[li]Is there a difference - on average - between South Side Dogs and North Side Dogs?[/li][li]If yes, does this difference have a genetic basis?[/li][li]Are South Side dogs and North Side dogs “coherent” “species”?[/li][li]Is the answer to the second question dependent on the answer to the third question?[/li][/ul]Because, quite frankly, ISTM that what you’re doing is rhetorical gamesmanship. So I’m curious as to whether you will or can answer the above questions in a straightforward manner.
[One other question that is not really meaningful in terms of the specific point above but has relevance to the broader issue - suppose someone measures the average size of these dogs and finds that SSD are much bigger than NSD. Can we conclude that there must be discrimination at work in favor of the favored SSD over the disadvantaged NSD?]
you mistake the understanding that it took millions of years for certain species to evolve as it actually taking millions of years. All it takes is one event. It may take millions of years for that event to happen but all it takes is one event. One example, and this happens in laboratories every day. I can apply selective pressure to bacteria on a plate and ensure that only those resistant to a certain antibiotic survive. Natural selection does take time, but slavery was not natural. Human driven selection can cut the the time it takes to make a difference significantly.
The diseases that the ships did select for did result in slaves with resistance to those diseases. The diseases that current AAs are more affected by (diabetes, heart disease, etc.) would not have been selected out by slave ships as these are slow killers.
is the perpetuation of stereotypes really acceptable in this forum?
This guise of intellectual discussion is but a veneer for the same repulsive attitudes perpetuated elsewhere.
I pointed out that some human populations met commonly used criteria for being considered taxonomic groupings, whether those groupings are understood as clades or subspecies. For example, major human populations as delineated by PCA fit Ernst Mayr’s commonly used definition of subspecies, as Mayr himself stated. When the originator of a – commonly used, mind you – subspecies concept says that by his concept there are human subspecies, I’m apt to take his word for it.
Provide me with a citation for your claim. As I pointed out, the actual research on the matter – as opposed to your B.S. – shows that there is no consensus concerning human subspecies or race in the taxonomic sense.
If you have never seen a study showing that IQ is more than a cultural indicator of education on the individual level, you obviously have read little of the research. I’m guessing that you mean: “has persuaded me that the groups differences are more than a cultural indicator of education.” I’m not really sure what you mean by that. If an intelligence difference is caused by educational deprivation why would it cease to be an intelligence difference?
In this case, “intelligence” is operantly defined as “general mental ability (GMA).” “General mental ability” is, in turn, defined as the common variance shared by a battery of tests. Since all cognitive ability tests are, by definition, a measure of general mental ability any test is, to one degree of reliability or another, a measure of g. So your point about accurate measures is moot. You just need to use a number of different measures and to extract the common variance. I already linked to a paper which discussed various lower order abilities and their measure.
They’re apparently “internally similar” enough to talk about “racial disparity,” “achievement/IQ gaps,” and “environmental causes.” Why would they need to be more similar to talk about genetic causes. This seems to be a major disagreement I have with many of you. No one seems to have a good reason for why there couldn’t be average genetic differences between heterogenous groups.
I’m not “perpetuating stereotypes”. Like Chen, Magellan and others I’m telling the truth.
Anyway, I’m not insulting whites by merely asserting the undeniable fact that most white men have small penises any more than Chen, Chuck and co. are insulting blacks by saying most have low IQs.
I didn’t make that mistake, and what you’ve written here doesn’t respond to what I did say.
I understand that. But you’re asking about a generalization about today’s African-Americans, not the ones who survived the middle passage centuries ago.
there is plenty of extant genetic variation, probably due to a large number of genes of individually small effect — no additional mutations are required
selection can act if reproductive rates are impacted by these genes (i.e., by intelligence)
simple estimates suggest that 50,000 could have been enough time to produce .5 SD (genetic) group differences
Allow me to point out that humans are not dogs nor are they bred. A poodle is a breed, it is both genetically homogenous and standardly different then other homogenous dog breeds. Humans are not bred. “the black race” is not a genetically homogenous dog breed. it is not genetically homogenous at all. This point has been made repeatly in many threads.
To a racially motivated white person, black=different=stupid. Truthfully, from any white person’s perspective, black does indeed = different. But it is the stupidity of the white person to assume that different=stupid.
I’m starting to believe that racists are the evolutionary defectives…and that they are there own race of many different colors. And an inferior one at that. Can’t even put together a coherent argument.
Real points based on actual human genetic variation is used in these debates. “human genetic variation does not support dividing humans into black/yellow/white races, here’s the science…”
However some people always want to throw all this info out and talk about dog breeds. Why? that is not real. that is not humans. Dont try to use dog breeds to prove your points about humans. it works against you.