Neither one of these sentences is controversial. Not even a little bit.
We’ve known that genes influence abilities for as long as we’ve practiced animal husbandary and noticed that cattle with good feed efficiency were more likely to produce offspring with good feed efficiency. Fast horses are more likely to sire fast horses. Not a secret.
And it’s hardly a secret that genes show distributions across racial groups and other populations. Look at skin color, hair texture, eye shape, and body conformation. Look at heritable diseases like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. No one–and I mean, no one–is laboring under the belief that certain genetic traits distribute themselves evenly across racial lines. We plainly see this isn’t the case. How many black people have blue eyes?
So its very strange and telling that tenuous examples like the NBA are used to argue this basic, wholly uncontroversial, massively obvious point. If all someone wanted to say is that races are genetically different from each other and abilities can be inherited, there’s plenty of data that can be pointed to that is far more compelling and less speculative than the NBA racial makeup.
The NBA is simply an appeal to the “dumb brute” mythos.
Trying to quash a discussion with name calling is not appropriate to this forum.
If you want to dispute his arguments, have at it.
If you want to call him names, take it to the BBQ Pit.
As to the “many others” claim, you will recall that you, too, routinely post in threadss such as these. I have no doubt that any number of participants are racist, but such an accusation may be leveled against posters holding the extreme views on either end of this discussion. Again, take that sort of well poisoning comment to the Pit.
**
[ /Moderating ]**
Chen019. it is no more difficult to place the QUOTE tags around a block of text than the italic tags. Stop using italics to indicate quotations and start using the QUOTE tags.
If you cannot figure it out, a basic, (though less than optimal), way to quote is to highlight the text and click on the QUOTE icon, the one that looks a bit like a cartoon’s talking ballon to the left of the # icon.
Thanks. I do not approve of name calling., It’s good to nip this kind of thing in the bud before it spreads.
For example, if someone were to post in this thread that Chief Pedant raped and murdered a girl in 1990, they’d be deserving of harsh censure. Even if Chief Pedant did rape and murder a girl in 1990, we have no way of proving it, and it’s entirely inappropriate to bring it up in a completely unrelated thread. Not just that, but why does everyone assume that a known child rapist and murderer has nothing to contribute in a serious discussion on the issues of the day?
Actually, for the record, I don’t mind being called a racist (I’m not all that good with being called a rapist and murderer, but of course you very specifically did NOT do that. And thanks again.)
The question is not whether or not I meet someone’s criterion for being a racist; it’s whether or not a view I am espousing is correct.
There seems to be this view that if one is a racist, then we need no longer listen to them. But the question at hand is whether Mother Nature herself is a racist, so to speak. Did she or did she not assign an average superiority–or at least, disparity–at birth to various populations for various skillsets? To date, Mother Nature does not have a good history of playing fair. The fact that we are uncomfortable with the consequences of her decisions does not, by itself, alter the facts.
When it comes to genes and disparate distribution, I am concerned only with science. Not labels.
Sorry, but I disagree. This is not name calling in the sense in which it is generally frowned upon in GD. It’s giving an audience, that may not have read his drivel on a regular basis, relevant background information. He is a racist. He admits it, and doesn’t mind being called one (apparently). Why am I being chastised for pointing out a fact?
But there is no compelling evidence that you are correct beyond ill-conceived thought experiments, and your faith that science will prove you right. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of evidence, and the opinions of most mainstream scientists conflict with your perception of how things are.
And that view is due in part to the fact that most racists allow their backwards notions about race to cloud their judgment and understanding of things. You are no exception. In the countless threads we’ve had about this topic, few people have ever dismissed your thoughts or opinions outright. We’ve debated, asked for evidence, etc. Sadly, when called on to back up your claims you just fall back to you default assumption that time will prove you right. “Look at the NBA”, you cry. Basketball players aside, you rarely
And yet you ignore all the current, relevant science in favor of what might someday be proved.
:mad:
Why the hell can’t we have sensible discussion on this topic without the ad hominem accusations of “racist” and “PC”.
I don’t agree with Chief Pedant at all on this topic. His position is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It’s a dumb, dumb, dumb position. But I see absolutely no evidence that he’s racist, and I see absolutely no reason why it would matter if he was. Either his position stands to reason or it doesn’t. Whether the particular argument is posed by the Grand Wizard of the KKK or the head of the NAACP has absolutely no bearing on its correctness. It’s dumb regardless of who supports it.
In this case Chief Pedant’s argument is total nonsense, but that has nothing to do with his personal views. It’s because his argument has no basis in fact and is based on logical fallacies and contradictions.
Um, did you read his two post wrt this? He admits it; he owns it. I have to give him credit for doing that. The problem with labeling this an ad hominem attack is that this is relevant information. His ignorance and and attachment to the idea of Black inferiority is likely due in large part to his global views on race. Why would is that wrong to mention?
No, they have not. In fact you just conceded that it is impossible to reasonably accounted for them.
How? How is this testable?
You keep blithely claiming that these things are testable, then when called on it you weasel away. Then in the very next post you come back an post the same unsupportable nonsense.
So I’m calling you out: how can this be testable. Tell us your experimental setup that allows you to test for this.
CIte.
Seriously. All your posts are full of the unprovable assertions with absolutely no evidence top support them. So give us your evidence that >51% of the time nurturing influences do not do permanent damage.
Cite.
Let me guess, you can;t because this is more argument from unprovable assertion.
Cite.
Let me guess, you can’t because this is more argument from unprovable assertion.
Cite.
Let me guess, you can’t because this is more argument from unprovable assertion.
This is what you call testable is it? A “thought experiment” that is in fact completely untestable.
Cite.
Let me guess, you can’t because this is more argument from unprovable assertion.
Seriously dude, do you have any evidence at all to back up these claims, or are you just making shit up?
Don’t bother to answer that one. We all know the correct response.
Please don’t junior mod, Blake. That said, brickbacon, it’s time to drop the personal remarks. Personally I think the way you are describing Chief Pedant’s posts is accurate, but stay within the rules of the forum and discuss the arguments that are being made rather than characterizing the person who makes them.
Well now you are stepping on my toes. The inference you have drawn–that if I hold a position based on what I see as science, I am attached to the idea of Black inferiority–is wrong. Such a characterization is not only incorrect on both counts (I neither hold that Blacks are “inferior,” nor am I attached to the notion first and then distort the science to fit that notion), but whatever my conclusions are, any labels that result from them are, in fact, irrelevant.
It is a weak position to attach a label instead of attacking the science.
I am aware how sensitive these waters are. And I am distressed–to the extent the Pedant has any emotions at all–that many of those who may hold to the same positions as I are hate-mongering twits with the IQs of cockroaches and the social paradigms of Nazis.
I have posted elsewhere that our core dilemma around this topic as a society is that we want just social policies, and that just social policies grounded in science are more likely to be effective and more likely to withstand the test of time than those which are grounded on incorrect premises. I would like to see a world in which there is no cohort grouping, but that world is not at hand yet, and the determination for cohort grouping based on race, for instance, is driven at least as much by under-represented cohorts struggling for more equitable distribution of the social pie.
Nature does not play fair and so I find no personal discomfort in describing it as I find it to be. In real life, this unfairness has practical consequences. At the risk of distracting the thread let me give an example of two career paths with disproportionate representation by racial cohorts: the NBA and Physicians.
Let us take the premise that blacks and whites are approximately equal in terms of gene distribution for skillsets, and that it is a strong value to have roughly proportionate and diverse representation in high-paying, high-profile jobs (actually, of course, all jobs). Under such a premise, we need only to ensure that a selection process corrects for opportunity (nurturing) alone to ensure some reasonable fairness.
In practice, we find that equivalent nurturing does not seem to produce equal outcomes. The scores of high-family-income blacks on the SAT are no better than those of low-income whites, for instance, and the performance of white basketball players who have had every possible development advantage since birth is still substantially sub-par–on average–to the relatively disadvantaged black player. To the consternation of those whose premise is that these two cohorts are somehow inherently equal, no effort has been successful in eliminating those outcomes. After four years of equivalent pre-med exposure, standardized MCAT scores of black applicants are still vastly below those of whites and asians (and again four years later on post-medical school licensing exams), and in the NBA, over-representation of blacks represents a common agreement among basketball experts that those individuals are superior for that skillset.
And, of course, the recent New Haven case is a practical example of disparate outcomes despite equivalent opportunity in the everyday sphere.
All of this has been debated elsewhere on the Dope and everywhere else, and part of the tedium for me is repeating endless cites and requests for the evidence.
But to the point of the OP, it seems to me that the starting point for any resolution should be determining who we are at a genetic level. With that data in hand, we can begin determining how much of our average differences are because the average distribution of genes is different. And that day is not far off.
It is my position that nurturing influences cannot be perfectly accounted for–that is, perfectly normalized–but that they can be eliminated for all practical purposes where the point needs to be made. Within my children there are disproportionate abilities that are clearly based on their genes and not their nurturing, even though I can’t account for perfect equality of their nurturing (as it turns out, the least successful one is my personal favorite, for instance).
If you don’t accept that, I have no axe to grind. It’s my observation that most of the arguments against the disproportionate outcomes of various cohorts which have been given equal nurturing seem to be grasping at straws.
Let me give you two examples:
Do you have an explanation for the over-representation of blacks in the NBA? Is it the case, for example, that whites just don’t get the exposure to the game, or that their opportunity for learning it is limited, or that their equipment and coaching is inferior, or that their desire to become superstars is diminished, or that their support structure is broken, or what?
Would you hold that the Bambuti population, if given equal opportunity, would be proportionately represented in the NBA? (May I recommend Jon Entine’s book Taboo ?)
Note that I am only interested here in creating a single chink in the armor of genetic equality by soliciting an admission that, at a cohort level, two cohorts can have average outcome differences based on genes and not nurturing.
If it matters, I agree with brickbacon. If a poster has a belief that some races are inherently more intelligent than others–and the poster even admits to having this belief-- it is not an ad hominem to say that this poster is racist.
It’s no more ad hominem than labeling someone hydrophobic after they’ve repeatedly expressed being afraid of water. Or to call someone religious because they say they believe in Jesus Their Lord and Savior.
The problem is that if I don’t accept those assertions, then you have no argument.
You just conceded that it is impossible to give two cohorts equal nurturing. You are now contradicting yourself.
Why yes, the same reason why fricken’ Jews were overrepresented before Blacks could play. Are you seriously arguing that Jews, of all people, have some genetic advantage in basketball, which they lost completely in just two generations?
Give us a break.
Let’s see. Pre 1940, something like 60% of the NBA were Jewish. How many are Jews today?
How do you explain those two observations? Have Jews just mutated rapidly in the last 60 years?
No idea. Of course Bambuti isn’t a race, now is it?
I’ve read it. Can I recommend “Mismeasure of Man”?
Has anyone ever disputed this fact? If so can you point to where?
Because of course if you can;t you are just attacking a strawman.
Like everybody else who makes this ridiculous argument, you want to be able to move the goalposts, leaping from “cohort” (which could mean siblings) to race (which is biologically meaningless) as soon as the facts show that you are incorrect.
The fact that two cohorts can have genetic differences does not allow you to make the ludricous inferences that you have made about race.
One nice thing about the upcoming elucidation of the genome is that we won’t have to argue about the extent of differences. We can just point to cites.
I can wait for that.
On the “Jews-used-to-own-the-NBA-and-now-the-blacks-do” front, I offer an observation that this is just the sort of thing I’m talking about when I talk about grasping at straws.
If one wants to look at disproportionate outcomes, one needs to take into account proportionate opportunity and proportionate interest on the part of cohorts being compared. Surely it is not your contention that pre-1940s blacks were given equal opportunity, is it?
So let me re-ask my question again: What is your explanation for the current disproportionate representation of (the cohort self-described as) blacks in the NBA? Is their over-representation a function of better opportunity and nurturing, or is it a function of superior genetic potential–regardless of whether or not that cohort is otherwise biologically related?
If it is the case that you demand absolutely identical nurturing, down to the kind of sugar on your oatmeal, before you will concede that genes are the predominate determinate for maximum potential at a skillset, I have neither the inclination nor the skills to dissuade you. I suggest you look instead to obvious examples where extraordinarily disadvantaged individuals are nevertheless able to perform superiorly against those with greater advantage. I have given you the NBA as an example, but the world is full of others.
On the Bambuti front, I am surprised you aren’t sure how they’d do in the NBA, but it does seem you are over-sensitive to acknowledging an obvious point. I’m not arguing the concept of “race” here–I want to start by finding out if you think two cohorts can have average genetic differences which result in disproportionate outcomes for their group average. Baby steps. And yes, I have read The Mismeasure of Man.
Gee thanks, I think.