You believe you said “unable to learn on par with peers”. You cited some supposed (and made-up, since it’s so self-evidently false) “observed data that privileged blacks cannot perform academically on par with any but unprivileged peers”. You assigned to me (without basis) an “idea that a privileged black pupil cannot perform on par academically with his peers” – I’ve never said such a thing. You falsely stated that I made an “assertion that a black student with educated and well to parents finds himself so discriminated against in school that he can’t learn to be a ridiculous notion”. I’ve absolutely never stated that a black student can’t learn. That’s ridiculous. And you directly implied that black students are “unable to learn on par with his peer group”.
All your words, in context, and all false assertions you’ve attributed to me.
Here you go. Good science from Scarr and company, using older but legitimate methods of determining genetic ancestry, which refutes the genetic explanation for the test-score gap.
You can continue to belittle and dismiss good science, and make excuses about why you’re uninterested in doing your own good science, or you can actually challenge yourself and be open to the idea that maybe black people aren’t actually inherently inferior in intelligence on average.
I do not see how what you cited backs up your claims of what YOU said he said:
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
CP has outright stated things like “black people can’t learn”, “black people can’t succeed”, “black people can’t compete”. I am refuting the things that he’s said, and pointing out the straw-man arguments that he is constantly making up.
[/QUOTE]
I pursue this not to bust your balls, but to point out why I think the debate is so difficult. He says X, you hear Y. And when asked to provide a cite where he said Y, you produce Z.
Not very helpful. But if we can be aware that we each might have a tendency to do that, perhaps we can be more careful with the translation that happens between the words our eyes see and how we process them.
And your answer to my #2 was not an answer. Could you revisit that?
He constantly attributed false assertions, beliefs, and ideas to me (that black people are unable to learn, or unable to compete, or unable to succeed), despite my disabusing him repeatedly.
Further, he repeatedly made these assertions himself about his own belief – “I believe I said “unable to learn on par with peers” and that’s exactly what the issue is.” and “Specifically, the observed data that privileged blacks cannot perform academically on par with any but unprivileged peers.”
He says there is “observed data” that privileged blacks “cannot perform academically on par with any but unprivileged peers”. That’s a ridiculously false, and trivially-easy-to-disprove statement (we just need a single “privileged black” that has performed “academically on par” with his privileged peers).
Do you disagree that CP made these assertions about my beliefs/claims/ideas? Do you disagree that these assertions about my beliefs/claims/ideas are false? Do you disagree that CP made assertions about his own beliefs in line with and including things like “blacks cannot perform on par”?
Sure. Here is your question #2 again:
No, I’m not “of the mind that if we can’t foresee that a theory, or a hypothesis, would be beneficial to black people, that the discussion shouldn’t be had”. No, I don’t believe that “the science shouldn’t be pursued”. I wrote that because (as I said before) I think that’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. I’m of the mind that utterly ridiculous assertions like that should be pointed out, filleted, and mocked. We don’t have to hypothesize what would happen if all of America “accepted” this, because for most of American history, this was the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion.
You believe that it is more likely than not that the academic gap when poverty is factored out exists for reasons other than genetic differences.
What this means is that those privileged black students are unable to learn on par with their peer group, for what ever reasons you want to put in there. If they were unable to learn (I am using “learn” as the general term for what happens in school), then there would be no gap.
It seems to me you want to distort this very simple point.
I can’t quite figure out what your complaint is about how I am stating your position. You accept the data (and there is reams of it) that privileged blacks do not perform on par with white and asian SES peers (or same-school peers, etc etc). You advance your own non-genetic explanations. But in the end you are saying that those explanations render them unable to perform to an extent which closes the gap. I get it that in your view, were the putative non-genetic barriers removed, black students would be able to perform on par, but that does not obviate the fact that both you and I accept that they are currently unable to perform on par for academic learning.
Your explanation of why they are unable to learn may be non-genetic, but it is nevertheless the same position as mine that the performance gap is real.
Now let me make sure you have MY position correct.
My position is that average outcomes for school performance and other measurable variables (BB performance, physiology…e.g.) exist because, in addition to nurture, self-identification into “social” categories such as black, white or asian parallels what has happened in nature closely enough to create average differences in genetic pools. Because those gene pools have diverged for 65K+ years, average outcome differences have emerged that cannot be eliminated by nurturing.
This does not mean that a given black student is unable to learn. That’s ridiculous. It does not mean a given white student doesn’t have the scholastic ability of a sandflea. It doesn’t mean a given subpopulation of self-identified blacks is not far superior to a given subpopulation of self-identified whites. It doesn’t mean every self-identified black is somehow a budding basketball star. And it doesn’t mean some halfwit neo nazi skinhead has cause to rejoice about his superiority.
It just means that mother nature treats all genes with equal dispassion, and in her clumsy and undirected way keeps playing with them. As a result, it is a naive and very pollyannish view to think that any populations separated long enough will have genes for a particular skillset exempted in the name of…what…some greater natural Law of Egalitarianism for Specially Hands-off Genes?
I rather suspect you’d be OK (privately at least) admitting that, on average and because of gene differences, blacks from genetic lineages represented within the average pools of Yorubas and Igbos could probably kick the basketball asses of the average Mbuti or Kalenjin. And self-identified Kalenjins might have a genetically-based average advantage for distance running.
Different populations; different average gene pools; enough separation to have diverged them. But I suspect that if everyone identifies as black, you don’t find that as inflammatory an admission. The principles, of course, are exactly the same.
If I may quote James Flynn, talking about how to build a more intelligent society by having the most intelligent do more reproducing:
“Intelligence is no different from other human traits.”
IOW, as with everything else about us, genes are at play, and mother nature’s lottery system does not carefully parse them out with complete equity across any evolutionarily separated population.
First point and you’re wrong! No, black students are not “unable to learn on par with their peer group”. Many black students have great success and achieve as much or more than any of their peers.
This makes no sense. Do you mean “if they were able to learn”? Either way, it’s nonsense, since black people are obviously “able to learn”, even if test scores differ on average.
You repeatedly state that I believe that black students “can’t learn”, “are unable to learn”, “can’t compete”, or some variation with the words “can’t” or “unable” or something like that. It’s total crap. I’ve never stated that black people “can’t” learn or are “unable” to learn or anything at all similar. “There might be obstacles in the black experience that make it more difficult to succeed and score highly on tests” is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than “black students can’t succeed” or “black students are unable to score highly”.
I’ve said this so many times before, in so many different ways. I’m not optimistic that you’ll get it here.
More use of “unable to perform on par”. Stop saying this. Black people are able to perform on par, able to achieve, able to score highly. Right now there is a gap in average test scores. That doesn’t mean that black people can’t perform, can’t achieve, can’t score highly, etc. It means that on average, black students score lower on some tests.
“Performance gap” DOES NOT EQUAL “unable to learn”. How many times do I have to explain this?
The assumptions on which we disagree here are the following: the social categories do not parallel natural history particularly well and the gene pool between these social groupings have not diverged for 65K+ years – rather, there are clinal relationships, such that some “white” populations are more closely related to certain “black” or “Asian” populations than they are to certain other “white” populations. And the same is true for each of these groupings.
Then stop saying things like “black students are unable to learn on par with their peer group”!!! Black students are absolutely able to learn on par with their peer group, and many do. If, on average, they don’t score as highly, that doesn’t mean all of them are “unable” to. So stop saying it.
More “egalitarianism” nonsense bullshit crap. I haven’t ever suggested that all populations are equal genetically in all skillsets. So just strike that bullshit from your vocabulary when talking to me – never pull out this “egalitarian” or “creationism” bullshit again – it’s just made-up straw-man shit.
Aside from this, none of this suggests anything at all about the genes for intelligence among black people. It says absolutely nothing about the issue at hand. Here’s the difference – you believe that in our society, test scores among groups can tell us something about group genetics. I don’t, full stop. I don’t believe this because our society is profoundly unequal – black people are not treated equally, and while it’s much better than in the last few centuries, it’s still a long, long way from equal treatment in society. The latest DOJ report about the Ferguson PD gives us just a tiny taste of some of the myriad of ways this is represented. I believe that the same factors that made it more difficult for black people to succeed 150, 100, and 50 years ago still exist today, even if in lesser degrees for some of these factors.
It’s possible, but I’m not just going to take your word for it. If Coach Bobby Knight gets a dozen Mbuti for a year of intense training, they’d probably whip the crap out of random, untrained Yorubas or Igbos. I’m not at all convinced that white kids in the US play basketball as much as black kids, on average, so I’m not even close to convinced that black kids have some sort of natural genetic advantage in basketball.
I don’t understand this paragraph.
Fine with me. This says nothing about genes for black intelligence.
Whether true or not, it says nothing at all about genes for black intelligence.
And you are making the same error Trinopus just made. “On par” means the group writ large. If I say that Asians, as a group are shorter in stature than other races, that doesn’t mean that all Asians or short. it does not preclude the possibility that the tallest person on the planet may be Asian? It does not preclude the possibility that I can pick a thousand Asians randomly and they might all be taller than a thousand non-Asians I pick randomly. You’re taking an attribute that holds true for a group and saying that it must then be applied to all individuals within that group. You know that is shoddy thinking. I know you know it is shoddy thinking.
Firstly, he didn’t say “on par” every time he said “unable to learn” or some variation. Secondly, “they don’t score on tests on par with group X” is different than “they are unable to learn on par with group X”. The second statement is just false – if, as a group, they were “unable” to learn, then they can’t learn. None of them can learn on par, if “they are unable to learn on par”.
If he just means “they don’t score on par”, then he should say so. Saying “they are unable to learn”, whether paired with “on par” or not, means something entirely different.
It is my honest recollection that he always qualified his claim with “on par” or something similar. Either that, or it is shared as his hypothesis, based on 1) the difference in scores and 2) the degree that non-genetic factors have been controlled for. (Mind you, I’m not saying that I’m believe this has been done completely.) But if you can provide a cite substantiating your claim of what he did say, that’s another story. Can you?
The difference between “didn’t score on par with” and “unable to learn on par with” really goes to the heart of your disagreement. Of course there is zero dispute about the former claim, as it is a matter of fact. The latter one is a hypothesis based, in part on the former. He’s certainly entitled to hold that opinion. I’m really unclear as to why you think he should be deprived of his position, whatever it may be.
Yes (in addition to the one Trinopus just pointed out).
Here he both falsely attributes the idea to me and implies that he agrees with the “cannot compete” part:
Also here:
And here:
“Cannot compete”, “prevents a student from learning that 2 + 2 = 4”, “prevent a current student from learning”, comparing black students to Vietnamese immigrants, wondering why the Vietnamese were “able to learn” and the black students weren’t, “can’t learn”, “unable to learn how to reason and assimilate facts”…
“Are populations of students performing at the level that would let them apply to Law and Med school so malleable to these forces that they literally cannot learn material?”
Literally cannot learn material. CP said here in the last quote that black students “literally cannot learn material”.
It’s an utterly ridiculous position, disproven by a single black student learning “on par with” his privileged white peers. Complete nonsense. That’s what those words mean.
Yep. This is why African teams totally dominate at the international level. Besides (naturally) America, it must be all West African teams, surely. Maybe some Caribbean ones.
What’s that? Serbia? Must be an African country I haven’t heard of…
This is astounding. You’re insisting that his position is that no black student can learn. That’s at the4 heart of your argument. And I think that is every bit as ridiculous a characterization of his position as the position itself. That is not what he is saying at all. I mean, fuck, how can you think anyone holds that position when we have examples of black people that are brain surgeons, scientists, lawyers, CEOs. That position would be ludicrous. But you know what, that’s not what he’s saying. It’s as if you have your fingers in your ears and just refuse to hear what he’s saying.
So, let’s sort this out. Do you think that CP is really saying that
A) no black person can learn
B) blacks as a group seem not to be able to learn as well as other groups
Which do you think is closer to what he’s saying? I think it’s clear that it’s B. Mainly because no sane person can hold position A. But it appears that you insist that he is holding that position. So, please answer just this question: do you think his position is A or B?
You asked for quotes without “on par” and they were provided to you. Why is it “astounding” to you now?
I’ll agree that it seems totally nuts, but according to the words he is using, his assertions amount to “no black person can learn”. That’s what the bolded words (just to pick one usage) in “Your explanation of why they are unable to learn may be non-genetic, but it is nevertheless the same position as mine that the performance gap is real. . . .” mean in English.
I’ve tried to correct him a half-dozen times or more on this, but he refuses to drop this sort of ridiculous language. I make a point to avoid trying to read minds, and just go by what people say and post… and this is what CP has posted. Whatever he believes, what he’s said is “black students can’t learn”.
What is astounding is your man-hanging-from-the-edge-of-a-cliff insistence that he means something he doesn’t mean. Given your apparent refusal to answer the simple A-B question I posed, it seems that you’d rather contort his actual position (never mind trying to actually understand it) into an imaginary one that you can use to point and say, “Look how ridiculous!”
If you really think that CP’s position is A, you really, really need to distance yourself from discussions like this. It’s not fair to the other individuals and unhealthy for you.
I’ve seen this before when someone is (understandable) emotionally invested in a discussion. There can be a tendency to take someone’s position and contort it into "the worsest, most ridiculous, most offensive position in the history of mankind.
You need to take a step back. Really. As long as you continue to insist that his position is is the ridiculous one you have in your mind, discussion will be worse than useless.
