[Moderator Hat ON]
Magellan, if you have to call someone names, take it to the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
But you reject any and all observational evidence of differential performance between different groups when it comes to highlighting race as a potential and likely cause of some of the differential.
You never go there, but you are glad to go everywhere else.
A non race example of this would be observing that attractive people had an easier time in the dating world while uglier people were more often rejected. Most people would see those observations and presume that attractiveness had some effect on outcomes there, they would not do what you seem to be doing and say things like “I’m not convince being better/worse looking is a real cause, it might/must be things like their personality or how well they are socialized, or how much money they have.”
All of those other things could be factors, but the automatic desire to rule out a more obvious element highlights something inside YOU that refuses to consider the obvious. You just don’t WANT to go there, likely do to a series of internal baggage with the consequences of going there, the injustice of going there, or whatever else.
It’s like religious people arguing that gay attraction is a choice, because they think if they concede that it is not the kind of thing chosen like what flavor ice cream to eat one day that their entire justification for their demonization is undermined.
It is time, past time you remove these shackles of fear inside your mind that blind you to clear thought, look inside and discover what exactly it is that worries you.
The title of the thread embodies that claim: that society and culture can be “factored out.” This has not been established. Since you (forcefully!) agree that society and culture do play a role, it would seem you agree that they have not been factored out.
We’ve been having these discussions for something like ten years now. We’ve repeatedly linked to the articles and studies that show the frank failure of the hereditarian model.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38568440/rawdata/jencks01.pdf
Newer studies just reinforce the failure of the hereditarian model:
It’s futile to keep reviving these failed arguments.
It’s futile to keep riving those arguments because they fail to account for the persistent differences seen.
You act as if the claims mentioned above settle the matter, they don't. I'll ask you what I asked illen.... (forgot the letter soup combo).-
Do you think intelligence is equally distributed between individuals?
-
Do you think intelligence is equally distributed between populations (i.e. races)?
-
Do you think intelligence has an effect on outcomes?
Yes or no.
I don’t even know what it means for “race as a potential and likely cause”. Do you mean genetics? Because I don’t reject any evidence on genetics. Feel free to present such evidence.
This doesn’t work – I’m convinced that black people have lower scores on average in certain tests. The question is why. For a number of reasons, including specific experimental evidence that refutes the genetic explanation, I am unconvinced that genetics are the best explanation, and I lean towards the causes of outcome disparities throughout human history – various aspects of culture and society.
Nope, try again. Or take on someone who actually makes these straw man arguments.
You make a claim and then you have to prove it. That’s how this process works. You don’t get to pretend as if you did prove it, because actually proving it is too hard. You don’t get to do something just because you feel strongly about it, or want it really badly.
The Unz article shows how populations with the same genetics can have widely different test score outcomes. The Sweet article and others show how the test score gap isn’t universal among African populations. Leaving aside the obvious fact that black Americans aren’t the same genetically as other “black” groups in the New World or Africa. In Brazil, for example, many “black” people are actually majority European in ancestry. BBC NEWS | Americas | BBC delves into Brazilians' roots
Everything else you’re doing here is just rhetorical games: “Open your mind,” etc. It’s a favorite tactic of conspiracy theorists and believers in the paranormal.
Incidentally, if you have trouble spelling iiandyiiii, just copy and paste. It’s not that hard.
I don’t think races are uniform, to me it’s more about populations, and those can form within racial groups. I have no problem with differential results between populations within the same racial groups, that just highlights to me that population mechanics matter. Like the success of the coptic christian group within Egypt and the US, centuries of culling the population by muslim rulers, where the poorest and most marginal are forced to pay up / convert / or die meant that the least capable members of the christian population were absorbed by the larger muslim society and the left over coptic christian population are filled with a higher percentage of elites.
And you did not answer my questions. They are not hard, a yes or no will suffice. Don’t be scared and try to weasel out of a definitive answer.
-
Do you think intelligence is equally distributed between individuals?
-
Do you think intelligence is equally distributed between populations (i.e. races)?
-
Do you think intelligence has an effect on outcomes?
I’ll answer them for myself to show how easy it is. -
No
-
No
-
Yes
I do not have the sort of “proof” you all seem to be demanding that is akin to some experimental observation of a chemical reaction, I just look around and see example after example of people with greater intelligence being the ones to populate higher earning positions like software engineers and doctors and other technical professions. I assume greater intelligence confers an advantage in those fields, and more, I do NOT assume that the distribution of intelligence is ABSOLUTELY EQUAL between all individuals OR populations.
None of the above precludes other factors that affect peoples outcomes or performance on tests, pointing to those examples does NOT negate the above. Because if even a tiny SLIVER of outcome is based on innate ability and even a tiny sliver is genetic, the game is over. There will be some portion of outcomes that cannot be explained away by hand wavy examples of test biases and all sorts of yoga master like bending of reality to salvage the idea that NATURE itself is egalitarian in how it doles out ability.
The counter to this argument is simple. You have to demonstrate that NONE of our intelligence is based on genetics (have fun with that), or that intelligence confers ZERO advantages in the credentialing and functioning of higher paying fields that scale (entertainers need not apply) talking higher paying professions.
Who the hell is Salvor arguing with?
Anyone who suggests that intelligence is not a determining factor in the different outcomes we see between groups and/or that groups don’t actually differ in average intelligence in any meaningful way. You are arguing in bad faith when you try to demur over the differences in the average measurements of intelligence we see between groups because you seem to place vastly different weights on the evidence depending on whether it confirms or denies your assumption that differences are not related to ability gaps between populations.
In both the Sweet article and the Nisbett article linked above, the authors note that the test score gap is significant, and of crucial importance to the life outcomes of black Americans. Closing the gap, Nisbett notes, would be one thing that would have the greatest positive impact on the lives of black Americans.
That doesn’t mean the gap is genetic. It’s not.
So you’re not arguing with me, then, because this crap has nothing to do with what I’m saying.
It is not that US blacks are some sort of pure representation of west african source pools. But looking at the ratio of whites and blacks does tell you which gene pool is driving success.
In the US, a self-identified white has at most a couple percent of west african ancestry on average, and probably less.
A self-identified black has an average of about 20% west african ancestry; sometimes much less.
What drives the typical appearance of a self-identified black is the west african ancestry.
If it were the case that european genes are driving basketball success, what you would see is a ratio of whites to blacks that parallels the population, since in the US nearly every boy from every self-identified group is exposed to basketball from grade school on. Further, a basketball skillset is a highly desired one for whites; it brings a white child the same local stardom as it does any other group, and if you were to look at a typical basketball audience at any level from gradeschool to the NBA you would see how hugely popular it is for whites.
Instead, what we see is that the overwhelming proportion of NBA stars self-identify as black.
What this tells you is that access to that west african source pool of genes is what is driving the success in basketball, even if any given self-identified black player is 50 or more percent european genetically.
If it were the european gene pool driving success at basketball, the ratio of whites and blacks in the NBA would be skewed toward whites since all whites would have full access to those genes, and a lesser proportion of blacks would.
What is your genetic explanation for why, other than the USA, the world basketball championships is dominated by European teams, not West African ones, even though West African teams do play there?
Again, if it were the european geneset that is driving success at power sprinting sports, you would not see an over-representation of athletes whose gene pool contains more west african ancestry.
It is obviously the access to west african genes which is driving the disproportionate representation, even if a given self-identified black has X amount of european ancestry.
When athletes whose gene pool included west african ancestry were allowed to participate in these sports, they rapidly conquered them from athletes with european-only genetic heritage.
If there is ignorance, I am afraid its not mine. The epigenetic effects of the “hunger winter” is often used as the go-to for explaining epigenetic changes. Of the top of my head, I think its where epigenetic effects were first scientifically noticed. But really, it is one of the classices.
You can read a bit about how the hunger winter affected people epigenetically here.
I encourage you to read about the Hebrew league. Start with the chapter on it in Epstein’s Sports Gene book.
In the early part of the last century, institutional discrimination was widespread, including discrimination against blacks and Jews. Enter the Hebrew leagues, black leagues and ultimately the NBA itself.
The reason for “dominance” of any given group in that milieu is simple: limited access.
If you want to see which self-identified group has the most average talent, you have to level the entry playing field, and give everyone a chance.
As soon as that happened, groups with west african genetic ancestry prevailed, and still prevailed.
Whites did not give up sprinting and basketball because the lost interest, became lazy, stopped their NBA or Olympic dreams voluntarily, or any other reason besides the obvious one: as a group, they were outperformed.
And they were outperformed by blacks who, on average, had way more west african genetic heritage; way less in the way of coaching and facilities; way less in the way of stable homes or guidance; way less in the way of opportunity.
The genetic advantage of west african genes was so overwhelming that diminished opportunity was not a barrier.
You may be right. The time frame is quite possibly to short. However, it depends on both the timeframe and the amount of pressure exerted. If the Napoelonic wars attrition of tall men had continued for 300 years, I would not be surprised to see a reduction in height.
However, I do not know how much pressure was exerted on blacks either during slavery or after, nor how targeted it was. Hypothetically, I’d expect intelligence in a slave could be valuable, whereas after the civil war it’d be a threat not an asset.
Nor do I know how much of an effect picking off the outliers would have genetically. I am quite sure that it could lead to a culture where blacks avoided sticking their necks out academically.
In order to parse out the effect of nurture and nature for sprinting and basketball, you need to create some sort of normalization for nurture.
I don’t know much about the european basketball system, nor the west african teams, so I don’t know how to comment about what you are using as a control for nurture.
Is it the case that interest in basketball for west africans is commensurate with interest in europe such that the starting pools are equally robust? Is it the case that facilities, coaching, support, and money all along the way are equal?
The US makes an easier case to parse out genes and nurture because:
- The starting pool is heavily skewed toward whites since the population ratio is 4:1 or better in favor of whites, and basketball is a highly popular sport for whites, with nearly universal formal school programs beginning at about age 12.
- Interest in basketball is very deep for whites, and basketball stardom is a sought-after goal, abandoned by a kid only when he is outperformed
Thus, in the US both opportunity and inclination are maximized for whites; inclination (but not opportunity) is maximized for blacks.
Yet the outcome overwhelmingly reverses the ratio of success by self-identified group.
I have not seen either of these authors address why the academic performance gap is not eliminated when wealthy and privileged black students are compared with poor and underprivileged whites.
Mr Sweet’s explanations seem to fall along the lines of lousy parenting, social pressure and the like. I did not find any of them convincing in any way.