On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote: And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears.
Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity?
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you?
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote] I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way.
On August 01 2012 17:43 frogrubdown wrote:
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs.
It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims.
Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive.
User was warned for this post
Edit: Image macro removed as per mod warning.
That's a gnarly case of rationalization going on here. One of the best I've seen in a while. Obviously, supported by an astute understanding of genetics (and thus "science"). By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
Maybe smarter slaves acted more obedient. Or maybe, slave-owners actually wanted smarter slaves who would be better at their work. Or maybe that, even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence - let alone in the era before emancipation. Or maybe, environment plays an equal, if not more important, role.
Most of your suggestions don't line up with history. We're very aware that across the board, slaveowners feared that intelligent/educated slaves might rise up, and worked to vehemently crush any who might potentially get out of line (there's also certain cultural effects that result when intellectual activities like reading are heavily punished). The environment did play an important role; the environment of slavery had major selection effects.
You're also overlooking the selection effects of which Africans ended up as slaves in the first place.
Sigh. You accuse me of overlooking things while overlooking the most important part of my reply.
Even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence
/edit
Unless you address this issue directly, I don't think we can have a real discussion - but rather a show of throwing conjectures at each other.
We already know a decent amount about the heritability of intelligence. For you to insist that we don't know enough to make basic inferences is similar to how creationists insist that we don't know enough about evolution to make basic inferences. True, there's a lot we still don't know, but what we can do is make reasonably educated arguments on the subject.
Regardless, there is more to the selection effects we're talking about than mere intelligence. For example, one of the legacies of slavery is the culturally ingrained attitudes away from education, attitudes that were no doubt fostered by centuries of slaveowners brutally suppressing any slaves who dared to learn. By contrast, a large segment of the more recent waves of Asian immigrants are themselves better educated than average (or the children of better educated parents), with the obvious attendant selection effects on Asian-American cultural attitudes towards education.
Read on "Heritability and socioeconomic status" on the wikipedia link you gave me and you will find that there is quite a bit of dispute.
Comparing it to evolution versus creationism is the very strawman of which you accuse others. It is a science vs science dispute, not faith vs science.
I'm not saying we need 5 sigmas of certainty to make reasonable arguments, but this is just silly.
On August 02 2012 12:09 Nymphaceae wrote: Not sure why so many people would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney. I can't see Mitt Romney doing much worse than all the lies Obama has made. It's kind of embarrassing that Obama won the Nobel peace prize, but yet he hasn't done much as far as created peace. The troops are still in the middle east. He says our medicare is bad, when it's not nearly as bad as other countries, and it seems like he's taking it for the worst.
Next time, bring something substantive to this thread. There'a a lot of discussion and disagreement in here but at least the regular contributors here follow the news cycle, have a reasonable knowledge of the election's history, have a unique or thoughtful perspective or know not to talk out of their ass.
Nymphaceae United States. August 02 2012 14:06. Posts 343
On August 02 2012 12:09 Nymphaceae wrote: Not sure why so many people would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney. I can't see Mitt Romney doing much worse than all the lies Obama has made. It's kind of embarrassing that Obama won the Nobel peace prize, but yet he hasn't done much as far as created peace. The troops are still in the middle east. He says our medicare is bad, when it's not nearly as bad as other countries, and it seems like he's taking it for the worst.
Next time, bring something substantive to this thread. There'a a lot of discussion and disagreement in here but at least the regular contributors here follow the news cycle, have a reasonable knowledge of the election's history, have a unique or thoughtful perspective or know not to talk out of their ass.
Hey, Sorry, not trying to talk out of my ass. I'm just saying that if you look at the past Nobel prize winners in medicine, America has won it almost every other year since the 1960s. When you look at America's survival rate to various types of cancer, I believe it's higher than all other countries. The number percentage of women who have received a pap smear is far higher than in other countries. The average waiting time in hospitals in America is about half the time compared to England and Canada. The availability of static drugs, are more available to American citizens than other countries, especially for our country to be considered one of the least healthy countries in the world. When I was studying pharmacy, I was taught to never turn away some one for drugs, such as insulin, even if they didn't have insurance or the money to pay for it.
I think Obama's healthcare plan is more of a false promise for the worse of the states, in which there will be a larger number of abusers. For some reason more Americans abuse prescription drugs, than illegal drugs. A good, but sad example of this would be the case with Heath Ledger. I loved him as an actor, but I believed that he took his role a bit too seriously as the joker, and tried to take his real life to his character. He ended up seeing several psychiatrists, and was prescribed numerous drugs, in which he would mix them, to possibly get the character of the joker down.
sunprince United States. August 02 2012 14:55. Posts 2173
On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote: [quote] Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity?
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you?
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way.
On August 01 2012 17:43 frogrubdown wrote:
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs.
It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims.
Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive.
User was warned for this post
Edit: Image macro removed as per mod warning.
That's a gnarly case of rationalization going on here. One of the best I've seen in a while. Obviously, supported by an astute understanding of genetics (and thus "science"). By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
Maybe smarter slaves acted more obedient. Or maybe, slave-owners actually wanted smarter slaves who would be better at their work. Or maybe that, even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence - let alone in the era before emancipation. Or maybe, environment plays an equal, if not more important, role.
Most of your suggestions don't line up with history. We're very aware that across the board, slaveowners feared that intelligent/educated slaves might rise up, and worked to vehemently crush any who might potentially get out of line (there's also certain cultural effects that result when intellectual activities like reading are heavily punished). The environment did play an important role; the environment of slavery had major selection effects.
You're also overlooking the selection effects of which Africans ended up as slaves in the first place.
Sigh. You accuse me of overlooking things while overlooking the most important part of my reply.
Even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence
/edit
Unless you address this issue directly, I don't think we can have a real discussion - but rather a show of throwing conjectures at each other.
We already know a decent amount about the heritability of intelligence. For you to insist that we don't know enough to make basic inferences is similar to how creationists insist that we don't know enough about evolution to make basic inferences. True, there's a lot we still don't know, but what we can do is make reasonably educated arguments on the subject.
Regardless, there is more to the selection effects we're talking about than mere intelligence. For example, one of the legacies of slavery is the culturally ingrained attitudes away from education, attitudes that were no doubt fostered by centuries of slaveowners brutally suppressing any slaves who dared to learn. By contrast, a large segment of the more recent waves of Asian immigrants are themselves better educated than average (or the children of better educated parents), with the obvious attendant selection effects on Asian-American cultural attitudes towards education.
Read on "Heritability and socioeconomic status" on the wikipedia link you gave me and you will find that there is quite a bit of dispute.
Comparing it to evolution versus creationism is the very strawman of which you accuse others. It is a science vs science dispute, not faith vs science.
I'm not saying we need 5 sigmas of certainty to make reasonable arguments, but this is just silly.
It's a faith-based argument to suggest that genetics have no effect on intelligence or socioeconomic status, which is something that cultural determinists (e.g. a certain segment of liberals) believe in.
If you're suggesting that we don't know the precise extent of genetic influence on intelligence/SES, then we're in agreement, but it's pretty obvious that the effect of genetics is significant. To argue otherwise is to disregard enormous scientific evidence to the contrary.
Once you understand that science demonstrates both that genetics do have an effect on SES, and that natural selection pressures do affect humans (potentially quite rapidly) like every sexually reproducing lifeform, then it's quite apparent that my proposed explanation for the some of the socioeconomic disparities between minority groups is firmly grounded in both logic and science, however "offensive" or "racist" you might find reality to be.
darthfoley United States. August 02 2012 15:26. Posts 2269
Although I don't like that this is now the "Debate over potential genetic causes of the African American IQ gap" thread, I'd hate even more to leave that debate with so many misunderstandings involving IQ and heritability.
This provides a fantastic summary of what exactly is involved and at stake in this debate, and provides and excellent counterpoint to the absurd claims in this thread that science has firmly established a significant genetic component to intelligence in the manner described.
"that's a load of fashionable, banal, neo-pagan yuppie bullshit" RIP
Leporello United States. August 02 2012 16:05. Posts 1704
"Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lowerincome taxpayers."
"it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers.”
“Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers," Obama is to say, according to excerpts of his speech released by the Obama campaign. "And they found that if Governor Romney wants to keep his word and pay for his plan, he’d have to cut tax breaks that middle-class families depend on to pay for your home, or your health care, or send your kids to college. That means the average middle-class family with children would be hit with a tax increase of more than $2,000."
“But here’s the thing – he’s not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids’ education," Obama adds. "He’s asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a tax cut.”
(\/) (;,,;) (\/) More GG, more White-Ra, more TLO
Nymphaceae United States. August 02 2012 16:06. Posts 343
On August 02 2012 15:58 frogrubdown wrote: Although I don't like that this is now the "Debate over potential genetic causes of the African American IQ gap" thread, I'd hate even more to leave that debate with so many misunderstandings involving IQ and heritability.
This provides a fantastic summary of what exactly is involved and at stake in this debate, and provides and excellent counterpoint to the absurd claims in this thread that science has firmly established a significant genetic component to intelligence in the manner described.
The child's IQ mainly comes from the woman's genes. I hope you're not saying that the majority of blacks are having babies with dumb sluts.
On August 02 2012 15:58 frogrubdown wrote: Although I don't like that this is now the "Debate over potential genetic causes of the African American IQ gap" thread, I'd hate even more to leave that debate with so many misunderstandings involving IQ and heritability.
This provides a fantastic summary of what exactly is involved and at stake in this debate, and provides and excellent counterpoint to the absurd claims in this thread that science has firmly established a significant genetic component to intelligence in the manner described.
The child's IQ mainly comes from the woman's genes. I hope you're not saying that the majority of blacks are having babies with dumb sluts.
What in God's name are you talking about? Maybe you should read what I wrote again.
"that's a load of fashionable, banal, neo-pagan yuppie bullshit" RIP
Nymphaceae United States. August 02 2012 16:31. Posts 343
On August 02 2012 15:58 frogrubdown wrote: Although I don't like that this is now the "Debate over potential genetic causes of the African American IQ gap" thread, I'd hate even more to leave that debate with so many misunderstandings involving IQ and heritability.
This provides a fantastic summary of what exactly is involved and at stake in this debate, and provides and excellent counterpoint to the absurd claims in this thread that science has firmly established a significant genetic component to intelligence in the manner described.
The child's IQ mainly comes from the woman's genes. I hope you're not saying that the majority of blacks are having babies with dumb sluts.
What in God's name are you talking about? Maybe you should read what I wrote again.
On August 02 2012 16:32 Kleinmuuhg wrote: Which would mean that girls would have X from both parents and so the IQ wouldnt come mainly from the mother.
+ I think that's not really what she meant.
I think you're close enough, because we're talking about a male black president.
On August 02 2012 15:58 frogrubdown wrote: Although I don't like that this is now the "Debate over potential genetic causes of the African American IQ gap" thread, I'd hate even more to leave that debate with so many misunderstandings involving IQ and heritability.
This provides a fantastic summary of what exactly is involved and at stake in this debate, and provides and excellent counterpoint to the absurd claims in this thread that science has firmly established a significant genetic component to intelligence in the manner described.
The child's IQ mainly comes from the woman's genes. I hope you're not saying that the majority of blacks are having babies with dumb sluts.
What in God's name are you talking about? Maybe you should read what I wrote again.
On August 02 2012 15:58 frogrubdown wrote: Although I don't like that this is now the "Debate over potential genetic causes of the African American IQ gap" thread, I'd hate even more to leave that debate with so many misunderstandings involving IQ and heritability.
This provides a fantastic summary of what exactly is involved and at stake in this debate, and provides and excellent counterpoint to the absurd claims in this thread that science has firmly established a significant genetic component to intelligence in the manner described.
The child's IQ mainly comes from the woman's genes. I hope you're not saying that the majority of blacks are having babies with dumb sluts.
What in God's name are you talking about? Maybe you should read what I wrote again.
Just because it says that doesn't mean it is true. I can't find any other articles supporting that, whatever it is. Maybe you could post the full article or explain exactly what you mean by "IQ is primarily carried on your X chromosome".
and maybe do it in a PM since it has utterly nothing to do with what he said
Last edit: 2012-08-02 16:58:36
Nymphaceae United States. August 02 2012 17:09. Posts 343
On August 02 2012 15:58 frogrubdown wrote: Although I don't like that this is now the "Debate over potential genetic causes of the African American IQ gap" thread, I'd hate even more to leave that debate with so many misunderstandings involving IQ and heritability.
This provides a fantastic summary of what exactly is involved and at stake in this debate, and provides and excellent counterpoint to the absurd claims in this thread that science has firmly established a significant genetic component to intelligence in the manner described.
The child's IQ mainly comes from the woman's genes. I hope you're not saying that the majority of blacks are having babies with dumb sluts.
What in God's name are you talking about? Maybe you should read what I wrote again.
Just because it says that doesn't mean it is true. I can't find any other articles supporting that, whatever it is. Maybe you could post the full article or explain exactly what you mean by "IQ is primarily carried on your X chromosome".
You'd have to pay for it, but to be honest, IQ doesn't matter so much. It was a thing pushed hard in the 80s/90s, but now doesn't matter all that much. I don't really care about genetic variance of your 3 toed sloths, even though it's a good paper. I agree that people are genetically evolved to be more athletic than others, but a large part of athletic ability comes from hard work. What I am talking about is based off of series. Let D represent a woman with a far lower IQ, and let X represent a woman with a higher IQ. Since the Y doesn't matter so much as far as the person's IQ, the man doesn't have such an effect on his sons, as he would his daughters. DD XY \ / DY <---This child would have a higher chance of having a lower IQ. Now pretend that she's like a really trashy woman, who has tons of kids. It would look like DY DX DY DX DY DX DY DX DY DX DY DX. If you cross these, then you'll end up with a higher chance of a dumb girl and dumb guy. I am not so sure what would happen if the child would be a DX.
Now for the smart woman XX XY \ / XY <----------higher chance of having a smart son
There are other factors that could severely cripple a child's IQ, no matter what his DNA says. For example, dropping a baby on it's head a few too many times.
DoubleReed United States. August 02 2012 20:52. Posts 3151
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote: You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more.
I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist.
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote: Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright:
“This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.”
We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external.
Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States.
Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique.
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors.
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid.
That's not politically correct. That's accurate.
Last edit: 2012-08-02 21:06:11
Baby, you want to make like Stravinsky and perform a Rite of Spring?
Nymphaceae United States. August 02 2012 20:57. Posts 343
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote: You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more.
I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist.
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote: Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright:
“This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.”
We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external.
Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States.
Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique.
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors.
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes.
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote: You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more.
I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist.
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote: Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright:
“This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.”
We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external.
Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States.
Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique.
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors.
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes.
That's not politically correct. That's accurate.
Intelligence is hereditary ? What the... Intelligence is not even a scientific concept to begin with. Most scientist in cognitiv science struggle with "intelligence". Intelligence can be seen as a set of cognitiv faculties : attention, concentration, reasonning, conscience, humour. Other see intelligence as creativity or even simplicity. In the common sense, intelligence is just reasonning, the mac gyver skills or IQ. In scientific studies, I think everyone agree intelligence is part innate par acquired. So no, intelligence is not hereditary, it can be partly hereditary at best (from less then 50% to 80% from studies to studies, a recent studies showing that parent-child living apart have only 22% of IQ correlation) and even that can be greatly criticized as I wonder how intelligence is measured since is such a broad concept to begin with.
If people can't understand the simple fact that there can be as much or more genetic disparities between two blacks than between a black and a white, then, as DoubleReed said a thousand time, the pigmentation of the skin is not a relevant caracteristic to measure or understand one's intelligence, just like atavism are not an explication for crime like Cesarre Lombroso thought back in the late 19th century. For exemple, it is a given that our generation are much more intelligent than say the generations living in the 17th century, making it clear enough to think that intelligence has something to do with the condition of living, the education, etc.
To find an answer in the IQ gap between black and white, in my opinion you should turn yourself to sociology and study things like the condition of living ; consideration for intellectual exercice in the black population ; the way they considers toys and free time, etc.. Things that have been done ages ago to understand the gap between rich and poor in school success.
Last edit: 2012-08-02 21:36:03
DoubleReed United States. August 02 2012 21:24. Posts 3151
Store
WCS
SC2Links Mobile App …
