How to prepare for the coming science of genetic racial variations, and a summary of the full case for the genetics of racial differences in intellige

[ApostateAbe]

Richard E. Nisbett argues for the race IQ gaps being environmental, not genetic, and he wrote a book titled, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. It is a surprisingly well-argued book (a bunch of the books in the left stack are just plain awful). At the header of Chapter Six on page 93, he has a quote from Thomas Sowell:

The taboo against discussing race and IQ has not left this an open question. On the contrary, it has had the perverse effect of freezing an existing majority of testing experts in favor of a belief that racial IQ differences are influenced by genetics. No belief can be refuted if it cannot be discussed.​

Plausibly, that really is the effect of the public taboo against the topic. Not only does it leave the public vastly uninformed or misinformed about it, but even those who argue in favor of environmentalist explanations for the race IQ gaps are liable to be the victims of the public's extreme hatred upon violation of the taboo.

Why would Sowell say that? It is known we aren't isolated enough to be actual candidates for race development by a long shot and the study of the genetics of intelligence hasn't even gotten past the array found in our capability for language which is somehow related to FOXP2.

The only way Sowell ethically or morally could say that is if he is suffering from blindness and selection bias disorder at the same time. I'm suspicious. Is he relying on intelligence testing among humans and phenotypology? If so. Explained.

Atta boy DrZoidberg​.

One need not believe that races are genetic before accepting the existence of the racial IQ gaps. Even for those who argue that races are merely cultural, the race-IQ gaps exist, and they are likewise victims of the extreme public taboo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point is that I have done absolutely nothing to prepare for fusion power.

Idiot! You didn't ensure your homebuilder used fusion-compatible power wires??? Someday you'll regret that!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You mean other than the mistakes can be potentially very costly. You screw up a corn, not a big deal. Screw up a baby because you think you know what you are doing? Kind of an atrocity.

This also makes me think about evolution. Most everything that exists in evolved species is there for a reason. Could be pure accident or there may be some benefit in a particular set of genes.
Are blacks of a given genetic IQ as part of a package deal? If we democratically alter their IQ, is there a cost we haven't anticipated? .

No. Many things exist simply because of quirks of evolutionary history. You'll find a lot of stupidity in the human body because of this.

Off the top of my head:
1) The blood vessels in the eyes are on the wrong side of the retina.
2) The color channels from the eyes do a very lossy encoding--we are not capable of perceiving a bluish-yellow or a reddish-green color.
3) There's a facial nerve that takes the long way to get there because it's on the wrong side of some piece of anatomy that I don't recall at the moment. Evolution can't change such layout errors, although in time it can develop alternative approaches. (Which it has done in the giraffe--the offending nerve goes all the way down it's long neck and then back up--too slow. Another nerve has evolved that does some of the work.)

 

[Nice Squirrel]

4) Black men have oversized genitalia.
5) Asian men can survive in the jungle on bugs and napalm.

 

[ApostateAbe]

An argument that does nothing, however, to lend any credence to what you're saying.

Remember, the stack of books on the left as presented is NOT intended to prove that the race IQ gaps are genetic. Instead, it proves that everyone in academia accepts that the race-IQ gap EXISTS.

And so, predictably, you demonstrate you didn't understand my question after all.

Remember, the 'proof' that "everyone in academia accepts this race IQ gap exists"; is nothing more than a pile of books *you* have gathered. This, is the fallacy of selection bias.

"EVERYONE in the world loves pudding!"

"What? On what do you base this claim?"

"Look at all these photos of people enjoying pudding! How can you argue with that?!"

"But these are all YOUR photos!"

"What's your point? I'm totally being fair here. Look, here's the stack of photos of people enjoying chocolate pudding. And here's a stack of photos of people enjoying other kinds of pudding! See? Totally fair and balanced."

"...But you just selected for photos of people eating pudding! What of all the photos of people not eating pudding? And these photos don't even show that these people love pudding, just that they ate it at least once!"

The left stack of books are in the same political camp as you. They are anti-racists. They accept that the race IQ gaps exist, but they explain it in ways that you would prefer.

That's a pretty bold statement given that I have not stated my political camp.

It's also hopelessly one-dimensional. To you, there is only a binary division here. When you've already decided the answer to the question for yourself, you can divide the stack of books in 'for' and 'against', but you can not conceive or acknowledge the possibility that not only might the 'for' and 'against' books not be either of those things, but the very question itself might be wrong to begin with.

Put it simpler terms: when you've already decided that the sky is blue and that's that, you have no need to learn that the sky in fact doesn't have any color and that the 'blue' is in fact wavelengths being absorbed by atmospheric particles and then radiated outward.

"All biologists accept evolution by natural selection, even when they don't agree with the general theory of evolution. I have a tall stack of books written by young-Earth creationist biologists, and even they, every one of them, explicitly accept microevolution by Darwinian natural selection."

"Selection bias."

"WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT??"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that good evidence of the racial basis of intelligence is that whites and asians are the ones who found a way to leave Africa.

The reason is that if you have three kids and when they're in their 30s, two of them have managed to move out and buy their own houses and the third is still living in your basement, odds are that the the third one is a bit dafter than the other two.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod:

 

[dystopian]

"All biologists accept evolution by natural selection, even when they don't agree with the general theory of evolution. I have a tall stack of books written by young-Earth creationist biologists, and even they, every one of them, explicitly accept microevolution by Darwinian natural selection."

That is not what you claimed. You claimed that they all agree that there's an IQ gap. Now you're trying to equate "IQ gap" with "natural selection". Not only are they two very different things, but in attempting to equate them you demonstrate a basic inability to separate your conclusion from the facts and arguments that are supposed to precede it. That's called putting the cart before the horse.

"WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT??"

The convincing kind.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think that good evidence of the racial basis of intelligence is that whites and asians are the ones who found a way to leave Africa.

The reason is that if you have three kids and when they're in their 30s, two of them have managed to move out and buy their own houses and the third is still living in your basement, odds are that the the third one is a bit dafter than the other two.

I don't think so. It doesn't take much intelligence to migrate on land, though it may take more intelligence to adapt when you get to the destination. The migration was multi-generational. Each generation generally did not travel far before settling. Arguably, they had to migrate because they could not effectively compete with the other tribes in their home areas. They were driven out.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That is not what you claimed. You claimed that they all agree that there's an IQ gap. Now you're trying to equate "IQ gap" with "natural selection". Not only are they two very different things, but in attempting to equate them you demonstrate a basic inability to separate your conclusion from the facts and arguments that are supposed to precede it. That's called putting the cart before the horse.

"WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT??"

The convincing kind.

Tell me specifically what evidence you would accept that all intelligence researchers accept the existence of the racial IQ gaps. Should I compile the hundreds of thousands of books and articles written over the last hundred years and deliver them to your doorstep?

 

[arkirk]

An argument that does nothing, however, to lend any credence to what you're saying.




And so, predictably, you demonstrate you didn't understand my question after all.

Remember, the 'proof' that "everyone in academia accepts this race IQ gap exists"; is nothing more than a pile of books *you* have gathered. This, is the fallacy of selection bias.

"EVERYONE in the world loves pudding!"

"What? On what do you base this claim?"

"Look at all these photos of people enjoying pudding! How can you argue with that?!"

"But these are all YOUR photos!"

"What's your point? I'm totally being fair here. Look, here's the stack of photos of people enjoying chocolate pudding. And here's a stack of photos of people enjoying other kinds of pudding! See? Totally fair and balanced."

"...But you just selected for photos of people eating pudding! What of all the photos of people not eating pudding? And these photos don't even show that these people love pudding, just that they ate it at least once!"

The left stack of books are in the same political camp as you. They are anti-racists. They accept that the race IQ gaps exist, but they explain it in ways that you would prefer.

That's a pretty bold statement given that I have not stated my political camp.

It's also hopelessly one-dimensional. To you, there is only a binary division here. When you've already decided the answer to the question for yourself, you can divide the stack of books in 'for' and 'against', but you can not conceive or acknowledge the possibility that not only might the 'for' and 'against' books not be either of those things, but the very question itself might be wrong to begin with.

Put it simpler terms: when you've already decided that the sky is blue and that's that, you have no need to learn that the sky in fact doesn't have any color and that the 'blue' is in fact wavelengths being absorbed by atmospheric particles and then radiated outward.

"All biologists accept evolution by natural selection, even when they don't agree with the general theory of evolution. I have a tall stack of books written by young-Earth creationist biologists, and even they, every one of them, explicitly accept microevolution by Darwinian natural selection."

"Selection bias."

"WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT??"

Is the IQ test a creation of people with an agenda of social definition of INTELLIGENCE? They write a test that measures a type of response to their test they call INTELLIGENCE. The test is culture dependent. So are the results. It is their starting assumptions before a single test was ever taken that renders their results inaccurate at best and absolutely pointless in the worst case scenarios. The makers of these tests struggle to remove cultural bias and cultural expectations but they always seem to fail at it. Maybe they are not as INTELLIGENT as they think they are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People with Downs have a genetic differentiation. The lowered intelligence is well demonstrated and the physical causes are well demonstrated.

The differences among races is poorly demonstrated (if at all) both in actual practice and genetically. It makes me ponder, if intelligence varies by race so much, then why is it so hard to demonstrate it.

The race gap in intelligence scores between blacks and whites in the United States is perhaps the most heavily-studied phenomenon in the field of psychology.

I certainly hope not. The reality that poverty and lower levels of education typically lead to less overall intelligence.

The reason you don't know much about it is because the topic is taboo among the public.

Except you know it somehow?

If you heavily follow popular science news like I do and you have a science-based undergraduate and post-graduate education like I do, they will almost never mention it, but you will still get the impression that you have a well-informed scientific base of knowledge. You can know more science than 98% of everyone else and not know this.

Lot of words to say "It isn't anywhere to be seen".

I have two stacks of books in my room. The left stack of books argues that the race gaps in intelligence scores are primarily environmental. The right stack of books argues that the race gaps in intelligence score are primarily genetic. Each rests on the same unified data set: in every test of mental abilities ever examined, there are race gaps.

There you go... peer reviewed books... oh wait... not peer reviewed. Sorry.

Herrnstein and Murray of Harvard wrote The Bell Curve, which stirred up a lot of public controversy in the mid-nineties, because it made the case that the race gap in intelligence scores was the main cause of the racial wealth gap.

Well, that'd be ass backwards, so I'd get it why they'd get into trouble over it seeing that poverty is what prevents advancement in education.

They got a lot of blowback from the public, who were largely unaware that the intelligence score race gap even existed, and the primary objections reflected the barest minimum comprehension of the science (i.e. IQ scores say nothing except how well you score on an IQ test). Since then, the science has remained largely taboo. Even those who defend the environmentalist explanation have to tread lightly for fear of public hatred. Many academics have challenged Herrnstein's and Murray's proposed causes, but none of them challenged the correlations and averages that they based their case on. It is now the same data you can download and analyze yourself.

Oh, you just did it again, with the whole Race Intelligence in the Gaps swerve.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Antecedent: When I was young they gave me an IQ test. I was told it wouldn't be graded, so I filled in the numbers randomly and put my head down on my desk. The next week I was placed in with the remedial and the kids forbidden to have sharp objects. It was great, I got 100s on all school work. I didn't get my knuckles cracked with a ruler for my bad spelling. Then I was given the full IQ Test, I scored a 140 (I know what animals belong on a Midwestern farm.) I was then placed in the advanced classes with all those competitive arseholes. I didn't care what grade I got or what others got. It was elementary school. I asked to be put back in with the norms where I could talk about the Dukes of Hazzard and Sheriff Lobo with other kids who cared about important stuff.

So I know the IQ test is bullshit from experience.

 

[ApostateAbe]

An argument that does nothing, however, to lend any credence to what you're saying.




And so, predictably, you demonstrate you didn't understand my question after all.

Remember, the 'proof' that "everyone in academia accepts this race IQ gap exists"; is nothing more than a pile of books *you* have gathered. This, is the fallacy of selection bias.

"EVERYONE in the world loves pudding!"

"What? On what do you base this claim?"

"Look at all these photos of people enjoying pudding! How can you argue with that?!"

"But these are all YOUR photos!"

"What's your point? I'm totally being fair here. Look, here's the stack of photos of people enjoying chocolate pudding. And here's a stack of photos of people enjoying other kinds of pudding! See? Totally fair and balanced."

"...But you just selected for photos of people eating pudding! What of all the photos of people not eating pudding? And these photos don't even show that these people love pudding, just that they ate it at least once!"

The left stack of books are in the same political camp as you. They are anti-racists. They accept that the race IQ gaps exist, but they explain it in ways that you would prefer.

That's a pretty bold statement given that I have not stated my political camp.

It's also hopelessly one-dimensional. To you, there is only a binary division here. When you've already decided the answer to the question for yourself, you can divide the stack of books in 'for' and 'against', but you can not conceive or acknowledge the possibility that not only might the 'for' and 'against' books not be either of those things, but the very question itself might be wrong to begin with.

Put it simpler terms: when you've already decided that the sky is blue and that's that, you have no need to learn that the sky in fact doesn't have any color and that the 'blue' is in fact wavelengths being absorbed by atmospheric particles and then radiated outward.

"All biologists accept evolution by natural selection, even when they don't agree with the general theory of evolution. I have a tall stack of books written by young-Earth creationist biologists, and even they, every one of them, explicitly accept microevolution by Darwinian natural selection."

"Selection bias."

"WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT??"

Is the IQ test a creation of people with an agenda of social definition of INTELLIGENCE? They write a test that measures a type of response to their test they call INTELLIGENCE. The test is culture dependent. So are the results. It is their starting assumptions before a single test was ever taken that renders their results inaccurate at best and absolutely pointless in the worst case scenarios. The makers of these tests struggle to remove cultural bias and cultural expectations but they always seem to fail at it. Maybe they are not as INTELLIGENT as they think they are.

OK, at this point, you are welcome to believe that the intelligence tests don't effectively measure intelligence. I take that to be the lowest and most out-of-touch criticism (advocated exclusively among the critics who are NOT psychologists, such as Stephen J. Gould). But, it is a step forward. It recognizes that the race-IQ gaps exist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that good evidence of the racial basis of intelligence is that whites and asians are the ones who found a way to leave Africa.

The reason is that if you have three kids and when they're in their 30s, two of them have managed to move out and buy their own houses and the third is still living in your basement, odds are that the the third one is a bit dafter than the other two.

I don't think so. It doesn't take much intelligence to migrate on land, though it may take more intelligence to adapt when you get to the destination. The migration was multi-generational. Each generation generally did not travel far before settling. Arguably, they had to migrate because they could not effectively compete with the other tribes in their home areas. They were driven out.

So, when you say they didn't have to travel far in each generation, you're essentially saying that there was a gradual change over time going on, correct? You're right. I was out of line comparing that sort of thing to an evolutionary process.

Also, when confronted by a superior foe, the smart thing to do is leave. The smart ones left and became white people. The stupid ones stayed, got raped by the big penis tribes who were attacking them and had their offspring become black people. This explains both black people's lower IQs and larger penises.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I don't think so. It doesn't take much intelligence to migrate on land, though it may take more intelligence to adapt when you get to the destination. The migration was multi-generational. Each generation generally did not travel far before settling. Arguably, they had to migrate because they could not effectively compete with the other tribes in their home areas. They were driven out.

So, when you say they didn't have to travel far in each generation, you're essentially saying that there was a gradual change over time going on, correct? You're right. I was out of line comparing that sort of thing to an evolutionary process.

Also, when confronted by a superior foe, the smart thing to do is leave. The smart ones left and became white people. The stupid ones stayed, got raped by the big penis tribes who were attacking them and had their offspring become black people. This explains both black people's lower IQs and larger penises.

I generally make sense of evolutionary adaptations in terms of CONTINUING selective pressures across vast expanses of time, not just singular events in the ancestral lineages.

 

[dystopian]

That is not what you claimed. You claimed that they all agree that there's an IQ gap. Now you're trying to equate "IQ gap" with "natural selection". Not only are they two very different things, but in attempting to equate them you demonstrate a basic inability to separate your conclusion from the facts and arguments that are supposed to precede it. That's called putting the cart before the horse.



The convincing kind.

Tell me specifically what evidence you would accept that all intelligence researchers accept the existence of the racial IQ gaps. Should I compile the hundreds of thousands of books and articles written over the last hundred years and deliver them to your doorstep?

Hundreds of thousands of books and articles? My, what an impressive sounding number.

Three questions.

1. Did you make that number up on the spot?

2. Did you consider that the number of books and articles written on homeopathy over the last hundred years is vastly greater than that number? Let's not even mention the number of pro-cat articles, pictures, and videos posted on the internet in just the last year.

3. Did you consider that the so called 'racial' gap is potentially nullified by the existence of other 'gaps' which produce the same effect and as such it can not be concluded the gap is racial in nature; something which I assure you is accepted by plenty of intelligence researchers (thereby demonstrating your claim to be false)?

Now here's the thing. I don't particularly care whether or not people of one ethnicity are statistically more intelligent than those of another. It makes no difference to the nature of my politics. It would change and justify nothing. If true, it would simply be a fact and nothing more. I don't care one way or the other. But the way you frame things from the perspective of an obsessive pisses me off and demands a response.

 

[ksen]

Ham always was the dumb one of the bunch.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, when you say they didn't have to travel far in each generation, you're essentially saying that there was a gradual change over time going on, correct? You're right. I was out of line comparing that sort of thing to an evolutionary process.

Also, when confronted by a superior foe, the smart thing to do is leave. The smart ones left and became white people. The stupid ones stayed, got raped by the big penis tribes who were attacking them and had their offspring become black people. This explains both black people's lower IQs and larger penises.

I generally make sense of evolutionary adaptations in terms of CONTINUING selective pressures across vast expanses of time, not just singular events in the ancestral lineages.

Selective pressures are a series of continuous events occuring over multiple generations. Aggressive tribes forcing faster dislocation are no more singular events than aggressive lions forcing faster gazelle running are.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Tell me specifically what evidence you would accept that all intelligence researchers accept the existence of the racial IQ gaps. Should I compile the hundreds of thousands of books and articles written over the last hundred years and deliver them to your doorstep?

Hundreds of thousands of books and articles? My, what an impressive sounding number.

Three questions.

1. Did you make that number up on the spot?

2. Did you consider that the number of books and articles written on homeopathy over the last hundred years is vastly greater than that number? Let's not even mention the number of pro-cat articles, pictures, and videos posted on the internet in just the last year.

3. Did you consider that the so called 'racial' gap is potentially nullified by the existence of other 'gaps' which produce the same effect and as such it can not be concluded the gap is racial in nature; something which I assure you is accepted by plenty of intelligence researchers (thereby demonstrating your claim to be false)?

Now here's the thing. I don't particularly care whether or not people of one ethnicity are statistically more intelligent than those of another. It makes no difference to the nature of my politics. It would change and justify nothing. If true, it would simply be a fact and nothing more. I don't care one way or the other. But the way you frame things from the perspective of an obsessive pisses me off and demands a response.

Very well, I respect that.