Intelligence, race and related issues.

[Trausti]

A thread to discuss the political implications of what is known or scientifically understood or appears to be the case regarding this topic. I opted for the politics thread, partly because as I understand it there is no consensus on much of the science and partly because it is the political aspects and implications that I am especially interested in. Obviously, biological science and genetics may also come into play. I myself am not an expert in those areas.

I have chosen to focus on race in particular, though the general subject, and the nature/nurture aspects, could be looked at or affect other areas too (gender might be an alternative focus) and into socioeconomics generally.

Here, to start the ball rolling is what I thought was an interesting article from The New York Times in 2006.....

After the Bell Curve
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/...00&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

......which begins as follows:

"When it comes to explaining the roots of intelligence, the fight between partisans of the gene and partisans of the environment is ancient and fierce. Each side challenges the other’s intellectual bona fides and political agendas. What is at stake is not just the definition of good science but also the meaning of the just society. The nurture crowd is predisposed to revive the War on Poverty, while the hereditarians typically embrace a Social Darwinist perspective."


To put my head on the chopping block, I'm going to adopt the starting position that intelligence is most likely partly a result of nature and partly of nurture, and that there is (in any one lifetime and in any current society) and was (historically/ancestrally/globally) a complicated interplay of both.

This is somewhat related to my reply to barbos above.

It is critical to keep in mind that the evidence of genetic influence is solely for explaining within group or individual level variability in intellectual performance. That has no direct implication for the source of differences between groups.

At the group level, most things that vary within groups or at the individual level are canceled out, b/c most variance is random and thus cancels when aggregated.

Take two random people and they will likely differ in height, skin tone, and countless other physical traits. Take a thousand people and randomly divide them into groups and the groups will not differ in height, skin tone and any of those countless physical traits.

So a priori, the odds that two groups differ on a genetic feature that varies among individuals is very low. The same goes for the a priori odds of a difference in an environmental feature which varies among individuals. However, racial groups are not random and we have direct evidence that many likely relevant environmental features that impact intellectual development do vary systematically between racial groups (and sex groups). But we have little if any evidence that those racial groups differ in the countless genes (all of which vary randomly) in a systematic way across each relevant gene in the manner required to produce a difference in an observed trait like intelligent behavior.

The evidence that gene-based racial intelligence proponents point to is the existence of a group level difference in observed intelligence behavior, but for the above reasons that provides no evidential support for that claim. Until the actual genes themselves responsible for intelligent behavior are observed to differ on average between racial groups, there will be no good evidence that racial differences in intelligence are genetically based. And this requires not just finding a differences in one relevant gene, but a systematic difference in the same direction among most genes that impact intelligent behavior. Since we aren't close to knowing all or even many of the specific genes involved, we aren't close to having any evidence of gene-based intelligence differences between the races.

Thanks.

You know more than me about genetics, obviously.

But from a layman's perspective...

Setting race aside, the idea that intelligence is heritable (directly via genes I mean) seems more than plausible (and quite well supported).

So, if that's true (and I did use the word if) then, if, also, the (for want of a better word) breeding is segregated, at least quite a bit, then, wouldn't one expect to see.... certain patterns emerge, among groups?

ETA: I hadn't read your reply to Moogly before posting, and although I don't fully understand it, it seems as if you may have touched on what I just said?

This is where the discussion gets blocked. We fully accept this for all other life but humans. Instead, we take a page from the Intelligent Design lobby and view humans as special; that evolution and natural selection are true - but not the politically uncomfortable parts. For those we imagine that nature inexplicably follows the contours of the preferred political dogma. And that dogma will be enforced.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is where the discussion gets blocked. We fully accept this for all other life but humans.

Huh? Could you elaborate, give some examples?

 

[ruby sparks]

Africa's average IQ lags WAY BEHIND the rest of the world. Zimbabwe has been begging the white farmers to come back and farm for them because they can't even do that. The best country in Africa is South Africa, which has been run by whites.

Nothing but facts. Can't refute it.

You want me to post the pics of Ancient Egypt again, don't you?

I said it before and I'll say it again. If we moved all Americans to Africa and all Africans to America, America would become Africa and Africa would become America.

I see. Where are you getting your odd definition of 'fact' from? Lol.

 

[ruby sparks]

This is where the discussion gets blocked. We fully accept this for all other life but humans. Instead, we take a page from the Intelligent Design lobby and view humans as special; that evolution and natural selection are true - but not the politically uncomfortable parts. For those we imagine that nature inexplicably follows the contours of the preferred political dogma. And that dogma will be enforced.

I've acknowledged the basics of that, I think, yes.

But.....I'm not sure I'm moving on to the next step that you might be.

So, to check, I'm going to say...ok, and?

 

[Half-Life]

Africa's average IQ lags WAY BEHIND the rest of the world. Zimbabwe has been begging the white farmers to come back and farm for them because they can't even do that. The best country in Africa is South Africa, which has been run by whites.

Nothing but facts. Can't refute it.

You want me to post the pics of Ancient Egypt again, don't you?

I said it before and I'll say it again. If we moved all Americans to Africa and all Africans to America, America would become Africa and Africa would become America.

I see. Where are you getting your odd definition of 'fact' from? Lol.

We all know Egypt was more advanced than the rest of the Continent. But, that's all you got. Egypt and South Africa. Every other country is a gang infested warzone.

 

[ruby sparks]

We all know Egypt was more advanced than the rest of the Continent.

I think you mean world, not continent.

But, that's all you got.

Yes. All I've got is a non-white civilisation that lasted and was way ahead longer than western white civilisation has so far. I'm good with that. It's a bit more than a blip for your theory.

 

[Half-Life]

We all know Egypt was more advanced than the rest of the Continent.

I think you mean world, not continent.

But, that's all you got.

Yes. All I've got is a non-white civilisation that lasted and was way ahead longer than western white civilisation has been so far. I'm good with that. It's a bit more than a blip for your theory.

54 countries in Africa. You got Egypt and South Africa.

52 countries suck.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think you mean world, not continent.



Yes. All I've got is a non-white civilisation that lasted and was way ahead longer than western white civilisation has been so far. I'm good with that. It's a bit more than a blip for your theory.

54 countries in Africa. You got Egypt and South Africa.

52 countries suck.

I'm guessing that must make some sort of sense to you. Would I be right? What I'm thinking is, you probably wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

Fuck knows why you're including modern Egypt. I'm almost afraid to ask why you're including ancient Egypt with modern South Africa.

 

[Half-Life]

I think you mean world, not continent.



Yes. All I've got is a non-white civilisation that lasted and was way ahead longer than western white civilisation has been so far. I'm good with that. It's a bit more than a blip for your theory.

54 countries in Africa. You got Egypt and South Africa.

52 countries suck.

I'm guessing that must make some sort of sense to you. Would I be right? What I'm thinking is, you probably wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

Fuck knows why you're including modern Egypt though. I'm almost afraid to ask why you're including ancient Egypt with modern South Africa.

How many countries in Africa are a success to you? Meaning you would happily move there.

 

[ruby sparks]

How many countries in Africa are a success to you? Meaning you would happily move there.

Sorry. I asked why you were including ancient Egypt with modern South Africa. I can use shorter words if that helps.

For one thing, I can't move to Ancient Egypt. If I was a white person in a mud hut in (what is now called) Europe, I might have wanted to move there, yes. Lots of white people, for thousands of years, might have wanted that option.

 

[Half-Life]

How many countries in Africa are a success to you? Meaning you would happily move there.

Sorry. I asked why you were including ancient Egypt with modern South Africa. I can use shorter words if that helps.

For one thing, I can't move to Ancient Egypt. If I was a white person in a mud hut in (what is now called) Europe, I might have wanted to move there, yes. Lots of white people, for thousands of years, might have wanted that option.

I'm talking about today, genius!!!

 

[ruby sparks]

How many countries in Africa are a success to you? Meaning you would happily move there.

Sorry. I asked why you were including ancient Egypt with modern South Africa. I can use shorter words if that helps.

For one thing, I can't move to Ancient Egypt. If I was a white person in a mud hut in (what is now called) Europe, I might have wanted to move there, yes. Lots of white people, for thousands of years, might have wanted that option.

I'm talking about today, genius!!!

Ok. I’m going to type this really, really slowly.

Why are you including ancient Egypt then? Modern Egypt should be in as your number 53 that suck.

 

[Half-Life]

I'm talking about today, genius!!!

Ok. I’m going to type this really, really slowly.

Why are you including ancient Egypt then? Modern Egypt should be in as your number 53.

Then that makes it even worse for the Africa defenders. I was throwing you guys a bone.

OK, fine. 53 countries in Africa are hellholes. Why do you suppose this is?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm talking about today, genius!!!

Ok. I’m going to type this really, really slowly.

Why are you including ancient Egypt then? Modern Egypt should be in as your number 53.

Then that makes it even worse for the Africa defenders. I was throwing you guys a bone.

OK, fine. 53 countries in Africa are hellholes. Why do you suppose this is?

Very very good question. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven’t gotten around to asking it by accident.

The answer would be very long indeed, but it is unlikely to feature ‘because they’re black’ very prominently. I realise this may come as a surprise to you.

Now, before I go to the trouble, is there a way you could indicate to me that you would be capable of understanding or accepting what I strongly feel is likely to be the actually correct set of explanations? No offence, but I don’t want to just waste my time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Let me put it another way. Why do you suppose Egypt was so far ahead for thousands of years compared to Northern European, white civilisation?

I think, if we apply your theory, it was because they weren’t white.

 

[Half-Life]

Then that makes it even worse for the Africa defenders. I was throwing you guys a bone.

OK, fine. 53 countries in Africa are hellholes. Why do you suppose this is?

Very very good question. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven’t gotten around to asking it by accident.

The answer would be very long indeed, but it is unlikely to feature ‘because they’re black’ very prominently. I realise this may come as a surprise to you.

Now, before I go to the trouble, is there a way you could indicate to me that you would be capable of understanding or accepting what I strongly feel is likely to be the actually correct set of explanations? No offence, but I don’t want to just waste my time.

I know the pre-programmed NPC response from the leftists.

"Other countries take over Africa and use it for their benefit and Africa is not tough enough to fight back!"

 

[Patooka]

Then that makes it even worse for the Africa defenders. I was throwing you guys a bone.

OK, fine. 53 countries in Africa are hellholes. Why do you suppose this is?

Very very good question. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven’t gotten around to asking it by accident.

The answer would be very long indeed, but it is unlikely to feature ‘because they’re black’ very prominently. I realise this may come as a surprise to you.

Now, before I go to the trouble, is there a way you could indicate to me that you would be capable of understanding or accepting what I strongly feel is likely to be the actually correct set of explanations? No offence, but I don’t want to just waste my time.

I know the pre-programmed NPC response from the leftists.

"Other countries take over Africa and use it for their benefit and Africa is not tough enough to fight back!" You'll be wasting your time.

Fixed it for you.

 

[steve_bank]

I have worked with people from around the world. From what I see anyone who has the general equivalent to our primary education are on the average no better or worse rhan anyone else.

There is a thriving Ethiopian immigrant community in Seattle. Those who come with basic education pick up English. Some go to college or trade schools. Those without the foundation have trouble picking up English and communicating. They are stuck in low wage jobs.

I'd say culture matters more than any generic variation.

The problem with statistical studies is isolating all relevant vsaribles.

In the JFK era the Moinahan Report showed that the biggest factor affecting kids performing in school was income and family stability. Race was not an issue. Controversial at the time. Further it was said welfare was destroying black families exacerbating the problem.

 

[Half-Life]

I have worked with people from around the world. From what I see anyone who has the general equivalent to our primary education are on the average no better or worse rhan anyone else.

There is a thriving Ethiopian immigrant community in Seattle. Those who come with basic education pick up English. Some go to college or trade schools. Those without the foundation have trouble picking up English and communicating. They are stuck in low wage jobs.

I'd say culture matters more than any generic variation.

The problem with statistical studies is isolating all relevant vsaribles.

In the JFK era the Moinahan Report showed that the biggest factor affecting kids performing in school was income and family stability. Race was not an issue. Controversial at the time. Further it was said welfare was destroying black families exacerbating the problem.

This is what Republicans have been saying all along! Democrats giving out handouts to blacks in ghettos just incentivizes them to do nothing all day. Trump is now taking away food stamps from about 70,000 Americans. The quote was, "The best welfare system is getting a job." This will now force people in poverty to work for their money. This means less money spent on drugs, booze, and cigarettes, which means they should be turning a corner in their lives.

I've heard plenty of poor complaining about how they can't pay their bills this month. But, I've never seen any complaining about how they can't afford their cigarettes or booze or weed today.

 

[ruby sparks]

I know the pre-programmed NPC response from the leftists.

"Other countries take over Africa and use it for their benefit and Africa is not tough enough to fight back!"

I'm not a leftist though. Well, compared to you I am, but so is nearly everyone in the world.

Ok, I'll try to make a start, in the hope that you can at least accept some of it, even if it conflicts with your own theories. I'm assuming you do have some, and that you might share them in return.

The first big factor, as I see it, from way back in human history, was melanin. Melanin is essentially what gives skin and other bodily features a dark pigmentation. If you had lots of it, then it was either because you lived in a hot, sunny country, or the other way around (that you lived in a hot sunny country because you had lots of melanin). Either way, it meant that you could stay outdoors longer. First, you wouldn't suffer from sunburn and second, it was warmer and therefore more pleasant to be outside. Also, when at night you did go indoors, you were more tired out from doing outside stuff all day, so that you generally just went straight to sleep. White people, on the other hand, had to stay indoors more and this increased daytime confinement was much more conducive to reading books and that sort of thing. Plus, at night, you could stay up reading longer (eventually using the artificial lighting that you invented because you needed to) partly because you hadn't physically tired yourself out during the day. A general 'scholarship' pattern gradually emerged along racial lines, one which also helps explain why blacks are better at sports.

There are other reasons of course, but that's quite a big one, imo.

Your turn.