Intelligence, race and related issues.

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I’d say that what really matters is opportunity.

We don’t all get the same opportunity or the same number of opportunities in life. We all have some opportunities. And we all have some burdens. I don’t believe the world will ever be such that opportunity and burden are equally distributed among people, but we could sure do a much better job of easing some of the worst burdens and ensuring that all people get the chances they need to make the most of their lives.

The problem is the biggest burden by far is the parents and the culture they're in. Things that aren't fixable by throwing money at the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that’s not correct. Mass government spending on education has done nothing to close the achievement gaps. And, curiously, these gaps are largest where the local culture is anti-hereditarian and kneels at the social justice altar, e.g., Berkley, CA, and Madison, WI.

That could merely show that the barriers are bigger than expected, and/or that the efforts have been badly done. Racist policies to fight racist policies may very well breed more rather than fewer problems. Likewise with the bigotry of low expectations. People often grow into the labels assigned to them. If you aren't expected to amount to much, good chance you won't.

And it could mean some sky daddy has decreed blacks are inferior.

Or it could be the logical thing--if what you're doing isn't accomplishing anything you're likely missing the whole point, the problem is something else. That's blasphemy to the SJWs, though. All problems must be due to the incompetence of the powerful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I’d say that what really matters is opportunity.

We don’t all get the same opportunity or the same number of opportunities in life. We all have some opportunities. And we all have some burdens. I don’t believe the world will ever be such that opportunity and burden are equally distributed among people, but we could sure do a much better job of easing some of the worst burdens and ensuring that all people get the chances they need to make the most of their lives.

Start by raising the floor. Don't have anyone worried about if they will eat tomorrow. Have some minimal financial stability for all. Have health care for all as well. Do that and be amazed how the lower ends of society find further upward mobility and with more people productive expect to see everyone benefit.

The primary cause of hunger is money spent on addictions rather than on food. That's not a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Start by raising the floor. Don't have anyone worried about if they will eat tomorrow. Have some minimal financial stability for all. Have health care for all as well. Do that and be amazed how the lower ends of society find further upward mobility and with more people productive expect to see everyone benefit.

The primary cause of hunger is money spent on addictions rather than on food. That's not a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it.

Citation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is that in the US education is a local affair - county/city. There are over 16,000 public school districts in the US. That the achievement gap is apparent in *all* of them shows that you are dealing with something other than policy.

Is there a racial achievement gap when comparing rich black kids with poor white kids?

When you properly control for other factors there's no gap in either direction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that’s not correct. Mass government spending on education has done nothing to close the achievement gaps. And, curiously, these gaps are largest where the local culture is anti-hereditarian and kneels at the social justice altar, e.g., Berkley, CA, and Madison, WI.

If that was the case Head Start wouldn't be so successful. Children without access to programs like Head Start enter Kindergarten unable to read, and struggle with the alphabet. While the benefits begin to dissipate deeper into grade school, that is most likely an indication that continued enrichment is necessary for certain children that do not have access to enrichment outside of the school. Then you have the other early learning programs that help children to exceed expectations they would never have achieved a generation ago thanks to early diagnoses and adapting to their conditions early on.

All of this spending helps to alleviate some of the stress for Kindergarten and onward teachers, requiring a smaller spectrum of capabilities of their students to adjust to. Of course, each dime has to be dragged out of the wallets in many red state capitals across the nation.

Right-wing commentary on public schooling is on the level of fan fiction with virtually no actual experience in the field.

Except Head Start appears to have turned counterproductive over time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But that’s not correct. Mass government spending on education has done nothing to close the achievement gaps. And, curiously, these gaps are largest where the local culture is anti-hereditarian and kneels at the social justice altar, e.g., Berkley, CA, and Madison, WI.

If that was the case Head Start wouldn't be so successful. Children without access to programs like Head Start enter Kindergarten unable to read, and struggle with the alphabet. While the benefits begin to dissipate deeper into grade school, that is most likely an indication that continued enrichment is necessary for certain children that do not have access to enrichment outside of the school. Then you have the other early learning programs that help children to exceed expectations they would never have achieved a generation ago thanks to early diagnoses and adapting to their conditions early on.

All of this spending helps to alleviate some of the stress for Kindergarten and onward teachers, requiring a smaller spectrum of capabilities of their students to adjust to. Of course, each dime has to be dragged out of the wallets in many red state capitals across the nation.

Right-wing commentary on public schooling is on the level of fan fiction with virtually no actual experience in the field.

Except Head Start appears to have turned counterproductive over time.

How so?

 

[barbos]

You are supposed to be able to read before Kindergarten???

Not in Russia, apparently.

I know english is much more difficult to learn to read than russian, but I learned to read/write in school starting at the age of 7.

It shows.

Yes, I was reading in 3 months after start, without any problem. Sucks to have a language needing spelling reform so badly. does not it?

 

[barbos]

You are supposed to be able to read before Kindergarten???
I know english is much more difficult to learn to read than russian, but I learned to read/write in school starting at the age of 7.
Maybe Head Start is actually a bad idea.

It's quite common for kids to read before kindergarten. Parents and siblings reading to them while they flip the pages is how they learn.

Words are just more pictures to them. They associate and learn fast. They also learn by watching the right shows at home.

That's not reading, As I said It took 3 mounts I could read anything including unknown words.

 

[barbos]

That's quite a claim.

No, it is the scientific reality. What is "quite a claim" with zero scientific support is that the differences in group level averages are the result of genetics. All research linking intelligence to genes is based upon within group variance, which has no logical implications for the source of between group differences.

Group is a collection of individuals and if it was determined (and it was) that environment is not a factor then no matter how you group your individuals it will remain a non-factor

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are supposed to be able to read before Kindergarten???
I know english is much more difficult to learn to read than russian, but I learned to read/write in school starting at the age of 7.
Maybe Head Start is actually a bad idea.

It's quite common for kids to read before kindergarten. Parents and siblings reading to them while they flip the pages is how they learn.

Words are just more pictures to them. They associate and learn fast. They also learn by watching the right shows at home.

That's not reading, As I said It took 3 mounts I could read anything including unknown words.

How did the horses force you into it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You are supposed to be able to read before Kindergarten???
I know english is much more difficult to learn to read than russian, but I learned to read/write in school starting at the age of 7.
Maybe Head Start is actually a bad idea.

It's quite common for kids to read before kindergarten. Parents and siblings reading to them while they flip the pages is how they learn.

Words are just more pictures to them. They associate and learn fast. They also learn by watching the right shows at home.

That's not reading, As I said It took 3 mounts I could read anything including unknown words.

You've apparently had a very different upbringing that I, my siblings and my own kids encountered.

 

[barbos]

That's not reading, As I said It took 3 mounts I could read anything including unknown words.

How did the horses force you into it?

I feel it's a joke but I don't get it. All I am saying is that russian language very easy for kids to learn to read.

 

[barbos]

That's not reading, As I said It took 3 mounts I could read anything including unknown words.

You've apparently had a very different upbringing that I, my siblings and my own kids encountered.

The usual upbringing in Soviet Union at the time..

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

If you are going down this road I would caution you to start at the beginning. First, you have to answer this question.

Is there any scientific basis for the concept of race?

I don't think that there is. At its most basic level, the concept of race is based on skin color. A 2017 study of the DNA determining skin color in Africans found as much genetic diversity in the skin coloring genes as exists in the entire human genome. In other words, either the humans who migrated out of Africa some 65,000 years ago already had all of the genes to produce the various skin colors that we see around the world today or the new genes have been introduced back into Africa since then. But science can tell when new genes entered a population by how many mutations there are and only one skin color gene has been found that entered the African population, probably from the Middle East.

Yes, there have been many migrations out of Africa older than 65,000 years. But none have been found who survived the event that narrowed the entire human population to a few thousand probably in the Rift valley in Africa about 65,000 years ago except, notably, for the Neanderthals who branched off from our ancestors 600,000 years ago, about 300,000 years before the first appearance of homo sapiens. Some of their DNA survives in Europeans and Asians and it shows the same diversity in the genes affecting skin color. This means that the variation in skin color goes back 600,000 years ago in our distant ancestors, long before there were human beings.

Other light skin color genes trace back 900,000 years in our lineage. The conclusion is that ...

The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums show that the old color lines are essentially meaningless, the scientists said. The research “dispels a biological concept of race,” Dr. Tishkoff said.

... according to this Times article about the study Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations.

If there is no scientific basis for the concept of race there can't be a scientific basis for which non-existent race is the most intelligent. I am sorry that I didn't see this thread previously I could have saved a lot of needless discussions.

 

[Trausti]

To say that race doesn’t exist based on skin color says nothing about differences between inbreeding population groups. Differences exist, whether you call it race or not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To say that race doesn’t exist based on skin color says nothing about differences between inbreeding population groups. Differences exist, whether you call it race or not.

What humans aren't inbred?

 

[barbos]

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.

If you are going down this road I would caution you to start at the beginning. First, you have to answer this question.

Is there any scientific basis for the concept of race?

I don't think that there is. At its most basic level, the concept of race is based on skin color. A 2017 study of the DNA determining skin color in Africans found as much genetic diversity in the skin coloring genes as exists in the entire human genome. In other words, either the humans who migrated out of Africa some 65,000 years ago already had all of the genes to produce the various skin colors that we see around the world today or the new genes have been introduced back into Africa since then. But science can tell when new genes entered a population by how many mutations there are and only one skin color gene has been found that entered the African population, probably from the Middle East.

Yes, there have been many migrations out of Africa older than 65,000 years. But none have been found who survived the event that narrowed the entire human population to a few thousand probably in the Rift valley in Africa about 65,000 years ago except, notably, for the Neanderthals who branched off from our ancestors 600,000 years ago, about 300,000 years before the first appearance of homo sapiens. Some of their DNA survives in Europeans and Asians and it shows the same diversity in the genes affecting skin color. This means that the variation in skin color goes back 600,000 years ago in our distant ancestors, long before there were human beings.

Other light skin color genes trace back 900,000 years in our lineage. The conclusion is that ...

The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums show that the old color lines are essentially meaningless, the scientists said. The research “dispels a biological concept of race,” Dr. Tishkoff said.

... according to this Times article about the study Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations.

If there is no scientific basis for the concept of race there can't be a scientific basis for which non-existent race is the most intelligent. I am sorry that I didn't see this thread previously I could have saved a lot of needless discussions.

Concept of race is not based on skin color, so all this rant was for noting

 

[ronburgundy]

That's quite a claim.

No, it is the scientific reality. What is "quite a claim" with zero scientific support is that the differences in group level averages are the result of genetics. All research linking intelligence to genes is based upon within group variance, which has no logical implications for the source of between group differences.

Group is a collection of individuals and if it was determined (and it was) that environment is not a factor then no matter how you group your individuals it will remain a non-factor

There is no scientific evidence showing that environment is not a factor contributing to variability in IQ. In fact, the evidence shows that environment definitely is a factor, since genes fail to correlate with about 20%-40% of the variance in IQ. And, even the variance that does correlate with genes likely includes mediating causal roles of the environment. This, is why the size of the correlation is rather small at young ages and increases with age and experience. A plausible account of this is that genes that code for things unrelated to cognition (e.g., skin color) lead people to either seek out or have different experiences imposed upon them (e.g., racism), and those experiences in turn causally shape intellectual development.

IOW, not only is some individual variance completely independent from genes, but a sizable portion of the variance related to genes is actually caused by environmental factors that enhance genetic effects or allow genes unrelated to intellect to have an indirect influence.

That role of environment is more than enough to be able to give rise to any group level differences without genes that actually code for aspects of intellect playing any role in those group differences.

 

[ronburgundy]

To say that race doesn’t exist based on skin color says nothing about differences between inbreeding population groups. Differences exist, whether you call it race or not.

But if the differences in IQ that exist are tied to skin color, which is only partially and not reliably tied to genetic clustering of human subgroups, then the differences in IQ between people categorized by skin color (which is mostly what all such data is) cannot be assumed to reflect any differences between actual genetic subgroups beyond what is incidental due to the overlap of those groups with socially defined "race".

Concept of race is not based on skin color, so all this rant was for noting

The concept of race used in all data showing racial differences in IQ is largely based on skin color and colloquial/social racial categories that do not reliably map onto to actual genetic clusters of people.