Movement for Black Lives releases its agenda

[Trausti]

What crops and other food sources are available has a lot to do with what directions any society can take.

Far more important that this imaginary construct called "IQ".

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470953768&sr=1-1

Chapter 5: Geographical differences in the onset of food production.

Explain Iceland. Or Singapore. Or South Korea. Or Hong Kong.

In what year?

Have you read the book?

Have you ever read a book?

No need for insults, unter. I've got the book. I've read the book. (So many years ago.) And Diamond takes great pains to avoid referencing human biodiversity to explain why some societies succeeded while others didn't.

 

[untermensche]

In what year?

Have you read the book?

Have you ever read a book?

No need for insults, unter. I've got the book. I've read the book. (So many years ago.) And Diamond takes great pains to avoid referencing human biodiversity to explain why some societies succeeded while others didn't.

In some cases insults are earned.

If you had read the book you would know your question was ignorant.

The book is about why human power divided the way it did. Why Africa did not become as powerful as Europe. It was all pure chance. Available crops and available livestock that could be domesticated.

This is how humans divided.

Not because of this imaginary concept "IQ".

It is ignorance to think that any human rose to power because they could do well on an IQ test.

People rise to power based on traits that can't be measured.

IQ scores and the ability to lead and persuade real humans do not go hand in hand.

 

[Trausti]

No need for insults, unter. I've got the book. I've read the book. (So many years ago.) And Diamond takes great pains to avoid referencing human biodiversity to explain why some societies succeeded while others didn't.

In some cases insults are earned.

If you had read the book you would know your question was ignorant.

The book is about why human power divided the way it did. Why Africa did not become as powerful as Europe. It was all pure chance. Available crops and available livestock that could be domesticated.

This is how humans divided.

Not because of this imaginary concept "IQ".

It is ignorance to think that any human rose to power because they could do well on an IQ test.

People rise to power based on traits that can't be measured.

IQ scores and the ability to lead and persuade real humans do not go hand in hand.

Unter, if IQ were an "imaginary concept," then we should see in the rankings of high GDP countries some countries with low average IQ. We should also see in the rankings of low GDP countries some countries with high average IQ. But that's not reality.

 

[untermensche]

In some cases insults are earned.

If you had read the book you would know your question was ignorant.

The book is about why human power divided the way it did. Why Africa did not become as powerful as Europe. It was all pure chance. Available crops and available livestock that could be domesticated.

This is how humans divided.

Not because of this imaginary concept "IQ".

It is ignorance to think that any human rose to power because they could do well on an IQ test.

People rise to power based on traits that can't be measured.

IQ scores and the ability to lead and persuade real humans do not go hand in hand.

Unter, if IQ were an "imaginary concept," then we should see in the rankings of high GDP countries some countries with low average IQ. We should also see in the rankings of low GDP countries some countries with high average IQ. But that's not reality.

Every country is filled with people who score low on an IQ test and people who score high.

A person with a high IQ score can have children with low IQ scores.

A person with a low IQ score can have children with high IQ scores.

This tells you it is a randomly occurring trait.

Higher or lower relative averages are about environment, not genes. About the ability of genes to express themselves. Not about their presence.

If you think some white person has superior genes to a black person tell me which genes.

Until you can do that any talk of genes is just an expression of prejudice.

 

[blastula]

Unter, if IQ were an "imaginary concept," then we should see in the rankings of high GDP countries some countries with low average IQ. We should also see in the rankings of low GDP countries some countries with high average IQ. But that's not reality.

Not if you're only really measuring environment.

 

[untermensche]

Unter, if IQ were an "imaginary concept," then we should see in the rankings of high GDP countries some countries with low average IQ. We should also see in the rankings of low GDP countries some countries with high average IQ. But that's not reality.

Not if you're only really measuring environment.

There is no study that removes environment as a contributing factor. None that can. Unless you want to isolate people from birth.

A black child adopted by rich white parents is still a black person living in a society where great prejudice exists against black people. They have a family identity, AND an individual identity.

If black children are not fully expressing their human genes this is an indication society is disrupting them in some way.

Not a sign they have some special different genes.

 

[Trausti]

Not if you're only really measuring environment.

There is no study that removes environment as a contributing factor. None that can. Unless you want to isolate people from birth.

A black child adopted by rich white parents is still a black person living in a society where great prejudice exists against black people. They have a family identity, AND an individual identity.

If black children are not fully expressing their human genes this is an indication society is disrupting them in some way.

Not a sign they have some special different genes.

Wut?

 

[untermensche]

There is no study that removes environment as a contributing factor. None that can. Unless you want to isolate people from birth.

A black child adopted by rich white parents is still a black person living in a society where great prejudice exists against black people. They have a family identity, AND an individual identity.

If black children are not fully expressing their human genes this is an indication society is disrupting them in some way.

Not a sign they have some special different genes.

Wut?

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[Trausti]

Wut?

Cognitive dissonance.

Unter, if you've discovered a way to prevent human gene expression, other than by a Petri dish, then you'd better publish that. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

 

[untermensche]

Cognitive dissonance.

Unter, if you've discovered a way to prevent human gene expression, other than by a Petri dish, then you'd better publish that. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I can prevent the expression of genes that create the visual system by preventing stimulation of the eyes in early life. Prevent stimulation of the eyes for a certain time in early life and the animal will never see no matter what stimulation they receive at a later time.

This has been demonstrated in cats.

Expression depends on environment.

 

[Trausti]

Unter, if you've discovered a way to prevent human gene expression, other than by a Petri dish, then you'd better publish that. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I can prevent the expression of genes that create the visual system by preventing stimulation of the eyes in early life. Prevent stimulation of the eyes for a certain time in early life and the animal will never see no matter what stimulation they receive at a later time.

This has been demonstrated in cats.

Expression depends on environment.

No.

 

[untermensche]

I can prevent the expression of genes that create the visual system by preventing stimulation of the eyes in early life. Prevent stimulation of the eyes for a certain time in early life and the animal will never see no matter what stimulation they receive at a later time.

This has been demonstrated in cats.

Expression depends on environment.

No.

You think you can just ignore clear evidence?

How genes express depends on the stimulation experienced by the animal.

This is clear with language.

Expose a very young human, any young human, to two languages and they will become fluent in two languages. Expose them to three sufficiently and they will become fluent in three.

Expose them to one and they will only be fluent in one. And after a certain point they cannot achieve true fluency in two no matter the exposure and practice.

Experience determines how the language capacity will express itself.

Just as exposure to certain ideas and vocabulary at home will have an effect. Just as parental expectations and training will have an effect.

To claim it is genes that are the main contributor to "intelligence" requires knowing what specific genes contribute to "intelligence" and specifically how they do it.

Please name the specific genes responsible for "intelligence" and how they are responsible?

Anything less is hand waving and hoping.

Most of these racists that talk about genes don't have the slightest clue what genes do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I must disagree--the genes that leave and end up in another country are almost never truly random. This is because the decision to relocate is not random--people who are more confident of their abilities are more willing to take a chance on moving to another place where they have little (it's not uncommon for such relocations to involve a romantic partner) or no support system around them. Emigrants are on average superior to the population from which they come. (And note the corollary--populations which suffer heavy emigration tend to be left with the dregs.)

(Note that slavery is the opposite situation--those being transported as slaves were generally on the losing side of a conflict. Still not random but a smaller effect.)

Decisions to leave are arrived at randomly.

They involve random circumstances. And those that actually make it to the US make it here due to random events.

It is absurd to claim that only high IQ people leave or only high IQ people arrive. It doesn't take a high IQ to know you are unhappy.

The issue isn't whether you know you're unhappy, but whether you are willing to move away from everything you know, everybody or almost everybody to turn to. Since I'm married to an immigrant I'll use some of what she went through: There was a period of ~6 years where her only communication with her family was by letter and then another few years where voice communication with her parents was an occasional luxury. She didn't see her parents for ~10 years and it was nearly 15 until she saw her siblings. Lose your job and move back in with your parents temporarily? In the first years that would have been permanent (and difficult--tickets were expensive and her parents would not have been able to send money), after that it wouldn't have even been possible. Not to mention the years it took her to learn enough English to get by in society.

- - - Updated - - -

No. I'm not going to bother with Photoshop to fix it but the last frame should have labels

"Rich" and "Poor".

- - - Updated - - -



There's no question that blacks used to be treated very unfairly. You think slavery is fair?!?!

Slavery saved them from savagery. Unfairness has nothing to do with unequal treatment; it's all about equal people being treated unequally. So if superior players get paid more, there is nothing unfair about that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Magic Dirt vs. Tragic Dirt.

What crops and other food sources are available has a lot to do with what directions any society can take.

Far more important that this imaginary construct called "IQ".

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470953768&sr=1-1

Chapter 5: Geographical differences in the onset of food production.

And an interesting one he missed in that book:

Those that lived on grain developed far more advanced governments than those who lived on tubers. The thing is tubers don't store well, you can't really tax them much and thus you can't afford a bigger government.

Much as you don't like bosses this is a clear indication they are needed--tuber societies didn't progress as much as grain societies even though tubers can be just as good food.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What crops and other food sources are available has a lot to do with what directions any society can take.

Far more important that this imaginary construct called "IQ".

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470953768&sr=1-1

Chapter 5: Geographical differences in the onset of food production.

Explain Iceland. Or Singapore. Or South Korea. Or Hong Kong.

What he's talking about goes a long way to explaining why the western nations ended up at the top of the heap--but the coming of reasonably easy world transit ended the agricultural factors (but not the disease ones that are a big problem is the tropical locations). Singapore and South Korea had governments reasonable enough to see what was needed and jump on it. (And you missed Taiwan and Japan.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unter, if IQ were an "imaginary concept," then we should see in the rankings of high GDP countries some countries with low average IQ. We should also see in the rankings of low GDP countries some countries with high average IQ. But that's not reality.

Unless IQ was a measure of industrialized-society thinking.

(And to some extent it actually is--because the IQ tests have questions framed by people who live in a society where reasoning about exact values is important. Consider an Einstein living in a tropical jungle--he has a very limited ability to measure, he's not going to have much practice thinking in such ways. His world is more about finding innovative uses for the things in his environment.)

- - - Updated - - -

Every country is filled with people who score low on an IQ test and people who score high.

A person with a high IQ score can have children with low IQ scores.

A person with a low IQ score can have children with high IQ scores.

This tells you it is a randomly occurring trait.

No. If it were random identical twins reared apart would show little correlation of intelligence. There would not be an intelligence difference between biological and adopted children, either.

- - - Updated - - -

If black children are not fully expressing their human genes this is an indication society is disrupting them in some way.

And have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unter, if you've discovered a way to prevent human gene expression, other than by a Petri dish, then you'd better publish that. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I can prevent the expression of genes that create the visual system by preventing stimulation of the eyes in early life. Prevent stimulation of the eyes for a certain time in early life and the animal will never see no matter what stimulation they receive at a later time.

This has been demonstrated in cats.

Expression depends on environment.

1) You're somewhat off target here. This isn't a matter of genetic expression, but rather a matter of skills which must be developed at certain times.

2) There is an effect like this on children--inadequate mental stimulation while young has lasting effects. You don't get to blame the schools, though--the damage is done by then. (There may be other developmental effects but I'm not aware of anything else having been isolated--it's not something you can morally research.)

 

[ApostateAbe]

What crops and other food sources are available has a lot to do with what directions any society can take.

Far more important that this imaginary construct called "IQ".

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470953768&sr=1-1

Chapter 5: Geographical differences in the onset of food production.

Explain Iceland. Or Singapore. Or South Korea. Or Hong Kong.

In what year?

Have you read the book?

Have you ever read a book?

No need for insults, unter. I've got the book. I've read the book. (So many years ago.) And Diamond takes great pains to avoid referencing human biodiversity to explain why some societies succeeded while others didn't.

The "Germs" part of the theory actually requires genetic human racial differences. Jared Diamond took flack for that from the puritan Marxists. For that and other offenses, they called the theory, "environmental determinism" or "geographic determinism."

 

[ApostateAbe]

Unter, if IQ were an "imaginary concept," then we should see in the rankings of high GDP countries some countries with low average IQ. We should also see in the rankings of low GDP countries some countries with high average IQ. But that's not reality.

Every country is filled with people who score low on an IQ test and people who score high.

A person with a high IQ score can have children with low IQ scores.

A person with a low IQ score can have children with high IQ scores.

This tells you it is a randomly occurring trait.

Higher or lower relative averages are about environment, not genes. About the ability of genes to express themselves. Not about their presence.

A useful way to think about racial intelligence differences is much like racial height differences. The heritability of height is 0.9, a little greater than the heritability of IQ, 0.7, both quantified with twin studies, and the principles are roughly the same. We take it for granted as obvious I hope that racial height differences are due to genetics, though I have met some resistance with that claim, as sometimes it is claimed that East Asians are shorter than White Europeans because of all the rice that Asians eat. If that is what you believe, then stop me right now so I can strike my head against solid immutable obstructions. For now I will tentatively assume that you are reasonable, and I offer the following points:

• The high heritability of height does not mean that a tall parent can not produce a short child, as all it takes is either a shorter mate, a key genetic mutation, or a drastic environmental effect. It does not follow that height is random. Any h² less than 1.0 is not random. Randomness requires approximately h² = 0.0.
• If racial height differences are mostly due to genetics, there is still a wide distribution of height differences within every race, from tall to short. The difference in average is what counts. Yao Ming does not make the racial height differences non-existent.

If you think some white person has superior genes to a black person tell me which genes.

Until you can do that any talk of genes is just an expression of prejudice.

The discoveries are only beginning, but a significant portion of them have already been verifiably discovered. See the CV of Davide Piffer, whose publishing career is analyzing the racial differences in frequency for each allele that codes for within-group IQ differences. Not that the racial hereditarian conclusions should depend on such molecular genetics. The indirect arguments are strong: the background fundamentals of genetics and IQ, the Jensen effect, the global racial hierarchy within multiracial nations, the racial brain size hierarchy matching the racial IQ hierarchy, the transracial adoption study, the extremely strong negative correlation between skin color and IQ, the mixed-race intermediacy of IQ, the replicability failure of each environmentalist hypothesis: racial hereditarian theory really does have an uncomfortably strong scientific advantage from the outset. I think we should accept it and use it for liberal ends, not let the white nationalists like The Sage of Main Street lay exclusive claim to it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

As a tangent, I created a poll about the cause of racial height differences here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?9001-racial-height-differences-poll&p=321412