Why Race-Realism is Pseudoscience

[Mikemikev]

Have you run out of arguments already? We're only on the 8th page.

You racists usually keep these debates going until at least page 20.

I addressed your arguments. And you are repeating the same arguments. The debate is over.

 

[Mikemikev]

Literacy is not a priority for you, is it?

Your nonsense aside, here's the basic point for OTHER posters who actually are interested in the topic.

Genes are not -- as often falsely and popularly misrepresented -- analogous to a blueprint for the human body. They're more like a recipe. The same DNA can be expressed in strikingly different ways based upon environmental influences as well as the actions of the individual (a twin who hits the gym every day will have a dramatically different form than his counterpart who does not).

Genes can and do code for differing levels of presence of biochemicals, receptors, inhibitors, etc....and then -- after what is often a staggeringly complex interplay of many causal forces -- we end up with discernible phenotypes. Imagined traits like "criminality" are not and indeed cannot be genetically coded for because someone's criminality is -- literally -- determined by human-created laws, not biology. So too with things like thrill-seeking. One may find a deeply contingent and qualified linkage between certain genes and an "adrenaline junkie" reaction to high-risk or very physically exciting activities (skydiving, contact martial arts, etc.), but there is absolutely NO SUCH THING as a "skydiving" gene. The addiction to adrenaline rushes some daredevil types seem to exhibit would, in different contexts, find very different articulation.

So can one find and make a case for genetic linkages to biochemical processes indirectly tied to specific activities? Sure.

Can one reasonably identify those specific activities as genetic? Absolutely not. Genes don't have any kind of conceptual or reflective capacity. So we may have genes for biochemical effects associated with the rush of risky behaviors (or conversely, with risk aversion), but we do NOT have genes specifically for such ridiculous notions as biological criminality, or (for that matter) for speaking German, or for preferring (specifically) strawberry ice cream over chocolate. We MAY, however, have genes for things like predisposition towards or away from the cognitive connections more vs. less conducive to learning and speaking languages of a structure similar to German (based upon the generalized patterns, not the specific language), or genes for predisposing us to positive responses to chemicals which happen to be in strawberries (or other foods), but not strawberries specifically.

The notion of genetic criminality is thus as absurd as arguing that someone has "a genetic proclivity towards reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while facing north on odd-numbered Tuesdays."

No you are wrong. Heritability is determined on a case by case basis. Of course we do not have a strong genetic predisposition to speaking German. Does this mean we cannot have a genetic predisposition to violence? Of course not. Your knowledge of the field of behaviour genetics is very poor.

 

[cmakaioz]

No you are wrong. Heritability is determined on a case by case basis. Of course we do not have a strong genetic predisposition to speaking German. Does this mean we cannot have a genetic predisposition to violence? Of course not. Your knowledge of the field of behaviour genetics is very poor.

You just declared me wrong...and then made no statements which contradict anything I've written. Let's look at each of them, piece by piece:

Heritability is determined on a case by case basis.

Actually, it depends. There are classes of traits which can be ruled OUT of being genetic without examination because they are obviously learned (i.e. speaking a specific language). You yourself acknowledge this much:

Of course we do not have a strong genetic predisposition to speaking German.

German is a specific, historically contingent instance of a larger generalized human capacity (language acquisition). So (as mentioned already), one may make a case for genetic influence upon the general capacities behind language acquisition, but not for German, specifically.

Does this mean we cannot have a genetic predisposition to violence?

Silly me...I made no claims regarding genetic predisposition to violence...since I was contesting the assertion of genetic predisposition to CRIMINALITY, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS VIOLENCE. The exact same kind of violence, committed by people in different institutional roles, may be criminal or not criminal. Kindly make some attempt to keep track of your own claims.

Of course not.

Seeing as I had not made any claims about genetic predisposition to violence, you're tilting at windmills/strawmanning.

Your knowledge of the field of behaviour genetics is very poor.

The level of my knowledge of behavioral genetics is irrelevant, because what is at hand here is a far more basic matter of logic. Genes can't code for criminality because criminality is not a biological or chemical issue in the first place. Crime is literally created or dissolved through law. The same action, taken in different contexts or by different people, may be regarded as criminal -- or not -- according to law, not biology. Furthermore, genes can't code for anything so contingent and specific as learned behaviors in the first place (legal OR criminal). We don't need to both with arcane cases within the field of behavioral genetics, when even a cursory glance at how genes operate demonstrates no mechanism capable of doing what genes would need to be able to do in order to code for something like criminality.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I addressed your arguments. And you are repeating the same arguments. The debate is over.

I addressed your arguments and you have no rebuttal. I believe the debate ended some time ago.

No you are wrong. Heritability is determined on a case by case basis. Of course we do not have a strong genetic predisposition to speaking German. Does this mean we cannot have a genetic predisposition to violence? Of course not. Your knowledge of the field of behaviour genetics is very poor.

You could have a stronger or weaker genetic tendency towards aggression. That is a natural behavioral instinct.

It's a stretch however to say that someone is more naturally aggressive therefore they are more likely to buy a gun and kill someone with it because they are acting on some primal instinct. Complex decisions like that are not mediated by genes.

 

[Mikemikev]

It's a stretch however to say that someone is more naturally aggressive therefore they are more likely to buy a gun and kill someone with it because they are acting on some primal instinct. Complex decisions like that are not mediated by genes.

Of course they are you ignoramus.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Of course they are you ignoramus.

No they are not. There are no genes that direct someone to think,

"I really hate this guy! I'm going to get back at him by shooting him with a gun!"

If you were capable of using common sense you would understand that. Getting a lethal weapon and committing premeditated murder is a conscious decision which involves a lot of variables most of which have nothing to do with genetics. I know how you racists think. You have this infantile perception of human nature that leads you to believe that human behavior is primarily regulated by impulses and impulse control. To you the probability of someone committing first degree murder is parallel to the probability of being mauled by a dog. If you walk up to a neighbor's dog and slap him in the face really hard several times eventually he is going to retaliate by biting you. The level of aggression he puts in to his decision to bite depends on his level of impulse control and potential for aggression. A rottweiler will probably maul you to death after one hard slap in the face. A golden retriever might growl at you and give you a warning bark before eventually biting you for the same offense. The tendency of a dog to bite a person or another animal trying to harm it is a natural instinct. The biting is a reaction that has been programmed into the dog's brain through generations of its ancestors conducting the same behavior,

Dog Brain: When something attacks you bite it to defend yourself

In the same way if you hit a person in the face some people will react differently depending on their level of restraint. But the biggest difference between the dog's decisions and a human's decisions is our ability to think creatively in order to conduct learned behavior.

There's a big difference between someone hitting you in the face and you deciding to hit them back because they made you angry and you deciding that you are going to get a gun and shoot them the next time you see them.

Human Brain: Get a gun and shoot the person who hit you for revenge

This behavior depends on a series of variables including your personal and cultural upbringing. If you are raised in a culture where people are more likely to use guns for conflict resolution like the example above and you have access to a gun you may go out and shoot someone. If you weren't raised in such a culture you might not even think to do such a thing. Whichever culture you are raised in your genes are going to be the same. Your behavior could be radically different depending on your environment and the situation you are in.

A guy currently on death row for murder could have been a family man with a six figure salary level job if he was raised in the right neighborhood and attended the right schools as well as had the right support at home. His genetics did not determine at his conception that he was going to end up in prison on death row for murder. His life choices led him to that path and his upbringing probably played a huge role in why he made those decisions. The fact that he made that decision is not an indicator that he was more genetically predisposed to making that decision. Even though it is evident that behavior is linked to personality traits which are mediated by genes complex behaviors themselves are not mediated by genes. Crime statistics are not valid evidence of genetic differences in personality traits because crime itself is socially defined and decisions to commit crimes are greatly impacted by environmental variables.

 

[Mikemikev]

Of course complex behaviours are mediated by genes. In your gun example, somebody with a genetic predisposition to greater anger would be more likely to shoot someone. QED. Why are you denying that and calling it "infantile" and "racist". It is self-evidently true. Do you even understand what a gene is? A gene is a piece of DNA that relative to its alleles increases the probability of a trait emerging.

Here are heritability estimates from various studies for the big 5 personality traits:

Summary
of
Literature
Extraversion .53 .49 .57 .56 .54 .49 .54
Agreeableness .41 .33 .51 .42 .42 .35 .52
Conscientiousness .44 .48 .52 .53 .49 .38 .40
Neuroticism .41 .42 .58 .52 .48 .41 .58
Openness .61 .58 .56 .53 .57 .45 .52

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences

Now according to you they have no effect on "complex behaviours". Why not? You simply assert that but it's transparently ridiculous. Don't you see that so called complex behaviours are just an amalgamation of simple behaviours? Look up the big 5 personality traits. All of psychology disagrees with you. You are wrong. Again.

There are a whole range of complex behaviours believed to be heritable.

Twin studies of religious affiliation (e.g., Christian, Jewish, Muslim) have shown that variance in this trait is nearly completely environmental in origin, thus demonstrating that model-fitting is not intrinsically biased and can indeed show no genetic effects when that is the case (Eaves et al., 1990). Alternatively, frequency of church attendance, an aspect of religiousness, appears to be genetically influenced. Using the Virginia 30,000 sample (Americans representing 80 distinct kinship pairings), Maes et al. (1999) reported that 25 to 42% of the variance (depending on sex) in religious attendance was heritable, while 14 to 34% of the variance was associated with shared environmental effects.

Your views are not new but would stand up better in this era.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I did not say that genes have no impact on complex social behavior. What I'm saying is that humans have the ability to make complex decisions and as such their complex behavior is not dependent on their heritable personality traits. Personality can impact probability of behaving a certain way in certain situations but as humans are a species that develops creative behavioral patterns by learning how to behave rather than acting on instincts their environmental upbringing has a profound impact on the development of their personality to the extent that you can't assume differences in complex social behavior between groups living in very different environments are the product of major genetic differences in the inheritance of personality traits.

The closer the environment is the more observable differences in complex behavior may be impacted by personality but the more different the environment is the less dependable assumptions of genetic differences in personality traits between groups becomes. As I have said before this is a basic principle of quantitative genetics which you don't seem to understand. The hypothesis of genetic causality no matter whether we are talking partial or absolute for differences in phenotype is not testable if the genotypes of different organisms are placed in significantly different environments.

You must equalize environment to conduct any experiment that can credibly test your hypothesis of differences in phenotype being caused by differences in genotype.

That's why crime statistics for populations whose cultural environment is not equal is not a useful method of measuring genetic differences in heritable personality traits between the two populations. If you took two identical twins and placed them in radically different environments you will probably end up with two people with significantly different lifestyles even though they have the same genetic potential which equally impacts their intellectual potential and personality traits.

If the Nil Hypothesis is correct we should see gradual reduction in the IQ gap and Socio-Economic variables that impact major lifestyle trends between Black and White Americans as the difference in cultural environment, including education and family quality, is reduced. That is exactly what we are seeing.

It is often asserted that Black Americans have made no IQ gains on White Americans. Until recently, there have been no adequate data to measure trends in Black IQ. We analyzed data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These data suggest that Blacks gained 4 to 7 IQ points on non-Hispanic Whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of Black cognitive ability.

Source: Dickens, W.T. & Flynn, J.R. (2006) Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: evidence from standardization samples. Psychological Science 17:913-920

 

[Mikemikev]

I did not say that genes have no impact on complex social behavior.

You did say exactly that.

What I'm saying is that humans have the ability to make complex decisions and as such their complex behavior is not dependent on their heritable personality traits.

Yes, that's what you said. :roll:

Personality can impact probability of behaving a certain way in certain situations but as humans are a species that develops creative behavioral patterns by learning how to behave rather than acting on instincts their environmental upbringing has a profound impact on the development of their personality to the extent that you can't assume differences in complex social behavior between groups living in very different environments are the product of major genetic differences in the inheritance of personality traits.

The closer the environment is the more observable differences in complex behavior may be impacted by personality but the more different the environment is the less dependable assumptions of genetic differences in personality traits between groups becomes. As I have said before this is a basic principle of quantitative genetics which you don't seem to understand. The hypothesis of genetic causality no matter whether we are talking partial or absolute for differences in phenotype is not testable if the genotypes of different organisms are placed in significantly different environments.

You must equalize environment to conduct any experiment that can credibly test your hypothesis of differences in phenotype being caused by differences in genotype.

That's why crime statistics for populations whose cultural environment is not equal is not a useful method of measuring genetic differences in heritable personality traits between the two populations. If you took two identical twins and placed them in radically different environments you will probably end up with two people with significantly different lifestyles even though they have the same genetic potential which equally impacts their intellectual potential and personality traits.

If the Nil Hypothesis is correct we should see gradual reduction in the IQ gap and Socio-Economic variables that impact major lifestyle trends between Black and White Americans as the difference in cultural environment, including education and family quality, is reduced. That is exactly what we are seeing.

Well that's why you investigate fraternal twins at the same time. If it's all environment the fraternal and genetic twins should match. If it's genetic the genetic twins will correlate despite disparate environments. This is behaviour genetics 101. Twin studies are designed to control for disparate environments.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

You did say exactly that.

No. This is what I said:

Even though it is evident that behavior is linked to personality traits which are mediated by genes complex behaviors themselves are not mediated by genes. Crime statistics are not valid evidence of genetic differences in personality traits because crime itself is socially defined and decisions to commit crimes are greatly impacted by environmental variables.

Well that's why you investigate fraternal twins at the same time. If it's all environment the fraternal and genetic twins should match. If it's genetic the genetic twins will correlate despite disparate environments. This is behaviour genetics 101. Twin studies are designed to control for disparate environments.

Twin studies are reliable for making heritability estimates for a given trait because you can presume a commonality in genetic potential depending on the degree of relatedness. However just because two genotypes are different doesn't mean that they don't possess the same genetic potential.

I recall Cmakaioz mentioning two identical twins having very different body builds if one goes to the gym to work out everyday and the other does not. They have the same genetic potential to have a certain physique but if one puts his body through the conditioning to achieve it and the other does not
the are going to end up with different body types (phenotypes) despite being genetically identical (genotype).

Now suppose you have two different people who are not closely related at all. They have two unique genotypes. What happens if they go work out at the gym? Will they achieve the same results? They very well could if they have the same genetic potential. If they don't then no matter how equal the environment one is going to be greater than the other. But if the environment is never equal you're never going to get a fair comparison. Person A could have greater genetic potential to get in shape than Person B but Person B could go to a better gym and be more committed to working out than Person A thus getting better results. This is quantitative genetics 101.

We know that there is geographically based genetic variation between populations such as Europeans, Africans and Asians. We know that genes play a role in intellectual performance and personality and that variance in gene frequency leads to differences in intellectual potential and personality among individuals. However just because there is variance between populations and variance in how some genes are expressed that effect mental traits on an individual level doesn't mean that genetic variance between populations accounts for mental differences between those populations. Racialists assume between group heritability for mental traits to be significant for races without a valid biological rationale to do so or credible experiments that show that their position is correct.

And that is the point I made in the opening post.

 

[Mikemikev]

No. This is what I said:

Even though it is evident that behavior is linked to personality traits which are mediated by genes complex behaviors themselves are not mediated by genes.

their complex behavior is not dependent on their heritable personality traits.

I think the problem here is that you don't understand the meanings of the words you are using. If genes impact behaviour, then behaviour is dependent on genes. Not necessarily determined by genes. And if genes have any effect in the causal pathway of a behaviour, the behaviour is mediated by genes. "Mediate" in the technical statistical sense doesn't mean "proximal cause". Genes are said to mediate all kinds of things, but they do this through providing a pattern for synthesizing protein. The genes themselves are rarely the proximal cause, they are part of an early stage in a causal pathway in involving many stages. Simple behaviours and complex behaviours (the distinction is largely your irrelevant creation) are both mediated by genes. Neither has genes as the proximal cause.

Twin studies are reliable for making heritability estimates for a given trait because you can presume a commonality in genetic potential depending on the degree of relatedness. However just because two genotypes are different doesn't mean that they don't possess the same genetic potential.

I recall Cmakaioz mentioning two identical twins having very different body builds if one goes to the gym to work out everyday and the other does not. They have the same genetic potential to have a certain physique but if one puts his body through the conditioning to achieve it and the other does not
the are going to end up with different body types (phenotypes) despite being genetically identical (genotype).

Now suppose you have two different people who are not closely related at all. They have two unique genotypes. What happens if they go work out at the gym? Will they achieve the same results? They very well could if they have the same genetic potential. If they don't then no matter how equal the environment one is going to be greater than the other. But if the environment is never equal you're never going to get a fair comparison. Person A could have greater genetic potential to get in shape than Person B but Person B could go to a better gym and be more committed to working out than Person A thus getting better results. This is quantitative genetics 101.

We know that there is geographically based genetic variation between populations such as Europeans, Africans and Asians. We know that genes play a role in intellectual performance and personality and that variance in gene frequency leads to differences in intellectual potential and personality among individuals. However just because there is variance between populations and variance in how some genes are expressed that effect mental traits on an individual level doesn't mean that genetic variance between populations accounts for mental differences between those populations. Racialists assume between group heritability for mental traits to be significant for races without a valid biological rationale to do so or credible experiments that show that their position is correct.

And that is the point I made in the opening post.

OK. let's summarize.

1) "Race does not exist": check.
2) "Genes do not affect complex behaviour": check.

Now we come to the mysterious "factor x" that blights negro intelligence. Firstly, genetics is the most parsimonious explanation for the consistent pattern we see in different environments. "Discrimination" would be the other possibility, but in fact it does not account for the fact that "discrimination" has clearly varied greatly from country to country, where we see the same pattern, and does not fit with the observation that IQ is not highly plastic. Genetics is the best explanation. And then discrimination is a secondary effect, not a cause.

Of course what you want is a mathematical proof that the difference is genetic.

For example, the assumption that twin resemblance due to common environmental effects is the same for MZ and DZ pairs is often made. Although some of these assumptions can and have been tested empirically [8,9], the use of twin data to estimate heritability, in particular for traits such as cognitive function, has been controversial [10].

Until now, it has been impossible to exclude a possible confounding between genetic and non-genetic causes of family resemblance. We propose an alternative approach to estimate genetic variance that is based upon the observed proportion of the genome that is shared by relatives and does not make any assumptions about the variation between families.

Source.

Our estimates are based upon realized relationships between very distant relatives and not on pedigree relationships between close relatives. This breaks up a possible correlation (confounding) between genetic and environmental factors, since the variation in realized relationships given pedigree relations is large for distant relatives. Our estimates of the phenotypic variance explained by all SNPs are ~0.4–0.5, and we therefore conclude that the narrow-sense heritability for human intelligence is large and consistent with the inference from twin and family studies.

[...]

In summary, we report the first study to show that a large proportion of the heritability estimate of intelligence in middle to older adulthood can be traced to biological variation using SNP data. It is the first to show biologically and unequivocally that human intelligence is highly polygenic and that purely genetic (SNP) information can be used to predict intelligence.

Source.

So there you go. Any questions?

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Of course what you want is a mathematical proof that the difference is genetic.

To prove your claim is valid you would need to test the hypothesis. You haven't presented any sources that have conducted credible experiments that validate your assertion.

 

[cmakaioz]

To prove your claim is valid you would need to test the hypothesis. You haven't presented any sources that have conducted credible experiments that validate your assertion.

And since he (and other racists) would need a time machine, a pocket universe, tens of thousands of years, dictatorial political power, and/or mind control powers in order to simultaneously set up the extreme conditions needed to isolate the (imagined) variable under study, there's not exactly a need to hold one's breath.

 

[Mikemikev]

And since he (and other racists) would need a time machine, a pocket universe, tens of thousands of years, dictatorial political power, and/or mind control powers in order to simultaneously set up the extreme conditions needed to isolate the (imagined) variable under study, there's not exactly a need to hold one's breath.

So you agree that it is unproven that races have equal intelligence. Therefore, how can I be a racist? It is a lie.

And your idea of the necessary experiment is wrong. You say there is an "imagined" variable, and yet you postulate this same variable to explain the race IQ difference. How do whites "discriminate" if the condition of negritude is "imaginary"? :roll: The double-think of the left knows no boundaries.

The correct experiment involves DNA ancestry tests combined with visual ancestry estimates and seeing which one IQ correlates most closely to. That could be done anytime now.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

The correct experiment involves DNA ancestry tests combined with visual ancestry estimates and seeing which one IQ correlates most closely to. That could be done anytime now.

So why aren't racialists conducting that experiment?

The problem with that experiment is that correlation does not equal causation.

How strong of a correlation one way or another would one have to have to conclude that the experiment supported the racial hereditarian hypothesis?

Graves proposed another interesting experiment for the racialists.....

Graves and Place (1995) outline the only true experimental approach that could resolve the psychometricians' dilemma once and for all. They suggest a classical transplant experiment: place Euro-Americans under the conditions that the majority of African Americans have been and are forced to suffer. How would the results of such an experiment affect the measurement of cognitive performance? One can only surmise, but such an experiment would reveal the true nature of the psychometric program. Psychometricians focus their arguments on the implausibility of environmental effects improving cognitive function. This we might readily concede, but it is not even the issue. If a measurable depression in mean African American performance on specific cognitive tests exists, it is undoubtedly the result of the destructive physical and social environments in which the majority of African Americans have been forced to live in the United States over time. Without the elimination of the toxic conditions to which African Americans have been and are exposed, the debate concerning genetic differentials in generalized intelligence is scientifically mean- ingless. Apparently, those who engage in this debate do so only because they have a hidden (but now, revealed) political agenda. That agenda is the continuation of a political economic system that maintains the Euro-American in a position of privilege-thereby maximizing their genetic potential, health, and cognitive performance-and the African American in a position of underdevelopment, thus depressing their genetic potential, health, and cognitive performance. No other conclusion is possible.

Source: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294

Their proposal reminds me of this movie....

 

[Mikemikev]

So why aren't racialists conducting that experiment?

Please refrain from using the term "racialist" which has several loaded and negative meanings. Please use the term "hereditarian" which precisely describes what you are talking about. I don't know why they have not conducted this experiment. They should do.

The problem with that experiment is that correlation does not equal causation.

It does equal causation when you have narrowed down two possible causal variables and correlate to both of them at the same time. We know that mixed individuals get midway IQs right? What could possibly cause that other than genetics or discrimination? And since "half strength" discrimination must be based on appearance, we can see whether IQ correlates closer to apparent ancestry or genetic ancestry. That is a rock solid argument as far as I'm concerned.

How strong of a correlation one way or another would one have to have to conclude that the experiment supported the racial hereditarian hypothesis?

You'll get a number out immediately which will increase in precision as you increase the sample. I don't know how many individuals you would need to test to get a stable result, I'm guessing 100 would be good enough. The result would tell you how much of the gap is genetic or social, it could be 50/50, it could be 0/100, 100/0, it could even be 150/-50 or -50/150 (in the case that blacks are actually more genetically intelligent than whites or that white countries improve black IQ rather than depress it respectively).

 

[cmakaioz]

Jane Elliott's famous blue-eye / brown eye exercise (within one day) actually produced differences in quantitative and qualitative performance among the privileged and targeted groups within her class. The students wearing the collars (marking them as inferior/less-than/other/unintelligent, etc. for having the wrong color eyes) performed all kinds of mundane tasks at a slower rate, with less accuracy, and more frequent disengagement from the assignments at hand.

The most remarkable result, however, was that after the exercise was concluded, the performance of both the (previously) targeted AND the previously privileged students increased beyond their pre-exercise levels after the exercise was concluded.

 

[PrometheusBound]

From the beginning of this whining about unfair treatment, those who were proud of America pointed out that Jews, Irish, Italians, and other ethnics were once treated like hopelessly inferior people here and were able to overcome all that without government force used to end discrimination. In fact, the original settlers of the American colonies had been treated like inferiors in the country they came from, but when given an opportunity to make their own way soon proved that they were even better than the European aristocrats who had despised them for millennia. This whining is really a misdirection done to discredit the American achievement. Those who pose as friends of the racial minorities are really motivated by a disguised desire to put down those who make it on their own. Even the TV show,"The Jeffersons," proves that, while its twin weapon, "All in the Family" puts down a Silent Majority working-class man who is far more valuable to society than the people he criticizes.

 

[Mikemikev]

Jane Elliott's famous blue-eye / brown eye exercise (within one day) actually produced differences in quantitative and qualitative performance among the privileged and targeted groups within her class. The students wearing the collars (marking them as inferior/less-than/other/unintelligent, etc. for having the wrong color eyes) performed all kinds of mundane tasks at a slower rate, with less accuracy, and more frequent disengagement from the assignments at hand.

The most remarkable result, however, was that after the exercise was concluded, the performance of both the (previously) targeted AND the previously privileged students increased beyond their pre-exercise levels after the exercise was concluded.

If it is possible to affect IQ by discrimination, it doesn't necessarily mean it happened in the case of the racial difference. Are black Americans really "transformed – into timid and subservient children, including those who had previously been dominant in the class"? Personally I'm not sure telling a bunch of intelligent kids they are stupid would make them stupid, and I also doubt that black American kids face this level of discrimination today. How does this discrimination theory explain the low IQ of black run nations? And anyway, I have conceded that it may be possible for discrimination to affect IQ, but the consistent pattern across times and places indicates it doesn't very much. The only way to know for sure is to do the experiment.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

From the beginning of this whining about unfair treatment, those who were proud of America pointed out that Jews, Irish, Italians, and other ethnics were once treated like hopelessly inferior people here and were able to overcome all that without government force used to end discrimination.

They assimilated to White privilege.

In fact, the original settlers of the American colonies had been treated like inferiors in the country they came from, but when given an opportunity to make their own way soon proved that they were even better than the European aristocrats who had despised them for millennia.

They got rich off of African slave labor and taking the land of Native Americans by force as well as spreading disease.

This whining is really a misdirection done to discredit the American achievement. Those who pose as friends of the racial minorities are really motivated by a disguised desire to put down those who make it on their own. Even the TV show,"The Jeffersons," proves that, while its twin weapon, "All in the Family" puts down a Silent Majority working-class man who is far more valuable to society than the people he criticizes.

Honest people recognize that racist discrimination have left racial minorities economically disenfranchised and that conditions have gradually gotten better as society treated minorities more fairly. Racists tend to ignore the fact that African-Americans have become much more successful on average in the decades after the civil rights movement.

 

[cmakaioz]

If it is possible to affect IQ by discrimination,

If by IQ you mean performance on IQ tests, then of course. IQ itself is not a trait, nor is it scientifically valid in the first place.

it doesn't necessarily mean it happened in the case of the racial difference.

If you are denying the fact of massive discrimination against nonwhites -- past AND present -- then your position is delusional.

If you are instead arguing that it may not necessarily have been the case that the discrimination waged against nonwhites (in your mentioned case, "blacks") is the sole specific factor in accounting for differences in scores on IQ tests, well of course that's possible. It's rare for results to come from any one cause. Simply eating a good breakfast or not can shift a score on a test.

Are black Americans really "transformed – into timid and subservient children,

Literally speaking, of course not. In terms of specific contexts, however, YES. There is plenty of evidence, not the least of which is hundreds (if not thousands) of formal research interviews in which "black" people confirm the "double life" phenomenon describe by W.E.B. DuBois and other social critics with regards to nonwhites playing what amount to character roles in a white-dominated racial mythology. This takes many forms, including, but not limited to, walking a tightrope of expectations (i.e. don't act too smart or you'll be seen as being "uppity" or having an agenda, don't act too dumb or you'll be interpreted not as individually unqualified, but as a racial exemplar of why nonwhites generally are not to be considered -- by racists -- to be qualified, etc.). Naturally, when dealing with adults, the specific form this kind of character-acting takes will be quite different from the impulses followed by the children in Elliott's original exercise.

including those who had previously been dominant in the class"? Personally I'm not sure telling a bunch of intelligent kids they are stupid would make them stupid,

Certainly not permanently, but playing DOWN to underwhelming low expectations is -- once a gain -- a well-documented finding not confined to grade school children. You could practically grab any management professional with more than a year's experience and they can tell you the same thing from firsthand observation.

and I also doubt that black American kids face this level of discrimination today.

The severity and consistency has changed, but not the basic character of the discrimination. For my own part, every last nonwhite person I know or have worked with for an extended period of time has either had several such occasions, or I have seen it happen to them right in front of me. Keep in mind that you must have developed some level of trust before people will just spill out their painful experiences and allow themselves to have that kind of vulnerability around you, but even in my own relatively small circles, I still regularly encounter nonwhite professionals who can easily recall numerous occasions where their basic competence was challenged or presumed lacking in ways where their "white" colleagues were not.

How does this discrimination theory explain the low IQ of black run nations?

Go look up "isolation of the variable under study" and get back to us in a few years. This has already been dealt with. While you're at it, IQ is itself also not an actual trait, but a deeply contingent and narrow metric.

And anyway, I have conceded that it may be possible for discrimination to affect IQ, but the consistent pattern across times and places indicates it doesn't very much. The only way to know for sure is to do the experiment.

Any experiment with the purported goal of isolating factors leading to disparities in scores on IQ tests (or any other metric) vis-a-vis "race" would -- in order to isolate the variable under study -- have to involve centuries of placing "white" people under the heel of racist oppression and maintaining an imposed life of degradation and artificially constrained opportunities in order to see if "white" people would fare any better if/when the tables were turned on them (on the axis of "race"). Because we still live under white supremacy, such arrangements aren't likely to be done. As such an experiment (oppressing people just for the sake of trying to settle an argument) is profoundly unethical, it shouldn't be done. In any case, the level of dominance and institutional power needed to implement such an experiment in the first place would already be more than sufficient to vanquish racist oppression generally -- ending the negative effects of racist oppression, period -- rather than preserving an unnatural and unnecessary set of harmful institutions (thus providing another compelling reason to not even attempt such experimentation).

 

[Mikemikev]

If by IQ you mean performance on IQ tests, then of course. IQ itself is not a trait, nor is it scientifically valid in the first place.

If you are denying the fact of massive discrimination against nonwhites -- past AND present -- then your position is delusional.

If you are instead arguing that it may not necessarily have been the case that the discrimination waged against nonwhites (in your mentioned case, "blacks") is the sole specific factor in accounting for differences in scores on IQ tests, well of course that's possible. It's rare for results to come from any one cause. Simply eating a good breakfast or not can shift a score on a test.

Of course I'm not denying nonwhites have been dscriminated against at points in history. Why are you in such tears about "nonwhites". What about all the whites that got slaughtered in the Ottoman expansion, the millions of slavs captured in the white slave trade, the victims of the Mongol invasions? Arabs are slaughtering blacks to this day in Darfur. Is it really all white peoples fault?

And yes, I am arguing that how much discrimination impacts IQ is an empirical question. It could be genetics. Simply stating "there has been discrimination, it is that" is just laughable.

Literally speaking, of course not. In terms of specific contexts, however, YES. There is plenty of evidence, not the least of which is hundreds (if not thousands) of formal research interviews in which "black" people confirm the "double life" phenomenon describe by W.E.B. DuBois and other social critics with regards to nonwhites playing what amount to character roles in a white-dominated racial mythology. This takes many forms, including, but not limited to, walking a tightrope of expectations (i.e. don't act too smart or you'll be seen as being "uppity" or having an agenda, don't act too dumb or you'll be interpreted not as individually unqualified, but as a racial exemplar of why nonwhites generally are not to be considered -- by racists -- to be qualified, etc.). Naturally, when dealing with adults, the specific form this kind of character-acting takes will be quite different from the impulses followed by the children in Elliott's original exercise.

Certainly not permanently, but playing DOWN to underwhelming low expectations is -- once a gain -- a well-documented finding not confined to grade school children. You could practically grab any management professional with more than a year's experience and they can tell you the same thing from firsthand observation.

The severity and consistency has changed, but not the basic character of the discrimination. For my own part, every last nonwhite person I know or have worked with for an extended period of time has either had several such occasions, or I have seen it happen to them right in front of me. Keep in mind that you must have developed some level of trust before people will just spill out their painful experiences and allow themselves to have that kind of vulnerability around you, but even in my own relatively small circles, I still regularly encounter nonwhite professionals who can easily recall numerous occasions where their basic competence was challenged or presumed lacking in ways where their "white" colleagues were not.

Again this is all speculation. It's an empirical question. We know there is discrimination. We know there are genetic differences. How much each is responsible for the race difference can only be solved by devising an experiment. Did it ever occur to you that despite discrimination, blacks in America have a far better standrad of living than African blacks. Living around whites may even raise their IQ beyond its natural level. Then the gap would be let's say 150% genetics -50% environment.

Go look up "isolation of the variable under study" and get back to us in a few years. This has already been dealt with. While you're at it, IQ is itself also not an actual trait, but a deeply contingent and narrow metric.

Any experiment with the purported goal of isolating factors leading to disparities in scores on IQ tests (or any other metric) vis-a-vis "race" would -- in order to isolate the variable under study -- have to involve centuries of placing "white" people under the heel of racist oppression and maintaining an imposed life of degradation and artificially constrained opportunities in order to see if "white" people would fare any better if/when the tables were turned on them (on the axis of "race"). Because we still live under white supremacy, such arrangements aren't likely to be done. As such an experiment (oppressing people just for the sake of trying to settle an argument) is profoundly unethical, it shouldn't be done. In any case, the level of dominance and institutional power needed to implement such an experiment in the first place would already be more than sufficient to vanquish racist oppression generally -- ending the negative effects of racist oppression, period -- rather than preserving an unnatural and unnecessary set of harmful institutions (thus providing another compelling reason to not even attempt such experimentation).

I have already outlined the necessary experiment. We agree that discrimination and genetics are the only plausible factors. For genetics that's because white genes contribute more to IQ on average. Therefore mixed individuals should show a range of IQs depending on degree of admixture. We can now do a genetic test for admixture. For discrimination that must be based on appearance. We know adopted blacks get similar IQs to other blacks. We know mixed individuals get intermediate IQs. Therefore they must be exposed to intermediate discrimination. If degree of ancestry is estimated from photographs for mixed individuals, we can see if it correlates to IQ. Genes for brains and appearance combine separately. It is possible for a half mixed individual to look black or white, while still having a half and half mix of IQ genes, which you determine by genetic ancestry tests. If IQ correlates better to genetic ancestry, that is the bigger factor. If it correlates better to apparent ancestry, then discrimination is the bigger factor. You don't need to "isolate the variable under study" when you have two known independent variables and covary them.

BTW you do realise that you are just tacitly assuming "racist oppression" explains the race difference? You talk of scientific methods but then assume what is to be proven at the same time. :roll:

 

[The Mark]

I have a question.

So far as I can tell, having read some posts, skimmed more, and totally avoided others...
And with the caveat that I don't completely trust IQ tests as an accurate measure of human ability/potential.

The question:

Is this statement accurate? "If any measurable difference exists between the average IQ of one "race" over another, it is so small a difference that minimal study and work would easily overcome any disadvantage that may exist."

 

[Mikemikev]

I have a question.

So far as I can tell, having read some posts, skimmed more, and totally avoided others...
And with the caveat that I don't completely trust IQ tests as an accurate measure of human ability/potential.

The question:

Is this statement accurate? "If any measurable difference exists between the average IQ of one "race" over another, it is so small a difference that minimal study and work would easily overcome any disadvantage that may exist."

No, the g model posits a highly heritable factor which affects most cognitive abilities.



g which is essentially the same as IQ does not seem to be very environmentally modifiable, under normal conditions. Highly heritable in other words. This is one of the main reasons an environmental (non-genetic) explanation for the race gap seems implausible.

 

[cmakaioz]

I have a question.

So far as I can tell, having read some posts, skimmed more, and totally avoided others...
And with the caveat that I don't completely trust IQ tests as an accurate measure of human ability/potential.

The question:

Is this statement accurate? "If any measurable difference exists between the average IQ of one "race" over another, it is so small a difference that minimal study and work would easily overcome any disadvantage that may exist."

Perhaps...though this would be mitigated by factors other than what is typically discussed (or in the case of those advancing the racist perspective here, what is typically offered as unreflective catechism.)

First, since neither "race" NOR IQ are scientific concepts in the first place, one or both may change slightly or even dramatically simply due to different methods of sampling or changing of the form and content of IQ tests.

Second, since the question posed regards averages, a large portion of any pretended "race" would have to see an improvement in test scores in order to produce a dramatic shift in the scores of the overall "race."

So while a little bit of study can indeed improve individual test-takers scores on IQ tests, the shifting goalposts changing "racial" assignment and the environmental factors which cannot be isolated against (short of radical political and economic changes amounting to revolution) prevent both "race" and "IQ" from sitting still in the manner required to make any sort of reasonable statement about their having some kind of substantive meaning (beyond indicating what is already obvious: massive disparity and inequality of circumstance which is at least partially funneled through racist discrimination).

In other words...the statement posed is potentially accurate, but it doesn't have much to be accurate about.