Genetics and Race

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I guess it depends on your definition of success, and how you're measuring intelligence.

Are Donald, Eric, Ivanka and Don Jr. more intelligent than, say, Brisket?  I'd say no, not by a long shot, but they are probably more successful in terms of net worth.  Is the guy with the highest IQ at your company also the CEO?  I doubt it.

Yeah, actually he definitely is. Funny you bring Trump into it. I wouldn't say it works for every individual case but broadly speaking those with higher intelligence do better in almost every measurable metric. 

How many of you guys have taken an IQ test? I want to go try to get into Mensa with coach Herman. I took an online one a few years ago and got a measly 146.

[burntorangebongos 10711]

Seriously?

 

[Brisketexan 105145]

I haven't done any formal IQ test in a jillion years.  I always tested in the 99+ percentile, and IIRC, IQ scores were....really high.  And no, I'm not going to put a number here because I think that's asinine.

The point is, I'm plenty "intelligent" by the STANDARD metrics that academia uses.

I'm also just smart enough to realize that doesn't mean NOTHING, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as folks think it does.  "Intelligence" is a broad collection of WAYS you think about things.  In some respects, I have some good ways of thinking about things, and those translate to success.  In other ways, I'm not so strong at my ways of thinking about things, and I struggle, at least relatively.

In short, IQ etc. is a very limited way of looking at "intelligence."  Subsets of "intelligence" skills are even more telling.  But we don't even know how to categorize or evaluate all of those.  When it comes to thinking, we're talking about grading a computer that none of us designed, we barely understand, and we don't even grasp all of the design or data inputs.  We can talk about pieces of pieces.

And, bringing it back home....almost NONE of those pieces correlate to "race," which is largely a skin color construct (which DOES have a strong component of localization and limited local variation, but isn't connected at all, genetically, with many other traits).

[jimmyjazz 45958]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Is it safe to assume all of Tahoe's relatives are as dumb as he is?

Nah, they're all white.

Wait, what?

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I haven't done any formal IQ test in a jillion years.  I always tested in the 99+ percentile, and IIRC, IQ scores were....really high.  And no, I'm not going to put a number here because I think that's asinine.

The point is, I'm plenty "intelligent" by the STANDARD metrics that academia uses.

I'm also just smart enough to realize that doesn't mean NOTHING, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as folks think it does.  "Intelligence" is a broad collection of WAYS you think about things.  In some respects, I have some good ways of thinking about things, and those translate to success.  In other ways, I'm not so strong at my ways of thinking about things, and I struggle, at least relatively.

In short, IQ etc. is a very limited way of looking at "intelligence."  Subsets of "intelligence" skills are even more telling.  But we don't even know how to categorize or evaluate all of those.  When it comes to thinking, we're talking about grading a computer that none of us designed, we barely understand, and we don't even grasp all of the design or data inputs.  We can talk about pieces of pieces.

And, bringing it back home....almost NONE of those pieces correlate to "race," which is largely a skin color construct (which DOES have a strong component of localization and limited local variation, but isn't connected at all, genetically, with many other traits).

I agree. The IQ tests only really get pattern recognition it seems, and not "spatial IQ" or "linguistic IQ". 

Woe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

[Pancho 44805]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Fixed.

This is the perfect shitty Tahoe thread. Vague, outraged, full of strawmen, only-slightly-hidden racial resentment.

 

 

Yup.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Nobody is discussing the article.  And I knew it.  As I predicted.  Sullivan gives the long version of what I'm saying.  None of the criticisms on this thread address the issue.  You are creating your own issue to address.

[jimmyjazz 45958]

Gosh, it's almost as if you didn't read the thread.  Whodathunkit? 

[bad_teammate 13196]

51 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Nobody is discussing the article.  And I knew it.  As I predicted. 

I read the entirety of Sullivan's article and the Ezra Klein article he referenced and commented specifically, even fucking quoting Sullivan and the article from Ezra Klein that he referenced. You are completely pathetic.

I will do so at more length now.

Quote

And so I waited eagerly for a response to Reich from “blank slate” left-liberals. They were quiet for a while, flummoxed perhaps, until Ezra Klein delivered an encyclical, rallying the faithful, in Vox.

Here Sullivan admits to waiting for a response he wants to see. Like Tahoe, he assigns a motive (Sullivan thinks the libs are "flummoxed" by Reich when, in reality, they are shrugging their shoulders) when he cannot find what he is looking for. Immediately afterwards, he admits he doesn't see what he wants in Klein's article, so he resorts to arguing against what Klein "seems" to be arguing.

Quote

What was Klein’s response to the actual scientific argument that genetics have a significant part to play (heritability ranges from 0.4 to 0.8) in explaining different racial outcomes in intelligence tests? I’ve read his essay several times and I’m afraid I can’t find a satisfying one. He notes that Reich is careful not to state anything categorical about racial differences and their origins, and that this humility appeals to him (agreed). (The point, of course, would apply to Murray as well, who has remained resolutely “agnostic” about the ultimate outcome of the debate since 1994. This is precisely what he stated in The New Republic and the book.) As to genetic influences on IQ? Klein only addresses those parts of Reich’s argument he agrees with, and hypes instead the fact (that no one disputes) that the environment has a big impact as well. This is, to put it gently, more like an act of intellectual dodging, rather than full engagement.

In fact, Klein seems to back a truly extreme position: that only the environment affects IQ scores, and genes play no part in group differences in human intelligence.

Like the Very Dishonest Tahoe, the Very Dishonest Sullivan does not deal with the actual arguments, but instead relies on strawmanning his opponent's argument.

It does not surprise me that a race science hack like Andrew Sullivan impresses you, Tahoe, because he meets you at your dishonest and ignorant level.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Sullivan's thesis, and mine, is that the Left doesn't want such research.  What about you?

Do you support genetics research like Reich is conducting?  What about Murray's research?  I'm not asking whether you think it's good research or agreeing with their findings.  How would you vote if they asked for more money for Phase II?  If you don't like their quality would you fund a different geneticist to do the same thing?  Are your feelings the same as if they wanted to study the genetics of, say, dogs?

If you're not among those who attacked Murray for doing his research.  If you differed with his conclusions based on different science I have no quarrel with you.  (I don't know the science.)  If you screamed "racism" and said "he shouldn't be allowed to say that without being personally attacked (versus attacking his conclusions), then you're somebody I'm addressing.

Examine this thread and identify the posts which included an ad hominem attack.  It's a sure sign of a bad argument.

Edited April 2, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[DDD Dad 14339]

Is this the thread where we are supposed to post our pay stubs--er, IQ scores?

[Brisketexan 105145]

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Sullivan's thesis, and mine, is that the Left doesn't want such research.  What about you?

Do you support genetics research like Reich is conducting?  What about Murray's research?  I'm not asking whether you think it's good research or agreeing with their findings.  How would you vote if they asked for more money for Phase II?  If you don't like their quality would you fund a different geneticist to do the same thing?  Are your feelings the same as if they wanted to study the genetics of, say, dogs?

If you're not among those who attacked Murray for doing his research.  If you differed with his conclusions based on different science I have no quarrel with you.  (I don't know the science.)  If you screamed "racism" and said "he shouldn't be allowed to say that without being personally attacked (versus attacking his conclusions), then you're somebody I'm addressing.

Examine this thread and identify the posts which included an ad hominem attack.  It's a sure sign of a bad argument.

You know what else is a bad argument?  A flat-out lie, like "nobody is discussing the article."

That, and utterly ignoring the plain truth that genetic research, which includes as a necessary component analysis/comparison between subpopulations, is commonplace as hell.  So, the thing you're freaked out about "the left" not wanting to happen....is literally happening ALL.  THE.  FUCKING.  TIME.  So, you ignoring facts so you can bitch about a straw man, that's a bad argument.

You being a complete piece of shit?  I agree, that's not an argument.  Nor is it arguable.

[TahoeHorn 107]

If it's  1400 or 1500 I don't want to argue whether the Earth is flat or round.  I wouldn't have the expertise to know.  But I would support the efforts of scientists to study the issue and publish their papers.  I would want the critical arguments to be science, not an attack on their belief in God.  I wouldn't want them criticized for blasphemy.

 

[Brisketexan 105145]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

If it's  1400 or 1500 I don't want to argue whether the Earth is flat or round.  I wouldn't have the expertise to know.  But I would support the efforts of scientists to study the issue and publish their papers.  I would want the critical arguments to be science, not an attack on their belief in God.  I wouldn't want them criticized for blasphemy.

 

And you'll ignore the fact that population genetics is inherent in a crapload of ongoing genetic research without a peep of complaint, because you want to act like an aggrieved pussy, the member of the greatest snowflake generation ever known, mostly because you're pissed off about the fact that society has evolved to a point where you can no longer say "nigger" in polite company.

You're a reprehensible toad.  The fact that you also abuse the simplest tenets of logical analysis and discourse is merely the diarrhea icing on the turd cake that you serve up wherever you go.  Those folks at those meetings oughta give a second look at those "donuts" you're bringing....

[JBJ 3654]

Tahoe: Part of the problem is that both authors meander through the topic with a bunch of unrelated commentary.  They are terrible longcats with more political grandstanding than insight or analysis.

 

I think Klein is right that anything considering race as a factor directly or by proxy is going to have the propensity to be racist - whether that means being used as talking points for outright racists to confirming low self-expectations for certain races.   

I don't think that's a strong enough argument to make the subject taboo.

[David Dennison 18860]

20 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Sullivan's thesis, and mine, is that the Left doesn't want such research.  What about you?

Many on "the left" think that this research is fundamentally flawed because IQ tests are an unreliable measure of general intelligence.

[Brisketexan 105145]

Tahoe: Part of the problem is that both authors meander through the topic with a bunch of unrelated commentary.  They are terrible longcats with more political grandstanding than insight or analysis.
 
I think Klein is right that anything considering race as a factor directly or by proxy is going to have the propensity to be racist - whether that means being used as talking points for outright racists to confirming low self-expectations for certain races.   
I don't think that's a strong enough argument to make the subject taboo.

Because “race” is meaningless garbage when discussing genetics. Don’t forget that. If you use the concept of “race,” you’re already producing garbage. Genetically distinct sub populations is where it’s at. There are thousands of those on each continent.

[JBJ 3654]

Why are people ignoring the fact that there's a 10,000ish-word complaint against genetic population studies linked on the OP?

If you think that opinion is fringe shit and not worth a thread, just say so.  But you can't say that it doesn't exist.

[wildcat09 29354]

30 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Sullivan's thesis, and mine, is that the Left doesn't want such research.  What about you?

Do you support genetics research like Reich is conducting?  What about Murray's research?  I'm not asking whether you think it's good research or agreeing with their findings.  How would you vote if they asked for more money for Phase II?  If you don't like their quality would you fund a different geneticist to do the same thing?  Are your feelings the same as if they wanted to study the genetics of, say, dogs?

If you're not among those who attacked Murray for doing his research.  If you differed with his conclusions based on different science I have no quarrel with you.  (I don't know the science.)  If you screamed "racism" and said "he shouldn't be allowed to say that without being personally attacked (versus attacking his conclusions), then you're somebody I'm addressing.

Examine this thread and identify the posts which included an ad hominem attack.  It's a sure sign of a bad argument.

I'm sorry, was my post with the tweet pointing out how laughably bad Murray's "science" is in his book Human Accomplishment too long for you? Or did the fact that I also pointed out that he's a literal cross burner in addition to a joke of a scientist somehow disqualify the commentary on how stupid his analysis is?

[bolverk 29683]

So far as I recall, no one in this thread has voiced opposition to genetic population studies. The sense I get is most are probably okay with it for the advancement of scientific knowledge which may lead to advancements in medical treatments and other shit. That said, even one of the discoverers of DNA is quoted above making bullshit claims based on stereotypes that are unsupported by scientific data. That is why I'd favor caution in how it's handled and discussed because it could be so easily abused by pseudoscience.

Edit: And, Tahoe, don't be a whinging liar - it's unbecoming of a Southern gentleman. Several of us have quoted and discussed your article.

Edited April 2, 2018 by bolverk

[safe sex 11734]

P

So the liberal menace in all this, Ezra Klein, was fine with Reich's piece. But the white Right is so eager to feel victimized that they pretend that Klein was freaking out even though Klein was shrugging his shoulders.
The reality is that there is nothing at all forbidden about studying genetics and race. Reich has done it for years unmolested. Many other genetic scientists do it without a herd of ANTIFA lesbians overturning their bunsen burners and smashing their beakers.
The only thing "forbidden" is trying to use narrow scientific discoveries to create grand sweeping statements about racial difference.

Gould published a good take down of Murray's work (parroted by racists like Sully) back when the Bell Curve first published.  
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html
Of course, none of this really about intellectual freedom in the pursuit of scientific discovery as it's about establishing a defense for racial inequality.
 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Dolemite 143]

Since we are close to finding the genes responsible for IQ then the technology to raise IQ is not far behind.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610339/dna-tests-for-iq-are-coming-but-it-might-not-be-smart-to-take-one/

 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Dolemite

[bad_teammate 13196]

18 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Why are people ignoring the fact that there's a 10,000ish-word complaint against genetic population studies linked on the OP?

If you think that opinion is fringe shit and not worth a thread, just say so.  But you can't say that it doesn't exist.

Sullivan's article (which is the only thing linked in the OP) is a 10k-ish word complaint against genetic population studies? What?

44 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Sullivan's thesis, and mine, is that the Left doesn't want such research.  What about you?

Literally no one here, and no one Sullivan can point to, has attacked Reich's research. I have no idea who from "the Left" you're using as an example.

Who is attacking Reich's research? Please tell us.

Quote

Do you support genetics research like Reich is conducting?  What about Murray's research?

You do realize, don't you, that Charles Murray is not a geneticist?

Quote

If you're not among those who attacked Murray for doing his research.  If you differed with his conclusions based on different science I have no quarrel with you.  (I don't know the science.)  If you screamed "racism" and said "he shouldn't be allowed to say that without being personally attacked (versus attacking his conclusions), then you're somebody I'm addressing.

Charles Murray is not a serious scientist and is a political and racial demagogue. He sucks and it's funny that the kids at Middlebury shouted at him until he ran away. Good for them. His "research" doesn't exist and all he did in his famous-among-racists book was take other people's research and draw racist conclusions from it.

He's a political scientist. Comparing him to Reich is laughable.

Quote

Examine this thread and identify the posts which included an ad hominem attack.  It's a sure sign of a bad argument.

Ad hominem is evidence of nothing except the person using it wanting to attack you personally. I can handle attacking both your shitty arguments and the shitty person that made them.

[52-80 19159]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I haven't done any formal IQ test in a jillion years.  I always tested in the 99+ percentile, and IIRC, IQ scores were....really high.  And no, I'm not going to put a number here because I think that's asinine.

The point is, I'm plenty "intelligent" by the STANDARD metrics that academia uses.

I'm also just smart enough to realize that doesn't mean NOTHING, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as folks think it does.  "Intelligence" is a broad collection of WAYS you think about things.  In some respects, I have some good ways of thinking about things, and those translate to success.  In other ways, I'm not so strong at my ways of thinking about things, and I struggle, at least relatively.

In short, IQ etc. is a very limited way of looking at "intelligence."  Subsets of "intelligence" skills are even more telling.  But we don't even know how to categorize or evaluate all of those.  When it comes to thinking, we're talking about grading a computer that none of us designed, we barely understand, and we don't even grasp all of the design or data inputs.  We can talk about pieces of pieces.

And, bringing it back home....almost NONE of those pieces correlate to "race," which is largely a skin color construct (which DOES have a strong component of localization and limited local variation, but isn't connected at all, genetically, with many other traits).

 

[BrickHorn 18237]

7 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

This is a good article on the taboo topic:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

"You can't talk about that.  Lalalalala.  I'm not listening."

It's the modern day McCarthyism.  Scream "racist" loudly and attack the author not his ideas.  It'll scare other people from defending him.

But one day science will win out.

I don't know what truth is.  I do know that many people are afraid of the pursuit of truth.  It's a topic they don't want studied.

This is also a good article on a taboo topic:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand

“You can't talk about that.  Lalalalala.  I can’t hear you over Hannity."

It's the modern day Dark Ages.  Scream "Libcuck!" loudly and attack the author not his ideas.  It'll scare other people from defending him.

But one day science will win out.

I don't know what truth is.  I do know that many people are afraid of the pursuit of truth.  It's a topic they don't want studied.

[JBJ 3654]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Because “race” is meaningless garbage when discussing genetics. Don’t forget that. If you use the concept of “race,” you’re already producing garbage. Genetically distinct sub populations is where it’s at. There are thousands of those on each continent.

I get what you are saying - it is true but not the entire truth.  There are genetic markers that correspond closely with self-identified race.

 

Further, it is more practical to know the general characteristics of a race than a genetic population or cluster.  If I'm a school developing teaching methods, knowing that Mongoloids are poor spatial learners does nothing for me unless I genetically test my students.  Knowing that Asians tend to be good at non-verbal quantitative reasoning can be useful.

[TahoeHorn 107]

There is a strong correlation between low IQ and all sorts of bad behavior.  Conservatism, in general, is good behavior.  But there are clearly components of conservative behavior which are bad behavior and correlated with low IQ.

As a point of interest, I'm "somewhat conservative". 

I'm also not sensitive to being part of any demo or group which generally performs more poorly than average.  It doesn't mean I do.  Similarly I am well aware that being part of a demo that performs very well doesn't mean I do.  We're talking about a logical fallacy I sneer at.

[softlynow 1815]

7 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

This is a good article on the taboo topic:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

"You can't talk about that.  Lalalalala.  I'm not listening."

It's the modern day McCarthyism.  Scream "racist" loudly and attack the author not his ideas.  It'll scare other people from defending him.

But one day science will win out.

I don't know what truth is.  I do know that many people are afraid of the pursuit of truth.  It's a topic they don't want studied.

Name 3 people who are “they.”

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Name 3 people who are “they.”

I don't name anybody on this board except public figures.  And you wouldn't know them anyway.

 

But you can read this thread and find posters who cry racism.

Edited April 3, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Anastasis 23471]

wholly sheet this thread. wow. 

[Washpark 176]

[softlynow 1815]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't name anybody on this board except public figures.  And you wouldn't know them anyway.

 

But you can read this thread and find posters who cry racism.

Answer the question. You made an assertion in the OP. You want to be taken seriously? Support your assertion. Pointing to cries of “racism” don’t cut it. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

Answer the question. You made an assertion in the OP. You want to be taken seriously? Support your assertion. Pointing to cries of “racism” don’t cut it. 

You're not my boss.  And this isn't a trial.  I expressed an opinion.  You can express yours.  If you don't like mine that's fine.  I didn't think you would.

[bad_teammate 13196]

 

10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't name anybody on this board except public figures.  And you wouldn't know them anyway.

My girlfriend is a model, but she's Canadian. You wouldn't know her.

[Washpark 176]

Basically Tahoe has reverted to the following

 

[JBJ 3654]

4 hours ago, JBJ said:

Black children grow up in a country that, over and over again, signals that it expects less of them, believes less in them, and fears more from them. This is, in part, the result of deep-seated racism in American life — a racism that often manifests less through hatred than through underestimation and dismissal; a racism that draws on centuries of belief in black inferiority.

Since you guys have so much trouble finding links here is a direct one, it is in the OP but you have to read past the first paragraph to find it:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve

 

I had already posted the quote above already for a tl:dr.

[F250 28777]

17 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

There is a strong correlation between low IQ and all sorts of bad behavior.  Conservatism, in general, is good behavior.  But there are clearly components of conservative behavior which are bad behavior and correlated with low IQ.

As a point of interest, I'm "somewhat conservative". 

I'm also not sensitive to being part of any demo or group which generally performs more poorly than average.  It doesn't mean I do.  Similarly I am well aware that being part of a demo that performs very well doesn't mean I do.  We're talking about a logical fallacy I sneer at.

[softlynow 1815]

18 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You're not my boss.  And this isn't a trial.  I expressed an opinion.  You can express yours.  If you don't like mine that's fine.  I didn't think you would.

So you can’t and thus admit your thesis is wholly unsupported. Got it.

You want to have discussions? Great! Have them. That requires not acting like a fucking child.

[bad_teammate 13196]

27 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Since you guys have so much trouble finding links here is a direct one, it is in the OP but you have to read past the first paragraph to find it:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve

 

I had already posted the quote above already for a tl:dr.

Dude I've been talking about Klein's article since Page 1. Harris and Murray are not geneticists. When someone tells them to shut the hell up about geneticism, they aren't shaming genetic scientists. They're shaming talking head morons.

[JBJ 3654]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Dude I've been talking about Klein's article since Page 1. Harris and Murray are not geneticists. When someone tells them to shut the hell up about geneticism, they aren't shaming genetic scientists. They're shaming talking head morons.

David Reich is a geneticist and author of the  article that Klein is responding to.

Edited April 3, 2018 by JBJ

[TahoeHorn 107]

30 minutes ago, softlynow said:

So you can’t and thus admit your thesis is wholly unsupported. Got it.

You want to have discussions? Great! Have them. That requires not acting like a fucking child.

There is a whole article which lays out the thesis.  You weren't trying to understand the thesis or  have a discussion.  You were trying to cross examine.  You were attempting a rebuttal, Internet style.  If you have a rebuttal make it.  Write a critique of Sullivan's argument.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

If you have a rebuttal make it.  Write a critique of Sullivan's argument.

You're not the boss of him. 

[bad_teammate 13196]

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

David Reich is a geneticist and author of the  article that Klein is responding to.

And how does Klein feel about Reich's article?

And you're wrong. He's responding to Harris who presumed what Klein would think about Reich.

Edited April 3, 2018 by bad_teammate

[softlynow 1815]

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

There is a whole article which lays out the thesis.  You weren't trying to understand the thesis or  have a discussion.  You were trying to cross examine.  You were attempting a rebuttal, Internet style.  If you have a rebuttal make it.  Write a critique of Sullivan's argument.

I read the article. I’m open to discussion. You aren’t until you even attempt to support your thesis. You really want discussion? Prove it. Support your thesis, which isn’t the same as Andrew’s. 

[ndawg 1242]

This is almost always a stupid discussion disguised as an intelligent one.

Every human is blessed with a brain that is many times larger than our closest primates, relatively speaking. We developed really powerful saliva and teeth for digesting food just to continuously pump enough calories to feed our massive brains.

You might find, say, a disproportionate number of World's Strongest Man competition winners from Nordic countries. Or a majority of marathon runners from particular countries in Africa. Does this mean much on a macro scale? Nope, because the strongest man from Kenya, if he works at it, will still be stronger than 99.999% of all men. And the fastest marathon runner from Scandanavia, if he really practices, will smoke 99.999% of all men over 26 miles.

Find a population with malnourishment and you'll find lower IQs. Are the people stupid? Nope, just malnourished.

In every one of us, genetic potential is just a drop of bitters mixed into a cocktail that otherwise contains a stupefying amount of variability. Our genetics based on ethnic background only really make a difference when comparing the top human beings alive. It really has no material bearing on our everyday potential.

Edited April 3, 2018 by ndawg

[Sbbruin 21856]

Is Tahoe taking the Randolph or the Mortimer Duke position?

[TahoeHorn 107]

20 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Is Tahoe taking the Randolph or the Mortimer Duke position?

It's the Copernicus position in Copernicus v. Catholic Church.  (pro science, anti- political correctness)

Edited April 3, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Mole 4333]

https://aeon.co/essays/race-is-not-real-what-you-see-is-a-power-relationship-made-flesh

Quote

To really grasp race, we must accept a double paradox. The first one is a truism of antiracist educators: we can see race, but it’s not real. The second is stranger: race has real consequences, but we can’t see it with the naked eye. Race is a power relationship; racial categories are not about interesting cultural or physical differences, but about putting other people into groups in order to dominate, exploit and attack them. Fundamentally, race makes power visible by assigning it to physical bodies. The evidence of race right before our eyes is not a visual trace of a physical reality, but a by-product of social perceptions, in which we are trained to see certain features as salient or significant. Race does not exist as a matter of biological fact, but only as a consequence of a process of racialisation.

Quote

Groups such as Germans, Irish, Italians and Jews were popularly defined as non-citizens and non-white when they first arrived, and then became white. What we see as white today is not the same as it was 100 years ago.

Quote

That Second World War poster looks offensive today – crude, reductionist, insulting – and it is. We think that recognising such ridiculousness makes us less racist than the people who made it. It doesn’t. It merely means that we have different racial categories than in 1942.

Quote

What we literally see is shaped by politics. The same two groups can be visibly different racially or indistinguishable racially, depending on the political context and power relations by which they’re categorised.

 

Quote

I suspect that a visitor from a planet without race would have a very difficult time slotting anyone on Earth into the racial categories we use today. If they were asked to group people visually, there is no statistical possibility that they’d use the same set of arbitrary boxes, and even if these categories were described for them in detail, they would probably not sort actual people in the same way as the modern US does.

 

 

[HornOnTheBayou 8929]

48 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

It's the Copernicus position in Copernicus v. Catholic Church.  (pro science, anti- political correctness)

[JBJ 3654]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

And how does Klein feel about Reich's article?

And you're wrong. He's responding to Harris who presumed what Klein would think about Reich.

I've alreasy posted on it twice, and you on the other hand have about a half dozen posts and have yet to address the issue.