Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Perking up a bit here at your mention of malaria as an explanatory variable in regional IQ differences.  There's a study that successfully controlled to find malaria as a factor, in a way that somehow eliminates the possibility of genetic intelligence being a factor?  How?

I'm not sure how you justify the statement "there's no indication of genetic intelligence," if you're simultaneously accepting the malaria studies you allude to as compelling, unless you're presenting a really narrow definition of "genetic intelligence" I'm unaware of.

It's pretty clear that malaria is a factor that affects IQ scores. I'm basing this off a development economics study I read that links the long-term effects of surviving malaria to increased mental and physical lethargy, which has obvious economic implications. Mental lethargy should register on an IQ test.

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence". It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

[bobloblaw]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

The irony is that those who believe in creationism can believe that everyone is created in God's image equally. But in evolution it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that all creeds, races and ethnicities have evolved exactly equally from apes and after millions of years are all at the exact same place in their evolution.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. There's ample evidence that suggests that humans have physically evolved and that geographic isolation has increased the likelihood of small physical mutations having large effects of people but there's no evidence of "genetic intelligence". Even if we were to assume that IQ tests weren't a severely flawed metric of intelligence, most deviations in IQ scores can be explained by literacy, nutrition and lack of exposure to detrimental diseases like malaria; all of which have a marked effect on mental performance.

None of these things are genetic or explained by evolutionary factors. It's quite the stretch to assume that a relatively brief period of human history lasting from 10,000 BC to the present has produced large scale effects on, say, on intelligence. This is a brief moment in evolutionary history. In all actuality, the incipient rise of agriculture had a negative effect on individual intelligence: it created vectors for mentally debilitating diseases, resulted in reduced nutrition and severely reduced life expectancy. We've only achieved significant advanced within the last 200 hundred years and none of them may be explained by genetics but rather by resource endowments and chance. Before the 18th century, East Asia had economic output that arguably exceeded Europe. European medicine was backwards. There are other examples but the idea that Europe is a particularly intelligent and intellectual continent is laughable.

10,000 years??? Human evolution has been much longer than that. Culture is also an issue in determining economic and social development

[bobloblaw]

Perking up a bit here at your mention of malaria as an explanatory variable in regional IQ differences.  There's a study that successfully controlled to find malaria as a factor, in a way that somehow eliminates the possibility of genetic intelligence being a factor?  How?

I'm not sure how you justify the statement "there's no indication of genetic intelligence," if you're simultaneously accepting the malaria studies you allude to as compelling, unless you're presenting a really narrow definition of "genetic intelligence" I'm unaware of.

It's pretty clear that malaria is a factor that affects IQ scores. I'm basing this off a development economics study I read that links the long-term effects of surviving malaria to increased mental and physical lethargy, which has obvious economic implications. Mental lethargy should register on an IQ test.

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence". It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Malaria doesnt explain why East Asians have higher IQs than Europeans

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Perking up a bit here at your mention of malaria as an explanatory variable in regional IQ differences.  There's a study that successfully controlled to find malaria as a factor, in a way that somehow eliminates the possibility of genetic intelligence being a factor?  How?

I'm not sure how you justify the statement "there's no indication of genetic intelligence," if you're simultaneously accepting the malaria studies you allude to as compelling, unless you're presenting a really narrow definition of "genetic intelligence" I'm unaware of.

It's pretty clear that malaria is a factor that affects IQ scores. I'm basing this off a development economics study I read that links the long-term effects of surviving malaria to increased mental and physical lethargy, which has obvious economic implications. Mental lethargy should register on an IQ test.

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence". It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Malaria doesnt explain why East Asians have higher IQs than Europeans

Who are you and why do you care about this topic?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

The irony is that those who believe in creationism can believe that everyone is created in God's image equally. But in evolution it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that all creeds, races and ethnicities have evolved exactly equally from apes and after millions of years are all at the exact same place in their evolution.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. There's ample evidence that suggests that humans have physically evolved and that geographic isolation has increased the likelihood of small physical mutations having large effects of people but there's no evidence of "genetic intelligence". Even if we were to assume that IQ tests weren't a severely flawed metric of intelligence, most deviations in IQ scores can be explained by literacy, nutrition and lack of exposure to detrimental diseases like malaria; all of which have a marked effect on mental performance.

None of these things are genetic or explained by evolutionary factors. It's quite the stretch to assume that a relatively brief period of human history lasting from 10,000 BC to the present has produced large scale effects on, say, on intelligence. This is a brief moment in evolutionary history. In all actuality, the incipient rise of agriculture had a negative effect on individual intelligence: it created vectors for mentally debilitating diseases, resulted in reduced nutrition and severely reduced life expectancy. We've only achieved significant advanced within the last 200 hundred years and none of them may be explained by genetics but rather by resource endowments and chance. Before the 18th century, East Asia had economic output that arguably exceeded Europe. European medicine was backwards. There are other examples but the idea that Europe is a particularly intelligent and intellectual continent is laughable.

10,000 years??? Human evolution has been much longer than that. Culture is also an issue in determining economic and social development

jao

[Badger]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

The irony is that those who believe in creationism can believe that everyone is created in God's image equally. But in evolution it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that all creeds, races and ethnicities have evolved exactly equally from apes and after millions of years are all at the exact same place in their evolution.

Your post proves otherwise.

[Alcon]

Yes, I understand that and I've seen the same studies, but proposing that malaria counts

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

I absolutely buy the possibility that neurological sequelae from disease can affect IQ.  I also understand how that's not genetic (obviously).  I'm just a little puzzled by your apparent implication that the factors you listed somehow add up to preclude a genetic basis for IQ.  It seems like you're throwing the kitchen sink (that is, every possible argument against heritable intelligence) at the issue in a preemptive attempt to discredit some argument.  That's a really unsound way of analyzing things, and it doesn't successfully discredit the argument you're trying to dismiss.

I mean, you may think Bobloblaw is trying to make some terrible racist point (maybe), but you can't really forward a set of explanatory variables, have someone point out your explanatory variables fail to explain some observed variation, and then act like that's an unreasonable critique of your argument.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence".

Are you claiming that there isn't evidence that IQ has some very strong heritable elements, or are you somehow limiting this to race when you say "genetic intelligence"?

It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Could you explain what you mean here more precisely?  Obviously, it's a bad idea to use IQ as a pretext to do manipulative, disruptive, and violating social policy, and there are a lot of racist jerks who would be into that kind of social policy.  But how is that "anti-science" to not pursue those policies?  It's not anti-science to elect to not use a technology because it's a terrible idea.  That would be like saying it's "anti-science" to not shoot a flamethrower on a crowded street.  It's not "anti-science" to not fire a flamethrower recklessly just because a flamethrower is a form of science.  It would be "anti-science" to deny the existence of the flamethrower, or deny its observable effects.  ("Anti-science" is probably the wrong phrase, anyway.  Let's go with "willfully delusional.")

Or are you saying that, even if studies were to find an unexplained linkage between IQ and race after controls, we should do our best to discredit these findings, because they would feed into policies and attitudes you don't like?  Just to be clear, I totally think that kind of finding would feed into racist jerks...but does that warrant dismissing any such finding, and accusing those who observed it of being lying, racist jerks?  I think there are obvious, glaring, gross problems with that approach, too.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

If you justify Charles Barron's hatred of white people - not unrelated things about him but the hatred itself - yes, that sounds a hell of a lot like race-based animus.   I am glad relatively few of the racial and ethnic minorities you claim to speak for are as hateful and prejudiced as you are towards people who have different perspectives from themselves. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

If you justify Charles Barron's hatred of white people - not unrelated things about him but the hatred itself - yes, that sounds a hell of a lot like race-based animus.   I am glad relatively few of the racial and ethnic minorities you claim to speak for are as hateful and prejudiced as you are towards people who have different perspectives from themselves. 

Thanks for ignoring most of the body of my post, friend!

The idea that I have some kind of race-based animus is surreal. The vast majority of my friends are white, my father is white, half of my family is white. While I don't agree with most of their views on issues of race, issues that they can't comprehend properly because they stand to benefit from our current racial constructs and subconsciously interpret themselves differently than racial minorities, I don't hate them.

My race-based animus only extends to white people in the context of discussions surrounding race and ethnicity. Although this is a pretty important topic, it's quite minuscule. I'm friends with racists. I look past their hatred and they look past my ethnicity. Does that mean I'm going to respect their perspective or applaud their hate? No.

[136or142]

I've taken two IQ tests.  They measure some forms of intelligence but I'd hardly call them definitive. They barely test for creative intelligence and they don't measure at all either so-called 'lateral thinking' or emotional intelligence.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

If you justify Charles Barron's hatred of white people - not unrelated things about him but the hatred itself - yes, that sounds a hell of a lot like race-based animus.   I am glad relatively few of the racial and ethnic minorities you claim to speak for are as hateful and prejudiced as you are towards people who have different perspectives from themselves. 

Thanks for ignoring most of the body of my post, friend!

The idea that I have some kind of race-based animus is surreal. The vast majority of my friends are white, my father is white, half of my family is white. While I don't agree with most of their views on issues of race, issues that they can't comprehend properly because they stand to benefit from our current racial constructs and subconsciously interpret themselves differently than racial minorities, I don't hate them.

My race-based animus only extends to white people in the context of discussions surrounding race and ethnicity. Although this is a pretty important topic, it's quite minuscule. I'm friends with racists. I look past their hatred and they look past my ethnicity. Does that mean I'm going to respect their perspective or applaud their hate? No.

So you look past someone's race and it means you are not racist?  But that doesn't work for your white friends? And someone is never allowed to look past the racism of an author long enough to respect their other contributions?   I know you  think I am a racist for thinking it, but you truly make no sense on this issue. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Yes, I understand that and I've seen the same studies, but proposing that malaria counts

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

I absolutely buy the possibility that neurological sequelae from disease can affect IQ.  I also understand how that's not genetic (obviously).  I'm just a little puzzled by your apparent implication that the factors you listed somehow add up to preclude a genetic basis for IQ.  It seems like you're throwing the kitchen sink (that is, every possible argument against heritable intelligence) at the issue in a preemptive attempt to discredit some argument.  That's a really unsound way of analyzing things, and it doesn't successfully discredit the argument you're trying to dismiss.

I mean, you may think Bobloblaw is trying to make some terrible racist point (maybe), but you can't really forward a set of explanatory variables, have someone point out your explanatory variables fail to explain some observed variation, and then act like that's an unreasonable critique of your argument.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence".

Are you claiming that there isn't evidence that IQ has some very strong heritable elements, or are you somehow limiting this to race when you say "genetic intelligence"?

It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Could you explain what you mean here more precisely?  Obviously, it's a bad idea to use IQ as a pretext to do manipulative, disruptive, and violating social policy, and there are a lot of racist jerks who would be into that kind of social policy.  But how is that "anti-science" to not pursue those policies?  It's not anti-science to elect to not use a technology because it's a terrible idea.  That would be like saying it's "anti-science" to not shoot a flamethrower on a crowded street.  It's not "anti-science" to not fire a flamethrower recklessly just because a flamethrower is a form of science.  It would be "anti-science" to deny the existence of the flamethrower, or deny its observable effects.  ("Anti-science" is probably the wrong phrase, anyway.  Let's go with "willfully delusional.")

Or are you saying that, even if studies were to find an unexplained linkage between IQ and race after controls, we should do our best to discredit these findings, because they would feed into policies and attitudes you don't like?  Just to be clear, I totally think that kind of finding would feed into racist jerks...but does that warrant dismissing any such finding, and accusing those who observed it of being lying, racist jerks?  I think there are obvious, glaring, gross problems with that approach, too.

In the context of this discussion, I'm referring to race. I agree that there's probably some sort of heritable intelligence but this information makes me very uncomfortable. As far as race is concerned, I don't think there's any connection. Adopted children from Africa do as well as white children on IQ tests.

No offense Alcon but I don't really care about which argumentative approach you find to be "unsound". This is a forum on the internet. I try to present my arguments in a manner that makes them readable and that presents a narrative. This isn't a court room or a logic class. I'm simply presenting a series of ideas in a narrative format. My narrative is pretty simple: there are a litany of deep flaws that characterize genetic tests. Because I'm not a geneticist or a scientist, I cannot really dig deep into these flaws. I'm a laymen and my role in this conversation is to present some evidence in a nice, readable format.

As for your final point, I'm not sure what my approach would be to scientists who found a link between genetic factors which may be construed as "race" and "intelligence". I'd probably emigrate to Mexico and attempt to live my life in peace without thinking about the subject. I don't have faith in Europeans that they'd treat "racial inferiors" with brotherly love and respect. I suppose that my ideal response would be that scientists would attempt to dig deeper into the findings and pray that they are flawed. If they're not flawed, I have no idea what policy prescriptions I'd advance.

However, this is a hypothetical discussion. There's hardly any evidence that suggests that there's a connection between genetic factors that may be construed as "race" and "intelligence".

[DrScholl]

He knows the crowd he needs to cater to in order to get this nomination.

[King]

This is a Hillaryesque junk scandal.

[bobloblaw]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

The irony is that those who believe in creationism can believe that everyone is created in God's image equally. But in evolution it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that all creeds, races and ethnicities have evolved exactly equally from apes and after millions of years are all at the exact same place in their evolution.

Your post proves otherwise.

So we all evolve equally. Over millions of years from apes? Exactly equally. Even though that isnt the case in other species. I can see how a creationist could believe everyone is exactly created equally.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

We didn't evolve "equally".

[Alcon]

In the context of this discussion, I'm referring to race. I agree that there's probably some sort of heritable intelligence but this information makes me very uncomfortable. As far as race is concerned, I don't think there's any connection. Adopted children from Africa do as well as white children on IQ tests.

I appreciate your honesty in saying certain findings make you uncomfortable.  To be clear -- this is probably obvious, but I want to say it -- just because I think evidence points one way doesn't mean I like that it does.

This isn't an area of expertise for me, but I've read a few studies on adoption and I do not know which study you're referring to.  I do not recall a study that indicates no IQ difference for children adopted from Africa.  But I can't remember or find an adoption study that measured that.  I'm aware of studies of children adopted from Asia that showed a competing conclusion; I think the adoptees, many of whom were malnourished, outscored their European counterparts in their new home.  Like I said, I don't have exhaustive knowledge, but

No offense Alcon but I don't really care about which argumentative approach you find to be "unsound". This is a forum on the internet. I try to present my arguments in a manner that makes them readable and that presents a narrative. This isn't a court room or a logic class. I'm simply presenting a series of ideas in a narrative format. My narrative is pretty simple: there are a litany of deep flaws that characterize genetic tests. Because I'm not a geneticist or a scientist, I cannot really dig deep into these flaws. I'm a laymen and my role in this conversation is to present some evidence in a nice, readable format.

I didn't say your argumentative approach was unsound.  I said your analysis was unsound.  It is a problem to arbitrarily endorse a certain set of results.  Basically, if you can't explain why you endorse one argument/viewpoint over another besides you prefer to believe one is true, it doesn't seem to be reasonable to be anything but agnostic about the issue.  Maybe you do have a good explanation...but "malaria as an explanatory variable" doesn't suggest you're well-versed enough on this to dismiss the genetic hypothesis like you were.

Which is totally fine!  I just get the sense that you want to reach a conclusion here, and you're finding evidence that matches the conclusion you want.  I also understand why that's really attractive on this issue.  Like you say, this is an issue that could fuel some pretty awful behavior/policy.  But I also have some serious qualms about being disingenuous about empirical evidence -- not just on principle, but also because that can make for some problematic public policy, as well.  And on principle, too...I feel weird about knowingly ignoring/lying about reality.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I suppose you have a point but I'm a bit puzzled about this discussion. There are hundreds of posts on this forum that are ill-thought out, immature, childish and dumb: why did you choose to reply to mine? Admittedly, my argument was an "on a napkin" one that drew from random information I've read on the internet. I didn't formulate a coherent argument because I say things that are off the top of my head on forums. I don't get why you're lecturing me about the nature of empirical evidence. This isn't an essay that I'm submitting for a grade or whatever. 

I mean, you "caught me" in my devious attempt to defeat a racist troll on the internet with an impromptu post but I'm not sure what has been accomplished. If you'd like to discuss the issue, I'm okay with that but that's not the sense I've gotten from engaging in this conversation with you.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

For anyone interested in a fair minded description of The Bell Curve that also demolishes the idea of a stable race-IQ connection on the basis of something besides political correctness, Thomas Sowell's review is worth a read.

[Beet]

The idea that I.Q. is a fixed trait is an outdated concept that is constantly under siege, and I would not be surprised at all it see it tumble down entirely at any moment.

[Alcon]

I suppose you have a point but I'm a bit puzzled about this discussion. There are hundreds of posts on this forum that are ill-thought out, immature, childish and dumb: why did you choose to reply to mine? Admittedly, my argument was an "on a napkin" one that drew from random information I've read on the internet. I didn't formulate a coherent argument because I say things that are off the top of my head on forums. I don't get why you're lecturing me about the nature of empirical evidence. This isn't an essay that I'm submitting for a grade or whatever.

You drew on arbitrary evidence (and, in one case, evidence that I'm not even sure exists) to reach a conclusion you've already decided you wanted to reach, and then stated (wrongly) that your conclusion was the only reasonable one based on available evidence.  I responded to you because:

1. That's not accurate, and people who read your post but know little about this subject might get the wrong idea.

2. I don't think that "I have good intentions" is necessarily a good excuse to be knowingly disingenuous or half-assed about your argument.  (Neither is the fact that this isn't for a grade.  I'm not demanding you be an expert; I wouldn't be criticizing you if you had just admitted you don't know enough to have a conclusive opinion.)

3. I replied to this is the thread I happened to open and read.  I responded to your post because the argument was bad and was going mostly unchallenged.  I don't only respond to posts if they're committing the World's Greatest Evil.  If either of us applied such a strict test of utility, neither of us would be posting on an internet forum.

And I'm lecturing you on the nature of empirical evidence because you were abusing empirical evidence.  If you don't need to be lectured on evidence, then I guess you were knowingly abusing evidence?  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, you "caught me" in my devious attempt to defeat a racist troll on the internet with an impromptu post but I'm not sure what has been accomplished. If you'd like to discuss the issue, I'm okay with that but that's not the sense I've gotten from engaging in this conversation with you.

I just spent time dismantling the premise of your argument.  It's kind of ridiculous that you're accusing me of not wanting to discuss the issue, in response to me arguing that you're failing to discuss the issue.  In what sense are you "discussing the issue" more than me -- by adopting a position and then shoe-horning evidence to fit it?

I am more than happy to discuss any aspect of this issue that you want.  I already alluded to my concerns about the public policy repercussions here, and can expand on that if you want.  I've been discussing the issue, and I'm open to discussing it more.  I just don't think "discussion" should take the form of deciding what I want to believe, and finding random evidence to support that position.  That's less like an intellectually honest conversation to me, and more like one of those standardized testing 'persuasive' essays they had us write as fifth-graders.

[Beet]

Alcon just comes out of the woodwork to argue with people at very random times.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Well, this was a wonderful act of intellectual masturbation on your part, A+ work Alcon; you're a smart man. Although your assumption about the intent of my posts was correct, you've missed the entire point of the post above: I think it's incredibly weird and toxic that you decided to engage in this world-class pedantry on a post I made about the implications of the supposed connection between genetic intelligence and racism. I've made similar posts before about other topics. Why this one?

From my perspective, the optics of this move look terrible. An educated white liberal unpacked the argument of a mixed-race leftist made against the idea of "genetic intelligence with regards to race" for the purpose of arguing in favor of a particular use of empirical evidence.

Fine Alcon: you win. I'm opposed to these studies because I'm worried about the malevolent intentions of others and am uncomfortable about the potential that the findings are correct. I don't want to be dumber than white people because of my genes. I don't want people to think I'm an intellectually inferior product because my skin is a certain tone and have indigenous ancestry. I don't want any of this and a bunch of hacks, who often have malevolent intentions, love summarizing dubious research into this topic. Although the aims of these hacks are diverse, it has the ultimate effect of convincing policymakers on the right to oppose immigration, affirmative action and "anti-racist" policy goals. Do you understand why I instinctually hate these people? They cast doubt on me, my mother and my relatives in Mexico. Furthermore, they cast doubt on some of my friends. These studies justify the latent racism of many white people. I don't want that.

I try to be as impartial as possible but I'm not able to on this topic. Maybe you are and maybe that's fine but don't act like you're a big man because you can do that. A (admittedly senile) substitute  teacher once told me that "Mexican immigrants are uneducated and stupid". I've been frequently told that I'm "not like other Mexicans" because I'm "smart". I can't be "impartial" and use empirical evidence in a scholarly fashion about these studies. They're an attack on my very existence. I can't just sit back and let a bunch of bigots trample my dignity. I'll reply to their posts, argue with them in public and defend my existence. If it's a bit sophistic, I accept that but I'm wary of saying "I hate Study X because I'm a 'minority'" because that appears like a weak attack, like an "appeal to emotion" or like intellectual weak tea.

[Alcon]

Dude, I really just don't read the forum that much, and this is the thread I happened to read.  That's the "optics" of it.  I'm not trying to bully you.  I'm just critiquing your argument.  I'm not trying to mock the emotional commitments you have on these issues.  I even said I understand them, because there are some truly gross people who really want there to be a racial IQ gap, and then want to abuse that information.  But I'm sure you can appreciate why I think there's good reason not to be disingenuous about evidence, and it's not because I want to prove that I'm a bigger man than you or whatever.  I don't think poorly of you at all, and this defensiveness is unnecessary.

[pbrower2a]

GEOGRAPHIES OF OPPORTUNITY

Ranking Well-Being by Congressional District

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(page 29)

http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Geographies-of-Opportunity-4.22.2015.pdf


...Behavior trumps IQ. Poverty is the result of being recent immigrants with slight education, but I would not predict poverty to be a continuing reality of Mexican-American life. A culture of caring is more likely to foster economic advance than the every-man-for-himself ethos of some other groups.  

Does anyone want to predict that Mexican-Americans in Chicago will quickly outpace Appalachian white people? Formal education, if at all competent, enhances the malleable component of IQ.