US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Social Darwinism derail

[Drewish]

Drewish : when you refer to humans as being unequal that is in terms of capability as
pertaining to intelligence : no one denies that we are all different in this respect
but you appear to be equating intelligence with morality : a different thing
entirely : everyone should be treated equal irrespective of ability : your
reference of some as human trash indicates a moral judgement as
you obviously cannot reference their intelligence : ndeed such
ad hom is a judgement on the person themselves rather
than their capabilities as pertaining to intelligence

I think that belongs in this thread.

[mistermack]

Anyway, I would like to apologize for making fun of your spelling errors. It was childish of me.

I wouldn't. I think it's relevant to the topic being discussed that someone who thinks people who get good scores in IQ tests are superior, is a rubbish speller. Relevant and funny.
He's obviously inherited his genes from some pretty sub-normal spellers.

[maiforpeace]

Drewish : when you refer to humans as being unequal that is in terms of capability as
pertaining to intelligence : no one denies that we are all different in this respect
but you appear to be equating intelligence with morality : a different thing
entirely : everyone should be treated equal irrespective of ability : your
reference of some as human trash indicates a moral judgement as
you obviously cannot reference their intelligence : ndeed such
ad hom is a judgement on the person themselves rather
than their capabilities as pertaining to intelligence

I think that belongs in this thread.

Surreptitious, I pm'd you for permission to move it. Is it OK for me to do so?

[Drewish]

What he (and I) would like to see is clear evidence that the IQ differential between ethnic groups is due to genetic differences between those groups.

That is still an open question, as I've said earlier. Determinations of what genes are correlated with various IQs and determinations of which genes vary over classical race categories will answer that question. Genetic sequencing will tell us. Until that point it is unknown. I was stating (in the post where I reference Tyrannical by name) that it is no less presumptuous to assume that such variations are not genetically based as it is to assume that they are. Now we can look at certain variations like that of Native Americans where the previous IQ gap has completely disappeared with increased living standards and conclude that this then must have been environmental. The large hold out concerning genetic variation amongst races is the sub saharan African population as it remains lower even when controlling for household income. This does not therefore mean that the sub saharan African population has an innately lower IQ, but since variations that clearly were not genetic have disappeared in other disadvantaged communities it suggests that the differences causing the variation in IQ are somehow distinct to the sub saharan African population. It's not a very "feel good" response I know, but I want the truth regardless of the consequences.

[mistermack]

Now we can look at certain variations like that of Native Americans where the previous IQ gap has completely disappeared with increased living standards and conclude that this then must have been environmental.

Well, if that is right, it PROVES beyond any doubt that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence in American Indians. If they were, the gap could not close. Obviously it was a gap of IQ test competence, not intelligence.

So how can you assume that they ARE a measure of inherited intelligence in sub Saharan Africans?

If a gap remains, it's a gap in IQ test competence, not inherent intelligence, just as was the case with the Indians.

[Drewish]

Are you being serious right now?

[mistermack]

Are you being serious right now?

Can you REALLY not tell the difference?

[Drewish]

No. Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to get across via only text. I really do not know whether you were being serious in your above post, which is why I asked.

[mistermack]

No. Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to get across via only text. I really do not know whether you were being serious in your above post, which is why I asked.

Serious. I would hope that if I was to be sarcastic, it would be obvious to anybody.
If not, it's my mis-judgement, not intentional.

[Warren Dew]

Now we can look at certain variations like that of Native Americans where the previous IQ gap has completely disappeared with increased living standards and conclude that this then must have been environmental.

Well, if that is right, it PROVES beyond any doubt that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence in American Indians. If they were, the gap could not close. Obviously it was a gap of IQ test competence, not intelligence.

It proves nothing of the sort. Most likely it shows that impoverished living standards, such as those affecting the reservations of most native Americans when IQ tests were first developed, negatively impact intelligence, and thus IQ test results as well.

[hadespussercats]

Now we can look at certain variations like that of Native Americans where the previous IQ gap has completely disappeared with increased living standards and conclude that this then must have been environmental.

Well, if that is right, it PROVES beyond any doubt that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence in American Indians. If they were, the gap could not close. Obviously it was a gap of IQ test competence, not intelligence.

It proves nothing of the sort. Most likely it shows that impoverished living standards, such as those affecting the reservations of most native Americans when IQ tests were first developed, negatively impact intelligence, and thus IQ test results as well.

Which is another way of using Drewish's point to illustrate that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence, right?

[Warren Dew]

Now we can look at certain variations like that of Native Americans where the previous IQ gap has completely disappeared with increased living standards and conclude that this then must have been environmental.

Well, if that is right, it PROVES beyond any doubt that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence in American Indians. If they were, the gap could not close. Obviously it was a gap of IQ test competence, not intelligence.

It proves nothing of the sort. Most likely it shows that impoverished living standards, such as those affecting the reservations of most native Americans when IQ tests were first developed, negatively impact intelligence, and thus IQ test results as well.

Which is another way of using Drewish's point to illustrate that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence, right?

Correct. Drewish has actually been careful to distinguish between IQ and intelligence differences, on the one hand, and any inheritance of those differences, on the other, something some of those responding to him don't seem to be picking up on.

[mistermack]

Now we can look at certain variations like that of Native Americans where the previous IQ gap has completely disappeared with increased living standards and conclude that this then must have been environmental.

Well, if that is right, it PROVES beyond any doubt that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence in American Indians. If they were, the gap could not close. Obviously it was a gap of IQ test competence, not intelligence.

It proves nothing of the sort. Most likely it shows that impoverished living standards, such as those affecting the reservations of most native Americans when IQ tests were first developed, negatively impact intelligence, and thus IQ test results as well.

Which is another way of using Drewish's point to illustrate that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence, right?

Correct. Drewish has actually been careful to distinguish between IQ and intelligence differences, on the one hand, and any inheritance of those differences, on the other, something some of those responding to him don't seem to be picking up on.

Just as you didn't pick up on the post you were criticizing.
And I wouldn't mind a reminder of where Drewish was careful to make that distinction.
Here's one of his earliest posts :

So don't use IQ. Go find me ANY standardized test that you want and we'll use that. The disagreement is NOT over wether people of African decent are well behind others in regards to intelligence, but rather why. I want the truth, political correctness be damned!

I don't see any distinction made there. Quite the opposite. Talking about people of African descent, clearly he's talking about their inherited intelligence.

[Warren Dew]

Well, if that is right, it PROVES beyond any doubt that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence in American Indians. If they were, the gap could not close. Obviously it was a gap of IQ test competence, not intelligence. [italics added]

It proves nothing of the sort. Most likely it shows that impoverished living standards, such as those affecting the reservations of most native Americans when IQ tests were first developed, negatively impact intelligence, and thus IQ test results as well.

Which is another way of using Drewish's point to illustrate that IQ scores are not a measure of inherited intelligence, right?

Correct. Drewish has actually been careful to distinguish between IQ and intelligence differences, on the one hand, and any inheritance of those differences, on the other, something some of those responding to him don't seem to be picking up on.

Just as you didn't pick up on the post you were criticizing.

To the contrary, I picked up on your entire statement, not just the portion you now seem to be trying to retreat to. The part of your conclusion that I've italiciized was entirely unproven, and was what I was taking issue with, as should be clear from reading my entire response.

And I wouldn't mind a reminder of where Drewish was careful to make that distinction.
Here's one of his earliest posts :

So don't use IQ. Go find me ANY standardized test that you want and we'll use that. The disagreement is NOT over wether people of African decent are well behind others in regards to intelligence, but rather why. I want the truth, political correctness be damned!

I don't see any distinction made there. Quite the opposite. Talking about people of African descent, clearly he's talking about their inherited intelligence.

Drewish says nothing about inheritance or genetics there. You are reading into his post something that he is not saying. The part where he talks about wanting to know the truth about "why" shows that he's interested in any explanation of the gap, genetic or otherwise.

[maiforpeace]

To refer to any living thing, as a waste of space and trash in the same post where you suggest black people, as a race have lower IQ's is being superior - and is what I found repugnant.

I have now stated twice (this will be the third) that my comment regarding variations in racial IQ was part of a paragraph point to IQ as being something inheritable. It was part of a larger point about human beings not all being equal. That there are countless other traits other than IQ is a given. It was not meant to say that all blacks are genetically inferior to whites and so on and so forth. I can not restate this enough or clearly enough it seems.

You forgot to address the part about some human beings as being a waste of space and basically trash.

Also, the anger that seemed to drive it...what do you, a young, white, male, who has probably lived a pretty comfortable life have to be so angry about? I find it quite sad, and frankly, a bit scary.

So you assume that because of my age, race, and gender that you know what my life is like? Wow.

No, but if you have lived in poverty, or suffered discrimination in any way, then you show an utter lack of empathy and/or pure contempt (take your pick) for those who have. Still sad and scary to me.

As far as those of us who are 'close-minded' - maybe only a few of us have spoken up, but I would venture to guess most of the people on this board, if they read that post of yours, would be, or are, just as repelled by that post as those of us who said something.

So yeah, I guess I would be disappointed if I were you too.