US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Social Darwinism derail

[surreptitious57]

There is no such thing as races per se : for there is only one race and that is homo sapiens who emigrated
from Africa out to Europe and Asia two hundred thousand years ago : when races per se are referenced
they are taken to mean either nationality or ethnicity though this error universal though it is needs to
be corrected and is long overdue : language should be as precise as possible to avoid any ambiguity

I Q tests are very unreliable indicators of intelligence : format is usually a multiple choice which
negates the need to use cognitive ability : one could pass one with flying colours not having a
clue about the questions : there are different types of intelligence too : there is emotional
intelligence and there is logical intelligence : two are completely different : generally the
former is dominant in females and the latter is dominant in males : one is not better
than the other as they are just different ways of responding to the physical world

Andrew : some cognitive dissonance I notice going on with you : on one hand
you are against attempts to curb over population yet condemn those who
repeatedly pro create with no thought whatsoever on consequences of
their actions : so could you please explain this paradox : thank you
And to those who are unhappy with him expressing the views he
does : try to avoid ad hom : focus instead on the issue it self
and not on the individual who is making it : thank you too

[mistermack]

In those areas of the world where completed fertility is in the range of 6, people who are genetically predisposed to stick to 2 kids per couple are going to be selected out in a couple of decades.

How on earth can you be genetically predisposed to stick to 2 kids?
Socially predisposed, yes, but GENETICALLY?

How come our genes are so different to those of our ancestors from 200 years ago, in that case?

Because genes both dictate fertility and behavior. Do you even believe in or understand evolution

Don't you just love it when someone who knows fuck-all tries to sound knowledgeable? It's about as funny as it gets.

Genes DON'T dictate fertility and behavior. They influence them. Environment and experience are the major influences on behavior, especially nuanced behavior like choosing family size.
And my point was how people had big families 200 years ago, and very small ones now. With virtually no genetic change at all.

What a stupid post. But then, I suppose it was your genes that posted, not you !!

[macdoc]

Don't you just love it when someone who knows fuck-all tries to sound knowledgeable? It's about as funny as it gets.

the irony the irony........

[mistermack]

Don't you just love it when someone who knows fuck-all tries to sound knowledgeable? It's about as funny as it gets.

the irony the irony........

Loads of copy and paste doesn't equal knowledge, you know. That's actually a sign of someone TRYING to sound knowledgeable. But in your case, it's probably the best option.
You keep putting your foot in it when you try your own words.

[mistermack]

There's a lot going on in this thread that I'd like to comment on, but I think I'll start small--

My understanding is that girls are reaching menarche earlier largely because of reactions to environmental factors and changes in the food supply, like growth hormones in milk.

The economic factor may still apply, in that wealthier families by and large are choosing milk sold without growth hormones, which is often also marketed as 'organic' (read: more expensive.)

That may be the case, but I have a feeling it's much simpler than hormones in the milk.
I think that menarche is more influenced by body weight than age. And girls are getting bigger younger.

[FBM]

I wonder how I would ever complete a single graduate course without citing the works of relevant experts and incorporating their data and conclusions into my own research papers. I only wish that more people would do so in threads such as this instead of just tirelessly spinning rhetoric back and forth. Copypasta, please! Nobody here has done all the research themselves nor are any of us recongnized experts. Copypasta, please! Do the reading up and bring the best you can find to the table! If you don't, that strongly suggests that the rhetoric you spin is ex recto.

[Drewish]

What's the difference between posting a position that strongly suggests black inferiority and posting one that suggests white supremacy?

And it's different matter altogether to back up such claims with research data. Read up about social darwinism and why it failed. Read up on what geneticists say about genetic determinism and the fallacious link between race and intelligence. This isn't the sort of thing that one can just go with intuition and preferences about. If you make controversial statements, you should be prepared to defend them with scholarship, not just rhetoric. I'm saying this to anyone who's proposing racist concepts and failing to defend them with scholarly research. Skeptics shouldn't be expected to buy into rhetoric, though many do. There are enough skeptics around here that you're bound to run into at least one who will call you to task about any metaphysical claim that isn't based on empirical data and necessary inference.

So...where's your (plural) scholarly data that supports genetically determined racial intellectual inferiority?

Hell about the only research that is socially acceptable these days regarding race and IQ is about trying to prove that the differences are environmental, but even that research admits the very clear difference in IQ test scores:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 ... 316a0.html

And one more thing. In my post I made a point to mention both that there are studies showing differences in IQ among races and that there are studies showing IQ is inherited even within racial groups. The point being that IQ is genetically based. The 'race' issue was something of an aside, but it was jumped on (as really I should have expected) in an attempt to paint myself as a racist. Now Tyrannical is openly a racist, and making arguments (granted there is a distinct lack of evidence being brought forth here, but FBM asked for a source and I gave it, so hopefully now that will start a new trend) that presuppose an answer to certain questions that we do not entirely know yet. However presupposing that he must be wrong also falls into the same issue. Perhaps more so as what research has been done does present corollary evidence showing a racial IQ link. This seems to have become the topic for better or worse, so I'll address it directly here.

Now one of the issues here could be how fervently many scientists dismiss the notion of researching possible links between genetic variations between races and IQ. This means that most of the people really doing research on the subject will probably have biases (if they have biases) towards a genetic link. This is however not Tyrannical's fault. There are also those who suggest that either race does not exist or that IQ is meaningless, making such studies flawed in principle. However gene sequencing can tell with fairly high accuracy one's racial background, and it's only improving. The notion that there is no such thing as race is complete bullocks. One might as well say that there's no such thing as ancestry. It was a big headline when Clinton announced it, and the later issues disclaimer/retraction was a muted whisper. If any bias exists within the reporting of this subject it is certainly not in Tyrannical's favor

To the notion that IQ is BS. I would ask what other measurement we should use? Is the claim that there's no such thing as measurable intelligence? I think not. Is the claim that we should use some other scale? Well then please suggest which one. These points seem to be more about attempting to deny reality in an attempt to avoid asking questions that could potentially have difficult answers (for the moral narrative of the one asking).

Lastly to the claims that I am racist or a white supremacist. On what grounds are you basing this? I have stated that studies show differences in IQ test scores based on race, but that was part of a larger argument that IQ (and therefore intelligence) has a strong genetic component. When the topic shifted to discussing specifically race and IQ, I stated tat I wanted the truth, political correctness be damned. If such a position of open mindedness to the truth regardless of the social implications makes me racist, then I dare say any honest person is racist. As to the white supremacist part, is it now assumed that anyone who even is open to the notion of genetic variations between races is only such to promote a notion of "their people" being superior? If we limit the discussion to judging races purely based on IQ then I would have to conclude that Asians are in fact the superior race based on present evidence.

I am very disappointed in the close-minded group thought on display here, especially the willingness (I dare say even desire) to label those you disagree with and lob personal attacks at them. That Pappa seems so prone to such hit-and-runs disappoints me even more than most.

[FBM]

Drewish, first of all, I sincerely thank you for linking to autoritative, peer-reviewed source material. It's worth a lot more than all the rhetoric in all these threads combined.

OTOH, it looks like the abstract you linked to works against your claim that IQ is genetically determined:

Hence the argument that because black children tend to have lower IQs than white children of the same social class they are genetically inferior is unconvincing; the inferior test scores could result from differences in the microenvironment of the family, such as linguistic practices and attitudes to achievement.

The authors acknowledge the test score discrepancies, as does anyone who has even a cursory familirity with the topic, but they, too, land firmly on the side that environment is more causative than genetics. You might consider looking into that Jensen person's work instead, since that's what the authors were responding to. Just a suggestion, tho, of course.

[mistermack]

I wonder how I would ever complete a single graduate course without citing the works of relevant experts and incorporating their data and conclusions into my own research papers. I only wish that more people would do so in threads such as this instead of just tirelessly spinning rhetoric back and forth. Copypasta, please! Nobody here has done all the research themselves nor are any of us recongnized experts. Copypasta, please! Do the reading up and bring the best you can find to the table! If you don't, that strongly suggests that the rhetoric you spin is ex recto.

I don't mind copy and paste when it's factual stuff, or high quality work, but when it's just propeganda from biased blogs, I'd rather read a cereal packet.

[FBM]

True that, mistermack.

[maiforpeace]

I am very disappointed in the close-minded group thought on display here, especially the willingness (I dare say even desire) to label those you disagree with and lob personal attacks at them. That Pappa seems so prone to such hit-and-runs disappoints me even more than most.

Oh, stop with the "disappointment". We're not your children.

Aside from your political views I find you quite likeable, and I might have even looked past your post, and continued with engaging you in discussion over it if not for the last part of your post. 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. 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.

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

[Drewish]

Drewish, first of all, I sincerely thank you for linking to autoritative, peer-reviewed source material. It's worth a lot more than all the rhetoric in all these threads combined.

OTOH, it looks like the abstract you linked to works against your claim that IQ is genetically determined:

Hence the argument that because black children tend to have lower IQs than white children of the same social class they are genetically inferior is unconvincing; the inferior test scores could result from differences in the microenvironment of the family, such as linguistic practices and attitudes to achievement.

The authors acknowledge the test score discrepancies, as does anyone who has even a cursory familirity with the topic, but they, too, land firmly on the side that environment is more causative than genetics. You might consider looking into that Jensen person's work instead, since that's what the authors were responding to. Just a suggestion, tho, of course.

You were asking for evidence that a disparity in IQ test scores exist. I linked to the study above to show that even those opposed to the notion of genetic causes for the racial difference acknowledge that the disparity is there. There's a bit of an issue with regards to that scholarship suggesting that the linkage is genetic, in that scientists who make such claims are labelled as bigots and ostracized. This is one area of science where the accusations of bias run rampant. I could link to studies that do not deal directly with race and show a evidence of IQ being largely heritable if you would like though.

[Drewish]

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.

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.

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

Thank you.

[maiforpeace]

I'm going to be splitting this thread - suggestions for a title for the race derail are welcomed, and your patience with me while I do this is appreciated.

[Hermit]

What's the difference between posting a position that strongly suggests black inferiority and posting one that suggests white supremacy?

You were asking for evidence that a disparity in IQ test scores exist. I linked to the study above to show that even those opposed to the notion of genetic causes for the racial difference acknowledge that the disparity is there. There's a bit of an issue with regards to that scholarship suggesting that the linkage is genetic, in that scientists who make such claims are labelled as bigots and ostracized. This is one area of science where the accusations of bias run rampant. I could link to studies that do not deal directly with race and show a evidence of IQ being largely heritable if you would like though.

I am pretty sure that FBM acknowledges differences in average IQ between individuals as well as differences in average IQ between ethnic groups. I also guess that he won't try to deny that the level of intelligence is at least in part determined by genetic factors. 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.