Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Dear Mami on June 14, 2018, 08:21:23 PM
-
....who knew??? He'd never admit it explicitly but he has been legitimizing that "Bell Curve" book for the last few years and is partly responsible for its renewed popularity. He talks about it as if its pure undebunkable fact despite its dismissal by a majority of the scientific and scholarly community. He doesn't address the Flynn effect and Flynn's debates specifically with this Murray person.
What's goin on? I feel like something really nefarious is on the rise and I have no idea why that is. Its just so disheartening.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve
-
Sam The gentle atheist.
Kadame,
Let’s be honest. Science will forever be blackmailed by history into silence about some of these things. The arguments, however academic, reminds me of OJ Simpson case where melanin so badly tainted the trial that the only thing we are certain of is,we are not sure of anything.
-
Sam The gentle atheist.
Kadame,
Let’s be honest. Science will forever be blackmailed by history into silence about some of these things. The arguments, however academic, reminds me of OJ Simpson case where melanin so badly tainted the trial that the only thing we are certain of is,we are not sure of anything.
He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance. There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.
-
I love this video because it describes why this race and iq business is very silly from a genetics point of view:
1) Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as "race" in humans, (or "subspecies" as alt-righters refer to it) for several reasons:
a) We simply haven't been around long enough for such speciation amongst ourselves to happen. Evolution places us at 200,000 years old as a species, which is but a blip in terms of evolution.
b) Even worse than this, we are ALL descended from a very small population of humans, probably just a couple of a thousand, as the group of humans on the continent had been drastically reduced to that size by some cataclysmic event some 70,000 years or so....ALL of us, without exception, even the aborigines of Australia. It was after this that the out of Africa movements from our own "group" started happening. So its a 70,000 year window for us to evolve away from each other in order to give rise to biological races.
c) Even presuming there had been some speciation before then, it has vanished from the genetic record because all of us who survived were from that tiny group 70,000 years ago that was closely "related" lets say.
d) There have been no genuinely isolated human groups during this short time due to the constant migratory impulse of the homo sapien sapien which has always given rise to waves of migration all over the world throughout. No genes have been completely/perfectly isolated.
e) There are no clusters of genes that can define biological race. ie. traits you can say belong to only one group (100% of the group has them) and only them (no others have them). Even the ones we are most likely to point out, eg East Asian slanted eyes. European blonde hair/blue eyes, white skin, brown/black skin fail the test because none of them belong exclusively to anyone group (google blonde, blue-eyed Aborigines or Khoisans to see "East Asian" eyes) or to every single member of any group to the exclusion of others so that you can say that THAT is the defining trait of that race vs another race or vs all other races.
-They are also arbitrary. These are very superficial traits corresponding to certain large geographies but you could use less visible but more fundamental genetic traits to create WHOLLY different "races".
f) The diversity: There is more genetic diversity between African "black" groups than between "Africans" and "Europeans" for example. So pygmies and the Tutsi and Some other bantus, Nilotes, etc probably qualify much more as "races" than "Africans" and "Europeans" or "Blacks" and "Whites". Yet even in that case, the difference is negligible and this is almost unique to humans (the tiny amount of diversity) or at least is rare compared to nearly all other species.
-Again, humans just barely arrived on the evolutionary time scale and were reduced to a tiny population of East Africans 70,000 years ago. I've seen it said that any two of us are more closely related than two apples you pick up at a store. That's what they discovered when the entire human genome was mapped in the early 2000s.
2) Linking IQ to intelligence per se is controversial
3) Even more, going further to link this iQ-intelligence thing to race (a biologically non-existent thing) is problematic to say the least.
Another video you can see is this:
Linking intelligence to race using IQ is a highly problematic thing to attempt from a scientific perspective because of how nebulous both "race" and "intelligence" are, no matter what you think of the IQ test's relation to innate intelligence is.
-
Sam The gentle atheist.
Kadame,
Let’s be honest. Science will forever be blackmailed by history into silence about some of these things. The arguments, however academic, reminds me of OJ Simpson case where melanin so badly tainted the trial that the only thing we are certain of is,we are not sure of anything.
He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance. There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.
I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.
As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.
-
Sam The gentle atheist.
Kadame,
Let’s be honest. Science will forever be blackmailed by history into silence about some of these things. The arguments, however academic, reminds me of OJ Simpson case where melanin so badly tainted the trial that the only thing we are certain of is,we are not sure of anything.
He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance. There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.
I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.
As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
-
Sam The gentle atheist.
Kadame,
Let’s be honest. Science will forever be blackmailed by history into silence about some of these things. The arguments, however academic, reminds me of OJ Simpson case where melanin so badly tainted the trial that the only thing we are certain of is,we are not sure of anything.
He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance. There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.
I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.
As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro
-
Sam The gentle atheist.
Kadame,
Let’s be honest. Science will forever be blackmailed by history into silence about some of these things. The arguments, however academic, reminds me of OJ Simpson case where melanin so badly tainted the trial that the only thing we are certain of is,we are not sure of anything.
He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance. There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.
I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.
As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.
Hmm, actually this is not exactly true either. Scientists reject these alt-right ideas because they are utterly unfounded based on the evidence. It's not because they are afraid to look for evidence. The genome was mapped recently and it is the genetic discoveries over the past decade that has most made these "race realism" ideas ridiculous from a genetics point of view. The thing we humans call "races" in our day to day lives become meaningless when they actually look at our genes, and the genetic differences between different geographic groups.
-
I love this video because it describes why this race and iq business is very silly from a genetics point of view:
1) Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as "race" in humans, (or "subspecies" as alt-righters refer to it) for several reasons:
a) We simply haven't been around long enough for such speciation amongst ourselves to happen. Evolution places us at 200,000 years old as a species, which is but a blip in terms of evolution.
b) Even worse than this, we are ALL descended from a very small population of humans, probably just a couple of a thousand, as the group of humans on the continent had been drastically reduced to that size by some cataclysmic event some 70,000 years or so....ALL of us, without exception, even the aborigines of Australia. It was after this that the out of Africa movements from our own "group" started happening. So its a 70,000 year window for us to evolve away from each other in order to give rise to biological races.
c) Even presuming there had been some speciation before then, it has vanished from the genetic record because all of us who survived were from that tiny group 70,000 years ago that was closely "related" lets say.
d) There have been no genuinely isolated human groups during this short time due to the constant migratory impulse of the homo sapien sapien which has always given rise to waves of migration all over the world throughout. No genes have been completely/perfectly isolated.
e) There are no clusters of genes that can define biological race. ie. traits you can say belong to only one group (100% of the group has them) and only them (no others have them). Even the ones we are most likely to point out, eg East Asian slanted eyes. European blonde hair/blue eyes, white skin, brown/black skin fail the test because none of them belong exclusively to anyone group (google blonde, blue-eyed Aborigines or Khoisans to see "East Asian" eyes) or to every single member of any group to the exclusion of others so that you can say that THAT is the defining trait of that race vs another race or vs all other races.
-They are also arbitrary. These are very superficial traits corresponding to certain large geographies but you could use less visible but more fundamental genetic traits to create WHOLLY different "races".
f) The diversity: There is more genetic diversity between African "black" groups than between "Africans" and "Europeans" for example. So pygmies and the Tutsi and Some other bantus, Nilotes, etc probably qualify much more as "races" than "Africans" and "Europeans" or "Blacks" and "Whites". Yet even in that case, the difference is negligible and this is almost unique to humans (the tiny amount of diversity) or at least is rare compared to nearly all other species.
-Again, humans just barely arrived on the evolutionary time scale and were reduced to a tiny population of East Africans 70,000 years ago. I've seen it said that any two of us are more closely related than two apples you pick up at a store. That's what they discovered when the entire human genome was mapped in the early 2000s.
2) Linking IQ to intelligence per se is controversial
3) Even more, going further to link this iQ-intelligence thing to race (a biologically non-existent thing) is problematic to say the least.
Another video you can see is this:
Linking intelligence to race using IQ is a highly problematic thing to attempt from a scientific perspective because of how nebulous both "race" and "intelligence" are, no matter what you think of the IQ test's relation to innate intelligence is.
To me IQ tests are just a reflection of cultural differences. If you spend time around African Americans, you will notice a very different type of environment than bazungus. And Asians are also in a very different kind of setup with different demands and expectations. And this is regardless of income.
Bazungus tend to have the lower demands placed on them. They are allowed to be kids when they are kids. African Americans have to "grow up" very fast, just to not get into trouble. So a good deal of energy is focused on the straight and narrow for black kids who want to succeed. Asians have to deal with demands from their parents who expect nothing less than Phds in a technical field. No burden on them to survive a police encounter though.
-
Sam The gentle atheist.
Kadame,
Let’s be honest. Science will forever be blackmailed by history into silence about some of these things. The arguments, however academic, reminds me of OJ Simpson case where melanin so badly tainted the trial that the only thing we are certain of is,we are not sure of anything.
He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance. There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.
I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.
As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.
Hmm, actually this is not exactly true either. Scientists reject these alt-right ideas because they are utterly unfounded based on the evidence. It's not because they are afraid to look for evidence. The genome was mapped recently and it is the genetic discoveries over the past decade that has most made these "race realism" ideas ridiculous from a genetics point of view. The thing we humans call "races" in our day to day lives become meaningless when they actually look at our genes, and the genetic differences between different geographic groups.
The question of whether there is a genetic basis of human races is far from being settled in academia.
-
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro
But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.
-
I love this video because it describes why this race and iq business is very silly from a genetics point of view:
1) Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as "race" in humans, (or "subspecies" as alt-righters refer to it) for several reasons:
a) We simply haven't been around long enough for such speciation amongst ourselves to happen. Evolution places us at 200,000 years old as a species, which is but a blip in terms of evolution.
b) Even worse than this, we are ALL descended from a very small population of humans, probably just a couple of a thousand, as the group of humans on the continent had been drastically reduced to that size by some cataclysmic event some 70,000 years or so....ALL of us, without exception, even the aborigines of Australia. It was after this that the out of Africa movements from our own "group" started happening. So its a 70,000 year window for us to evolve away from each other in order to give rise to biological races.
c) Even presuming there had been some speciation before then, it has vanished from the genetic record because all of us who survived were from that tiny group 70,000 years ago that was closely "related" lets say.
d) There have been no genuinely isolated human groups during this short time due to the constant migratory impulse of the homo sapien sapien which has always given rise to waves of migration all over the world throughout. No genes have been completely/perfectly isolated.
e) There are no clusters of genes that can define biological race. ie. traits you can say belong to only one group (100% of the group has them) and only them (no others have them). Even the ones we are most likely to point out, eg East Asian slanted eyes. European blonde hair/blue eyes, white skin, brown/black skin fail the test because none of them belong exclusively to anyone group (google blonde, blue-eyed Aborigines or Khoisans to see "East Asian" eyes) or to every single member of any group to the exclusion of others so that you can say that THAT is the defining trait of that race vs another race or vs all other races.
-They are also arbitrary. These are very superficial traits corresponding to certain large geographies but you could use less visible but more fundamental genetic traits to create WHOLLY different "races".
f) The diversity: There is more genetic diversity between African "black" groups than between "Africans" and "Europeans" for example. So pygmies and the Tutsi and Some other bantus, Nilotes, etc probably qualify much more as "races" than "Africans" and "Europeans" or "Blacks" and "Whites". Yet even in that case, the difference is negligible and this is almost unique to humans (the tiny amount of diversity) or at least is rare compared to nearly all other species.
-Again, humans just barely arrived on the evolutionary time scale and were reduced to a tiny population of East Africans 70,000 years ago. I've seen it said that any two of us are more closely related than two apples you pick up at a store. That's what they discovered when the entire human genome was mapped in the early 2000s.
2) Linking IQ to intelligence per se is controversial
3) Even more, going further to link this iQ-intelligence thing to race (a biologically non-existent thing) is problematic to say the least.
Another video you can see is this:
Linking intelligence to race using IQ is a highly problematic thing to attempt from a scientific perspective because of how nebulous both "race" and "intelligence" are, no matter what you think of the IQ test's relation to innate intelligence is.
To me IQ tests are just a reflection of cultural differences. If you spend time around African Americans, you will notice a very different type of environment than bazungus. And Asians are also in a very different kind of setup with different demands and expectations. And this is regardless of income.
Bazungus tend to have the lower demands placed on them. They are allowed to be kids when they are kids. African Americans have to "grow up" very fast, just to not get into trouble. So a good deal of energy is focused on the straight and narrow for black kids who want to succeed. Asians have to deal with demands from their parents who expect nothing less than Phds in a technical field. No burden on them to survive a police encounter though.
We muddy the definition of intelligence when not muddying the one of Race and we thus effectively bury the quest.
-
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro
But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.
I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes
-
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro
But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.
I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes
But which "bazungu"? The Arab, Greek, German, or Swede? The problem is while geneticists are trying to find biological "races" and failing, the idea of "bazungu" and "negro" races already assumes a certain validity to this very categorization that just is utterly meaningless when they look at our genes. Per our genes, it makes more sense to think of many african groups as "races" than it does to think of a "bazungu" race.
-
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro
But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.
I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes
I think it's because intelligence is not well defined. Neither is race. I think kadame has already pointed that out.
You put a finger on those, provide reliable data, I don't think you will run into any problems. I think Charles Murray was debunked partly on the methodology he used to estimate IQ levels(without measuring them). He would for instance estimate the IQ of one country on the basis of the estimated IQs of neighboring countries. You know nobody went around Africa giving controlled IQ tests for instance.
-
I didn't know that
He would for instance estimate the IQ of one country on the basis of the estimated IQs of neighboring countries. You know nobody went around Africa giving controlled IQ tests for instance.
I've always wondered when I see IQ scores for African countries if these people know of the diversity within countries for example. Imagine giving a Turkana who has never been to school the same IQ test as some Nairobi kid and then assuming that the predictably low score by the Turkana is because Turkanas are innately less intelligent than Nairobi city dwellers. It's just crazy how mindless these claims are yet these pple think they are being rational.
-
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro
But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.
I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes
But which "bazungu"? The Arab, Greek, German, or Swede? The problem is while geneticists are trying to find biological "races" and failing, the idea of "bazungu" and "negro" races already assumes a certain validity to this very categorization that just is utterly meaningless when they look at our genes. Per our genes, it makes more sense to think of many african groups as "races" than it does to think of a "bazungu" race.
There may be no genetic basis for races,but there are genetically identifiable differences between racial categories. Sickle cell is quite prevalent among negroes among Africans but it can be found in any race. So you can’t use sickle cell to distinguish Africans or Negroes from the rest,but you can rightly say that Negroes are hit hard by Sickle cell. That’s what I’m talking about.
-
I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies. Genome studies are ongoing. Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races. But they haven't. My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.
Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro
But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.
I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes
I think it's because intelligence is not well defined. Neither is race. I think kadame has already pointed that out.
You put a finger on those, provide reliable data, I don't think you will run into any problems. I think Charles Murray was debunked partly on the methodology he used to estimate IQ levels(without measuring them). He would for instance estimate the IQ of one country on the basis of the estimated IQs of neighboring countries. You know nobody went around Africa giving controlled IQ tests for instance.
I don’t look at Murray as one advancing the inferiority theory,but as one who proposed a scientific approach for testing it. That alone is what earned him bad press. We are coming from slavery and civil rights movement,and we have serious inequalities presently to grapple with,then here comes a suggestion that genes have a role. The idea that despite liberalism ideals of equality of all humans some may be be biologically ‘disadvantaged’. Whoever proves that,or even studies it is vilified. It runs against everything America stands for
-
There may be no genetic basis for races,but there are genetically identifiable differences between racial categories. Sickle cell is quite prevalent among negroes among Africans but it can be found in any race. So you can’t use sickle cell to distinguish Africans or Negroes from the rest,but you can rightly say that Negroes are hit hard by Sickle cell. That’s what I’m talking about.
Actually, no. The sickle cell thing is a favourite alt-right trope thats been thoroughly debunked lots of times. You are more likely to have sickle cell if your ancestors once lived in the tropics, be that in Africa, Asia or elsewhere. In fact thats still too broad--You are likely to have it if your ancestors were exposed to some type of malaria. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. Africans without such ancestry are no more likely to have it than any other groups without that ancestry. So including "race" in that discussion rather than "tropics" in your lineage is highly misleading. That's why the argument is always thrown away. It's exactly the kind of thing where the correlation is utterly arbitrary and meaningless.
-
I don’t look at Murray as one advancing the inferiority theory,but as one who proposed a scientific approach for testing it. That alone is what earned him bad press. We are coming from slavery and civil rights movement,and we have serious inequalities presently to grapple with,then here comes a suggestion that genes have a role. The idea that despite liberalism ideals of equality of all humans some may be be biologically ‘disadvantaged’. Whoever proves that,or even studies it is vilified. It runs against everything America stands for
He is absolutely advancing inferiority theory. His main motivation is political. Have you seen the second video I linked? Murray has beef with affirmative action. He is trying to convince Americans that it is a waste of resources to try to positively discriminate in favour of blacks to improve the historical disparities. He is saying basically that they're dumb and cant be helped so don't bother.
Well? Italians had similarly dismal scores as Blacks when they arrived on American shores 100 years ago and were thoroughly otherized and considered inherently daft and not even White at all. Jews as well. In fact they limited immigration into the US by these groups because they considered them too daft to integrate well and they used aptitude tests for this silly policy. Lucky for Italians and European Jews, their appearance allowed them to "join" the rest of the White population in the next few generations and those IQ differences between them and 'the main stream' vanished.
Black history in the US is too long and negative it cant even be put in the same boat and yet, against all the odds, as Flynn found, they alsohave been catching up to the rest despite Jim Crow, racism and the fact that its harder for them to "disappear" into the dominant White race after a generation or two of learning the language and culture like people with White skin and blonde/brown hair. It's harder for them to "become White" if not impossible.
Murray claims that all the environmental differences had ceased to affect the IQ difference from 1972 because the race to join the main stream lagged for some years after 1972 (I think till the 80s/90s) after Blacks closing the gap consistently for decades before. They still don't know why it plateaued then, but unfortunately for Murray and pals, they still closed another 6 points by 2002 notwithstanding all that. By now I bet the gap is smaller still. In another generation or two, the difference will have vanished, by all indications, then the Murrays of that time will invent another goal post to support their bigotry.
It's also cheap of them to hide under conspiracy theories about nefarious motives for their ideas getting zero traction and respect in expert circles. It's not like they've just been hand waved. Each and everyone of their claims has been challenged with evidence or on the grounds of their baseless presuppositions; ie being questioned/demanded evidence for. They refuse to actually respond to the actual critiques they are getting from the academic communities and instead invent a boogeyman to tell lay people that their ideas lack authority with the experts because of bias. That's just lazy.
You can't just say race must be biologically real because you've always thought, like most of us have, that skin and hair colour were all-important markers of biological human families and are now shocked that they are insignificant as far as biology goes; then without evidence for these races one deeply believes in, they just claim they lack the evidence because the other scientists are meanies. I've seen many talks of actual biologists/geneticists, not political scientists like Murray or non-biologists like Harris, but the actual geneticists who utterly rubbish these claims solely on the basis of genes. If the alt-right wants to claim race validity on the basis of biology, its up to them to find these races in gene clusters, not just in their unyielding faith in the all-important-ness of skin colour and hair just because it was what we used to assume before we knew there were invisible things like genes that record our biological history.
-
I don’t look at Murray as one advancing the inferiority theory,but as one who proposed a scientific approach for testing it. That alone is what earned him bad press. We are coming from slavery and civil rights movement,and we have serious inequalities presently to grapple with,then here comes a suggestion that genes have a role. The idea that despite liberalism ideals of equality of all humans some may be be biologically ‘disadvantaged’. Whoever proves that,or even studies it is vilified. It runs against everything America stands for
He is absolutely advancing inferiority theory. His main motivation is political. Have you seen the second video I linked? Murray has beef with affirmative action. He is trying to convince Americans that it is a waste of resources to try to positively discriminate in favour of blacks to improve the historical disparities. He is saying basically that they're dumb and cant be helped so don't bother.
Well? Italians had similarly dismal scores as Blacks when they arrived on American shores 100 years ago and were thoroughly otherized and considered inherently daft and not even White at all. Jews as well. In fact they limited immigration into the US by these groups because they considered them too daft to integrate well and they used aptitude tests for this silly policy. Lucky for Italians and European Jews, their appearance allowed them to "join" the rest of the White population in the next few generations and those IQ differences between them and 'the main stream' vanished.
Black history in the US is too long and negative it cant even be put in the same boat and yet, against all the odds, as Flynn found, they alsohave been catching up to the rest despite Jim Crow, racism and the fact that its harder for them to "disappear" into the dominant White race after a generation or two of learning the language and culture like people with White skin and blonde/brown hair. It's harder for them to "become White" if not impossible.
Murray claims that all the environmental differences had ceased to affect the IQ difference from 1972 because the race to join the main stream lagged for some years after 1972 (I think till the 80s/90s) after Blacks closing the gap consistently for decades before. They still don't know why it plateaued then, but unfortunately for Murray and pals, they still closed another 6 points by 2002 notwithstanding all that. By now I bet the gap is smaller still. In another generation or two, the difference will have vanished, by all indications, then the Murrays of that time will invent another goal post to support their bigotry.
It's also cheap of them to hide under conspiracy theories about nefarious motives for their ideas getting zero traction and respect in expert circles. It's not like they've just been hand waved. Each and everyone of their claims has been challenged with evidence or on the grounds of their baseless presuppositions; ie being questioned/demanded evidence for. They refuse to actually respond to the actual critiques they are getting from the academic communities and instead invent a boogeyman to tell lay people that their ideas lack authority with the experts because of bias. That's just lazy.
You can't just say race must be biologically real because you've always thought, like most of us have, that skin and hair colour were all-important markers of biological human families and are now shocked that they are insignificant as far as biology goes; then without evidence for these races one deeply believes in, they just claim they lack the evidence because the other scientists are meanies. I've seen many talks of actual biologists/geneticists, not political scientists like Murray or non-biologists like Harris, but the actual geneticists who utterly rubbish these claims solely on the basis of genes. If the alt-right wants to claim race validity on the basis of biology, its up to them to find these races in gene clusters, not just in their unyielding faith in the all-important-ness of skin colour and hair just because it was what we used to assume before we knew there were invisible things like genes that record our biological history.
Maybe I was not clear.
I meant his famous book Bell Curve almost mentioned the issue of race and intelligence in passing. Whatever else he subscribes to is not the point.
The very idea that intelligence can be reduced to genetic variation is scary enough. Scary because many once believed it without proof, and used it to justify slavery and segregation. Anyone suggesting such possibility is a closet racist. Meanwhile they will run into tons of 'evidence' against anything remotely pointing in that direction. That's why Termie tells you negroes flunk IQ tests because they became men way younger than Caucasians.
I'm saying the odds are stacked against sincere science on this matter. Too much emotions
-
Meanwhile they will run into tons of 'evidence' against anything remotely pointing in that direction. That's why Termie tells you negroes flunk IQ tests because they became men way younger than Caucasians.
I'm saying the odds are stacked against sincere science on this matter. Too much emotions
I disagree. First of all, why is evidence in quotes? The genetic data is not made up. Its being gathered all over the world as we speak. It's all too easy to handwave evidence away as 'insincere' without pointing to flaws in methodology, sampling or interpretation. I don't buy the conspiracy angle at all. The consensus does not look as it does because scientists are finding evidence of biological race and hiding it. That's really reaching.
-
An interesting article, guys, please read it. https://theconversation.com/human-races-biological-reality-or-cultural-delusion-30419
What evidence was used to identify human races? Well, as it happens, just about anything, and most of it unscientific.
The book Races of Africa, published in three editions from 1930 to 1957, recognised six races inhabiting the African continent. Its author, British anthropologist C G Seligman, readily admitted that the races it described were defined on non-biological grounds, a fact “readers should appreciate in order to make necessary allowances and corrections”.
How were these races identified? Mostly using the languages people spoke: as Seligman further informed his readers, “linguistic criteria will play a considerable part in the somewhat mixed classification adopted.”
Seligman should be praised for his honesty. Many other anthropologists continued the ruse of biological objectivity well into the 1970s; some stick to it today. The reality is that most races were identified on cultural or linguistic grounds, or simply on account of educated intuition, not biology.
Another fascinating example of the arbitrariness of this category is the so-called “Negrito” “pygmy” race, which sometimes still gets talked about by anthropologists and archaeologists with respect to the origins of indigenous people in East Asia and Australasia.
It has been defined to include people from the Congo of Africa, the Andaman Islands, several Southeast Asian countries, New Guinea and Australia. The Negrito race is not a biological reality reflecting history, but an artificial construct based on superficial similarities.
The skull measurements, brain size estimates, hair form, skin and eye colour, intelligence and blood group data used to justify races were simply retrofitted to each of them.
Moreover, these physical features were very far from flawless in reinforcing established notions of race. None of them has provided any evidence for discrete boundaries between human groups – or groups as genuine geographic entities – and many of them simply reflect the environment, not biological history.
Take skin colour, or pigmentation, as an example, a feature that has been used in almost every racial classification published. While anthropologists employed discrete categories such as “black,” “brown” and “white,” in actuality, pigmentation grades continuously along a geographic cline from the equator to northern and southern latitudes, regardless of race.
How many races have been recognised for living people? Well, there seems to have been no real limit in practice, reinforcing their arbitrary nature.
During the 20th century, estimates of the number of races varied from two to 200 across the globe. For Europe alone, one book published in 1950 estimated six, while another one the same year identified at least 30 races.
Sure, you might recognise races if you compare the skin pigmentation of people from a village in the Scottish Highlands to one in coastal Kenya. But you’d be kidding yourself because you would be ignoring all of the people who live along the thousands of kilometres that stretch between them who don’t fit into your concocted moulds.
-
Genetics: the final arbitrator
Developments in the field of genetics from the 1960s onwards made new inroads into the question of race. In fact, genetics marked the death knell of the scientific race debate.
Geneticists have found a number of features about human diversity that just don’t fit the pattern expected for the ancient subdivisions we might anticipate if races actually existed.
Some important findings that show racial categories to be unfounded include:
-humans are genetically much less diverse than most mammals, including our chimpanzee cousins
-common estimates are that around 2%-8% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents; a pattern that again contrasts with most mammals, which show much greater differences on continental scales
-living Africans possess substantially more genetic variation than other populations. This reflects the ancestry of our species in Africa – only a couple of hundred thousand years ago – and the establishment of all non-African populations by a small founder group from Africa – less than 60,000 years ago
-most populations show high levels of mixed ancestry indicating that people have migrated regularly in the past, with most groups far from being isolated from each other for any great length of time.
Are we all the same then?
There is no denying that humans are variable. Some of that variation – a small amount – reflects our geographic origins. Genetic data show this unequivocally.
But this is simply not the same as claiming that this geographic variation has been partitioned by nature into discrete units we call races. Humans have simply refused to be classified along taxonomic grounds – beyond the fact that we all belong to the single species Homo sapiens.
The facts are that the races recognised by anthropologist during the 19th and 20th centuries simply don’t hold up to scrutiny from physical or genetic evidence; besides, races never were scientific to begin with.
-
Race is subjective like religion. Everyone has 99% monkey genes.
Forget stupid science theories. This is just common sense. In a white man's world regardless of intelligence, if you're white you're confident because you're accepted and conditioned to reach for the stars. It's like putting a kitten in a litter of puppies with puppy toys and puppy food. How on earth can the kitten feel confident in their own skin?
-
Sam Harris extrudes in the closet twink. He joins the rank of that other forget his name but that professor twink... hmm... my Empy was crazy about his AI theories plagiarised from the movie Terminator.
-
...hang on, i think that's the same moron. I was listening to a podcast in Korean the other day about how in Virginia, it's illegal to have sex before marriage. Where are all these law abiding gentlemen? I'm tired of these athiest-alt-right-twinks dominating the political landscape. I'm still waiting for the day the best of humanity emerges from the ashes and puts an end to such demonic reign.
-
Me too, Veri. It really scares me how much they have become a 'legitimate' voice at a time when most evidence does not favour their dreams.
-
Maybe I was not clear.
I meant his famous book Bell Curve almost mentioned the issue of race and intelligence in passing. Whatever else he subscribes to is not the point.
The very idea that intelligence can be reduced to genetic variation is scary enough. Scary because many once believed it without proof, and used it to justify slavery and segregation. Anyone suggesting such possibility is a closet racist. Meanwhile they will run into tons of 'evidence' against anything remotely pointing in that direction. That's why Termie tells you negroes flunk IQ tests because they became men way younger than Caucasians.
I'm saying the odds are stacked against sincere science on this matter. Too much emotions
You are still not clear. The why you are ascribing to my casual observations.
-
Kadame,
I spent some good part of yesterday looking into this race science. It seems to have been an attempt to explain slavery in the face of America and French revolution which insisted on equality of men. Negro had to be subhuman to deserve enslavement.
Then there's no intelligence Gene. Tuseme it is just bad science or no science at all
-
Me too, Veri. It really scares me how much they have become a 'legitimate' voice at a time when most evidence does not favour their dreams.
It's absolute bollocks this Sam Harris too twink for twat calls himself a scientist. This is bad for science. I honestly thought these academic institutions were the last bastions for truth but fk what a joke.
-
So here's the debate Sam had with that editor who wrote the article I linked to in the OP (which was part of an exchange between them that happened after Sam and Murray had their discussion). Mind you, Sam refused to have a debate/discussion with actual intelligence researchers who critiqued that convo with Murray and instead had one with this Ezra dude, who is just a journalist. Nonetheless, it still struck me how obtuse Sam was...He truly doesn't get why any of this is problematic and he actually dismisses the need to contextualize this "data" re African Americans in their history in the US... :o
If that's too long for you, I found this short critique of him on that discussion here: It highlights the things he was saying that had me shaking my head.
If you are not interested in watching these vids, I'll summarize the probs with what he says below.
What was most telling was his flippant dismissal of an interpretation by Flynn (as quoted by Ezra) that its just as likely, based on the data, that the 10 point gap (though its actually 9) is because of a 12 point environmental factor verses a -2 point genetic factor (ie a 2 point AA genetic advantage over the Whites in AA) as it is that there is 0 genetic factor or a White genetic advantage. The point was to illustrate that the conclusions Sam and Murray are drawing from the data is unwarranted. The only thing we know is that environmental factors are huge but we have no idea what (if any) genetic factor is involved in this gap.
What does Sam Harris do? He says "Anything is possible but we have to talk about what is plausible..." :o
Imagine that...this dude is saying (without a scintilla of evidence) that:
Assumption one: There is definitely a genetic factor in the gap. Whether 1, 2, or 10, doesn't matter. There just is.
-How does he know? Well, he says, genetics and environment play a role in everything, so they surely play a role here too, no?
If you follow Alt-right circle jerks online you'll find this repeated over and over again, from Reddit to Youtube. They will constantly cite twin studies as proof of "40% to 80%" heritability in IQ. They then leap from this "heritability" to "genetic", so they treat those two, as Murray himself does, as if they are interchangeable.
Well, even if you grant that IQ is 80% influenced by genetics, for the sake of argument, that is NOT the same thing as saying "the IQ difference btw group A and B is 80% due to genetics". This is why most of us do not think South Koreans being on average 3 inches taller than North Koreans is because they have developed a genetic difference in height with their brothers over the last several decades. Is height influenced greatly by both genetics and environment? Sure! But this difference in height between the North and South is most surely 100% environmental.
Sam Harris the genius doesn't seem to get this distinction.
Assumption two: Having said (without evidence) that there is definitely a genetic component here, it can only be White>Black, never the other way around.
....And then he's shocked and offended that people find these racist and unfounded, whether or not he is doing it unwittingly or not :D
-
Wow Kadame, damn! He's not worth your brain space or worth the time of any other beautiful thinkers. Sam Harris is living proof of a permanent head damage. Spouting BS like Kanye but not black enough to be taken seriously.
Does he realise riding on ridicule is cheap? There should be data collected on how much trash talk from twinks constitutes their existence. I'd personally like to investigate if it's feasible to reduce such carbon footprints by shipping them off to an island and the only currency being white, male and the confederate flag. I wonder if that book Lord of the Flies is some literary premonition for Sam Harris and his ilks.
-
Another video you can see is this:
Linking intelligence to race using IQ is a highly problematic thing to attempt from a scientific perspective because of how nebulous both "race" and "intelligence" are, no matter what you think of the IQ test's relation to innate intelligence is.
I watched this. Intriguing.
A lot of racists like to pretend that the current standards of living enjoyed in the west have been a permanent fixture of white existence. Nothing could be further from the truth. For most of the enlightenment period till fairly recently, the average mzungu was no better than the average peasant in the DRC. A tiny fabulously wealthy group riding on a mass of filth and poverty.
This is 1903 New York.
(https://cdn.viewing.nyc/assets/media/b5806d55794658008bf7daefa4573bd6/elements/97847e58017e81d0b7d3ad8b47058af3/c173c1e8-3b26-4020-bbed-28a1aacfdd4e.jpg)