< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Sam Harris wrong on race

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3292
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
11 January 2019 06:03
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 05:46 AM

You have mastered the accoutrements of polite company…

Then I guess he has one over you in that regard.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
11 January 2019 07:11
 
LadyJane - 11 January 2019 06:03 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 05:46 AM

You have mastered the accoutrements of polite company…

Then I guess he has one over you in that regard.

Hey, no fair, you had to cut out the best part!—“but to me that makes you no less what you really are”

Mr. Dean has argued that the “darker races” are “poorer, under-educated, underemployed, or excessively at odds with the justice system” because of genetic dispositions toward all four traits, dispositions not shared by the white race, who for their part excel the “darker races” on all these measures.  It’s just in their respective natures.  He thinks these “darker races” are conspiring against whites to blame them for their disadvantages, that their declining majority makes whites vulnerable to this and other “existential threats,” therefore whites must band together to form a political identity that can fight for its lost “rights” now, and if something is not done now, fight against the certain loss of more rights in the future—all of which is predicated on losing their current majority status in societies.  He’s vague on the specifics of what this fight entails and how it’s going to take place, but he’s clear about the dangers of the white race losing its current ‘supremacy’—the only thing protecting it right now from threats from the ‘darker races.”

That’s just so we’re clear we’re talking about the same guy. 

If he’s got his accoutrements over me, he can have them, with my blessing.  I’ll just settle for their underlying substance instead.

[ Edited: 11 January 2019 07:19 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3292
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
11 January 2019 07:18
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 07:11 AM

Mr. Dean has argued that the “darker races” are “poorer, under-educated, underemployed, or excessively at odds with the justice system” because of genetic dispositions toward all four traits, dispositions not shared by the white race, who for their part excel the “darker races” on all these measures.  It’s just in their respective natures.  He thinks these “darker races” are conspiring against whites to blame them for their disadvantages, that their declining majority makes whites vulnerable to this and other “existential threats,” therefore whites must band together to form a political identity that can fight for its lost “rights” now, and if something is not done now, fight against the certain loss of more rights in the future—all of which is predicated on losing their current majority status in societies.  He’s vague on the specifics of what this fight entails and how it’s going to take place, but he’s clear about the dangers of the white race losing its current ‘supremacy’—the only thing protecting it right now from threats from the ‘darker races.”

That’s just so we’re clear we’re talking about the same guy.  If he’s got his accoutrements over me, he can have them, with my blessing.  I’ll just settle for their underlying substance instead.

Any intelligent arguments are lost within the vitriol.  Settle down.

I doubt many former white supremacists abandoned the practice for being called an idiot.  It’s like any other dogmatic indoctrination and many have been able to leave it behind.  It can be done.  Probably not through browbeating.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
11 January 2019 07:27
 
LadyJane - 11 January 2019 07:18 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 07:11 AM

Mr. Dean has argued that the “darker races” are “poorer, under-educated, underemployed, or excessively at odds with the justice system” because of genetic dispositions toward all four traits, dispositions not shared by the white race, who for their part excel the “darker races” on all these measures.  It’s just in their respective natures.  He thinks these “darker races” are conspiring against whites to blame them for their disadvantages, that their declining majority makes whites vulnerable to this and other “existential threats,” therefore whites must band together to form a political identity that can fight for its lost “rights” now, and if something is not done now, fight against the certain loss of more rights in the future—all of which is predicated on losing their current majority status in societies.  He’s vague on the specifics of what this fight entails and how it’s going to take place, but he’s clear about the dangers of the white race losing its current ‘supremacy’—the only thing protecting it right now from threats from the ‘darker races.”

That’s just so we’re clear we’re talking about the same guy.  If he’s got his accoutrements over me, he can have them, with my blessing.  I’ll just settle for their underlying substance instead.

Any intelligent arguments are lost within the vitriol.  Settle down.

I doubt many former white supremacists abandoned the practice for being called an idiot.  It’s like any other dogmatic indoctrination and many have been able to leave it behind.  It can be done.  Probably not through browbeating.

.

There’s no vitriol, and I did not call him an idiot.  And “browbeating” is a relative term in intelligent debate.  If he can’t handle bluntness in having asinine errors pointed out, he probably shouldn’t be making them.  In any case, why patronize him by implying he’s a victim of “dogmatic indoctrination” and not defining his positions instead by conscious choice?  I’m certain he thinks he’s defining them by conscious choice, even rational argument.  At least I’ve shown him that much respect.

[ Edited: 11 January 2019 07:40 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2019 07:32
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 07:11 AM

Mr. Dean has argued that the “darker races” are “poorer, under-educated, underemployed, or excessively at odds with the justice system” because of genetic dispositions toward all four traits, dispositions not shared by the white race, who for their part excel the “darker races” on all these measures.

It’s just one genetic disposition that effects intelligence, what you listed are the effects of lower intelligence that he is arguing is genetic.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
11 January 2019 07:37
 
GAD - 11 January 2019 07:32 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 07:11 AM

Mr. Dean has argued that the “darker races” are “poorer, under-educated, underemployed, or excessively at odds with the justice system” because of genetic dispositions toward all four traits, dispositions not shared by the white race, who for their part excel the “darker races” on all these measures.

It’s just one genetic disposition that effects intelligence, what you listed are the effects of lower intelligence that he is arguing is genetic.

“The racial disadvantages are probably rooted in genetic differences…”.  This is stated right after listing those four disadvantages, which were quoted in the material you quoted back. That they all have one cause (if they do) is neither here nor there.

[ Edited: 11 January 2019 07:42 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2019 07:54
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 07:37 AM
GAD - 11 January 2019 07:32 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 07:11 AM

Mr. Dean has argued that the “darker races” are “poorer, under-educated, underemployed, or excessively at odds with the justice system” because of genetic dispositions toward all four traits, dispositions not shared by the white race, who for their part excel the “darker races” on all these measures.

It’s just one genetic disposition that effects intelligence, what you listed are the effects of lower intelligence that he is arguing is genetic.

“The racial disadvantages are probably rooted in genetic differences…”.  This is stated right after listing those four disadvantages, which were quoted in the material you quoted back. That they all have one cause (if they do) is neither here nor there.

No, not true, what genes makes you “poorer, under-educated, underemployed, or excessively at odds with the justice system”, you specifically used social terms to discredit any argument of genetic disposition.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3301
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
11 January 2019 08:56
 

The polite way to call someone a racist
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/us/polite-racism/index.html


It’s a conundrum (I like that word).  How best to respond to prejudiced and racist comments/rhetoric?  I have always held the view that, when it is clear that the rhetoric is indeed blatant racism, then it should be called out in no uncertain terms.  Politely if possible, but that politeness must take a backseat to conviction.  On the other hand, a gentler approach might increase the likelihood of being heard.  But in the end, whatever tack we each decide is the best to take, the important thing is to be united in our resistance to prejudice of any kind.

[ Edited: 11 January 2019 11:25 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1780
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
11 January 2019 13:05
 
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 02:43 PM

. . .

Test scores are a trait, and they are much like any other sort of psychological trait. Every sort of psychological trait has a heritability value, between 0 and 1, much like any trait of any kind. . . .

Abel, I wonder how likely it might be for a borderline-retarded population to manage somehow to revolutionize music three times within 150 years? The Italians were able to do it once, and the Germans managed it twice. Any ideas?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3292
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
12 January 2019 06:58
 

Confronting racism is a hackle raiser, fer sure, so it’s difficult to broach.  And we often get lambasted for standing up to it which incentivizes the need for a more creative approach.  I still think that when someone comes along offering up a depiction of an outlook most people find abhorrent it should be looked on as an opportunity.  An opportunity that may lead the way to honing arguments meant for those in positions of power who share the same destructive views.  Reaching them seems more important when entire nations are at stake. 

There’s no shortage of questionable statements at this forum and many could easily be construed as racist.  So it should come as no surprise.  Like the remarkably similar sentiments regarding white privilege still echoing through these halls.  A lot of that is not all that far afield of what we’re seeing here.  And yet the outrage is never as palpable with those we find familiar.  When we allow for some so come the many.  Anyone unwilling to stand up the same way at the same time regardless who we’re facing–is a sell out.  Which is just as destructive.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2019 11:52
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 11 January 2019 05:46 AM

Mr. Dean,

You are not only ignorant of the range of arguments against Jensen; you are ignorant of the very concepts at stake.  Arthur Jensen can’t have a mathematical argument for between-group heritability because there is no such thing as between-group heritability.  Heritability estimates are always specific to the population for which they are measured, within a specific environment.  They do not specify in any way an invariant property of a trait against which expression of the trait between populations can be compared, and any such comparison using them is only based on assumptions about the similar genetic make-up of the two populations, and assumptions of similar environments.  Jensen’s mathematical argument otherwise amounts to a psychologist spouting technical bullshit to cover up (to be charitable) this basic mistake.

As for your ignorance of the “academic arguments,” here are two papers from one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, wherein the uses, limits and misuses of heritability are laid out.  They have, I assure you, all the mathematics you could ever desire…

Layzer, D (1974). The heritability analyses of IQ scores: science or numerology? Science, 183, pp. 1259-1266.

Feldman, M.W & Lewontin, R.C. (1975). The heritability hang-up. Science, 190, pp. 1163-1168. 

Feldman is a biologist and Lewontin is a geneticist.  There are dozens of others like them who’ve done the same thing in less prestigious outlets.  Over and over again, to no avail. 

As for the correlation issue, no published study has ever suggested a correlation of 1.01, not from the utterly stupid error of rounding to get it, or otherwise.  No meta-analysis will in principle produce even a correlation of 1, for to do so, all the component studies would have to have a correlation of unity—hence there would be no meta-analysis.  And your suggestion that in one maybe the authors made a rounding error in summing up the rounded correlations to get an “impossible” 1.01 shows that you have no real idea how meta-analysis is done (they use weighted averages, not summations, to estimate an effect size). 

The up-side for me in correcting retarded misconceptions to dislodge someone from their immoral views is near zero.  We are there now.  Consider this my last word.  You get to continue on with your admittedly literate and rhetorically well-positioned scientific mumbo-jumbo without corrections from me.

(I doubt you are sincere in correcting you ignorance, but just in case this debunks your “error” using the very “body height” example you invoke.  Jensen, I recall, used the same example, intuitively and in the wrong way as well).

Good luck on the forum.  You have mastered the [accouterments] of polite company, but to me that makes you no less what you really are.

The Anus

The Anus, by now you may have cooled off, and so I invite you back into the discussion. In other social environments, either other participants already agree with me or they criticize ineffectively because they have no knowledge to bring to the table. You have knowledge to bring to the table. I have learned new things from you, and I expect you have a few things to learn, also. For example, I was taken aback by your assertion that “there is no such thing as between-group heritability.” This assertion is contradicted by Feldman’s and Lewontin’s paper that you recommended, from pages 1166 to 1167. They gave an equation that indicates a positive relationship between between-group heritability and within-group heritability as follows:

h^2_B ~= h^2_W * (1-t)*r / ((1-r)*t)

where h^2_B is the between-group heritability, h^2_W is the within-group heritability, t is the intraclass phenotypic correlation, and r is the intraclass genetic correlation. Feldman and Lewontin presented this formula to make the point that it is impossible to estimate the intraclass genetic correlation (r) and therefore the formula can not be used in the study of humans.

Arthur Jensen made his full argument two years earlier in his 1973 book, Educability and Group Differences, pages 146 and onward, and again decades later in his 1998 book, The g Factor: the Science of Mental Ability, pages 447 and onward. He used the same formula as above each time and each with the key point (unaddressed by Feldman and Lewontin) that all it takes for a positive relationship between BGH and WGH to exist is for the intraclass genetic correlation to be greater than zero. Feldman and Lewontin don’t even address this point; they merely argue that the intraclass genetic correlation is unknown and therefore the formula is useless. At least Feldman and Lewontin addressed Jensen’s argument somewhat (I previously thought there was only silence among the critics), so I am glad you dug it up. I don’t have access to the full text of the first article you recommended. If you have access to a copy, then maybe I can give you my email address and you can email it to me.

I read some of your article that you posted on your blog. You argued that racial height differences is an argument against racial hereditarian theory concerning IQ, because height has seen a strong secular rise much like IQ has seen a strong secular rise, and each rise is too fast and too drastic to be attributable to genetic changes.

The secular rise in IQ is known as the Flynn effect, and that has received plenty of attention among academics. If we really want to make sense of it, in my opinion, then we should be giving even more attention to the similar phenomena of height. It is even more of a puzzler, because height is even more heritable, the between-race differences are even more drastic, and the secular increases are even greater.

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is that shifts for both intelligence and height happen because of shifts in the genetic expressions (epigenetics). I hesitate with that proposal because too often speculations of epigenetics are used as the basis for quackery in the popular media, but in this case no other explanation seems to be available to plausibly reconcile the otherwise-conflicting phenomena (traits with both high heritability and high secular plasticity). Brain size has likewise seen a large secular increase, it is likewise highly heritable, and the Flynn effect is almost certainly connected to it. The proposal of epigenetics needs to be taken more seriously. I can find only two articles that argue in favor of this hypothesis concerning intelligence, as follows.

• Haggarty et al, 2010, “Human Intelligence and Polymorphisms in the DNA Methyltransferase Genes Involved in Epigenetic Marking.”
• Manfred F. Greiffenstein, 2011, “Secular IQ increases by epigenesis? The hypothesis of cognitive genotype optimization.”

I take it to be a key opportunity for productive research and another reason to lose the absurd ideologically-motivated dogmas that constrain our beliefs.

I did a search on Google Scholar for “correlation greater than 1” and I found a handful of publications that claimed to have such output. Such results are sometimes attributed to rounding, to miscalculation, or to “noise.” Maybe it is still impossible for meta-analyses; I don’t know enough about the math of meta-analyses to make that judgment, and I expect you do.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,24&q=“correlation+greater+than+1”&btnG;=

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2019 12:22
 
nonverbal - 11 January 2019 01:05 PM
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 02:43 PM

. . .

Test scores are a trait, and they are much like any other sort of psychological trait. Every sort of psychological trait has a heritability value, between 0 and 1, much like any trait of any kind. . . .

Abel, I wonder how likely it might be for a borderline-retarded population to manage somehow to revolutionize music three times within 150 years? The Italians were able to do it once, and the Germans managed it twice. Any ideas?

I am not sure which population you mean with “borderline-retarded population.” Black Africans within Africa have been described that way because their average IQ is about 70 (the standard threshold for mental retardation), but outside Africa the averages of blacks tend to be higher. They have an average of 85 in the USA, a full standard deviation above the threshold for mental retardation. As far as I am aware, music of black Africans within Africa has not caught on outside of Africa. They did not originate jazz or rhythm and blues or rap music. And I don’t think of half of all black Africans within Africa as mentally retarded, as I would not apply the standard threshold of mental retardation to non-whites. Early in his career, Arthur Jensen observed that black children with an IQ of 70 behave indistinguishably from their classmates on the playground, in contrast to white children with an IQ of 70, who are apparently handicapped with almost any activity, not just academic achievement. It would be wise to have an IQ threshold of mental retardation specific to each race, perhaps 30 points below each respective racial average, but I don’t expect this advice was ever followed, because all races are fundamentally the same as whites no matter what.

[ Edited: 13 January 2019 12:48 by Abel Dean]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
13 January 2019 22:26
 
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 11:52 AM

I read some of your article that you posted on your blog. You argued that racial height differences is an argument against racial hereditarian theory concerning IQ, because height has seen a strong secular rise much like IQ has seen a strong secular rise, and each rise is too fast and too drastic to be attributable to genetic changes.

The secular rise in IQ is known as the Flynn effect, and that has received plenty of attention among academics. If we really want to make sense of it, in my opinion, then we should be giving even more attention to the similar phenomena of height. It is even more of a puzzler, because height is even more heritable, the between-race differences are even more drastic, and the secular increases are even greater.

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is that shifts for both intelligence and height happen because of shifts in the genetic expressions (epigenetics). I hesitate with that proposal because too often speculations of epigenetics are used as the basis for quackery in the popular media, but in this case no other explanation seems to be available to plausibly reconcile the otherwise-conflicting phenomena (traits with both high heritability and high secular plasticity). Brain size has likewise seen a large secular increase, it is likewise highly heritable, and the Flynn effect is almost certainly connected to it. The proposal of epigenetics needs to be taken more seriously. I can find only two articles that argue in favor of this hypothesis concerning intelligence, as follows.

• Haggarty et al, 2010, “Human Intelligence and Polymorphisms in the DNA Methyltransferase Genes Involved in Epigenetic Marking.”
• Manfred F. Greiffenstein, 2011, “Secular IQ increases by epigenesis? The hypothesis of cognitive genotype optimization.”

I take it to be a key opportunity for productive research and another reason to lose the absurd ideologically-motivated dogmas that constrain our beliefs.

“One may smile, and smile, an still be a villain.”

You are still pushing your bigoted agenda, no matter how sensible you try to be. And you’re still pushing the IQ tests as a full measure of intelligence even though that is false. But you also say some other things above that are in fact false. In particular, “Brain size has likewise seen a large secular increase, it is likewise highly heritable, and the Flynn effect is almost certainly connected to it.” This is in fact false, brain size has not been increasing. Indeed, over the past 20,000 years or so brain size has actually decreased a bit. You are wallowing about just trying to find something to support your anti-Black, anti-Hispanic beliefs. Eventually, people here will tire of you.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
14 January 2019 04:03
 
burt - 13 January 2019 10:26 PM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 11:52 AM

I read some of your article that you posted on your blog. You argued that racial height differences is an argument against racial hereditarian theory concerning IQ, because height has seen a strong secular rise much like IQ has seen a strong secular rise, and each rise is too fast and too drastic to be attributable to genetic changes.

The secular rise in IQ is known as the Flynn effect, and that has received plenty of attention among academics. If we really want to make sense of it, in my opinion, then we should be giving even more attention to the similar phenomena of height. It is even more of a puzzler, because height is even more heritable, the between-race differences are even more drastic, and the secular increases are even greater.

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is that shifts for both intelligence and height happen because of shifts in the genetic expressions (epigenetics). I hesitate with that proposal because too often speculations of epigenetics are used as the basis for quackery in the popular media, but in this case no other explanation seems to be available to plausibly reconcile the otherwise-conflicting phenomena (traits with both high heritability and high secular plasticity). Brain size has likewise seen a large secular increase, it is likewise highly heritable, and the Flynn effect is almost certainly connected to it. The proposal of epigenetics needs to be taken more seriously. I can find only two articles that argue in favor of this hypothesis concerning intelligence, as follows.

• Haggarty et al, 2010, “Human Intelligence and Polymorphisms in the DNA Methyltransferase Genes Involved in Epigenetic Marking.”
• Manfred F. Greiffenstein, 2011, “Secular IQ increases by epigenesis? The hypothesis of cognitive genotype optimization.”

I take it to be a key opportunity for productive research and another reason to lose the absurd ideologically-motivated dogmas that constrain our beliefs.

“One may smile, and smile, an still be a villain.”

You are still pushing your bigoted agenda, no matter how sensible you try to be. And you’re still pushing the IQ tests as a full measure of intelligence even though that is false. But you also say some other things above that are in fact false. In particular, “Brain size has likewise seen a large secular increase, it is likewise highly heritable, and the Flynn effect is almost certainly connected to it.” This is in fact false, brain size has not been increasing. Indeed, over the past 20,000 years or so brain size has actually decreased a bit. You are wallowing about just trying to find something to support your anti-Black, anti-Hispanic beliefs. Eventually, people here will tire of you.

Excuse me; my claim of increasing brain size concerns the last 100 years or so, not the last 20,000 years. If brain size has decreased slightly over the last 20,000 years then that is also important and we had best understand why. The relevance of the significant secular increase in brain size over the last hundred years or so is that it is parallel to the Flynn effect, and a connection is probable. One way or the other I think we need to put moralism to the side so we can accurately understand the objective realities, whatever those realities may be, whoever they happen to serve, whites or not. Chances are that such truths will benefit everyone in the end, whereas ideological strictures cripple the science and harm everyone. The studies I found in the past year that examined a secular shift in brain size over the last hundred years or so are as follows. I wish I had the full texts.

• Miller AK, Corsellis JA., 1977, “Evidence for a secular increase in human brain weight during the past century” via
http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2012/session45/stott-2012-secular-change-in-the-cranial-modules-of-white-american-males-1830-1978.html
• Thomas E. Stott, Kerrie Lewis Graham and M. Kate Spradley, 2012, “Secular change in the cranial modules of white American males: 1830-1978” via http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2012/session45/stott-2012-secular-change-in-the-cranial-modules-of-white-american-males-1830-1978.html
• Richard L. Jantz and Lee M. Jantz, 2012, “Cranial change in America: 1815 to 1980” via http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2012/session45/jantz-2012-cranial-change-in-america-1815-to-1980.html
• Ingeborg Brandt, 1978, “Growth dynamics of low-birth weight infants with emphasis on the perinatal period” via https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283932453_Growth_Dynamics_of_Low-Birth-Weight_Infants_with_Emphasis_on_the_Perinatal_Period
• T. J. Cole, 1994, “Growth charts for both cross-sectional and longitudinal data” via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.4780132311/abstract

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 January 2019 06:25
 

burt, don’t do it!  The Force beckons you!!  Come to the Dark Side here as well!!!

Mr. Dean lacks the elementary skills for intelligent discussion, despite having polished its forms. 

Yet another example: the equation he cites as Lewontin and Feldman’s (at least he seems to think it’s one they endorse) for the relationship between within-group and between-group heritability is nothing more than derivations from Lush’s equation for when n is large, which they point out is a “definitional tautology, not a causal relationship,” one that leads to the “spurious” conclusion that between-group heritability can be derived from within-group heritability—a criticism that has nothing to do with it being “impossible to estimate the intraclass genetic correlation” in human populations, therefore the equation cannot be used (they don’t even make that criticism).  The context and criticism is right there in the text.  So is their conclusion, after criticizing Lush:

: ...“we are unable to make any inferences from between-group differences and within-group statistics about the degree of genetic determination of the between-group differences. In other words, the concept of heritability is of no value for the study of differences in measures of human behavioral characters between groups.” (emphasis added).

If he can’t even get these elementary things right, what’s the point?

Just the tip of the iceberg of a literate ignorance defending immoral views….

[ Edited: 14 January 2019 11:17 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›