1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The background knowledge for genetic racial intelligence differences

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
06 February 2019 13:56
 

I have been revising a list of arguments for the racial hereditarian theory of intelligence. It is a long case, and I decided to devote this thread only to the background knowledge. The background knowledge is relevant for evaluating the “prior probability” of any thesis. If I tell you that I have a dog in my garage, then maybe you don’t know my direct evidence to back that claim, but you know it is still far more likely than the claim that I have a monstrous live fire-breathing dragon in my garage, because of our background knowledge of biology (it is more likely that I have a monstrous live fire-breathing wyvern, as a wyvern has four limbs but a dragon has an implausible six limbs). The unfortunate strategy of the anti-racist rhetoric is the targeting of the scientific background knowledge. The activists have waged a war against the evolutionary concept of races, as though it is pseudoscience, and they have waged a war against the whole mainstream science of human intelligence, as though it is pseudoscience.

Here are three points of the background knowledge:

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE #1: Intelligence variations among individuals within each group are highly heritable. Maybe you think intelligence is badly defined—but we can keep it simple: intelligence is just the scores on IQ tests—or maybe you think there are things wrong with heritability studies. Regardless of that, it is difficult to explain why identical twins REARED APART have a correlation of IQ of 0.74 (on a scale of 0 to 1), whereas fraternal twins REARED TOGETHER have a correlation of only 0.59, except with the strong effect of genetic variations on intelligence variations. If you don’t know what correlations are, then another way of expressing it is that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar IQs than fraternal twins reared together. For context, fraternal twins share only 50% of their genetic variants, whereas identical twins share 100%. This means intelligence has a within-group heritability of 74%, leaving only 26% to environmental variations within groups. This argument is about within-group heritability, and that does not directly translate to between-group heritability, so don’t jump the gun. Unless genetic variations within groups have a much greater effect than you would like to think on intelligence variations within groups, you I expect you can not effectively explain these numbers. I challenge you to explain them in any other way but the effect of varying genetics on varying intelligence.

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE #2: Races genetically differ. Maybe you think races are badly defined, or maybe they are just social constructs. We can assume both. Let’s say we define “white” as, “anyone who self-identifies as white,” “black” as “anyone who self-identifies as black,” and “Asian” as “anyone who self-identifies as Asian,” each within America. If races are defined this way, then a large diverse set of purely genetic large differences exist among those groups. We can start with the externally obvious stuff: skin color, height, natural hair, nose, and eyes. A bunch of us stop there to make sense of human races, but all medical doctors know that races are deeper than the skin. Races significantly differ in bone density, muscle mass, lung size, blood type frequencies, blood pressure, pathogen resistance, adult lactose tolerance, and estrogen level, among many other things. Even purely genetic traits have racial differences: whites are about 5 times as likely as blacks and 10 times as likely as Asians to have cystic fibrosis, for example, and cystic fibrosis is a purely genetic disease. None of these things are universals; a minority of blacks and a minority of Asians are adult lactose tolerant. Not all “blacks” have black skin! But, all it takes to make a racial difference is a difference in frequency or a difference in average of a given trait. Almost nobody thinks absolutes of any sort apply to races, or else they are wrong. In the context of evolutionary biology, “races” are merely subsets of the species with either geographic boundaries or differences in ancestral mating patterns, and they genetically differ from other subsets of the same species. All species that have covered large geographic areas for more than a few generations have races, and humans are no exception. The genetic difference between human races is measurable: an “Fst” (Wright’s fixation index) of about 0.12. Some writers have claimed that this value is too low to qualify as biological “races,” but this is a myth that started out as apparent lies from two academics (they misrepresented their sources). The biological concept of race is broad, and all it takes is a phenotypic and geographic difference of any sort to qualify. You have heard many arguments against the biological concept of races, i.e. more variation exists within each race than between races (Lewontin’s fallacy). The arguments are diverse and complex, but they don’t deny the established set of significant genotypic differences that plainly exist among races, even if races are only social constructs, and so those arguments are irrelevant. Such genotypic racial differences apparently exist within every physiological system of the human body. If the nervous system were an exception, then it would be indeed a strange exception.

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE #3: Races differ in average intelligence. This is NOT the same as saying that races differ in average intelligence due to genetics! This is only saying that races differ in average intelligence. White Americans have an average IQ of 100, black Americans have an average IQ of 85, and Asian Americans have an average IQ of 105. These are facts established by thousands of studies persisting over a hundred years to the present. Even without genetics and without hate, it is a racist thing to say. Say it on Facebook and you may go to Facebook jail (at least that is the way it was when I was on Facebook—the Facebook Terms of Service is a living document). You can get elected to public office after saying it only if you represent Steve King’s congressional district. And yet it is a widely-agreed-upon set of facts within the academic study of human intelligence. The debate is not whether racial intelligence differences exist, but why. Maybe it is genetics, or maybe the tests are biased in favor of Asians, or maybe it is Asians having a Confucian work ethic, or maybe the secret/implicit racism of whites everywhere keeps black achievement low, or maybe blacks are lazy due to their culture of victimhood, or something like that. Whatever the cause, the scores are what they are, and we have no room for doubt about them. Not only that, but we see the same hierarchy for the correlates of intelligence: educational attainment, income, and crime. You can claim that the causal direction goes the other way—you can claim that socioeconomic success causes greater intelligence—and that would not deny the reality that races differ in intelligence. Instead, that would admit that the racial intelligence differences exist and are meaningful.

That was the background knowledge. If you would like citations for any of that, then please ask. This background knowledge all by itself has power, because, if genetic differences of every other sort exist among races, and if genetic intelligence differences exist among individuals, and if intelligence differences exist among races, then the claim of genetic racial intelligence differences would flow easily from that. In other words, I likely have a dog in my garage because you know I have a dog and you know I have a garage. The attached image illustrates the point.

[ Edited: 06 February 2019 16:15 by Abel Dean]
Image Attachments
 
Antiracist_plausibility_dilemma.PNG
 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21487
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
06 February 2019 18:56
 

Is Obama black or white?  What do you do with mixed race individuals?  What percentage of a race do you have to have to be that race?

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
06 February 2019 19:27
 
EN - 06 February 2019 06:56 PM

Is Obama black or white?  What do you do with mixed race individuals?  What percentage of a race do you have to have to be that race?

Obama was popularly regarded as black, but, in biological terms, he would have half European ancestry (white) and half sub-Saharan African ancestry (black). I suggest thinking of races as fundamentally spectral. We don’t even need parents of two different races for the spectra to exist. The spectrum between “black” and “white” exists continuously as we travel across the Sahara desert and Mediterranean Sea—people tend to mate with their neighbors—and because the prehistorical racial divergence was a gradual evolutionary change of allele frequencies among the populations (only a small minority of racially differential alleles reached “fixation”).

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 February 2019 13:44
 

Give it up.

You can’t judge a book by its cover.  A person’s ancestry can’t be known by looking.  And that’s what you seem to want to do.  See a person who is applying for a job, for example, and decide whether to hire them or show them the door, based on statistics for broad groupings.  You bring up medical issues, but this is not your major concern.  Any legitimate doctor would base treatment on medical tests, since ancestries are so mixed at this point in history. 

The whole problem with the simplistic chart you posted is that “races” has become muddled.  There is no valid “continuum.”  It is not credible to assume that a particular light brown person is smarter than a dark person, but less intelligent than a white person.  Unless there was a single skin pigment gene which also functioned as the key intelligence gene, no linkage would be expected.

If you want to read about the complexities, just in African skin tone and genetics, here is some info:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
07 February 2019 14:11
 
hannahtoo - 07 February 2019 01:44 PM

Give it up.

You can’t judge a book by its cover.  A person’s ancestry can’t be known by looking.  And that’s what you seem to want to do.  See a person who is applying for a job, for example, and decide whether to hire them or show them the door, based on statistics for broad groupings.  You bring up medical issues, but this is not your major concern.  Any legitimate doctor would base treatment on medical tests, since ancestries are so mixed at this point in history. 

The whole problem with the simplistic chart you posted is that “races” has become muddled.  There is no valid “continuum.”  It is not credible to assume that a particular light brown person is smarter than a dark person, but less intelligent than a white person.  Unless there was a single skin pigment gene which also functioned as the key intelligence gene, no linkage would be expected.

If you want to read about the complexities, just in African skin tone and genetics, here is some info:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm

My arguments do not depend on identifying races by mere appearance, though the correlation would be intermediate and useful. When an unconscious patient is brought into the emergency room, then the medical staff makes a judgment of race based on appearance, and that judgment is relevant for both diagnosis and treatment of disease. Otherwise, the patient would fill out a form in the waiting room identifying his or her own race. The doctors don’t know what tests they should do until they know which diseases are most probable, and part of what determines those probabilities is the race of the patient. Suppose a patient arrives in the emergency room: he has symptoms of abdominal pain, swelling hands, and fever. If the patient is white, then you know immediately that the disease is far more likely (not certain) to be cystic fibrosis, and you may test for that first among other tests. But, if the patient is black, then you know that the disease is far more likely (not certain) to be sickle-cell disease, and you may test for that first among other tests.

And, I would not suggest making judgments of an individual’s intelligence based on race, except as intermediate probability judgments. Highly-intelligent blacks exist, but fewer of them exist. This follows not from my final thesis but instead from the baseline fact (#3) established beyond reasonable doubt. My thesis is that the lower average intelligence of blacks follows from genetic differences, but the fact established beyond reasonable doubt is that, whatever the cause, blacks really do have lower average intelligence. It is not the way it should be, but I suggest getting a grasp of the objective realities independent of the strongly held beliefs. Suppose that the cause of the racial intelligence differences is something environmental. To solve the problem, we first need to acknowledge the reality.

And, race is not skin color (see #2).

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
07 February 2019 15:03
 

This image represents two overlapping smoothed histograms of raw IQ data by race analyzed by Herrnstein and Murray in their book, The Bell Curve. This is the data that is established fact beyond reasonable doubt. The image tells you that the difference exists, but it does not tell you the fundamental cause (genetic disadvantages or environmental disadvantages). A library bookcase full of data confirms it, with almost no data conflicting with it, but even this established fact beyond reasonable doubt is racist. It is the image that many times earned me 30-day suspensions on Facebook. How can we have a handle on the probable truths of racial differences if even the established facts beyond reasonable doubt are denounced as racist?

Image Attachments
 
Herrnstein_and_Murray_-_The_Bell_Curve_1994_[black_and_white_IQ_curves].png
 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 February 2019 16:55
 

AD:
And, I would not suggest making judgments of an individual’s intelligence based on race, except as intermediate probability judgments. Highly-intelligent blacks exist, but fewer of them exist. This follows not from my final thesis but instead from the baseline fact (#3) established beyond reasonable doubt. My thesis is that the lower average intelligence of blacks follows from genetic differences, but the fact established beyond reasonable doubt is that, whatever the cause, blacks really do have lower average intelligence. It is not the way it should be, but I suggest getting a grasp of the objective realities independent of the strongly held beliefs. Suppose that the cause of the racial intelligence differences is something environmental. To solve the problem, we first need to acknowledge the reality.

You are nothing if not persistent.  Burt and I have brought up examples of the problems with IQ tests, from our experiences in education, but you still insist that the results confirm your right to be prejudiced against blacks.  And you still hang onto the notion of passing judgment on individuals based on broad statistics.  Think of the consequences of prejudice throughout history.  Fine and dandy for the powerful.  Grim for the downtrodden.

(Also I think you misunderstand the practice of ER medicine.)

[ Edited: 07 February 2019 17:23 by hannahtoo]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
07 February 2019 16:58
 

I could be wrong about ER medicine. I don’t work in medicine. Feel free to correct me as appropriate.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 February 2019 17:05
 
Abel Dean - 07 February 2019 03:03 PM

This image represents two overlapping smoothed histograms of raw IQ data by race analyzed by Herrnstein and Murray in their book, The Bell Curve. This is the data that is established fact beyond reasonable doubt. The image tells you that the difference exists, but it does not tell you the fundamental cause (genetic disadvantages or environmental disadvantages). A library bookcase full of data confirms it, with almost no data conflicting with it, but even this established fact beyond reasonable doubt is racist. It is the image that many times earned me 30-day suspensions on Facebook. How can we have a handle on the probable truths of racial differences if even the established facts beyond reasonable doubt are denounced as racist?

From a commentary on The Bell Curve in Scientific American:

This isn’t the “PC police” talking. Although prejudice breaks taboos, stomps on eggshells, and hurts people’s feelings with unfairness, that’s just the beginning. Its full damage reaches much more dire extremes. Personhood and individuality are sacred. Judging by way of category is the epitome of dehumanizing. It curtails the individual’s opportunities and livelihood, and contributes to what is often a self-fulfilling, systematic cycle of disadvantage for an entire group. It also curtails the prejudger’s potential to wholly evaluate a person as an individual by his or her prior behavior, choices, and character. This is why the term “civil rights” has a nice ring to it and “bigotry” does not.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

 

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
07 February 2019 18:03
 
hannahtoo - 07 February 2019 05:05 PM
Abel Dean - 07 February 2019 03:03 PM

This image represents two overlapping smoothed histograms of raw IQ data by race analyzed by Herrnstein and Murray in their book, The Bell Curve. This is the data that is established fact beyond reasonable doubt. The image tells you that the difference exists, but it does not tell you the fundamental cause (genetic disadvantages or environmental disadvantages). A library bookcase full of data confirms it, with almost no data conflicting with it, but even this established fact beyond reasonable doubt is racist. It is the image that many times earned me 30-day suspensions on Facebook. How can we have a handle on the probable truths of racial differences if even the established facts beyond reasonable doubt are denounced as racist?

From a commentary on The Bell Curve in Scientific American:

This isn’t the “PC police” talking. Although prejudice breaks taboos, stomps on eggshells, and hurts people’s feelings with unfairness, that’s just the beginning. Its full damage reaches much more dire extremes. Personhood and individuality are sacred. Judging by way of category is the epitome of dehumanizing. It curtails the individual’s opportunities and livelihood, and contributes to what is often a self-fulfilling, systematic cycle of disadvantage for an entire group. It also curtails the prejudger’s potential to wholly evaluate a person as an individual by his or her prior behavior, choices, and character. This is why the term “civil rights” has a nice ring to it and “bigotry” does not.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

That’s a good point. If the racial hereditarian hypothesis is objectively true, and if we all accept it, then it will have bad political consequences. Arguably, young-Earth creationists are correct that the rise of both Nazism and communism could not have happened without the popularization of the theory of evolution. It was a correct scientific theory that costed tens of millions of lives. Perhaps it would be best if racial hereditarian theory were stamped out, even if it is true. If we accept that argument, then we still have a problem. It is not a reason for YOU to disbelieve it. And, right now, I am talking to you. Suppose YOU were to be convinced by the science of Murray, Jensen and Rushton. What will YOU do? Will you wear a red MAGA hat and shout “build the wall” at Mexicans? Probably not. Not even I do that. I think the consequence of judging the accurate science of human nature for moral reasons, as Eric Siegel of Scientific American and the remainder of American society does, is that extreme white nationalists maintain a monopoly on the accurate science of human nature. Genome-wide association studies are on the cusp of proving the science correct beyond reasonable doubt, and their data will be openly published. What then? By then it may be too late to let go of the moralistic fallacy. Liberals may double down and denounce the whole science of genetics. They will lose the culture war, and white nationalists will win. And I see that as a worst case scenario. White nationalists don’t just believe in racial differences and the defense of the white race. Sometimes implicitly and sometimes openly, they also believe in fascism.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 February 2019 18:22
 

Actually, I see your example from the ER—whether it is accurate procedure or not—shows a correct way of thinking about groups and individuals.  A doctor may have a sense of a group, but she still tests the individual before starting treatment.  Likewise, if a black young man puts in a job application, the boss may think, “I’ve heard about a lot of dishonesty and crime in the black neighborhood.”  But he should still look at the application, and if it seems to be promising, call up some references.  However, if the applicant is dismissed out of hand for simply being black, that is unfair.  Furthermore, it only exacerbates black unemployment, which feeds poverty and despair. 

I guess I’m willing to take my chances on giving individuals the benefit of the doubt.  I don’t think it is the road to fascism.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
07 February 2019 18:40
 
hannahtoo - 07 February 2019 06:22 PM

Actually, I see your example from the ER—whether it is accurate procedure or not—shows a correct way of thinking about groups and individuals.  A doctor may have a sense of a group, but she still tests the individual before starting treatment.  Likewise, if a black young man puts in a job application, the boss may think, “I’ve heard about a lot of dishonesty and crime in the black neighborhood.”  But he should still look at the application, and if it seems to be promising, call up some references.  However, if the applicant is dismissed out of hand for simply being black, that is unfair.  Furthermore, it only exacerbates black unemployment, which feeds poverty and despair. 

I guess I’m willing to take my chances on giving individuals the benefit of the doubt.  I don’t think it is the road to fascism.

I agree with you. Even if you were to be convinced of this science, then it is unlikely that you would start to behave like a discriminatory employer, and I don’t recommend it. Our discussion so far leads me to believe that you are unlikely to accuse the whole science of genetics as being a white supremacist scheme, supposing their data proves racial hereditarianism correct, and that is progress, even if you remain generally opposed to the theory for now, and I count that as a good thing.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
08 February 2019 06:31
 
Abel Dean - 07 February 2019 06:40 PM
hannahtoo - 07 February 2019 06:22 PM

Actually, I see your example from the ER—whether it is accurate procedure or not—shows a correct way of thinking about groups and individuals.  A doctor may have a sense of a group, but she still tests the individual before starting treatment.  Likewise, if a black young man puts in a job application, the boss may think, “I’ve heard about a lot of dishonesty and crime in the black neighborhood.”  But he should still look at the application, and if it seems to be promising, call up some references.  However, if the applicant is dismissed out of hand for simply being black, that is unfair.  Furthermore, it only exacerbates black unemployment, which feeds poverty and despair. 

I guess I’m willing to take my chances on giving individuals the benefit of the doubt.  I don’t think it is the road to fascism.

I agree with you. Even if you were to be convinced of this science, then it is unlikely that you would start to behave like a discriminatory employer, and I don’t recommend it. Our discussion so far leads me to believe that you are unlikely to accuse the whole science of genetics as being a white supremacist scheme, supposing their data proves racial hereditarianism correct, and that is progress, even if you remain generally opposed to the theory for now, and I count that as a good thing.

I don’t think we’re in danger of “liberals” ever rejecting the whole science of genetics as a white supremacist scheme.  You brought up the comparison to Darwin’s principles of natural selection being warped to serve the Nazis.  However, the theory was not rejected by this association.  Rather, people condemned the ways that it was being misapplied.  Thus, natural selection is still a major underpinning of biology, in principle and in research.  Certainly some people reject Darwin’s theory.  But they do this for reasons of religious dogma, not because of Nazi misappropriation.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
08 February 2019 06:56
 
hannahtoo - 08 February 2019 06:31 AM
Abel Dean - 07 February 2019 06:40 PM
hannahtoo - 07 February 2019 06:22 PM

Actually, I see your example from the ER—whether it is accurate procedure or not—shows a correct way of thinking about groups and individuals.  A doctor may have a sense of a group, but she still tests the individual before starting treatment.  Likewise, if a black young man puts in a job application, the boss may think, “I’ve heard about a lot of dishonesty and crime in the black neighborhood.”  But he should still look at the application, and if it seems to be promising, call up some references.  However, if the applicant is dismissed out of hand for simply being black, that is unfair.  Furthermore, it only exacerbates black unemployment, which feeds poverty and despair. 

I guess I’m willing to take my chances on giving individuals the benefit of the doubt.  I don’t think it is the road to fascism.

I agree with you. Even if you were to be convinced of this science, then it is unlikely that you would start to behave like a discriminatory employer, and I don’t recommend it. Our discussion so far leads me to believe that you are unlikely to accuse the whole science of genetics as being a white supremacist scheme, supposing their data proves racial hereditarianism correct, and that is progress, even if you remain generally opposed to the theory for now, and I count that as a good thing.

I don’t think we’re in danger of “liberals” ever rejecting the whole science of genetics as a white supremacist scheme.  You brought up the comparison to Darwin’s principles of natural selection being warped to serve the Nazis.  However, the theory was not rejected by this association.  Rather, people condemned the ways that it was being misapplied.  Thus, natural selection is still a major underpinning of biology, in principle and in research.  Certainly some people reject Darwin’s theory.  But they do this for reasons of religious dogma, not because of Nazi misappropriation.

I agree that dogmas are the central causal force, and the moralistic fallacy is merely secondary. The moralistic fallacy would have almost no persuasive force if not for the central dogma. Who really thinks that the Holocaust is reason to doubt the theory of evolution? Only dogmatists who already disbelieve in the theory of evolution. The central dogma of liberals is represented in the red X in the original post’s image. I infer that liberals by and large will maintain the dogma even after the genome-wide association studies prove the dogma wrong directly and beyond reasonable doubt. It is easy to infer that in part because liberals by and large have already fought strongly and popularly in defense of a similar anti-scientific conspiracy theory: the one related to genetically-modified foods. The vast body of data leads us to believe that GMOs on the market are harmless, the established scientific theory would lead us to expect no extra risk, and every major scientific organization in the world backs the safety of GMOs. None of this apparently matters to millions of conspiratorial liberals. They have effectively pushed GMOs off the market in Europe, and their conspiracy theory has advanced all over the world (maybe they are losing now, though). Weirdly, GMOs have nothing to do with core persistently popular liberal dogmas. It is more of an ad hoc dogma. But, the red X is a core popular liberal dogma that has lasted for a hundred years. It is zealously defended by any means necessary. Do you really think conclusive scientific evidence can possibly defeat the belief among those millions? I am almost completely sure that can’t happen. The liberals will first believe any “whistleblower” who claims that genome-wide association studies are infiltrated by racists corrupting the data. They will never let go of the moralistic fallacy until they are dead. The next generation of liberals may fight the white nationalists effectively, but the current generations alive will lose. Last night I listed to Harris’ podcast with Jonathan Haidt. He analyzed the authoritarian liberal sociology among Generation Z (current high school and college students) of the east and west coasts. It is even worse than what went on among my generation (Millenials) or your generation.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
08 February 2019 08:19
 

I will address a several points in your last post:

The Red X:  You are disregarding the assumptions behind the big, simplistic Red X.  These include, how are “white” and “black” defined, and can they be segregated in any meaningful way?  Is IQ testing an accurate measure of genetic intelligence, or is it skewed toward certain types of culturally defined intelligence?  Are intelligence genes and whiteness or blackness genes linked?  How much of intelligence is nature, and how much is nurture?

Anti-GMO campaigns:  GMO crops may not have been shown to harm humans who consume them, yet.  (Personally, I do not trust companies like Monsanto to keep us safe, based on their past record.)  But you are overlooking the environmental and economic dangers.  Plants can do funny things with reproduction.  Crop plants can cross with wild cousins, thereby spreading GMO’s beyond the controlled fields, with unknown repercussions.  Second, the more farmers around the world switch to GMO’s, the more that companies like Monsanto will control them and the less variety there will be in plantings.  (I can provide actual examples of this control, if you want.)  Currently, Peru grows 4000 varieties of potatoes; the US produces less than 1/20 of that number.  This leaves US agriculture much more vulnerable to devastation from crop diseases.  (The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the fact that the majority of potatoes planted were of one variety.)

You cling to the assumption that a genetic link will be proved.  Then you extrapolate all sorts of negative consequences of liberals not accepting the purported proof.  From my point of view, it appears that you are the one not accepting contrary evidence.  This notwithstanding that the terrible negative consequences of racial prejudice are abundant and very real.

[ Edited: 08 February 2019 08:22 by hannahtoo]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
08 February 2019 08:47
 
hannahtoo - 08 February 2019 08:19 AM

I will address a several points in your last post:

The Red X:  You are disregarding the assumptions behind the big, simplistic Red X.  These include, how are “white” and “black” defined, and can they be segregated in any meaningful way?  Is IQ testing an accurate measure of genetic intelligence, or is it skewed toward certain types of culturally defined intelligence?  Are intelligence genes and whiteness or blackness genes linked?  How much of intelligence is nature, and how much is nurture?

Anti-GMO campaigns:  GMO crops may not have been shown to harm humans who consume them, yet.  (Personally, I do not trust companies like Monsanto to keep us safe, based on their past record.)  But you are overlooking the environmental and economic dangers.  Plants can do funny things with reproduction.  Crop plants can cross with wild cousins, thereby spreading GMO’s beyond the controlled fields, with unknown repercussions.  Second, the more farmers around the world switch to GMO’s, the more that companies like Monsanto will control them and the less variety there will be in plantings.  (I can provide actual examples of this control, if you want.)  Currently, Peru grows 4000 varieties of potatoes; the US produces less than 1/20 of that number.  This leaves US agriculture much more vulnerable to devastation from crop diseases.  (The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the fact that the majority of potatoes planted were of one variety.)

You cling to the assumption that a genetic link will be proved.  Then you extrapolate all sorts of negative consequences of liberals not accepting the purported proof.  From my point of view, it appears that you are the one not accepting contrary evidence.  This notwithstanding that the terrible negative consequences of racial prejudice are abundant and very real.

The GMO debate is another important debate, and I don’t want to chase that red herring within this thread too much. I may start another thread on the topic at a later time.

The Red X is simple for sure, and the dogma is likewise simple. My argument assumes definitions of racial categories that are commonly accepted, accepted even by critical race theorists: self-identification. The critical race theorists don’t deny the existence of races, but merely their biology. They claim that races are social constructs, and, as social constructs, they give rise to vast inequalities we see in the world today. Is the fuzzy definition of each racial category a problem for their claims? No. But, it is somehow a problem for racial hereditarians, because they claim biology is involved in some of the differences among those social constructs? For sure, defining races as social constructs means that a few people (statistically, about 5 in 1000) classify themselves in a way at odds with biology: they have a racial self-identification at odds with how a geneticist would classify them. But, even if self-identification were biologically perfect, then the claims of racial hereditarianism would be about group averages and frequencies, not about individuals. The definitions of each race are really not the problem. It seems to be a popular ad hoc objection, applied selectively to deny claims at odds with the dogma. I will put your other objections to the side for now.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›