New York City has an integration problem.

[Martin Hash]

Dude, I point out the obvious logical conclusion in your solution & you don't know how to respond so you make me the bad guy. (You know, other people read this.)

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude, I point out the obvious logic flaw in your solution & you don't know how to respond so you make me the bad guy. (You know, other people read this.)

No, you really did not. You'd know that had you read the post.

[Martin Hash]

Moving on...

[Dand]

No welfare unless you voluntarily become sterilized. Could fix this problem in a generation even if it starts a war.

I did not get a low score, and I don't think that the test is racist.

The reason that blacks would score lower is cultural, not genetic. They aren't presented with the same sort of quick-thinking, geometric problem-solving, and vocabulary-intense education or environments as children. My dad gave me algebra problems on a whiteboard when I was in elementary school.

So you're not calling the tests racist but are saying that the studies ignored educational background?

Exactly. Not only educational background, but cultural factors and home situations as well. And then extrapolating some half-understood DNA studies on top of it, leads to a sterling example of brilliance, such as our beloved StA.

It would be nice if that were true but I think that's a bit of magical-thinking and optimism. This paper (page 9 specifically): http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFil ... isser2.pdf shows that even in studies of adopted children raised in the same family or twins seperated into multiple familes, there are inheritable as well as environmental factors. Both environment and genetics influence our outcomes. It also is interesting that genetic differences become more pronounced when testing older populations.

Different people have physical differences and we're forced to accept that with traits like height, vision, etc but it's unavoidable that those variations also apply to less visible parts of ourselves.

[SuburbanFarmer]

No welfare unless you voluntarily become sterilized. Could fix this problem in a generation even if it starts a war.


So you're not calling the tests racist but are saying that the studies ignored educational background?

Exactly. Not only educational background, but cultural factors and home situations as well. And then extrapolating some half-understood DNA studies on top of it, leads to a sterling example of brilliance, such as our beloved StA.

It would be nice if that were true but I think that's a bit of magical-thinking and optimism. This paper (page 9 specifically): http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFil ... isser2.pdf shows that even in studies of adopted children raised in the same family or twins seperated into multiple familes, there are inheritable as well as environmental factors. Both environment and genetics influence our outcomes. It also is interesting that genetic differences become more pronounced when testing older populations.

Different people have physical differences and we're forced to accept that with traits like height, vision, etc but it's unavoidable that those variations also apply to less visible parts of ourselves.

Of course, and individuals will always vary.

That's a pretty weak defense of some kind of blanket statement about the intelligence of black Americans though, don't you think?

[Speaker to Animals]

In particular, while it may be true that life sucks for the children of these single mothers, the act of taking away incentives to these women makes it more difficult for these women to reproduce. They are not so stupid as to not better precautions and make better decisions about their reproduction when they have nothing to gain by having more babies. Over time, the genetics that lead towards these maladapted people diminishes as they are no longer favored.

In particular, you keep saying culture is more important. YES! Because culture has genetic consequences! The social policies and social pressures that exist result in changes to sexual selection that favor some genetic adaptations over others. That's why races are different in the first place.

It's easier to see in Chinese, where a shift in state policy towards advancement resulted in a higher average IQ over time due to the fact that social standing in the bureaucracy was based on merit, merit was recognized through standardized testing, and advancement was open to most. Advancement resulted in more resources which meant a person could have more children.

A genetic trait that results in you having more children than your peers, even if the environment that selects for it is cultural or governmental, will result in a higher frequency of that trait.

Yet now we are subsidizing thugs and poor-planning. The more you subsidize something, the more you get of it..

[Speaker to Animals]

Moving on...

You're so ridiculous sometimes. You obviously don't want to debate it. You want people to post something you can easily dismiss so you can push your simplistic worldview. Okay. Whatever. It's your forum.

[Dand]

Exactly. Not only educational background, but cultural factors and home situations as well. And then extrapolating some half-understood DNA studies on top of it, leads to a sterling example of brilliance, such as our beloved StA.

It would be nice if that were true but I think that's a bit of magical-thinking and optimism. This paper (page 9 specifically): http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFil ... isser2.pdf shows that even in studies of adopted children raised in the same family or twins seperated into multiple familes, there are inheritable as well as environmental factors. Both environment and genetics influence our outcomes. It also is interesting that genetic differences become more pronounced when testing older populations.

Different people have physical differences and we're forced to accept that with traits like height, vision, etc but it's unavoidable that those variations also apply to less visible parts of ourselves.

Of course, and individuals will always vary.

That's a pretty weak defense of some kind of blanket statement about the intelligence of black Americans though, don't you think?

I wasn't talking about individuals. Obviously there are countless examples of people from every group that can score higher on some intelligence metric than people from other groups. We're talking about means. And sorry but I don't know what you're referring to as a weak defense. I think there's a strong defense of the position that different groups score differently on tests of intelligence.

Some white people are taller than some black people; that doesn't have any bearing on which group has a higher average height.

This is a precarious thing to talk about but I reject your attempt to nullify the entire idea of measuring a type of intelligence because the results don't fit an ideal vision of our world. By no means am I saying or implying that this means that different groups of people have more value or worth.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It would be nice if that were true but I think that's a bit of magical-thinking and optimism. This paper (page 9 specifically): http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFil ... isser2.pdf shows that even in studies of adopted children raised in the same family or twins seperated into multiple familes, there are inheritable as well as environmental factors. Both environment and genetics influence our outcomes. It also is interesting that genetic differences become more pronounced when testing older populations.

Different people have physical differences and we're forced to accept that with traits like height, vision, etc but it's unavoidable that those variations also apply to less visible parts of ourselves.

Of course, and individuals will always vary.

That's a pretty weak defense of some kind of blanket statement about the intelligence of black Americans though, don't you think?

I wasn't talking about individuals. Obviously there are countless examples of people from every group that can score higher on some intelligence metric than people from other groups. We're talking about means. And sorry but I don't know what you're referring to as a weak defense. I think there's a strong defense of the position that different groups score differently on tests of intelligence.

Some white people are taller than some black people; that doesn't have any bearing on which group has a higher average height.

This is a precarious thing to talk about but I reject your attempt to nullify the entire idea of measuring a type of intelligence because the results don't fit an ideal vision of our world. By no means am I saying or implying that this means that different groups of people have more value or worth.

I'm all for the idea that different groups may score differently on a given test.

However, I'm completely against the idea that this implies an actual difference in human intelligence, or capacity for thought, and that is how it's being used here. I'm simply pointing out the simplest reasons why this test and extrapolation are meaningless.

[Dand]

Alright but the studies that try to control for environment are out there if you want to read them. It does not appear to be cut-and-dry nature or nurture.