Peterson, Harris, etc....

[Beachryan]

Disclaimer that I'm a big fan of Harris, but I actually think he has two very salient points that come up in that discussion:
1. Discussion and fact-based, logical debate is the best tool we have against a world where only who shouts loudest or uses the most force wins
2. If the stats don't support your narrative, you should consider if your narrative is fully correct, or simply an offshoot or effect of another one, not attack the fact-presenter

 

[NotThatSoph]

Yeah, Harris isn't too bad on the subject of talking about talking. When he's actually talking, that's when trouble starts.

Stats: "Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow. Throughout Western Europe, Muslim immigrants show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost — demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques."

10 years for that absolutely insane prediction to come true.

Fact-based: Black people are less intelligent than white people because of genetics.

Bonus. Predictions: Harris thinks it's a 50-50 chance of a civil war in France because of Muslims in the next 15 years causing a million of deaths. During WW2 800 000 French people died. The Yuguslav Wars, probably the most visceral example of internal strife in Europe after WW2, caused 150 000 deaths.

The guy is insane.

 

[Beachryan]

Yeah, Harris isn't too bad on the subject of talking about talking. When he's actually talking, that's when trouble starts.

Stats: "Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow. Throughout Western Europe, Muslim immigrants show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost — demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques."

10 years for that absolutely insane prediction to come true.

Fact-based: Black people are less intelligent than white people because of genetics.

Bonus. Predictions: Harris thinks it's a 50-50 chance of a civil war in France because of Muslims in the next 15 years causing a million of deaths. During WW2 800 000 French people died. The Yuguslav Wars, probably the most visceral example of internal strife in Europe after WW2, caused 150 000 deaths.

The guy is insane.

The second half of the first quote is in that interview, I didn't hear the first. The stats don't appear to be realistic, though if the quote wasn't majority but largest single religion, it wouldn't be inconceivable given that Christianity has fallen from 85% to 50% in a similar amount of time. So if that fell to c. 30% along that trend, and there was a ton of immigration..dunno. Apparently Pew Research said it could reach near 20%. So he's deffo off a bit. That was in 2006 if that's any mitigation - as he says his views have changed and co-authored a book with a Muslim authour more recently.

I'm shocked at the point on intelligence - did he really say that? I've literally just listened to about 4 hours of his discussion that very topic with 2 different academics on his making sense podcast and he very clearly says he doesn't believe in intelligence tests, and further calls that topic the 'third rail of genetics'.

 

[NotThatSoph]

The second half of the first quote is in that interview, I didn't hear the first. The stats don't appear to be realistic, though if the quote wasn't majority but largest single religion, it wouldn't be inconceivable given that Christianity has fallen from 85% to 50% in a similar amount of time. So if that fell to c. 30% along that trend, and there was a ton of immigration..dunno. Apparently Pew Research said it could reach near 20%. So he's deffo off a bit. That was in 2006 if that's any mitigation - as he says his views have changed and co-authored a book with a Muslim authour more recently.

I'm shocked at the point on intelligence - did he really say that? I've literally just listened to about 4 hours of his discussion that very topic with 2 different academics on his making sense podcast and he very clearly says he doesn't believe in intelligence tests, and further calls that topic the 'third rail of genetics'.

He has acknowledged that his estimate was wrong, but that's about it. He just said that he saw the stats, thought it was right and it turned out it was wrong. But, it isn't just a case of getting it wrong. He got his stats from a book called Eurabia by Bat Ye'or, a book that among other things argues that the elites are conspiring by bringing in Muslim immigrants to weaken Europe, and the estimate was more or less a mathematical impossibility. Remember, his estimate was with 0 immigration, not a ton.

Regarding intelligence, here it's naturally more bits and pieces. It started when he had Charles Murray on his podcast, author of infamous The Bell Curve (and probably the most racist book ever written, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950). According to Harris, Charles Murray is the most unfairly maligned person in his lifetime.

There is an observed racial IQ gap between white and black people of 10-15 points, or 2/3 to 1 standard deviations. Harris and Murray would say 15, probably the most famous scientists on the topic like Richard Nisbett, Eric Turkheimer and James Flynn would say 10. There are arguments to be made about IQ as a concept and the validity of this observed gap, but that is what the numbers we have show.

So, given that we take these numbers seriously, there are three possibilities. 1) Genetics do not influence these differences. 2) Genetics favour black people over white people. 3) Genetics favour white people over black people.

As for what the science says, a good literature review is Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments, published by the American Psychology Association.

For what Harris has said on the subject, we have his podcast episode with Charles Murray, called Forbidden Knowledge, we have his e-mail correspondence with Ezra Klein that Harris leaked to make Klein look bad, and we have the podcast the two did together afterwards. There's also an article published in Vox (where Klein was editor) about Harris' podcast in Murray, written by IQ experts Nisbett, Turkheimer and Harden.

Back to what Harris thinks. Is genetics irrelevant when comparing the intelligence of black people and white people? No, as Harris says, it would be a miracle:

Among the many uncontroversial facts that the Vox paper elides is that once we make environments truly equivalent (equally enriched, stable, motivating, etc.) ANY difference we notice between people (or between groups) will be due to genes. What’s more, we should EXPECT such differences for most things we care about (along with most things we don’t care about). It would be a miracle if the mean value for any heritable trait were precisely the same across two genetically distinct populations, generation after generation. Does this matter? I don’t think so. As Murray and I spelled out repeatedly, we still need to treat people as individuals. This is not an “anodyne” claim meant to conceal our white supremacy (as the authors suggest) but the only ethical and reasonable thing to do. The authors write as though any proven genetic difference in intelligence between races would be morally and politically catastrophic—and so the only remedy is to lie about the state of our knowledge and defame anyone not taken in by these lies as a “racialist” (really “racist) who is peddling “pseudoscience.”

And just in case miracles are possible, no, Harris doesn't think so:

I’m not familiar with the other authors, but most of what I’ve seen from Nisbett on the topic of IQ betrays his prior ideological commitments. He knows what he wants the data to say, and he will twist them until he gets the answer he finds consoling. For what it’s worth, I’d much prefer to read the data his way too—it would be far easier, and require absolutely no moral or intellectual courage, to just blame the environment (read: the consequences of persistent inequality and white racism). But I find that impossible. For a critical review of Nisbett’s book, see:

http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

So we know Harris thinks genetics is relevant. The usual trick for a lot of people here, and one that Harris uses himself sometimes, is to say that this is just a statistical necessity. You take two populations, here black people and white people, and when you compare them then it's just a fact that they will never be 100 % equal. Is that what Harris actually means here? No, it's not.

If we were talking about a statistical quirk like this, then we'd be talking about e.g. maybe 0.000000002 points in favour of any side. Basically random chance, right?

Klein had talked with James Flynn (the Flynn effect is named after him) before his talk with Harris. Flynn said a couple of things.

I think it is more probably than not that the IQ difference between black and white Americans is environmental. As a social scientist, I cannot be sure if they have a genetic advantage or disadvantage.

Here Flynn says that he thinks the observed gap is probably environmental. He then also says (you'll find this in the podcast transcript), that with the evidence we currently have (if you read the literature review posted above then you'll already know that we have no direct evidence of genetic differences), then it's perfectly possible that we'd find e.g. a 2 point genetic difference in favor of black people and a 12 point environmental difference in favor of white people, giving a net 10 point observed difference in favor of white people (it doesn't really make sense to view nature-nurture like this, but you get the point). What does Harris have to say to this? " Sure, sure, many things are possible. We’re trying to judge on what is plausible"

So, Harris thinks that it's impossible for genetics not to leave a gap, and he thinks the only plausible explanation is that white people are genetically smarter than black people. If anyone wants to hang on to the fact that he says it's possible, well, he has also said that it's possible that Jesus resurrected and Harris is not a Christian.

This shows that Harris thinks white people are smarter than black people because of genetics, but we can go further. Even if we accept the view of scientists like Flynn, Nisbett, Turkheimer and Harden saying that the observed gap is 10 points rather than the 15 points according to political pundit Charles Murray, that's still 2/3 of a standard deviation. IQ tests are calibrated so that the mean is 100 and the SD is 15, that means that 68 % would score between 85-115. When Harris says that the only plausible explanation is that white people are genetically smarter than black people, then he either has to be making shit up because he has no idea what he's talking about (that's the case either way, of course, but for different reasons), or he has to think that white people are substantially smarter than black people because of genetics. There is no fecking way, not even close, that someone could say that e.g. 1 point in favour of black people would be implausible while 1 point in favour of white people would be plausible. We're not even close to that kind of sensitivity.

 

[Beachryan]

Having listened to and read lots of both Klein and Harris, but none of Murray (though I've listened to that episode) I think you're maligning Harris for even speaking to Murray - something that Klein did in his Vox article and Harris has ever since been shunned for. It's the whole 'platforming is equal to the viewpoint' line.

Harris very much believes in genetics and the recent episode with Robert Plumin speaks to why. In that episode he very clearly articulates the struggles that even speaking to Charles Murray has brought him, personally and professionally and that despite that he'd still do it again, because of his belief that you should be able to speak to just about anyone.

Having spent god knows how many hours listening to the Making Sense podcast, I have to say I think your extrapolation of his and other works is fitting the thesis you've set out, regardless of what the man himself has said, which is pretty clear.

My understanding is that Harris' argument is that Charles Murray should be able to present his data to the academic community, and it should be debated, and that the man presenting the data shouldn't be attacked, but rather the data. I can't recall if it was in the Plumin episode, but at some stage Harris makes the point - which tbh is probably true in today's world - that had Murray's data illustrated the opposite, he would be widely heralded rather than practically shunned out of academia.

Personally, I don't believe IQ is a measure that can be properly evaluated, and the bias in current evaluation will lead to skewing based on culture and environment. That said, given genetic differences between races in any host of other areas, if we could measure it fairly and accurately it seems likely to me that there would be differences by race, but the directionality and magnitude of those differences would be the catch.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Having listened to and read lots of both Klein and Harris, but none of Murray (though I've listened to that episode) I think you're maligning Harris for even speaking to Murray - something that Klein did in his Vox article and Harris has ever since been shunned for. It's the whole 'platforming is equal to the viewpoint' line.

Harris very much believes in genetics and the recent episode with Robert Plumin speaks to why. In that episode he very clearly articulates the struggles that even speaking to Charles Murray has brought him, personally and professionally and that despite that he'd still do it again, because of his belief that you should be able to speak to just about anyone.

Having spent god knows how many hours listening to the Making Sense podcast, I have to say I think your extrapolation of his and other works is fitting the thesis you've set out, regardless of what the man himself has said, which is pretty clear.

My understanding is that Harris' argument is that Charles Murray should be able to present his data to the academic community, and it should be debated, and that the man presenting the data shouldn't be attacked, but rather the data. I can't recall if it was in the Plumin episode, but at some stage Harris makes the point - which tbh is probably true in today's world - that had Murray's data illustrated the opposite, he would be widely heralded rather than practically shunned out of academia.

Personally, I don't believe IQ is a measure that can be properly evaluated, and the bias in current evaluation will lead to skewing based on culture and environment. That said, given genetic differences between races in any host of other areas, if we could measure it fairly and accurately it seems likely to me that there would be differences by race, but the directionality and magnitude of those differences would be the catch.

I didn't say a single word about what Harris said to Murray, or even his conversation with Murray. I told you what he said about Murray, and I detailed what he thinks on the subject of race and IQ.

Everything I said is sourced in the detailed links I gave. It's a direct quote that Harris thinks genetics explains parts of the observed black-white IQ gap, and it's a direct quote that the only plausible explanation he sees is that this effect favours white people over black people. There is no ambiguity here.

 

[psychdelicblues]

 

[Beachryan]

Thanks for that, not on board 100% but always useful to have such a well articulated, mature view expressed.

 

[Beachryan]

I didn't say a single word about what Harris said to Murray, or even his conversation with Murray. I told you what he said about Murray, and I detailed what he thinks on the subject of race and IQ.

Everything I said is sourced in the detailed links I gave. It's a direct quote that Harris thinks genetics explains parts of the observed black-white IQ gap, and it's a direct quote that the only plausible explanation he sees is that this effect favours white people over black people. There is no ambiguity here.

Disagree on the ambiguity, but that's fine. As I said, I've listened to him on countless subjects and find it fascinating that almost all detractors only mention the Murray piece and his views on radical Islam. Having followed his discussion with Ezra Klein on the very topic, I find it his position more about philosophy of thinking and presenting data than the iq piece itself, which really isn't his point. But as they state, its the third rail - just touching upon it will kill you. His argument is that if you treat any topic that way, you'll never understand it better.

I still get great benefit from the wide range of academics he interacts with, from consciousness to spacetime to neuroscience .

 

[NotThatSoph]

Disagree on the ambiguity, but that's fine. As I said, I've listened to him on countless subjects and find it fascinating that almost all detractors only mention the Murray piece and his views on radical Islam. Having followed his discussion with Ezra Klein on the very topic, I find it his position more about philosophy of thinking and presenting data than the iq piece itself, which really isn't his point. But as they state, its the third rail - just touching upon it will kill you. His argument is that if you treat any topic that way, you'll never understand it better.

I still get great benefit from the wide range of academics he interacts with, from consciousness to spacetime to neuroscience .

What words did you find ambiguous, was it miracle, impossible or plausible?

It actually can't get less ambiguous. We have three alternatives: A, B and C. They are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, so we know one of them have to be true and two of them false. Harris thinks C is impossible, literally impossible, so we're left with A and B.

With only two possibilities like this, when you say something about one of the alternatives you're saying something about the other as well. If I say that there is a 10 % chance of A being right, then I'm at the same saying that there is a 90 % chance of B being right. When Harris says that B isn't plausible, then the only plausible option left is A. It's clear as day.

If there is a cup tie between two teams and I say that a draw is impossible because the match will have to be decided, and I also say that it's not plausible that the away team wins, then I have also said that I think the home team will win.

 

[Beachryan]

What words did you find ambiguous, was it miracle, impossible or plausible?

It actually can't get less ambiguous. We have three alternatives: A, B and C. They are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, so we know one of them have to be true and two of them false. Harris thinks C is impossible, literally impossible, so we're left with A and B.

With only two possibilities like this, when you say something about one of the alternatives you're saying something about the other as well. If I say that there is a 10 % chance of A being right, then I'm at the same saying that there is a 90 % chance of B being right. When Harris says that B isn't plausible, then the only plausible option left is A. It's clear as day.

If there is a cup tie between two teams and I say that a draw is impossible because the match will have to be decided, and I also say that it's not plausible that the away team wins, then I have also said that I think the home team will win.

That's your extrapolation of Harris' position - which he himself has articulated differently. You're taking separate statements and piecing them together to fit your viewpoint. At no point has Sam Harris come out and said he believes that one race has a higher IQ than another race - which is the picture you're painting. What he has said is genetics unequivocally can predict predilection towards certain traits, there is data that indicates a variance and that we should discuss what that could mean, rather than deciding it's a taboo academic subject due to historical/cultural stigmas. There is a whole body of work on the environmental differences - because that would yield a nice, comfortable answer - but it's inconclusive at best, and twin adoption studies emperically sugest it to not be true. Maybe it means the test is unreliable or biased. Maybe there is a difference. The point is we should be able to talk about it.

Put another way as Harris does, if the exact same science were simply showing that, say, height or BMI shares these genetic trends, and the genetics suggest that, say, the data says that whites are genetically more likely to be shorter or something, we should be okay to discuss that. And we would be. Because it's not taboo.

That's my take on his position. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[NotThatSoph]

That's your extrapolation of Harris' position - which he himself has articulated differently. You're taking separate statements and piecing them together to fit your viewpoint. At no point has Sam Harris come out and said he believes that one race has a higher IQ than another race - which is the picture you're painting. What he has said is genetics unequivocally can predict predilection towards certain traits, there is data that indicates a variance and that we should discuss what that could mean, rather than deciding it's a taboo academic subject due to historical/cultural stigmas. There is a whole body of work on the environmental differences - because that would yield a nice, comfortable answer - but it's inconclusive at best, and twin adoption studies emperically sugest it to not be true. Maybe it means the test is unreliable or biased. Maybe there is a difference. The point is we should be able to talk about it.

Put another way as Harris does, if the exact same science were simply showing that, say, height or BMI shares these genetic trends, and the genetics suggest that, say, the data says that whites are genetically more likely to be shorter or something, we should be okay to discuss that. And we would be. Because it's not taboo.

That's my take on his position. Let's agree to disagree.

Again, this is just not true. Harris said loud and clear that it's impossible for genes not to play a part. When Ezra Klein confronted him with what James Flynn had told him days prior, that if there are genetic differences between black and white people with regards to intelligence, then it's perfectly possible based on the evidence available that this could be e.g. a 2 point difference in favour of black people because genetics and a 12 point difference in favour of white people for environmental reasons, for a 10 point net observed difference, Harris answered that this is possible but not plausible.

You keep trying to treat this is a meta discussion. Harris said a lot of concrete things about the science, you can't get away from that. Well, you can by just denying that Harris said what he said, of course.

 

[Beachryan]

Again, this is just not true. Harris said loud and clear that it's impossible for genes not to play a part. When Ezra Klein confronted him with what James Flynn had told him days prior, that if there are genetic differences between black and white people with regards to intelligence, then it's perfectly possible based on the evidence available that this could be e.g. a 2 point difference in favour of black people because genetics and a 12 point difference in favour of white people for environmental reasons, for a 10 point net observed difference, Harris answered that this is possible but not plausible.

You keep trying to treat this is a meta discussion. Harris said a lot of concrete things about the science, you can't get away from that. Well, you can by just denying that Harris said what he said, of course.

I just don't see anything wrong with Harris' assertion in your top paragraph. Genetics play a part in just about every trait we have - from likelihood to enjoy cilantro to our ability to process complex carbs. I don't see that as controversial. Why would the ability to process information in such a way as to perform well on what is currently an 'iq test' be any different?

And the reason Harris says environment is unlikely is because, from what I've read of his work on this, there are good studies trailing twins that pretty definitively suggest that it's not the case. For example, separated twins are statistically much more likely to perform similar in standardised testing than the non-birth siblings in homes they've moved into.

Again, in my opinion having this discussion should not be grounds to deem someone insane, or in this case racist. If genetic studies yield correlations, it shouldn't be taboo to investigate them. As per my earlier post, I believe two things in this case:
1. The 'IQ test' is biased towards the way we currently learn and what is deemed important
2. If the finding were the inverse, Murray/Harris wouldn't be chased out of Dodge

 

[NotThatSoph]

I just don't see anything wrong with Harris' assertion in your top paragraph. Genetics play a part in just about every trait we have - from likelihood to enjoy cilantro to our ability to process complex carbs. I don't see that as controversial. Why would the ability to process information in such a way as to perform well on what is currently an 'iq test' be any different?

And the reason Harris says environment is unlikely is because, from what I've read of his work on this, there are good studies trailing twins that pretty definitively suggest that it's not the case. For example, separated twins are statistically much more likely to perform similar in standardised testing than the non-birth siblings in homes they've moved into.

Again, in my opinion having this discussion should not be grounds to deem someone insane, or in this case racist. If genetic studies yield correlations, it shouldn't be taboo to investigate them. As per my earlier post, I believe two things in this case:
1. The 'IQ test' is biased towards the way we currently learn and what is deemed important
2. If the finding were the inverse, Murray/Harris wouldn't be chased out of Dodge

So after all this. First you're shocked that Harris would think white people have a genetic advantage over black people. I show you, you say I'm just maligning him for speaking to Murray. I explain again, you say it's ambiguous. I explain again, you say I'm just fitting pieces together. I try a last time, and your response is ... that Harris is right (edit: or at least that Harris believes exactly what I've said all along, and that he does so because of reasons).

 

[Beachryan]

So after all this. First you're shocked that Harris would think white people have a genetic advantage over black people. I show you, you say I'm just maligning him for speaking to Murray. I explain again, you say it's ambiguous. I explain again, you say I'm just fitting pieces together. I try a last time, and your response is ... that Harris is right (edit: or at least that Harris believes exactly what I've said all along, and that he does so because of reasons).

Alright, clearly not making my point. I believe that Sam Harris is willing to talk about the data that suggests there is a genetic link between race and IQ, and that Murray's data suggests there is a statistically significant correlation between a race and IQ test performance.

You have extrapolated that to "white people have a genetic advantage over black people", not Sam Harris.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Alright, clearly not making my point. I believe that Sam Harris is willing to talk about the data that suggests there is a genetic link between race and IQ, and that Murray's data suggests there is a statistically significant correlation between a race and IQ test performance.

You have extrapolated that to "white people have a genetic advantage over black people", not Sam Harris.

Of course there a correlation between race and IQ test performance, there is an observed gap of around 10 points, or 2/3 of a standard deviation. No one in these discussions dispute that. The debate is whether or not genetic differences influence this observed gap, and if so in what way. Harris thinks genetic differences do influence the gap, and that they do so in favour of white people over black people. Just like I've said all along, and just like you've agreed after spending several comments denying.

 

[Synco]

I believe that Sam Harris is willing to talk about the data that suggests there is a genetic link between race and IQ, and that Murray's data suggests there is a statistically significant correlation between a race and IQ test performance.

You have extrapolated that to "white people have a genetic advantage over black people", not Sam Harris.

But this does quite openly say white people have a genetic advantage over black people, doesn't it?

 

[Cheimoon]

I'm not sure if you guys care about the actual scientific link between IQ and genes/race, or only what this Harris guy says about it. In case of the former, there is a great new book entirely dedicated to dispelling the myth that race is connected to any human quality, except for a few skin characteristics. Here is a new review that I saw yesterday:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02546-4?sf237642911=1

The review also goes into the IQ bit. In short: if anyone is claiming there is a genetic relationship between IQ and race, they're talking absolute bullshit.

If this is just about what Harris or any other random dude thinks, then I'll happily stay out of the discussion.

 

[NotThatSoph]

But this does quite openly say white people have a genetic advantage over black people, doesn't it?

I just want to point out that " willing to talk about the data that suggests there is a genetic link between race and IQ" is an extremely suspect framing. I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not, but the implication is that there is such data but only people like Harris and Murray are willing to talk about it. The fact is that this is a topic that has been studied extensively, and if anyone wants an overview then I'd again recommend the resource I provided earlier; Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments.

 

[e.cantona]

Is it controversial to say some are more likely to succeed in athletics, say NFL, NBA, running, like 10000m? If two people of a certain height mate, call them Dutch and Dutchess, are they more likely to produce offspring with certain physical characteristics? Is it then so controversial to speculate on other things not being equally distributed? Rumour has it rich people seek out other rich people, certain people look for mates with certain traits. Is all this simply racism/xenophobia/discrimination/etc? If you were a betting person and had three people in front of you, African origin, Asian origin, European origin, who would you put money on doing well on the SAT or equivalent or perform well in athletics. Is all this really that outrageous? What feels good isn't necessarily correct and what's correct doesn't necessarily feel good.. How did the giraffes get to all have such long necks?

 

[NotThatSoph]

Is it controversial to say some are more likely to succeed in athletics, say NFL, NBA, running, like 10000m? If two people of a certain height mate, call them Dutch and Dutchess, are they more likely to produce offspring with certain physical characteristics? Is it then so controversial to speculate on other things not being equally distributed? Rumour has it rich people seek out other rich people, certain people look for mates with certain traits. Is all this simply racism/xenophobia/discrimination/etc? If you were a betting person and had three people in front of you, African origin, Asian origin, European origin, who would you put money on doing well on the SAT or equivalent or perform well in athletics. Is all this really that outrageous? What feels good isn't necessarily correct and what's correct doesn't necessarily feel good.. How did the giraffes get to all have such long necks?

I would educate myself on what the science says instead of trying to guess based on hunches and silly thought experiments and then pretend that I'm brave for guessing something that doesn't feel good.

That's just me, though, you do you.

 

[e.cantona]

I would educate myself on what the science says instead of trying to guess based on hunches and silly thought experiments and then pretend that I'm brave for guessing something that doesn't feel good.

That's just me, though, you do you.

Yes. If you really put your heart to it, you can be anything you want, right? Just go for it, you can do it!

 

[Synco]

I just want to point out that " willing to talk about the data that suggests there is a genetic link between race and IQ" is an extremely suspect framing. I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not, but the implication is that there is such data but only people like Harris and Murray are willing to talk about it. The fact is that this is a topic that has been studied extensively, and if anyone wants an overview then I'd again recommend the resource I provided earlier; Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments.

Yes. It implies a struggle between scientific objectivity and anti-scientific politization, and a suppression of the former by the latter. A classic figure in these kinds of controversies, whenever I see them.

Thanks for the link, same goes for @Cheimoon .

 

[NotThatSoph]

Yes. If you really put your heart to it, you can be anything you want, right? Just go for it, you can do it!

No, I can't be anything I want, but I can read literature reviews.

For instance, you can go from "you can't be anything you want" to "some races are genetically smarter than others even if the scientists can't prove it, I know it's true". I'm not capable of that, we're different.

 

[e.cantona]

No, I can't be anything I want, but I can read literature reviews.

For instance, you can go from "you can't be anything you want" to "some races are genetically smarter than others even if the scientists can't prove it, I know it's true". I'm not capable of that, we're different.

Ok. But just for fun, what's the chance two groups will be the same after, say 10000 years of different influences, mating patterns, climate, nutrition, etc... You put these two groups beside each other after 10000 years, would they be the same? Ignore colour

 

[NotThatSoph]

Ok. But just for fun, what's the chance two groups will be the same after, say 10000 years of different influences, mating patterns, climate, nutrition, etc... You put these two groups beside each other after 10000 years, would they be the same? Ignore colour

Outside of specific selection pressures any differences would be a result of genetic drift, and the expected differences resulting from genetic drift would by definition be zero.

Did you have fun?

 

[Cheimoon]

Is it controversial to say some are more likely to succeed in athletics, say NFL, NBA, running, like 10000m? If two people of a certain height mate, call them Dutch and Dutchess, are they more likely to produce offspring with certain physical characteristics? Is it then so controversial to speculate on other things not being equally distributed? Rumour has it rich people seek out other rich people, certain people look for mates with certain traits. Is all this simply racism/xenophobia/discrimination/etc? If you were a betting person and had three people in front of you, African origin, Asian origin, European origin, who would you put money on doing well on the SAT or equivalent or perform well in athletics. Is all this really that outrageous? What feels good isn't necessarily correct and what's correct doesn't necessarily feel good.. How did the giraffes get to all have such long necks?

Not sure if you're actually making a point, but if so, see the book I referenced in my post just above yours. It completely dispells the myth that stuff like athleticism has anything to do with race. Race is literally skin deep, and that's all. Humans are not so genetically diverse that 'all Blacks this' or 'all Whites that'. I'm afraid that's the actual science of it; there isn't really anything to debate if it's to be a fact-based discussion.

Edit: if you do have these three people in front of you and they have had average upbringings for their demographic, then I suppose some stereotypes would apply; but that's cultural, not genetic.

 

[e.cantona]

Outside of specific selection pressures any differences would be a result of genetic drift, and the expected differences resulting from genetic drift would by definition be zero.

Did you have fun?

I'm OK.

See, I'm actually asking. You're the one with the attitude. What if one of these people met someone, maybe a neanderthal, and they had fun. They say that happened. Climate could be important, I think. I've read a lot about Vitamin D the last decade, immune system and what not. Other things, like access to protein? Nutrition is important..

 

[NotThatSoph]

I'm OK.

See, I'm actually asking. You're the one with the attitude. What if one of these people met someone, maybe a neanderthal, and they had fun. They say that happened. Climate could be important, I think. I've read a lot about Vitamin D the last decade, immune system and what not. Other things, like access to protein? Nutrition is important..

Yes, I'm the one with the attitude, while you're the one talking about black people being genetically less intelligent because ... giraffes. I'm happy to stick with my attitude, you keep doing you.

How exactly are you proposing that climate influences genes? How does access to protein influence genes? How does nutrition influence genes? How do any of these things influence differences between specific groups when the expected effect of random events is zero?

Don't say giraffes.

 

[e.cantona]

Not sure if you're actually making a point, but if so, see the book I referenced in my post just above yours. It completely dispells the myth that stuff like athleticism has anything to do with race. Race is literally skin deep, and that's all. Humans are not so genetically diverse that 'all Blacks this' or 'all Whites that'. I'm afraid that's the actual science of it; there isn't really anything to debate if it's to be a fact-based discussion.

Edit: if you do have these three people in front of you and they have had average upbringings for their demographic, then I suppose some stereotypes would apply; but that's cultural, not genetic.

The title alone is a bit suspicious, no? One could be led to think there's an agenda behind writing such a book. But sure, probably a good read, think I've almost bought it once or twice even. Let's just try addition then. Two people, they likely differ in many ways, including intelligence, yes? Do a thousand and then a million. I agree, they will be very similar. but 0,00001% could make a huge difference. If a group of people walk and run everywhere, all the time, every day, their life may depend on it. And then they have offspring who also depend on it. And then you have a bunch of lazy people in that other group. With lazy offspring. There's no difference after 100 generations?

 

[e.cantona]

Yes, I'm the one with the attitude, while you're the one talking about black people being genetically less intelligent because ... giraffes. I'm happy to stick with my attitude, you keep doing you.

How exactly are you proposing that climate influences genes? How does access to protein influence genes? How does nutrition influence genes? How do any of these things influence differences between specific groups when the expected effect of random events is zero?

Don't say giraffes.

You're the one seeming obsessed with intelligence and black people. I maybe referenced intelligence in the SAT hypothetical.

I don't know how they would directly influence genes. Why do more people in the far north and southern hemisphere get Multiple Sclerosis than people in the middle? Why are some diseases more heritable than others? Is it climate, nutrition, something else, a combination? Why are some people allergic to peanuts, while others are not? Why do cigarettes kill some... etc

 

[NotThatSoph]

You're the one seeming obsessed with intelligence and black people. I maybe referenced intelligence in the SAT hypothetical.

I don't know how they would directly influence genes. Why do more people in the far north and southern hemisphere get Multiple Sclerosis than people in the middle? Why are some diseases more heritable than others? Is it climate, nutrition, something else, a combination? Why are some people allergic to peanuts, while others are not? Why do cigarettes kill some... etc

That's the topic of the conversation ... This whole thing is about genetic group differences

As for your questions, that'd once again be for the scientists. We actually know a lot about this. We know a lot about intelligence. We know a lot about group differences. You fantasizing about giraffes at night doesn't help us here.

I don't know why you're bringing up heritability and individual differences, that's pretty stupid when the topic is groups.

 

[e.cantona]

That's the topic of the conversation ... This whole thing is about genetic group differences

As for your questions, that'd once again be for the scientists. We actually know a lot about this. We know a lot about intelligence. We know a lot about group differences. You fantasizing about giraffes at night doesn't help us here.

I don't know why you're bringing up heritability and individual differences, that's pretty stupid when the topic is groups.

I am actually quite ignorant on this topic. I suspect you as well. That's not a problem. I'm just speculating if differences in athleticism, or height, is possible in groups, maybe that extends to other biological traits. Would be something interesting to know, and even pursue further.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I am actually quite ignorant on this topic. I suspect you as well. That's not a problem. I'm just speculating if differences in athleticism, or height, is possible in groups, maybe that extends to other biological traits. Would be something interesting to know, and even pursue further.

Yes, I'm very ignorant on this topic. I've read the literature reviews, I know what things like heritability actually mean and how it's incredibly stupid to use that concept to imply group differences, I know the difference between selection pressures and genetic drift, but compared to professionals I know nothing. Which, again, is why I defer to them rather than fantasize about giraffes and then imagine how that means some human racial groups are smarter than others.

 

[e.cantona]

Yes, I'm very ignorant on this topic. I've read the literature reviews, I know what things like heritability actually mean and how it's incredibly stupid to use that concept to imply group differences, I know the difference between selection pressures and genetic drift, but compared to professionals I know nothing. Which, again, is why I defer to them rather than fantasize about giraffes and then imagine how that means some human racial groups are smarter than others.

Well, you sure revealed my stupidity. I'd give you gold star if I could. I'll go think about differences in penis sizes. Have good night you.

 

[berbatrick]

Oh my god we have J Philip Rushton's ghost on the caf what an honour, I wonder if black ghost penises also haunt your dreams.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

its remarkable how east asians went from many babies to few children in about 30 years, and just in time for rushton's work, that is very obviously evolution at work right there.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Well, you sure revealed my stupidity. I'd give you gold star if I could. I'll go think about differences in penis sizes. Have good night you.

It's not about you being stupid, it's about you understandably knowing nothing but then even though you know nothing you still go on talking about how you think some racial groups are smarter than others. That has nothing to do with your intelligence, but it has a lot to do with you.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Oh my god we have J Philip Rushton's ghost on the caf what an honour, I wonder if black ghost penises also haunt your dreams.

To be fair, he might also be Sam Harris's best friend forever Andrew Sullivan, coincidentally also a big fan of The Bell Curve.

https://www.politicalorphans.com/racism-makes-you-a-dick-a-story-about-penis-size/

@evopsychgoogle is great, though.

 

[nimic]

Why does someone feel the need to speculate on something they clearly know nothing about? I don't know, I'm just asking questions.

 

[e.cantona]

Is a funny thing the internet. It allows you to speculate on all kinds of things you know nothing about. Before you know it you're in a Facebook group, shouting racial slurs and what not, everyone having the best of times with you. Scary place the internet. One should be careful speculating too much..