Hold your horses, I worked today, and I also forgot: lol.
First one!
" In fact, also in the current data set, 87.6% percent of the total diversity is found among individuals and only 9.2% among continents" - " Our results show that this is not the case, and we see no reason to assume that “races” represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history." - "Thus, even for a rapid and rough evaluation of genetic risk factors, “racial” background is of limited use, and direct analysis of the relevant gene is the only reliable way to evaluate genetic risk in an individual (Cooper et al. 2003). Fortunately, this will become increasingly possible as the genetic components of more diseases become elucidated."
Second one!
"Perhaps, the best evidence for this is the so-called 'Flynn effect'. This refers to the huge secular increases in average IQ test performances over many decades in all countries where records are available. Scarcely mentioned in this book, because fatal to its basic thesis (see below), and baffling psychologists who still think of the IQ as a biometric test, it simply reflects the rapid expansion of the middle classes, and their associated psycho-linguistic/affective dispositions. It is not a reflection of increased mental ability as such, as Flynn agrees."
THIRD ONE!
Simple skims, nonetheless.
HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:
Ah, yes, the Holy Consensus! I mean, it's only what a strong majority of professionals in that area have determined through study and universal discourse. I'm sure that means nothing in the long run, especially with wide international projects that take a look at the actual genes between people and in their summary reports say themselves that race is a non-existent biological category. It is not a debated field of study within the wide lense of science, and especially not in areas of genetics.
Yes, let's just have me, someone with a lack of hard scientific training to just pour through hard data that these organizations have produced instead of their statements, so that I can mess things up. I can see why such is a viable tactic to try and enforce, but I will not bother with it. Statements from scientific organizations that follow the scientific method and even international projects are viable enough in their own regard to be trusted.
Opinion never trumps data, no matter whose opinion. In this field, though, opinion is strictly worthless: the firing of James Watson shows you're not free to hold whatever opinion the data suggests, but rather must hold an outwardly leftwing opinion regardless of what the data suggests.
As for your appeal to your own incompetence, why are you even arguing with me about this if you admit you don't actually know if you are right or not?
Because a Scientific Concencus doesn't mean nothing. It very clearly means what a majority of individuals in that field know through their study, but the moment it stands against what you express it is opinion? Shocking. As you have said, opinion does not trump data.
Usually the one going against the establishment must make the claims and back them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all.
HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:You know what this means in the end? That the clause that there is a determinable intelligence difference between races is less viable because race as a biological construct is nonexistent. It exists as a social construct, however. This is where things such as the Flynn Effect take hold.
In the first place that is false; people are not dreaming when they seem that blacks are black, whites beige, orientals are tan, etc. Nor is this just some wild coincidence. It is hereditary. Saying there is lots of variation within races doesn't mean races don't exist: there is lots of variation within countries but that doesn't mean countries don't exist.
Even if race were totally unphysical, though, it's still a social reality, and groups of unrelated people classified together by arbitrary social whim will still have differing and hereditary traits. If I decide to class the Williams, Jones and Reynolds families in my village as one "race", and they work respectively as cashiers, dung heap attendants, and journalists, we will expect a low average IQ, passed to a new generation of low IQ children. While if I class the Nicholson, Harold and Fletcher families as another "race", and they work respectively as chemists, engineers, and mathematicians, we will expect a high average IQ, passed to a new generation of high IQ children.
Races are not genetic, there are gradients, however, and as mentioned they are extremely preciseness. Race is all social construct, however, and a real issue. Race is assigned, socially at least, with skin color and general guesses - because often times, people get them wrong to begin with, and additionally- there are historical examples of what people considered what race a group belonged to changed. This was due to social pressure, and had absolutely no bearing based on scientific genetics.
If you were to make a line from Mongolia to western Russia, is there a sudden point where people suddenly switch from 'oriental' to 'Slavic'? No. It's a shifting gradient, and often times people within it are utterly not related.
The only distinctive people have to go on is based on skin color.
Better yet- what makes a person white?
If they are half-white and half-black, does that mean they are white or black? Or does white mean a person has to be totally devoid of any other 'color', E.I one-drop rule? Does this same rule applied to individuals of other mixed-races, or is it only 'whites'? Who defines what is 'white' in general? After all, they doubted Irish people, Hitler didn't like Italians very much and HATED Slavics.
And wow, where do I begin with that mess, besides you just admitting otherwise?
People who work jobs based on labor, usually have less chances to work on intellectual pursuits - especially in societies where they are usually impoverished. Poor farmers in China usually poor all their resources and effort onto children so they can graduate colleges, to get into a job as a 'chemist', engineer, and so forth. They are not unable to. They are
A. Socially and economically deprived
B. Often lives in environments that do not support intellectual pursuit because there are more pressing matters
C. Doesn't actually take a look at where that system begins? Group A, I'll call them, likely receive a lot less education than group B. Group B may not be any 'smarter' genetically wise, but they have much more resources in order to develop and expand such, while group A does not. You wrote a class system.
If Group B was to abduct a child from Group A, and raise it, where would it end up?
When you further compare group A and group B, which group has the further advantage of being in an environment that may have more pre-testing for IQ tests, or more questions and tasks that focus on the areas tested? If you were to take a member from group B at a very young age and give them to group A, would there be a significant change in the scores without the education and environment provided within Group B?
Since, in the end, a IQ test is a written or computer test - it is not a genetics test. Does having more experiences with tests not help?
Actually, let's think this..
Say we took children from group A and group B early on in their developmental stage and stuck them all into a school, mixed them up and did not label them. They all receive the same high-quality education. At graduation, can you distinctly tell which came from what group by just reading the graduation results? following the idea of genetic intelligence, which you seem to hint is relating to the jobs assigned, and thus the environments they live in, yes, yes you should.
HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:
This is literally cited in your conclusion.
"Brain size, of course, is also environmentally sensitive. For example, rats raised in complex environments have thicker cortices and larger brains than rats reared in impoverished environments (Diamond, 1988)."
"Given that genetic effect sizes turn out to be extremely small, typically 0.1%, and contribute interchangeably and additively, most studies have been seriously underpowered to detect and replicate effects (Plomin et al., 2006)."
Does this look familiar to you
It should, it follow the same line of thinking, only applies it to the different ethnicities that make up "White" to begin with. What is white, by the way? Do you mean French? German? Polish? Brit? Irish? You're using a pretty big term there. But obviously, why would we brits want to associate with those stupid, slim headed continentals? Smaller brains in them, obviously! That's why we were unable to stop the Germans in their U-boats.. Wait..
If taking to its Logical Conclusion(tm), animals would the biggest brains would be the most intelligent - however this is not the cause. Over-sized brains are often associated with epilepsy and autism. Animals with even tiny compatible brains display surprising amounts of intelligence, because over all brain power is often assocaited with how it is wired. Like comparing bamboo to oak, it all grows differently.
The claim you implied was false is that human brain size correlates with human intelligence. It does. You have presented a series of objections to different claims. So what?
And over-sized brains are often associated with issues. Nonetheless, it hasn't stopped people regardless. People with 'smaller heads' still often times 'outcompete' bigger headed people in intellectual pursuits. The hell is even the point over it? Are Germans significantly dumber than Isle Brits because of their head shape?
Einstein's brain wasn't actually surprisingly large, it was surprisingly gooey with lots of connections and trained neurons.
HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:
Ah, yes, disprove a person's work by simply calling them a hack.
You know what adults do between the time they are children and when they are adults? They grow, they also attend stuff like school. Did you know most 'IQ' is apparently developed relatively early in life?
Would it seriously not surprise you to compare an older white professor to an older black male in the ghetto and find a difference? There is a very different life style between them. Yet do you wish to compare an older black professor to what we commonly refer to 'white trash'?
There are still plenty of notes above to refer to. If IQ cannot be risen through education and environmental changes, then how do you mentally reflect upon rising IQ rates in nations, especially along minority groups, at much faster for genetics to even apply? That trend is what is called Flynn's effect.
I didn't "disprove his work by calling him a hack"; I first called him a hack and then explained why he is a hack. It is a generic result of twin studies that IQ is much more heritable in adults than children. In other words, what Turkheimer is really talking about is differences in speed of development, not ultimate destination. Now sure, it's interesting that if you spend money on poor/black children, they will develop more in line with rich/white children for a few years. But it's not very interesting on a social level, because they'll still plateau at a lower level and remain there for the rest of their lives. Turkheimer probably knows that, but knows that his audience doesn't know the literature and can't read between the lines, which is why I call him a hack rather than a fool.
So, that's why IQ levels have been rising? Even if you were to pursue the idea of 'IQ Superiority' - isn't that a good thing? Isn't that something you'd want to see?
Nonetheless - we literally live in an age where we are starting to modify genes of embroys so they can develop without disease - and they are investigating 'IQ' (Thousands of interlocking genes they have yet to figure out). Through history, it has never been monitored on any large scale, and that still led us to where we are today. How would monitoring it today, creating a dangerous power, change things, especially over time-scales of human evolution and generations which literally takes dozens of years?
HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:
A disproportionate amount of black people are impoverished compared to other groups. Have you considered another way of dealing with this by, I dunno, alievating poverty and raising education standards across the country so the poor aren't disenfranchised to begin with, or would this effect the natural circle of things to much?
I dunno if you can tell or not, but I do not believe in 'genetic superiority' - especially when you pull it on par with 'reducing humanity to animals' in a level of time that would literally be hundreds of thousands of years to actually achieve even in your world of genetics. I sure love being in an age where we literally edit heart disease out of embroys, do you?
I'm sure even the Soviet Union was breeding out their most intelligent! That's why they launched the first satellite and had the first man in space and.. Wait.. Or, well, China! I'm sure that's why they have the biggest economy on Earth, or are catching up increasingly quickly with military te-.. Wait..
If anything, you seem to submit to the pseudo-scientific class of the Bell Curve (tm), where all positions are obtained through general superiority/inferiority in genetics, rather than a world where the large majority of the rich inherit their wealth, or otherwise intelligent people can't rise. (Nothing says 'supporting meritocracy' like extreme debt by going to college!)
I can tell you don't believe in genetic superiority which is probably why you believe in all these ideologies which amount to reducing the effects of genetic superiority to twinky and increasing unfalsifiable conspiracy theories. Much as the Nazis reduced all of Germany's economic problems to conspiracy theories about Jews. Why should it be surprising when they end up in the same place? Again, see Cambodia for the effects of blaming all society's problems on those with high aptitude. Contra the socialist "wisdom", market economies actually are pretty meritocratic.
Because genetic superiority is a dumb idea used by people claiming to be 'superior', and then used to justify horrific actions. I'm surprised the Nazi's heads didn't explode in their hypocricy in World War 2 after they captured all the resources and tools of western and central Europe and STILL got outproduced by the inferior beings.
A true meritocratic society would have as much education as possible for all people, and would likely completely ban inheritances. Equal starting points, not equal results, is something I myself approve of. In a world where the majority of rich inherit their money and education is disproportionate, it shows itself to not be a meritocratic society, as some individuals enter the pool with either massive disadvantages, or massive advantages. Is that not unfair, do you think?
