Tabula rasa, or science denial of the left

[Vince Vaughn]

But the present status quo treats differences in results as caused by unseen "power structures"

Because we can credibly trace them back to structural and historical problems, rather than a nazi's biased misunderstanding of genetics.

Also, you don't get to claim that you'd prefer people to be treated as individuals while with the same breath you unironically try to argue that gender and racial differences in outcome are primarily genetic.

Now, be honest: how do you feel about ethno-nationalism?

Different people having different outcomes in life due to their innate characteristics doesn't preclude dealing with people on an individual basis.

[Bombadil]

^This.

There are average differences, but people should be treated as individuals and allowed to follow their dreams, not pigeonholed into a prescribed role based on stereotypes.

That is also my preferred scenario.

But the present status quo treats differences in results as caused by unseen "power structures" as opposed to variations in preferences and abilities, and thus something to be "fixed" at a great cost.

There are indeed differences as a result of social structures, it can affect poor whites as well - people from rural Kentucky for example, commonly known as hillbillies, can be severely disadvantaged due to outsized broken families, ruined communities, negative perceptions.. that can lead to low self esteem, to wonder what's the point of school given college ain't for the likes of them and far far more.

Of course these have effects, the genetic variance is simply too small to explain the outsized effects on different communities.

[Liriena]

Because we can credibly trace them back to structural and historical problems, rather than a nazi's biased misunderstanding of genetics.

Also, you don't get to claim that you'd prefer people to be treated as individuals while with the same breath you unironically try to argue that gender and racial differences in outcome are primarily genetic.

Now, be honest: how do you feel about ethno-nationalism?

Different people having different outcomes in life due to their innate characteristics doesn't preclude dealing with people on an individual basis.

Historically speaking, it does. "Scientific racism" has never gone hand in hand with genuine individualism. Its political consequences have always been institutionalized prejudice. Best case scenario, Darussalam simply doesn't understand this. Worst case scenario, he does and is just playing dumb.

[USS Monitor]

Variation between race and class is so minute as to be infinitesimal. There's a bit more variation between the sexes, but all things considered it's not that much. The environment you grow up in is the factor most likely to determine how you turn out, plus the effects of any random or inherited severe physical or mental abnormalities.

The variation between race and classes are as substantial as variation of wealth held by average members of the subgroup. Murray and Herrnstein have extensively elaborated on that. It explains income differences between various ethnic groups in the United States. It also explained differences in development in various countries of the world.

That is not really the best source. It has been widely criticized, and while some of the criticism might be politically-correct outrage, some of it also raises legit points.

[Darussalam]

From your own damn source:

Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one."[6]

There are multiple environmental factors that were not accounted for in the original study, and even the original authors of the study stated that it was inconclusive due to them not being able to fully remove environmental effects from the study. There are a hell of a lot more variables at play when it comes to environment than simply child-rearing, and this has been studied and noted to cause dramatic impacts on testable intelligence.

They control for parenting, postnatal nutrition, income, and neighborhood - "IQ is prenatally determined" is actually a sufficiently flaming hot take for mainstream leftism, which would have held that IQ is very malleable to the extent that "eating your breakfast changes your IQ significantly".

Also, you don't get to claim that you'd prefer people to be treated as individuals while with the same breath you unironically try to argue that gender and racial differences in outcome are primarily genetic.

Now, be honest: how do you feel about ethno-nationalism?

Sorry? One is a question of empirical fact, another is preference, and they're barely related to each other.

Personally, I'm an imperialist, and I would not mind that nationalism is eradicated throughout the world. Ethno-nationalism is preferable to delusional Christian millennialism, or delusional communism, though.

[Vince Vaughn]

Different people having different outcomes in life due to their innate characteristics doesn't preclude dealing with people on an individual basis.

Historically speaking, it does. "Scientific racism" has never gone hand in hand with genuine individualism. Its political consequences have always been institutionalized prejudice. Best case scenario, Darussalam simply doesn't understand this. Worst case scenario, he does and is just playing dumb.

That's not true at all. In a purely individualist culture, different groups of people (races, social classes, religions, genders, etc.), group differences caused by innate traits would still exist, by virtue of those traits being innate.

[Seangoli]

There are multiple environmental factors that were not accounted for in the original study, and even the original authors of the study stated that it was inconclusive due to them not being able to fully remove environmental effects from the study. There are a hell of a lot more variables at play when it comes to environment than simply child-rearing, and this has been studied and noted to cause dramatic impacts on testable intelligence.

They control for parenting, postnatal nutrition, income, and neighborhood - "IQ is prenatally determined" is actually a sufficiently flaming hot take for mainstream leftism, which would have held that IQ is very malleable to the extent that "eating your breakfast changes your IQ significantly".
.[/quote]

Nice jab. Unfortunately, your knowledge on the subject seems to end in 1997. Here's a more recent study from 2014 that proves just what I said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606659/

In the multivariate analysis, children who regularly ate breakfast had a verbal IQ score that was higher, on average, by 5.58 points (p=0.003) and a performance IQ score that was higher, on average, by 2.50 points (p=0.17) compared to children who did not eat breakfast regularly. Covariate effects of child gender, current living location, parental education, parental occupation, and primary child caregiver were controlled for in this multivariate model (see Table 3)

But hey, 30-60 year old studies which have been shown to inadequately explain the differences are perfect and beyond reproach.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

tl;dr: We have a serious problem of science denialism from the left in the form of blank-slate social sciences. What do you think about it, and what should we do?

You are mislabeling SJW's and radfems as "the left". They are left leaning typically true but are not a majority. Just like flat Earthers and antivaxxers are right leaning but do not make the entire right.

I am a left leaning moderate and I know men and women are on average different. There is a reason no woman completed the infantry officer training course until standards we're lowered. Everyone is not born with equal opportunity at all.

I also know the scientific method is the best knowledge gathering/evaluation system we have.

#miller urey experiment

[Dogmeat]

You're right OP! Certain human populations have been experiencing strong selection pressures over the last 40,000 years. And what's more, scientists have measured them!

Unfortunately they have little to do with intelligence. They mostly seem to relate to how well you absorb vitamin D, whether you can drink milk or not, and how resistant you are to malaria.

[Darussalam]

Because we can credibly trace them back to structural and historical problems, rather than a nazi's biased misunderstanding of genetics.

Some people who are oppressed became prosperous: Jews, Overseas Chinese. Some didn't. Some poor countries in 20th century became wealthy. Some didn't. If historic oppression does not correlate with present socioeconomic position, then to assert that there are "power structures" holding African-Americans back through "unconscious biases" reek of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory.

Different people having different outcomes in life due to their innate characteristics doesn't preclude dealing with people on an individual basis.

Historically speaking, it does. "Scientific racism" has never gone hand in hand with genuine individualism. Its political consequences have always been institutionalized prejudice. Best case scenario, Darussalam simply doesn't understand this. Worst case scenario, he does and is just playing dumb.

The widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution among progressives facilitate 20th century eugenics. That doesn't say anything about whether evolution is correct or not.

Blank-slatism also has evils of its own, crimes of its own. But even if it's purely blameless for the evils of this world, it doesn't change the fact that it's an incorrect model of reality.

[USS Monitor]

The OP reads like some giant incoherent disaster, is it a rant about race and gender?

---

That (and speaking as a Leftist here) is one of those things that the Left really needs to shut up about, along with the hysteria over Nuclear Energy.
Nuclear Power is safe.

I'm also a leftist and there are some anti-vaxxers on the left too, mostly you'll find them under Green banners, I'm all for protecting the environment, but nuclear energy isn't as bad some make it to me, especially if people work fusion, and every food is GMO, since selective breeding is genetic modification, and literally everything is a chemical, stop saying chemicals like it's some scary word.

There are real drawbacks to nuclear power. The thing there is that it is sooooooo much more efficient than fossil fuels, it's a necessary evil to get air pollution and carbon emissions under control.

[Liriena]

Because we can credibly trace them back to structural and historical problems, rather than a nazi's biased misunderstanding of genetics.

Some people who are oppressed became prosperous: Jews, Overseas Chinese. Some didn't. Some poor countries in 20th century became wealthy. Some didn't. If historic oppression does not correlate with present socioeconomic position, then to assert that there are "power structures" holding African-Americans back through "unconscious biases" reek of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory.

Aaaaaaand we've made it to the "model minority" bullshit.

Blank-slatism also has evils of its own, crimes of its own.

Such as...? Eugenics? Genocide?

[Vince Vaughn]

The OP reads like some giant incoherent disaster, is it a rant about race and gender?

---

I'm also a leftist and there are some anti-vaxxers on the left too, mostly you'll find them under Green banners, I'm all for protecting the environment, but nuclear energy isn't as bad some make it to me, especially if people work fusion, and every food is GMO, since selective breeding is genetic modification, and literally everything is a chemical, stop saying chemicals like it's some scary word.

There are real drawbacks to nuclear power. The thing there is that it is sooooooo much more efficient than fossil fuels, it's a necessary evil to get air pollution and carbon emissions under control.

We just closed a deal on a nuclear medicine firm. Basically they make radioactive isotopes that are used to treat various forms of cancer. Part of how they create these isotopes are through nuclear fission.

Opposition to nuclear energy is stupid.

[Liriena]

tl;dr: We have a serious problem of science denialism from the left in the form of blank-slate social sciences. What do you think about it, and what should we do?

You are mislabeling SJW's and radfems as "the left". They are left leaning typically true but are not a majority. Just like flat Earthers and antivaxxers are right leaning but do not make the entire right.

I am a left leaning moderate and I know men and women are on average different. There is a reason no woman completed the infantry officer training course until standards we're lowered. Everyone is not born with equal opportunity at all.

I also know the scientific method is the best knowledge gathering/evaluation system we have.

#miller urey experiment

OP is unironically arguing for "scientific racism", dude, not just "women are physically different ergo infantry training stuff gets weird".

[Vince Vaughn]

Some people who are oppressed became prosperous: Jews, Overseas Chinese. Some didn't. Some poor countries in 20th century became wealthy. Some didn't. If historic oppression does not correlate with present socioeconomic position, then to assert that there are "power structures" holding African-Americans back through "unconscious biases" reek of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory.

Aaaaaaand we've made it to the "model minority" bullshit.

Blank-slatism also has evils of its own, crimes of its own.

Such as...? Eugenics? Genocide?

Communism.

[USS Monitor]

Not in the terms you clearly wish to express it. Your "scientific racism" isn't very subtle, specially after you unironically cited the bell curve.

The idea that there are significant traits and behaviors that are part of some sort of "racial biological essence", which you are blatantly pushing, is nothing more than an ad hoc attempt to cram the square peg of arcane racial categories into the round hole of contemporary genetics.

I'm not pushing essentialism, I'm pushing statistics.

Human populations cluster and evolve independently, so it's not a surprise they would evolve a variety of different traits. For all intents and purposes, races are a good proxy for this. It is observable that there is disparity in average cognitive ability among different races. Gaussian distribution ("bell curve") means that slight difference in mean could translate to extreme disparity in the tails. This is not because of "racism", this is because of differences in ability. etc., etc.

You're pushing essentialism.

[Liriena]

Aaaaaaand we've made it to the "model minority" bullshit.


Such as...? Eugenics? Genocide?

Communism.

So refusing to cave into "scientific racism" led to a stateless, classless society with democratic ownership of the means of production?

Man, I wish somebody had told me. Sounds rad.

[Vince Vaughn]

Communism.

So refusing to cave into "scientific racism" led to a stateless, classless society with democratic ownership of the means of production?

Man, I wish somebody had told me. Sounds rad.

Communism has routinely produced untold misery and destruction on the people unfortunate enough to live under it.

[Dogmeat]

So refusing to cave into "scientific racism" led to a stateless, classless society with democratic ownership of the means of production?

Man, I wish somebody had told me. Sounds rad.

Communism has routinely produced untold misery and destruction on the people unfortunate enough to live under it.

Yeah, like all those Ukrainians who were targeted for their ra... I mean. Definitely not that.

[Liriena]

I'm not pushing essentialism, I'm pushing statistics.

Human populations cluster and evolve independently, so it's not a surprise they would evolve a variety of different traits. For all intents and purposes, races are a good proxy for this. It is observable that there is disparity in average cognitive ability among different races. Gaussian distribution ("bell curve") means that slight difference in mean could translate to extreme disparity in the tails. This is not because of "racism", this is because of differences in ability. etc., etc.

You're pushing essentialism.

He's trying to have it both ways: denying that he's trying to engage in essentialism while also arguing that differences in outcomes between arbitrary categories of "race" are primarily determined by genetics; and, while he's at it, totally advocating for individualism while also fanatically insisting on upholding the same tired racial categories as a way to categorize human genetic diversity and determine which "race" has which innate traits and behaviors.

OP is being dishonest, not just in terms of his "science", but also in terms of his motives.

[Darussalam]

Nice jab. Unfortunately, your knowledge on the subject seems to end in 1997. Here's a more recent study from 2014 that proves just what I said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606659/

In the multivariate analysis, children who regularly ate breakfast had a verbal IQ score that was higher, on average, by 5.58 points (p=0.003) and a performance IQ score that was higher, on average, by 2.50 points (p=0.17) compared to children who did not eat breakfast regularly. Covariate effects of child gender, current living location, parental education, parental occupation, and primary child caregiver were controlled for in this multivariate model (see Table 3)

But hey, 30-60 year old studies which have been shown to inadequately explain the differences are perfect and beyond reproach.

"Regular breakfast". So nutrition correlates with IQ. The study I cited, as I said, control for nutrition as well. IQ disparity is still present, unsurprisingly.

I find the argument "racial sciences have gone farther than 1990s" bizarre, since racial sciences supposedly have been debunked a longer time ago, so I'm not going to address that.

[Liriena]

Communism has routinely produced untold misery and destruction on the people unfortunate enough to live under it.

Yeah, like all those Ukrainians who were targeted for their ra... I mean. Definitely not that.

Imagine undermining your own argument as badly as Vince Vaughn just did.

[Dark Socialism]

Aaaaaaand we've made it to the "model minority" bullshit.


Such as...? Eugenics? Genocide?

Communism.

and Lysenkoism which caused crop failures and therefore causing death

[Darussalam]

You're pushing essentialism.

He's trying to have it both ways: denying that he's trying to engage in essentialism while also arguing that differences in outcomes between arbitrary categories of "race" are primarily determined by genetics; and, while he's at it, totally advocating for individualism while also fanatically insisting on upholding the same tired racial categories as a way to categorize human genetic diversity and determine which "race" has which innate traits and behaviors.

OP is being dishonest, not just in terms of his "science", but also in terms of his motives.

Biological determinism is not essentialism. If biologists pointed out differences in traits between a Sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger, does it make him a Platonic essentialist who is unfairly applying arbitrary categories to the marginalized and near-extinct tiger population?

Human biological diversity is a fact. Human population clusters is also a fact. Why does this have to do with individualism, you ask? Because blank-slate leftism actively undermines individual achievements in favor of the bigger picture: group-wide "marginalization" and "oppression", nevermind that much of the cause might as well be innate differences.

[USS Monitor]

They're not 'genetically differentiated' to the extent that ethnic groups are incapable of intermixing with each other, obviously. But they are quite differentiated in a lot of socially relevant ways.

If by "socially relevant" you mean not everyone can eat other cultures' cuisine without getting sick, or not everyone can safely visit cities like Cuzco or Lhasa...

Differences in intelligence are not as large as you're trying to present them, and I'm not impressed with that source.