Liberal Creationism, or: Yippee, It’s Bell-Curve Time Again!

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
From what I can tell, and I’m going to look more closely into it, the study indicates that there is indeed genetic variations between people living on different continents. Perhaps so slight as to be negligible, but still clear and present. Do remember that nobody in this thread has suggested that these variations are striking, only that they are quite clearly a reality.

I think two points are worth raising with regard to genetic variation (or the lack thereof): one, that the vast majority of the human genome is 'junk' DNA that is not expressed as proteins, and two, that just because two organisms have very few genes differing between them, this does not necessarily result in there being very few differences between the organisms themselves; after all, just a single gene (out of 3 billion) can mean the difference between good health and a fatal cancer.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Yes, exactly: they're products of the environment, as all evolutionary adaptation is.
When you talk about "something much deeper", I'm not too clear on what you mean by that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "surface attributes", but isn't this idea -- differing developmental trajectories according to environment -- merely what the mean IQ controversy suggests, even before issues of genetics?

ok. let's break down the line of reasoning and specific example given by Tea - basically: facts such as most or all boxing champs come from Africa attest to genetic differences between races, and that similar differences account for the variation in IQ test results.

this argument is fatally flawed for the following reasons:

Africa produces the best boxers in the world. true. but there are always people of other origins competing on the same level, and often just falling behind a tiny little bit. so while the difference in attributes and ability separate winner from loser, they are actually extremely small. and when entire populations are considered, when spread out among millions, these incremental differences disappear like a single drop of water in the Atlantic ocean.

this is what i mean by "surface attributes". and also skin pigmentation, physical features, immunity from disease, etc. they are tiny, tiny differences which are whole sale, grossly, absurdly exaggerated in the minds of most people, who are misguided into thinking that they are proof of a "racial" divide.

so the argument that "85% of NBA is black = blacks as a whole can jump higher" is false. and it follows that the argument "just like blacks can jump higher, it is possible that they are less intelligent" is even more false, for the added reasons of "intelligence" being exponentially more difficult to define, much less assess.

thus the differences in IQ test results can ONLY be attributed to cultural reasons.

You obviously recall Diamond saying that he thinks that the average intellegince of a New Guenian is higher than your average western urbanite, because environmental pressure is higher and selection is more stringent in New Guenia. Is that an absurd and racist statement? How is that different to saying, for whatever reasons, one group of people scores better on IQ tests than another?

big differences between what he said and the proposition that blacks score lower on IQ tests. because Diamond attributes these differeces to environmental challenges which hones abilities, and the Bell KKKurvers attribute the results of their (much less sufficient than real life in the jungle) tests of their notion of intelligence to deep genetic difference. and these very different interpretations lead to drastically different results in the social sphere -- with the later invariably fueling and creating bigotry.


While it might be the case that race has no basis in biology, that differences in mean IQ scores are not genetic, that IQ tests do not measure anything meaningful, I think that this paranoia over a supposed racist agenda makes your arguments much less convincing.

most people who accuse others of "paranoia" when it comes to racism are members of the dominant group in that historical period. it's probably safe to assume that Vimothy is white and lives in a white world.

let me tell you something: the world not only looks, but is a very different place for me.

it is likely impossible for someone who has never been on the receiving end of racial discrimination, profiling, and stereotyping to understand the above, but i thought i'd say it anyway.

this next bit can not be more OTM. (see "Critiques of Science" thread among others)

Vim and others still have an ideologically naive faith in scientific empiricist dogma, oblivious to how such 'facts' are structural effects, are mediated by political, social, and economic antagonisms and inequalities.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
for the added reasons of "intelligence" being exponentially more difficult to define, much less assess.

I'm not sure about this - my IQ test results from yesterday onwards so far average out to 137 and a bit, which is very close to my 138 at 10 years old = somewhat odd. The tests involved a wide variety of tasks - from arithmetic to logical thinking to anagramming to those bloody matrices etc etc

This was also the worst possible outcome from my experiment - I would have preferred a higher score (as a result of my unusually intense Scrabble training, for instance) or an amusingly odd one, so I'm slightly disappointed.

The more tests I do, the closer to 138 will be the mean, I reckon. Oh well, plus ca change etc.

I might try to get some super-bright friends to do the same battery of tests, to see whether my intuitive ranking of them is reflected in their results.
 
Last edited:

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
According to a study carried out by Dr. Richie Spice PhD it makes you smarter, and indeed calmer, although you might have to smoke it on a corner to enjoy the full benefits of these effects.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
so the argument that "85% of NBA is black = blacks as a whole can jump higher" is false.

just realized that this is the inverse of the "as a whole they are different, but as individuals they 'should be treated the same'" argument by the bell KKKurvers.

so in conclusion: any which way you look at it it's a buncha BULL shit.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Zhao, will you drop this tiresome 'KKKurve' thing? If the researchers who've announced these findings were white supremacists, why do they dig Jews and East Asians so much?
 
Zhao, will you drop this tiresome 'KKKurve' thing? If the researchers who've announced these findings were white supremacists, why do they dig Jews and East Asians so much?

This post, as expected with such a self-loathing waster, is just fucking appalling. Dissensus posters are now being instructed by racists to stop exposing racism on this forum. As pointed out countless times on this thread, the appropriately-termed KKKurvers are ignorant, racial supremacists (some of whom are Jewish BTW). Hitler too, was fond of East Asians.

The only reason you're 'defending' them here - however much you pathetically attempt to continue to disavow your conditioned prejudices - is because you, like some others here, actually support their vile, racist agenda. There are no shortage of such racist forums on the web; I suggest you stop polluting this forum with your impotent schoolboy garbage and go take up residence on one of them.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
If you actually took the time to read the posts I've made in this thread, you'll see that I don't support the findings of these studies; I think the inherent difficulty of quantifying intelligence, differences in culture, education and diet between poor and rich countries and a host of other factors make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. I do, however, feel that the reasons people dismiss these claims on principle are largely political, rather than scientfic.

But then, it must be pretty hard to read anything at all through that RED MIST OF RIGHTEOUS RAGE.
 
If you actually took the time to read the posts I've made in this thread, you'll see that I don't support the findings of these studies;

You need to actually take a lot of time to re-read your own posts (and particularly before making yet more knee-jerk ones). You have repeatedly defended racialist notions of 'race', repeatedly accepted the 'research' and its deluded methodology as 'scientific,' and repeatedly supported its findings. Not only do you suffer from disavowed racism, but also from chronic amnesia. There is no science here, there is no social theory here, just the bog-standard socio-economically determined racism of contemporary Western capitalism and its zombie puppets.


Land of Broken Dreams

By Eugene Robinson

11/23/07 - --- -"Washington Post" --- - WASHINGTON—We’re not who we think we are.

The American self-image is suffused with the golden glow of opportunity. We think of the United States as a land of unlimited possibility, not so much a classless society, but as a place where class is mutable—a place where brains, energy and ambition are what counts, not the circumstances of one’s birth. But three important new studies suggest that Horatio Alger doesn’t live here anymore.

The Economic Mobility Project, an ambitious research initiative led by the Pew Charitable Trusts, looked at the economic fortunes of a large group of families over time, comparing the income of parents in the late 1960s with the income of their children in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Here’s the finding that jumps out at me:

“The ‘rags to riches’ story is much more common in Hollywood than on Main Street. Only 6 percent of children born to parents with family income at the very bottom move to the very top.”

That’s right, just 6 percent of children born to parents who ranked in the bottom fifth of the study sample, in terms of income, were able to bootstrap their way into the top fifth. Meanwhile, an incredible 42 percent of children born into that lowest quintile are still stuck at the bottom, having been unable to climb a single rung of the income ladder.

The study notes that even in Britain—a nation we think of as burdened with a hidebound, anachronistic class system—children who are born poor have a better chance of moving up.

The Economic Mobility Project can’t be accused of having any kind of ideological bias; it’s a collaboration, led by Pew, involving four leading think tanks that pretty much cover the political spectrum—the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute.

“Both left and right can care about this,” said John E. Morton, Pew’s managing director for economic policy. “Traditionally, Americans have been ready to accept high levels of inequality because of our belief in the American dream. What happens if we can’t believe in the dream any longer?”

When the three studies were released last week, most reporters focused on the finding that African-Americans born to middle-class or upper middle-class families are earning slightly less, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than did their parents. Julia B. Isaacs, the Brookings scholar who authored the reports, said the reason for this anomaly is still unclear; overall, the data suggest that blacks are somewhat less upwardly mobile than whites, although about two-thirds of African-Americans do earn more than their parents did.

Isaacs said she was surprised at finding that the personal income of American men—including white men—has been almost perfectly flat for the past three decades. One of Isaacs’ studies indicates, in fact, that most of the financial gains white families have made in that time can be attributed to the entry of white women into the labor force. This is much less true for African-Americans; in 1968, when the sample group was first surveyed, black women were far more likely to already have income-producing jobs.

The picture that emerges from all the quintiles, correlations and percentages is of a nation in which, overall, “the current generation of adults is better off than the previous one,” as one of the studies notes. The median income of the families in the sample group was $55,600 in the late 1960s; their children’s median family income was measured at $71,900. However, this rising tide has not lifted all boats equally. The rich have seen far greater income gains than have the poor.

Even more troubling is that our notion of America as the land of opportunity gets little support from the data. Americans move fairly easily up and down the middle rungs of the ladder, but there is “stickiness at the ends”—four out of 10 children who are born poor will remain poor, and four out of 10 children who are born rich will stay rich.

Isaacs, who specializes in child and family policy at Brookings, said she thought that improved early childhood education was one way to begin making the promise of economic mobility more of a reality; one key to understanding the racial disparities found in the studies, she said, might be the vast difference in wealth (as opposed to income) between white and black families.

The Economic Mobility Project’s work should be part of the political debate. Every candidate for president should read these studies and then explain why it’s acceptable that a poor kid has only a 6 percent chance of reaching the top.​
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
If you actually took the time to read the posts I've made in this thread, you'll see that I don't support the findings of these studies; I think the inherent difficulty of quantifying intelligence, differences in culture, education and diet between poor and rich countries and a host of other factors make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. I do, however, feel that the reasons people dismiss these claims on principle are largely political, rather than scientfic.

i'm somewhat loathe to admit it ( ;) ), but i'm with padraig on this topic (ignoring the hyperbole).

people like murray use a pseudo-scientific cloak in attempt to cover-up racist stereotypes. in addition, who would want to spend their entire professional lives trying to show that 'they' are less intelligent than 'us'? responsibility of intellectuals anyone?
 
i'm somewhat loathe to admit it ( ;) ), but i'm with padraig on this topic (ignoring the hyperbole).

What hyperbole? Pointing out that racism is so routine, is so casually institutionalized throughout society as to be unconscious, such that twits like Tea & Co can smugly imagine themselves to be immune while actually defending it, may be provocative [it is supposed to be] but it is certainly far from 'hyperbolic', a term more applicable to the KKKurvers ...

In a previous post:

matt b said:
murray is a racist, classist, sexist, prick and all his idiotic views can discounted/ignored.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I don't see how differences in performance can solely be attributed to cultural factors. If one sibling scores 40 pts higher than another on the bloody matrices, it's hard to believe that it's because they have been being given matrices every day throughout the formative years of their life. Also, if intelligence is infinitely varied, the cultural capital gained in one subskill would prevent its accumulation in another one (lowering one's overall IQ result).

Furthermore, many questions on these tests are not actually difficult per se (that is, there is no secret knowledge required to access them) - it's the speed with which one does them that separates the men from the boys. That there is an unattainable maximum speed and a 'dead or in an uncommunicative coma' minimum speed of completion of these tasks shows that there is a real process happening.

The limitations of learning and the natural limits of the brain are obvious everywhere you look. In Scrabble, there are *no* players who can unscramble any of the words that they know without fail. In mental calculations, there are no calculators who can multiply many-digit numbers (eg. 492038 x 389842) without carrying out intermediate steps. There is an endless list of things that the human brain struggles with or finds impossible to do. These show the limits of human intelligence - limits that are innate, not cultural.

You're still talking about IQ tests as if their results are generally reflected in "success" in life, and as if they measure anything tangible-scientific.

The problem with your way of thinking is that you take it as a *given* that higher IQ correlates to higher "intelligence" (whatever THAT means in your mind, your definition is clearly a lot more limited than my own). There is no data to suggest that you could even begin to correlate the results of one test to something like "intelligence" general.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
From what I can tell, and I’m going to look more closely into it, the study indicates that there is indeed genetic variations between people living on different continents. Perhaps so slight as to be negligible, but still clear and present. Do remember that nobody in this thread has suggested that these variations are striking, only that they are quite clearly a reality.

Of course there are genetic variations between all kinds of people. So?? This does not in any way mean or prove that "race" is a biological fact, nor does it prove that IQ correlates to what we call "intelligence", and even if it did, what such an arbitrary system of ratings (why not have the average IQ set at 1000 and set the curve there so we can work with more precise numbers?) has to do with "innate" skills.
 
sorry, i should have said 'abusing individuals per se rather than their statements',

But its their statements that were being questioned, not some imagined personal individual hiding behind them. So something like "Mr Tea" is simply a label associated with a defence of the KKKurvers; if this isn't obvious from explicit statements in "Mr Tea's" posts here, then there's a very serious problem here (as usual, an ideological one).
 
Last edited:
Top