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

N

nomadologist

Guest
wait, have you guys seen this Vimothy's blog??? i can't believe we are wasting our time with a through and through neo-con shit head.

Um yeah, and then check out his myspace where he cites "Burroughs" and "Deleuze" and "Bataille" (three of the most rabidly anti-capitalist thinkers that ever existed) as "influences"
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
If race exists, there should be identifiable gene markers for it in the human genome. Can you point some out for me? Thnx. :D

The point still stands, though, that race is not a single characteristic; it's a combination of many different characteristics, which are hereditary, which is to say, genetically determined. Not being a geneticist, I can't quote offhand the genes or gene clusters that encode for, say, fuzzy/wiry hair. But these genes, wherever they are, are common to Africans but not generally found in Europeans or Asians. They must be there, otherwise this characteristic would not exist, right? And this characteristic is just one of many shared by Africans and not generally shared by non-Africans; of course, as Leroi says, there are characteristics shared by people from some parts of the continent not shared with Africans from other parts, and there are genetic markers that don't encode for visible characteristics that can nonetheless be identified by genome sequencing. (Again, please point out anything I've said here that's incorrect.)

So that, in a nutshell, is what I mean by 'race' - not discrete, well-demarcated 'breeds' of mankind, or representative 'stages' of human evolution, or groups of people who are inherently better than other groups, or any of the other patently untrue and obsolete ideas that have been put about by people who studied, or purported to study, race in the past. Hey, the meaning of scientific words changes: the atoms of Democritus were a lot different from the atoms of modern physicists and chemists, but we still use the same word, right? If the very word race is too loaded and contentious for modern use, then we can use 'genealogical ethnicity' or something instead if you really want to.
 
Last edited:

zhao

there are no accidents
just one look at his blog, there are no more doubts: Vimothy is a blatant racist, war monger, and sympathizer of the Bush Admin.

it's all so clear now. his stance on the middle east, his stance on the bell KKKurve.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
The point still stands, though, that race is not a single characteristic; it's a combination of many different characteristics, which are hereditary, which is to say, genetically determined. Not being a geneticist, I can't quote offhand the genes or gene clusters that encode for, say, fuzzy/wiry hair. But these genes, wherever they are, are common to Africans but not generally found in Europeans or Asians. They must be there, otherwise this characteristic would not exist, right? And this characteristic is just one of many shared by Africans and not generally shared by non-Africans; of course, as Leroi says, there are characteristics shared by people from some parts of the continent not shared with Africans from other parts, and there are genetic markers that don't encode for visible characteristics that can nonetheless be identified by genome sequencing. (Again, please point out anything I've said here that's incorrect.)

So that, in a nutshell, is what I mean by 'race' - not discrete, well-demarcated 'breeds' of mankind, or representative 'stages' of human evolution, or groups of people who are inherently better than other groups, or any of the other patently untrue and obsolete ideas that have been put about in the past by people who studied, or purported to study, race in the past. Hey, the meaning of scientific words changes: the atoms of Democritus were a lot different from the atoms of modern physicists and chemists, but we still use the same word, right? If the very word race is too loaded and contentious for modern use, then we can use 'genealogical ethnicity' or something instead if you really want to.

"Race" is not a single characteristic, but it is not any "group" of characteristics that biologists have been able to find consistent with what we identify (based on looks) as the "races" that exist. This is a very simple thing to understand: race is not a proper category biologically. If you want to believe in the social construct that is "race", that's fine with me, but I can't tell you I wouldn't say the belief in the validity of the social construct isn't just a step on the way to becoming racist (which we ALL inevitably participate in, since racism is institutional, just to be clear on the omniculpability of civilization/s).

I would much prefer to use "ethnicity" myself, mostly because built into the notion of ethnicity are the several properly divergent factors including common ancestory and specific national origin.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
just one look at his blog, there are no more doubts: Vimothy is a blatant racist, war monger, and sympathizer of the Bush Admin.

it's all so clear now. his stance on the middle east, his stance on the bell KKKurve.

Yup. And he flagrantly covets Gen Petraeus' body. Most of that blog is like a Petraeus fansite on the level of someone's live journal. You can smell the jizz everytime you read words like "General" and "war" and "Islamicist"

Can you imagine that the U.K. is growing them over there, too? It's all so startling and sad.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Well alright then: what I mean by 'race' is 'the genetic/biological component to ethnicity' (the other components being cultural, of course, like language and religion). I've been at pains to point out that I'm not talking about discrete, well-defined groups, since these clearly don't exist, although there are obviously a few very broad (and imprecisely defined) categories that most people fit into.
 

vimothy

yurp
wait, have you guys seen this Vimothy's blog??? i can't believe we are wasting our time with a through and through neo-con shit head.

just one look at his blog, there are no more doubts: Vimothy is a blatant racist, war monger, and sympathizer of the Bush Admin.

it's all so clear now. his stance on the middle east, his stance on the bell KKKurve.

I don't think that I've posted anything on the blog that should be a suprise to people who read my posts here. "Future War", probably the most contentious piece on the blog, was posted here first. My piece arguing against attacking Iran shouldn't annoy anyone here (you'd think), and what I would have thought would have been the most controversial overall, "Why Israel", wasn't even posted on the blog -- it was posted here.

If you think I'm a neo-con, you don't even know what it means.

If you think my stance on The Bell Curve is clear, you're reading into what I've wrote, because as far as I'm aware, I don't have a stance, other than "it's quite interesting".

So anyway, what I want to know is:

Why and in what sense am I a racist?

Why and in what sense am I a war monger? (And don't give me any idiocy about "supporting war" when you are on record with your desire to become a suicide murderer. War is necessary sometimes).

What is wrong with being a "sympathizer of the Bush Admin"?

Why do you accuse me of that when it should be pretty obvious that an atheist libertarian would have pretty large disagreements with a "compassionate conservative" (vomit), born again Christian?
 

vimothy

yurp
Seriously, the problem with the word 'race' is not "squeamishness" or other disguise-words for insufficient masculinity. The problem is that it is a word with a long history that we can't just slough off. Does anyone consider "Senegalese" to be a race? They're talking about ancestry (at least when there isn't considerable slippage), why do they insist on saying race?

FFS: it doesn't matter what you call it, the argument remains the same. (And if it does matter, then this is all irredeemably sad and wholly pointless).
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr Tea, you're an idiot.

Mixed_Biscuits, need I remind you that the "predictive" powers of standardized testing have been widely and validly challenged by all manner of scientists?

Can you give me some of the statistics that "correlate" success on CAT tests with success at, say, getting a report done for your boss that has the right number of bullet points in it? Of course, these stats would have to be weighted against "wealth" and other advantages that some students may already have over others.

Every year after CAT and PEP tests I was rewarded by my teachers and parents for high scores, since on the CAT tests I always scored in the 99th percentile or higher. I got a perfect score on the PEP reading test the first year they implemented it. And a lot of people would contend that I suck at life.

The tests measure aspects of intelligence - not your ability to become a stereotypically 'successful' individual with a personalised number plate and a trophy partner (not that I imagine this being your main goal in life, anyway).

If standardized testing were completely pointless, then no-one would use it. The thing is this kind of test is being used more and more - for instance, Cambridge has introduced a 'thinking skills' paper for some subjects, that aims to assess one's ability to 'think logically' (the assumption being that logical thinking is basically of the same kind across disciplines).

From personal experience, the tests are a useful indication of general ability and are a relatively painless way of flagging up any potential talents who are hiding their light under a bushel. The non-verbal CATs were also a very good predictor of skill at the subject (ie ability to learn, rather than ability to concentrate or be well-behaved): there were no students at 100+ in the bottom set of 4 (which included all students with <85) nor students with <110 in set 1.

If anything, the CATs scores took attention away from children with more privileged family situations - the highest scorers included troublesome pupils lacking the self-mastery to apply themselves in class.

In conclusion, as long as people find that these tests have predictive power for them (and bear in mind that delusion in this respect would create extra work - the last thing teachers want!), then any debates over the subject in academia will be ignored.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
The tests measure aspects of intelligence - not your ability to become a stereotypically 'successful' individual with a personalised number plate and a trophy partner (not that I imagine this being your main goal in life, anyway).

If standardized testing were completely pointless, then no-one would use it. The thing is this kind of test is being used more and more - for instance, Cambridge has introduced a 'thinking skills' paper for some subjects, that aims to assess one's ability to 'think logically' (the assumption being that logical thinking is basically of the same kind across disciplines).

From personal experience, the tests are a useful indication of general ability and are a relatively painless way of flagging up any potential talents who are hiding their light under a bushel. The non-verbal CATs were also a very good predictor of skill at the subject (ie ability to learn, rather than ability to concentrate or be well-behaved): there were no students at 100+ in the bottom set of 4 (which included all students with <85) nor students with <110 in set 1.

If anything, the CATs scores took attention away from children with more privileged family situations - the highest scorers included troublesome pupils lacking the self-mastery to apply themselves in class.

In conclusion, as long as people find that these tests have predictive power for them (and bear in mind that delusion in this respect would create extra work - the last thing teachers want!), then any debates over the subject in academia will be ignored.

Of course kids who do well on standardized testing are going to do well in school in general. I'm talking about results that can be mapped onto *any* other tasks or representatives of "success" in life...
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Of course kids who do well on standardized testing are going to do well in school in general. I'm talking about results that can be mapped onto *any* other tasks or representatives of "success" in life...

Hmm well people who do well in school tend to be more 'successful' in life because they come out of the system with better qualifications.

The challenges of more complex jobs are similar to those of academic subjects in education, so one can expect a positive correlation.

Plenty of graduate recruiters use standardized testing (for example, the Foreign Office uses an aptitude test to whittle candidates down from 1000s to a 100 or so, as far as I know), so by my 'use reflects utility' argument, one could surmise that strong performance in these tests predicts strong performance on the job.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
FFS: it doesn't matter what you call it, the argument remains the same. (And if it does matter, then this is all irredeemably sad and wholly pointless).

No, it matters because it's using "race" in a way that not even racists use it.
 

turtles

in the sea
Well alright then: what I mean by 'race' is 'the genetic/biological component to ethnicity' (the other components being cultural, of course, like language and religion). I've been at pains to point out that I'm not talking about discrete, well-defined groups, since these clearly don't exist, although there are obviously a few very broad (and imprecisely defined) categories that most people fit into.
Tea, you do realize that at this level of hairsplitting/redefinition/ass-covering "race" kinda looses its appeal as an "easy shorthand"? The fact that you'd have to preface any mention of race in general conversation with a 15-minute description of what you "actually" mean==maybe you're not using the right term.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
The results by occupation on the last 'test the nation' are amusing, with the clairvoyants' average score being unsurprisingly bad.

The age breakdown is interesting -- 21-30 being the lowest. Why does age matter with IQ -- is it testing issues or does IQ actually fluctuate with age? I thought it was supposed to remain static, or otherwise what good is it?
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The age breakdown is interesting -- 21-30 being the lowest. Why does age matter with IQ -- is it testing issues or does IQ actually fluctuate with age? I thought it was supposed to remain static, or otherwise what good is it?

I think it must be because of the composition of the sample that took the test relative to the general mass at each age (from the results, I suppose that the IQ score/score on the test relation was established before the test). I'm guessing that the older participants are more likely to be smarter through self-selection (compared to the sample they used to norm their test), as it is perhaps the savvier and healthier members of that demographic who are more likely to be IT-literate, can afford to be online, are interested in puzzles etc. The 21-30 group was probably a more motley group (as everyone of that age is now an internet addict).

I also think that IQ scores in these cross-generational tests are fixed so that they reflect one's position relative to one's generational peers rather than the whole population.

As far as I know, IQ declines with age after a processing speed peak in one's teens.

Even if IQ were not static, tests would still be of use as a snapshot of your mental capabilities at a particular time. Indeed, IQ tests might reveal mental decline through illness or physical trauma.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Tea, you do realize that at this level of hairsplitting/redefinition/ass-covering "race" kinda looses its appeal as an "easy shorthand"? The fact that you'd have to preface any mention of race in general conversation with a 15-minute description of what you "actually" mean==maybe you're not using the right term.

Haha, well *I* don't have a problem with the term at all! I know exactly what I mean by 'race', so as far as I'm concerned, it's an easy shorthand for "a-collection-of-heriditary-physical-characteristics-shared-by-some-but-not-all-people (&c. &c. &c. ad nausam)". It's *everyone else here* (with a couple of exceptions) that has the problem with it. No-one I know in real life jumps down my throat and starts calling me a Nazi when I mention the word (though it's not really something I spend a lot of time talking about each day); it's only because so many people on here are so incredibly touchy about it that I've had to define it and defend it so pedantically.
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
A quick rebranding with a clear definition would solve all of our problems: how about 'RASE'?

You can supply the definition, T!
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
A quick rebranding with a clear definition would solve all of our problems: how about 'RASE'?

You can supply the definition, T!

What United Colors Of Benetton seem impelled to include representatives of at least three or four of in every advert they make. :cool:
 
Top