- 24 Feb 2018 10:08
#14891462
No, I want you to catch up and continue the short conversation because it got into the right level of detail and breadth that you otherwise will repeat unnecessarily. I'm not retracing steps with you of all people, generally try to win through attrition rather than fact.
I never said anyone was inferior, that's a value judgement. I also never said things are cut and dry now, I'm just saying looking at the evidence your leftist views are pretty bullshit and lead into rent-seeking territory to correct for disparities of outcome in a meritocracy.
Also, this is Lewontin's fallacy. The idea that variation with cars makes certain cars more related to trucks is a fallacy.
Nobody spoke in absolutes, we have bell curves.
It's not just a standardized test. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is free of cultural bias because of how it's based on pattern recognition. These tests are more g-loaded, they measure 'fluid intelligence' more than 'crystallized intelligence', which is trained. They are also the most heritable and have the largest and most persistent gaps in results.
Yes, and IQ becomes more genetically influenced with age.
My 'theories' are
1) that IQ is a better explanation of class differentiation than left wing narratives about systemic oppression which can't be quantified or given an endpoint. It just is.
2) genetic distance factors heavily into assimilability thanks to correlation to similar phenotypes and culture
That's not nearly as controversial as you make it out to be, and seems pretty straightforward
So basically, they're no longer Swedes and just descendants of them. You're almost there.
Never claimed race wasn't clinal and your links don't actually debunk me. They just argue, such as in the second one, that FST distances are not high enough to warrant subspecies-like classification and that conventional racial categories aren't flexible enough. I disagree with the former (which it grants is an arbitrary distinction, one I'd add is political as well) and the latter is a matter of 6 or 600 races, not abolition of the category altogether. You still have ethnic in-groups that will make the core foundation of nation-states and their genetic clusters correlate with typical ideas of races.
And yet it really helps explain the postcolonial racialized class hierarchy as well as the uneven development of capitalism and civilization. IQ and its effects on cultural valuing of family and education are pretty important.
It does deal with it. There is some reason to believe evolution accelerated after the end of the ice age and the development of civilization and agriculture. This helps explains when and where agriculture or more complex art developed, and itself ultimately speaks to the uneven development of capitalism and liberalism.
I've done no such thing. I'm using it as an argument for demographic balance to preserve a culture and set of values, as well as social cohesion.
I'm saying there is no injustice or it is exaggerated, and these material conditions cannot go without genetic and cultural explanations.
If language development is heritable, which it appears to be:
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/karin-research ... h-genetics
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sc ... 64-6613(02)01900-9
Then it reflects on culture since both gene expression and culture is conditioned by the environment. That doesn't mean a Swede growing up in Arabia is going to pull the language out of his butt, but overall he's going to assimilate into a Scandinavian society easier than an Arab, especially if it's traditional (which to say, functional).
Political values are heritable too
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/
So are social conservative attitudes
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessi ... curdir.pdf
It's interesting how whether it's IQ or political values, they all become more genetically influenced with age
I don't understand how this doesn't mean on a macro level culture is genetically influenced and the mass immigration of genetically distant populations will fundamentally alter this culture as well as render liberal-democracy in turmoil with an influx of incompatible values and people who will not be accepted, by and large, thanks to human in-group preference
PoD wrote:
If the links are already there, then it should be no problem for you to copy them here, and quote the appropriate text.
No, I want you to catch up and continue the short conversation because it got into the right level of detail and breadth that you otherwise will repeat unnecessarily. I'm not retracing steps with you of all people, generally try to win through attrition rather than fact.
Tainari88 wrote:
You are not valid. Blacks are not naturally inferior. You have a continent with millions upon millions of people in it with extreme diversity within any given ethnic group. So much so that it is meaningless to think that that huge pool of people are 'generally inferior'. That is BULLSHIT and unscientific. Genes vary and are mutable. Mutable realities within groups is something that exists across the board.
I never said anyone was inferior, that's a value judgement. I also never said things are cut and dry now, I'm just saying looking at the evidence your leftist views are pretty bullshit and lead into rent-seeking territory to correct for disparities of outcome in a meritocracy.
Also, this is Lewontin's fallacy. The idea that variation with cars makes certain cars more related to trucks is a fallacy.
The lies continue with the natural inferior and superior crap that doesn't deal with huge swathes of individuals with variations that are so difficult to measure and predict that it is impossible. You got very intelligent people in all ethnic groups. To think that blacks dilute the intelligence is falling into some false science.
Nobody spoke in absolutes, we have bell curves.
I don't care about IQ tests. Any standardized tests are going to have flaws. ALL OF THEM.
It's not just a standardized test. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is free of cultural bias because of how it's based on pattern recognition. These tests are more g-loaded, they measure 'fluid intelligence' more than 'crystallized intelligence', which is trained. They are also the most heritable and have the largest and most persistent gaps in results.
It basically says our brains have plasticity and are malleable.
Yes, and IQ becomes more genetically influenced with age.
So are race theories of subspecies of shit. Humans adapt. That is what we do. If we adapt? Where does evolution of our species take place? In groups. Individuals don't evolve. But groups do. So far? Have the Africans evolved successfully into this world and into their own environments? Yes. So all these value judgments are placed there by people full of shit theories. Your theories are not valid.
My 'theories' are
1) that IQ is a better explanation of class differentiation than left wing narratives about systemic oppression which can't be quantified or given an endpoint. It just is.
2) genetic distance factors heavily into assimilability thanks to correlation to similar phenotypes and culture
That's not nearly as controversial as you make it out to be, and seems pretty straightforward
Basically how it works is this. You throw 10,000 Swedes into an African desert or hot place. The survivors over 100,000 years will be dark skinned. End of controversy. They were once Swedes. You change their environment and the ones who survived the initial shocks of adaptation survive. The ones who don't. Don't.
So basically, they're no longer Swedes and just descendants of them. You're almost there.
Read this book. Then if you still think Conscript in some pyramid of any single characteristics as universal?
Never claimed race wasn't clinal and your links don't actually debunk me. They just argue, such as in the second one, that FST distances are not high enough to warrant subspecies-like classification and that conventional racial categories aren't flexible enough. I disagree with the former (which it grants is an arbitrary distinction, one I'd add is political as well) and the latter is a matter of 6 or 600 races, not abolition of the category altogether. You still have ethnic in-groups that will make the core foundation of nation-states and their genetic clusters correlate with typical ideas of races.
Race and genomics, and all this effort in trying to scientifically say that en entire somatic or ethnic group fall neatly into the 'smart ones' and the 'dumb ones' and the best ones, and the bad ones, is the stuff of lying people with no science of any true worth.
And yet it really helps explain the postcolonial racialized class hierarchy as well as the uneven development of capitalism and civilization. IQ and its effects on cultural valuing of family and education are pretty important.
That is what you should deal with Conscript and not some conservative racially charged simple theories of why some political and economic system uses to justify class categories.
It does deal with it. There is some reason to believe evolution accelerated after the end of the ice age and the development of civilization and agriculture. This helps explains when and where agriculture or more complex art developed, and itself ultimately speaks to the uneven development of capitalism and liberalism.
I think where you go wrong is justifying a natural variation in nature and equating that with a justification for social and economic exploitation or predation of one socioeconomic group over another.
I've done no such thing. I'm using it as an argument for demographic balance to preserve a culture and set of values, as well as social cohesion.
You are essentially trying to say that an egalitarian society is not possible and an impossibility because there are people who are born and will be born naturally 'inferior'.[/qupte]
I'm saying there is variation in nature that renders equality of outcome impossible and this variation also happens to be clustered thanks to geography, and this clustering also reflects on assimilability and social cohesion which is important for a liberal-democracy.
[quite]Otherwise if all your arguments are going to be about justifying not dealing with injustice and dealing with economic material conditions within capitalism?
I'm saying there is no injustice or it is exaggerated, and these material conditions cannot go without genetic and cultural explanations.
Another thing Conscript. You are being very weak in argumentation in the sense that language is something both biological and socially learned but it is not about inherited culture.
If language development is heritable, which it appears to be:
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/karin-research ... h-genetics
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sc ... 64-6613(02)01900-9
Then it reflects on culture since both gene expression and culture is conditioned by the environment. That doesn't mean a Swede growing up in Arabia is going to pull the language out of his butt, but overall he's going to assimilate into a Scandinavian society easier than an Arab, especially if it's traditional (which to say, functional).
Do you understand what I am saying. Politics are learned. So is language. Think of every little thing you speak....like English, like your nationality, like your education, regional environment, etc and how much of it is social learning and not endemic to your body and its genes? It is massive.
Political values are heritable too
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/
So are social conservative attitudes
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessi ... curdir.pdf
It's interesting how whether it's IQ or political values, they all become more genetically influenced with age
Most people in the past were illiterate and did not know how to read or write. How did that change? Someone manipulated their genes and gave them the natural ability? The brain in humans are open to language acquisition. But it has a window of time and then closes if they don't get the right environment for it. And they learn at paces that have to do with biology in the sense that a child will learn a foreign language like a native well but only up to a certain age. Then that 'battery' no longer is as flexible. Social learning is similar. Environmental influence in culture? Is massive and powerful. How much is biological? How people look superficially. It might not be good in other ways. If you are German but never dealt with speaking German your entire life? Some Chinese looking guy who did grow up in Germany in a German cultural environment is going to be a lot better at fluently speaking German than the supposed genetic German person will. Why? Figure it out.
I don't understand how this doesn't mean on a macro level culture is genetically influenced and the mass immigration of genetically distant populations will fundamentally alter this culture as well as render liberal-democracy in turmoil with an influx of incompatible values and people who will not be accepted, by and large, thanks to human in-group preference