The concept of white people is harmful because it's a lie. To rephrase what TF said, pretty much anybody not from an Anglo-Saxon background wasn't considered white for much of US history and many still identify by ethnicity rather than "race". So for these "white nationalist" clowns to go around talking about "white pride" as if white were a single coherent group is utterly moronic.
The problem with this is that TF is simply wrong, as proven by his inability provide evidence for his claims. And while were at it, did you know that mammals aren't a single coherent group? Do you think that it would be utterly moronic to use the word mammals?
Honestly, pretty tired of uppity clueless Europeans trying to teach us about our racial problems. Like... sort your own issues, boo, before coming for us. Last I visited, Polish and other Eastern Europeans worked at hotels and in other service jobs, while Turks, Arabs, and blacks were harassed by the police in their ghettos, while European proud bois are marching in the streets trying to reclaim "Aryan" Europe.
Nordics tend to lecture the Americans because here in the Nordic countries we simply assumed that the race problems in the US are due to poverty/lack of education. We're good at addressing those things. However, as Nordic countries get more diverse, we're beginning to see the same problems that Americans have, because the problem isn't poverty/lack of education.
Baltic microstates/Finland, Poland, Hungary, Austria and such nations are just openly racist at this point.
Finland is "just racist"? I guess it's easy for you to say, because nobody actually wants to stay in Greece. But per capita, I think we got the 4th most refugees in Europe back in 2015.
I had a good think last night, about Sam Harris, Charles A. Murray and their ilk. they're the avant garde of racism. they scientifically legitimize notions of IQ measuring a persons worth for society, they basically plow the land for the racists to sow their seeds. this kind of IQ-as-end-all-be-all/productivity/western civilization(®) movement could be extremely harmful if it gathered more steam.
Look my good man. Here are the facts. For whatever reason (be that "systematic racism" or innate intelligence), groups differ in IQ and in real world performance. For whatever reason, despite the zealous egalitarian crusade, equality has not been achieved (despite best efforts). Why is this? You can either go with unprovable theories about systemic racism and white privilege, or you can go with the peer-reviewed reality (race and IQ). You can either accept the science, or you can be perpetually amazed by the fact that progressive policies, such as affirmative action, will continue to fail to produce equality.
Interesting, I read an entire podcast conversation between Harris and Ezra Klein yesterday. I concluded that Sam Harris completely lacks a sense of history. I think he's really ignorant of a lot of it.
I think that Harris and Klein were talking past each other. Klein basically accused Harris of being ignorant of racism, whereas Harris maintained that Klein is ignorant of the facts.
Interesting turn for this thread, the original point of which no one addressed BTW. I know the Harris/Murray/Klein debacle and something about the science of complex genetic traits. The science is:
1. IQ is a real measurable trait that has some predictive value for educational achievement which has some predictive value for economic advancment. But apparently not that much.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...elligence-careers-james-heckman-a7880376.html
2. IQ has apparent genetic heritability determined by standard techniques: ie. Greater correlation in mono-vs di-zygotic twins. (est. to be 50-80%).
3. IQ has an environmental component although we don’t know good ways to enhance it by direct environmental intervention (ie. a government program) however I believe I read that an enhanced head start like program did give a significant sustained enhancement of like 5 points (don’t have the reference). There are lots of correlations with environmental differences-eg socio economic status.
4. IQ measurements differ between populations by socially defined race categories-which may not track well with genetically defined categories.
5. The genetics is complex. Ie many genetic variants giving tiny tiny tiny contributions to the trait difference.
I believe these points are agreed upon by most scientists.
The conclusion that is contentious and absolutely cannot be made (even Harris/Murray admit this) is that group differences by race are accounted for by genetic differences in the races. Eg. it is quite possible that the 15 pt IQ difference between white and black Americans is due to blacks having a genetic makeup that gives them on average a 5 point advantage to whites and an environmental -20 point disadvantage. The problem is that while they may formally admit this, they do not believe it and the general tone of their communication will leave the average listener thinking science proves blacks are genetically inferior to whites in IQ and it is only PC culture that prevents them from speaking the forbidden truth. A “truth” which also does the work of literally providing scientific support for white supremacy if you are so inclined, or for the less vile person providing an explanation for the economic/educational disparities in this country which absolves them and their history of any potential responsibility.
Overall, you wrote a very good post. There are a few things I'd like to touch on however. The Independent doesn't seem to link to its sources, which is why I'm going to dismiss it. Overall, IQ is a very good predictor of intelligence (even though I am replying to you, this is sort of addressed to everybody in this thread)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity said:
Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high
statistical reliability.
[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the
standard error of measurement is about three points[
citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical
validity for many clinical purposes.
[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers,
published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.
[59]
Presumably, the race gap in IQ is an established fact, and I do not a source for that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability said:
Heritability is a statistic used in the fields of breeding and genetics that estimates the degree of variation in a
phenotypic trait in a
population that is due to
genetic variation between individuals in that population.
[1] In other words, the concept of heritability can alternately be expressed in the form of the following question: "What is the proportion of the variation in a given trait within a population that is
not explained by the environment or random chance?"
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ said:
The heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%
[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%
[6] and 86%.
[7]) Genome-wide association studies have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.
[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.
[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.
[11][12]
If that isn't conclusive enough, science has advanced to the point where scientists are in the process of figuring out the actual genes that code for intelligence. As it happens, those seem to be distributed exactly as one would expect if race differences were down to genetics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28530673 said:
Intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes. Despite intelligence having substantial heritability (0.54) and a confirmed polygenic nature, initial genetic studies were mostly underpowered. Here we report a meta-analysis for intelligence of 78,308 individuals. We identify 336 associated SNPs (METAL P < 5 × 10-8) in 18 genomic loci, of which 15 are new. Around half of the SNPs are located inside a gene, implicating 22 genes, of which 11 are new findings. Gene-based analyses identified an additional 30 genes (MAGMA P < 2.73 × 10-6), of which all but one had not been implicated previously. We show that the identified genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue, and pathway analysis indicates the involvement of genes regulating cell development (MAGMA competitive P = 3.5 × 10-6). Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heritability for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10-29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf said:
Published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), reporting the presence of alleles exhibiting significant and replicable associations with IQ, are reviewed. The average between-population frequency (polygenic score) of nine alleles positively and significantly associated with intelligence is strongly correlated to country-level IQ (r= .91). Factor analysis of allele frequencies furthermore identified a metagene with a similar correlation to country IQ (r=.86). The majority of the alleles (seven out of nine) loaded positively on this metagene. Allele frequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phenotypic intelligence. Average allele frequencies for intelligence GWAS hits exhibited higher inter-population variability than random SNPs matched to the GWAS hits or GWAS hits for height. This indicates stronger directional polygenic selection for intelligence relative to height. Random sets of SNPs and Fst distances were employed to deal with the issue of autocorrelation due to population structure. GWAS hits were much stronger predictors of IQ than random SNPs. Regressing IQ on Fst distances did not significantly alter the results nonetheless it demonstrated that, whilst population structure due to genetic drift and migrations is indeed related to IQ differences between populations, the GWAS hit frequencies are independent predictors of aggregate IQ differences.
To get away from US. Why are the Nigerians crushing the white Brits at math and english? And what's with the Portuguese, are they white?? If it is genetic then Nigerian are pretty purely black and the white brits I know are pasty blindingly white. WTF
. Anyway a nice look at immigrant groups of different skin hues and their academic performance in different countries and how this undercuts a strong genetic argument to a dumb question that I fear is driven by highly motivated reasoning.
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
Thanks, this was an interesting article.
However, I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from it, apart from what we actually know already: "black" is not a useful category in an analysis involving heredity, since, iirc genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is larger than in rest of the world combined.
The underperformance of African-Americans (and their children) vs more recent African immigrants (and their children) seems also difficult to explain solely with environment. If anything, it seems these factors should be stacked against later arrivals.
The fact that neither group represents "perfect" samples of an ethnic group, but have actually been
selected - and selected on a very different basis - likely has an impact.
What we see here is most likely a phenomena called elite sample bias. It could be that it's simply the smartest of Nigerians who move to the UK. Intelligence follows a normal distribution. If you only let the cream of the crop immigrate, then of course they are going to do better than average. In my opinion, this phenomena of successful black immigrants only challenges the progressive narrative. If it really is the case that the US/UK is horribly racist, then how is it possible that some black immigrant groups are doing so well?
