What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Lexicus]

Imagine being so scientifically illiterate you thought blonde people were a species

He's making a joke but it's obvious from his serious argument that he does think of blonde people as a category something like a species.

 

[bernie14]

I believe he is referring to the Eugenics Wars.
A nasty period. But the 90s were still cool, if you ask me.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Eugenics_Wars

 

[Terxpahseyton]

He's making a joke but it's obvious from his serious argument that he does think of blonde people as a category something like a species.

If I absolutely had to give it a contentious name it would be breed, I think. However, only if I had to, since I feel any such name suggest a greater uniformity within a group than there is. That is cool with horses, because we often only care about a very specific trait of a specific horse breed, so to hell with all the other ones and to hell with diversity. I want a horse that can do x and if you can not you are not a real x breed horse. Moreover, breed suggests eugenics, since that is the context this word is normally used. Eugenics of animals. And I am only for soft eugenics. I.e. policies that encourage "successful" people to have more kids (mostly by making it easier to combine a career and being a mother). Well and I suppose genome-therapy eugenics, so eugenics which directly change the embryo, at least under certain circumstances.

In any case, breed is a more reasonable word than race, at least, if you think about it.
A good word is probably pheno-type.

 

[Lexicus]

If I absolutely had to give it a contentious name it would be breed, I think.

In any case, breed is a more reasonable word than race, at least, if you think about it.

Uh, not really.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh come on, you started it. I just played along

And yes, really. Just make sure to differentiate "more reasonable" from "reasonable".

 

[Damus Maximus]

I believe there may be a few among us that skipped the opening 5 words on this threads original post..

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You do not enter a two-digit OT thread and expect anyone to remember the OP.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Okay, Gori. What do you want, I ask. A philosphical essay about the nature, meaning and role of abstractions?

I don't want much from you Terx, because you're not pushing hard the notion that "race" is a concept that has been biologically established. From you, I would be content for you to say that when human beings use abstractions (in this case to sort people into groups), the reality those abstractions have is the reality that convention (communally shared structures of meaning) assigns them. I suspect you'll happily grant me that.

From Hehehe, I want him for one month to use the term "genetic ancestry" every time he would otherwise have used the word "race." It shouldn't be terribly much to ask of him, since he regards them as synonyms. I think that if he tries using "genetic ancestry" as a synonym for race, he will find that he can't in fact use it in some of the sentences where he would use the word "race"--for grammatical reasons. And when he reflects on why it is that grammar occasionally prevents him from using those terms as synonyms, he will advance his thinking on this matter.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't want much from you Terx, because you're not pushing hard the notion that "race" is a concept that has been biologically established. From you, I would be content for you to say that when human beings use abstractions (in this case to sort people into groups), the reality those abstractions have is the reality that convention (communally shared structures of meaning) assigns them. I suspect you'll happily grant me that.

Suggesting it was not possible for such groups to be a reality in ways not assigned to them? Can't sign that.

From Hehehe, I want him for one month to use the term "genetic ancestry" every time he would otherwise have used the word "race." It shouldn't be terribly much to ask of him, since he regards them as synonyms. I think that if he tries using "genetic ancestry" as a synonym for race, he will find that he can't in fact use it in some of the places where he would use the word "race." And when he reflects on why that is, he will advance his thinking on this matter.

Interesting hypothesis.
Maybe he starts in his new thread.

 

[warpus]

IQ tests test a very specific type of intelligence with good accuracy

Let's see the recent peer reviewed research that leads to that conclusion.

 

[Senethro]

The power level in this thread is off the charts.

Source.

This doesn't mean what you want it to mean because you don't know what you're talking about.

The graph is for a single gene. The first line of your link notes this and how different genes graph very differently. Because - get this - different genes have different histories and rates of change. You might even be able to find some genes that map well to your conception of race but most don't.

 

[Senethro]

You say but can't provide a better alternative. It is true I do not know what I am talking about. I am making assumptions, I have not researched this stuff. But, as said, I am very fond of those assumptions, sound convincing to me. Not in so far as that conditions are ideal, but relatively ideal. It is a messy world, that much I know.

An alternative to what?

 

[Broken_Erika]

The power level in this thread is off the charts.

Source.

The Power Level is over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

An alternative to what?

Looking for intelligence in genes by looking for different genetic IQ tendencies in different genetic groups of people.

 

[Senethro]

Looking for intelligence in genes by looking for different genetic IQ tendencies in different genetic groups of people.

The genetic groups of people don't correspond to the folk definitions of race. Intelligence is poorly defined and difficult to measure. The action of a gene on an individuals phenotype is hella murky.

My alternative is: Don't bother. Certainly this decade and probably a couple more. It's wasted energy because there is so much basic groundwork needing covered.

 

[civver_764]

 

[inthesomeday]

What an aesthetically pleasing irrelevant non-sequitur, civver

 

[Perfection]

You do not need to convince me that intelligence is partially genetic. But just because observed differences between individuals might be well explained by genetic differences doesn't mean the same of observed racial disparities. That extension is pure conjecture. I am not interested in your conjectures.

Why would you think that the differences do not then extend to race?

Because there are plenty of other plausible options. For instance, it could be that any large group (including racial) differences in genetics regarding intelligence are exceedingly minor compared to individual differences and that cultural factors play the dominant role in situations where we see racial disparities in IQ test results. It could also be that population groups do have significant differences in the genetics regarding intelligence between each other but these differences are are on scales much smaller than race (for instance, those descended from a population of expat white-collar workers might have higher IQ scores - and these sorts of factors drown out race). It could also be that there are differences in cognition among groups that transcend simple IQ classification but can effect IQ scores depending on how their drafted.

Out of all possible conjectures you picked the conjecture that confirms racial biases. You seem to claim (correct me if I'm wrong) to have good evidence that demonstrates the existence of genetically-caused racial differences in gross mental capability that is significant enough to require changes in our political thinking (I am bolding it because that is more-or-less the proposition I'm ultimately concerned with). That conlusion is not nakedly extendable from there being significant genetic differences among individuals.

Is that not a proposition that we can test? In fact we can, and have, tested it.

It may be possible to test the above bolded proposition. But I do not think it would be easy and I'm extremely skeptical you have done so. If you continue to post regarding this I will be holding your feet to the fire here in demonstrating the complete proposition in a rigorous fashion. Speculative implications that merely have an air of plausiblability will not do. You must not merely demonstrate that the proposition fits the data but that only it fits the data. That is a high bar to clear, but since it seems clear to me that the fullfillment of your political goals will result in the marginalization of at least hundreds of millions of people, I believe it is morally irresponsible to not set such a high bar.

I never said that they're "largely" due to racial differences. I only said that they're partially due to racial differences. Genes and environment operate in a feedback loop. Environment selects for genes, genes create environment (to some extent). Environment affects individuals regardless of genetics, genes influence the way people react to their environment.

I'll accept your objection to my term "largely" but partially is pretty weasily (partially includes the possibility of an insignificant contribution which then through some intellectual slight of hand gets assumed to be significant). Thus in my above bolded proposition I chose significantly with the significance being of enough to require changes in our political thinking.

But I guess we have to have a proper discussion about this, so that you may teach me some humility.

I have no faith in my ability to convince you of anything whatsoever. When I attempt to disabuse you of your flawed reasoning, I do with the full expectation that it will fail. My hope in engaging with you is that those observing this argument who may have found elements of your argument interesting will reevaluate their perspective. My fear is that my engaging provides a bigger soapbox for your odious claims and this disucssion results in you simply learning to hide your methodological errors under a more polished vaneer.

@El_Machinae post quoted below sums it up well.

I don't think racists can be helped to understand in the discussion. They will just use cognitive bias to misunderstand things so that they can perceive genetic superiority. And so the conversation itself is destructive. They will just get fancier words, and that's about it

Ultimately my hope is that my fellow CFC members being more informed and me having thought more about this important topic will be worth the damage done in providing practice to those who express odious views on race.

 

[bernie14]

This doesn't mean what you want it to mean because you don't know what you're talking about.

The graph is for a single gene. The first line of your link notes this and how different genes graph very differently. Because - get this - different genes have different histories and rates of change. You might even be able to find some genes that map well to your conception of race but most don't.

I don't know if civver correctly interpreted the graph but you certainly did not....i recommend you actually read the linked material

 

[astrallite]

IQ is really irrelevant here, as IQ is a bad indicator of overall intelligence. If your IQ is higher than mine, that doesn't mean that you're more intelligent than me.

Are you conflating intelligence with sophistry? IQ is just an approximation learning speed, abstraction ability, and intangibles that lead to successful life outcomes, that's why IQ is the best single predictor of life outcomes, because by it's scoring your ability to solve problems.