The brainwashing tactic of shaming people who have done nothing wrong is reprehensible and a distinct product of shame culture and the desperate need to virtue signaling values that they don't actually stand for.

It's easy enough to ignore. What's a drop in the bucket? Just a drop... Until the bucket fills, and overflows. It's a sad tactic used to browbeat people into submission.

Now that you've shined some gaslight on it, I can see the truth plainly.

Max, you are legitimately one of the posters who distinctly "doesn't get it".

I get you tho, hot shot. Congrattttttttts on your 100-star takedown!

If whites have intelligence and blacks don’t have any at all or even if every single white person scored 100 and every single black person scored 85 on iq tests, you might have a valid point. But since neither of those are the case and since there’s such a wide iq spread within races, there’s absolutely no point in conducting comparative inter-racial iq studies because everything we need to know or hope to find out about why some people score higher on iq tests than others we can discover through intra-racial studies or not even factoring race into the equation at all.

I dont see that as the argument. A binary "which is more" doesnt mean anything. Given that environmental effects unequivocally exist, I see it as two arguments- is there near-proof of a significant genetic component, and is there near-proof that it's basically all environmental (no to both)

Furthermore, while it's easy to point to all the SES disparity in the bulk (and the divergence in educational opportunity is basically criminal), the effect persists adjusted for SES. There are also something like 10% of black households that are not SES-challenged. If you just treat those as their own population, they "should",
by themselves, populate the right tails of the entire set of blacks at a rate far higher than what's actually observed.
You start running out of malnutrition-ish and "whitey did it"-ish explanations really fast for rich blacks not filling the tail. That doesnt mean it's genetic, but it's fairly likely to be something that makes for uncomfortable conversation IMO if it's not (and related to an obvious hypothesis for the graphs in your link).

Semi grunch:

Would i still racist if the science said black people were smarter than white people and I reacted in the exact same way? Seems like I'm making the same decisions but if the world is one way I'm racist and if it's another I'm not.

Firstly, I've already said someone's IQ doesn't make them superior or inferior to anyone else. That a race would be inferior if they had lower average IQ is your line and says a lot about what you think makes people valuable.

Secondly, it seems that you've painted yourself into a corner where by your own rules you either dismiss an entire scientific field as garbage or you're racist. If you lived in a hypothetical world where you knew 100% the science was correct would you dismiss it anyway, change your rules about what makes someone racist or start calling yourself racist? I'm sure you fully believe the science is in fact garbage but even with your lack of self awareness you have to realize that's pretty lucky given how predisposed you are to be massively biased against it.

There is more to the sentence and clearly the amount of genetic mixing is important for how dubious the link to genetics is.

The complexity is in the link between our set of genes and the phenomena of intelligence. That doesn't imply anything about how hard it is to measure intelligence.

You don't seen to have followed my posts very well. I'm sure that's partly my fault but I think you're pulling your weight as well.

Yes.

Against black people or my own race? legit confused about what makes you think that makes the slightest sense. Is it that acknowledging there's any difference between races is racist?

If the science said it, then science would in fact be racist

I guess the point everyone wants to make, is that even speculating on the possibility is racist because current science can't give a definitive answer and the only motivation to speculate, knowing the facts, is racism.

People generally think it’s racist to say black people are genetically dumber than whites. Again, I cannot recommend books highly enough.

And you're both trivially wrong for reasons I've given. The existence of a performance gap in something known to be genetically influenced IS EVIDENCE that there's a genetic component. The existence of genomic differences among groups who have an observed difference in a trait that's known to be genetically influenced IS FURTHER EVIDENCE in favor of a genetic contribution to the group difference. That makes it more likely to be true knowing about the genomic differences than it is not knowing about them or (hypothetically) knowing there were no genomic differences. That's what evidence is. My cat can understand this. Why are you willfully obtuse?

"Race" as it is used in modern science is as a social construct, not biology.

Biologically speaking there is little to no foundation for claiming there currently exists distinct human races. Taxonomically speaking we all belong to the same species (**** sapiens) and sub-species (**** sapiens sapiens aka "modern man").

I'll take it back to your car analogy. Imagine two engines that we don't understand but do know that they are significantly different from one another. Now stick one in a super aerodynamic race car and the other in a standard road car. Now observe the results when they race. We know the engines are different and we know that engines are a significant factor in racing performance, but we don't know anything specific about these two engines. What does the result of the race tell us about which engine is superior if the aerodynamic race car wins?

This is entirely analogous to the situation as it stands with our knowledge about racial differences in test scores. We know that there are differences in the genetic makeup of the races and we know that genetic makeup has a significant factor in test scores. We don't know how the difference in genetic makeup effects the relative test scores of the races because it is surrounded by the societal effects, which we do largely understand and know has a significant impact in test scores. There is no way to draw any justifiable conclusion as to how the difference in genetic makeup is effecting the difference in test scores.

must be sad

[]others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[5] or simplistic way,[11] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, **** sapiens, and (as far as applicable) subspecies, **** sapiens sapiens.[12][13]

Did somebody just whack one of my posts or is mobile acting up?

Check your PMs.

So, you realize the people that point and laugh at Charles Murray and the idiots that buy into his shtick aren’t just pointing and laughing, right? Like, they have been advocating for all kinds of policies that would make a difference. So is it your position that all this stuff would have happened but for whining about Charles Murray?

What does TANF stand for, abysmal?


This is like the 8th time one of you has trotted this out. It will never work. Nobody will ever buy it.

Did you go to college?

Remember my post about the IDW requires an audience that has never thought about this subject seriously and is ill-informed enough to believe that nobody else has ever thought about it seriously?

I mean, yes? That is what drives you to have an interest in the subject that doesn't extend to actually reading books about it but does motivate you to flip out and cry about Charles Murray, a man who has literally burned a cross, getting called "racist".

I definitely disagree with Al Gore's decision to make the theme of the 2000 convention "Charles Murray is wrong", probably should've gone with something slightly less niche

I'm old enough to remember being a college student around the time The Bell Curve started popping up in college dormrooms of libertarian weirdos. If you had told me "Blacks score poorly on IQ test therefore they're a subhuman species" would still be making the rounds in 20-dickety-19 I would have never believed you. I mean, my god is Jordan Peterson's lobsterboy gibberish going to still be a thing in 2044?

My point is more that it's extremely dubious (for the evolutionary reasons I gave) that genetics play any significant role and that the scientific reasons for investigating the issue is just about non-existent while the political reasons are huge. Then that the role of bias in a studies results should make us extremely wary that any claimed results don't simply reflect the bias of the investigator.

It is not like, for example, investigating the role of child/fetus nutrition in intelligence. Then there's both a plausible link and potentially very useful scientific findings.

Is there some possible way to de-politicize the discussion and look at this whole question a little more abstractly?
1) If we know that there are genes that account for intelligence then what are those genes and how do they differ across regions?
2) Does it make sense that the set of traits called "intelligence" exists clinally due to differing selective pressures?
3) If it does exist clinally would it make sense that it would be correlated with what we call race which we know exists clinally?

I've never done any work in learning about this topic, but surely there have been some less politicized looks at intelligence cross-culturally* than whatever studies Murray did.
*not implying any connection between genetics and culture or anything like that. Just that surely there have been other encompassing looks at intelligence.