An Open Letter to White Privilege

[Drewish]

That was pointing out the contradictory nature of the statement being made by rEvolutionist, not asserting my position that this was somehow unprovable.


I'm done with this dancing. The most certain way to prove this will be:

1) Show that intelligence is highly heritable.

2) Isolate genes that strongly contribute to intelligence variation.

3) Map the frequency of these genes within specific populations.

Number 1 is already done. Steps 2 and 3 are happening right now (although 3 more inadvertently because such research being done directly would never be approved or funded). We'll have the hard proof one way or the other within 10 years. Until then keep claiming that its all environmental (not for intelligence among individuals, remember that's already been shown to be largely caused by genetics, but somehow magically becomes all environmental when dealing with races).

[Hermit]

Next on the program is discovering the gene for criminality, then going on to prove that it is more developed in African Americans than Caucasians. That will explain why, on a pro rata basis, there are so many more of former in gaol than the latter. But why stop there? There's a need to explain the difference in unemployment rates too. There must be a gene for laziness somewhere.

[pErvinalia]

That was pointing out the contradictory nature of the statement being made by rEvolutionist, not asserting my position that this was somehow unprovable.


I'm done with this dancing. The most certain way to prove this will be:

1) Show that intelligence is highly heritable.

2) Isolate genes that strongly contribute to intelligence variation.

3) Map the frequency of these genes within specific populations.

Number 1 is already done. Steps 2 and 3 are happening right now (although 3 more inadvertently because such research being done directly would never be approved or funded). We'll have the hard proof one way or the other within 10 years. Until then keep claiming that its all environmental (not for intelligence among individuals, remember that's already been shown to be largely caused by genetics, but somehow magically becomes all environmental when dealing with races).

You're really not very good at this debating business, are you? Let me rephrase your last sentence (minus the sarcasm): Until then keep claiming that its all genetic.

See how empty your statement was? It also relies on the dubious assumption that it is an either/or proposition. It's very likely to be a mix of both genetics and environment. So no more false dichotomies, ok?

Anyway, I'm interested in point 1. I suspect it's probably true, but is there a reference that points out the overwhelming truth of this statement?

[Drewish]

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLan ... 6X.51.2.77

Or if you want something easier to read:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... 5iRxPldXgQ

[HomerJay]

Well both Samsa and I are scientists, so you can respect that we will have pretty high standards when it comes to evidence.

[Jason]

[Mr.Samsa]

That was pointing out the contradictory nature of the statement being made by rEvolutionist, not asserting my position that this was somehow unprovable.


I'm done with this dancing. The most certain way to prove this will be:

1) Show that intelligence is highly heritable.

2) Isolate genes that strongly contribute to intelligence variation.

3) Map the frequency of these genes within specific populations.

Number 1 is already done. Steps 2 and 3 are happening right now (although 3 more inadvertently because such research being done directly would never be approved or funded). We'll have the hard proof one way or the other within 10 years.

But that would do absolutely nothing to show that there is an innate difference in IQ. Once you're down so far at the genetic level then it becomes incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to make comparative claims about the differences at the level of behavior. In other words, suppose that white people had intelligence genes A, B, C, and black people only had intelligence genes A and B - from your analysis, we could conclude that the lack of the "C" intelligence gene could contribute to the difference in IQ. But, for all we know, black people have the intelligence genes A, B, and X, with the "X" gene being functionally identical to C. Or they'd have the genes A, B, and Y, where Y codes for something unrelated to intelligence but has the unintended effect of increasing intelligence (for example, it's a gene for body size which inadvertently increases the size of the brain and thus intelligence).

Until then keep claiming that its all environmental (not for intelligence among individuals, remember that's already been shown to be largely caused by genetics, but somehow magically becomes all environmental when dealing with races).

To be fair, you have to show that races exist first and that the hereditary components are relevant to this concept of race in any way. That's not magic, that's just science and reality.

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLan ... 6X.51.2.77

Or if you want something easier to read:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... 5iRxPldXgQ

The only relevant paper there is one of my favourites on this topic, the "Intelligence: Known and Unknowns" paper by the APA taskforce which was set up to counter some myths started by "The Bell Curve". I particularly liked the part where they explain that there is currently no evidence of genetics playing a role in the IQ differences between races, that the differences can potentially be entirely explained by environmental factors, and where they explain that it's idiotic to think that just because IQ is affected by genetics then there must be a genetic factor playing a role in the differences in IQ between races.

Well both Samsa and I are scientists, so you can respect that we will have pretty high standards when it comes to evidence.

Trolls gonna troll.

[pErvinalia]

Well both Samsa and I are scientists, so you can respect that we will have pretty high standards when it comes to evidence.

Good for you, KennyC.

[JimC]

They killed Kenny!

[rainbow]

That was pointing out the contradictory nature of the statement being made by rEvolutionist, not asserting my position that this was somehow unprovable.


I'm done with this dancing. The most certain way to prove this will be:

1) Show that intelligence is highly heritable.

Looks like you lost out badly there, then.

[Gallstones]

[Jason]

[Gallstones]

[Tyrannical]

This is exactly right. With all the evidence we have of environmental factors impacting intelligence we know that if an innate gap exists then it can only be a matter of a couple of IQ points. The debate is mostly academic at that point and essentially inconsequential in the real world but it's interesting watching certain people cling to that insignificant difference and try to generalise it to a huge group of people to make unevidenced grandiose claims.

If only it were a couple of points. It's much closer to a half to two thirds being classified as learning disabled. Criminality is roughly five to ten times as severe.
As a group, they are not fit to be included into civilized society unless under strict control. The evidence for that is apparent anywhere they are found in large numbers.

[Drewish]

Thank you Google:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8