“a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.”
And this is why Murray’s books are such garbage. People such as yourself come out of reading them thinking that from a) follows b), which is erroneous. All the data Murray presents in all of his books can be true, but it means nothing about whether genetics underlay disparities at all. In fact, all the data can be true and the black population can have genetics that theoretically could manifest in higher cognitive abilities than any other racial group -- given the right culture and environment. The fact that you are confident b follows from a or that b follows from the data Murray presents is evidence of your own racial bigotry. Or lack of cognitive ability. Perhaps it’s genetic. In which case it is futile you will ever understand your errors. An “intractable” problem as Murray calls it.
When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books.
"All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure.
Robinson is more clear: "this statement buries the fact that there are very important moral implications to the genetic question: the more the difference can be proven to be genetic in origin, the less responsible white people are for the disproportionate poverty affecting black communities. "
First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)
Much more important is the question of how much white people, both living and dead, are responsible for today's black poverty (in the USA). There's no other country on earth where blacks have less absolute poverty, and are 10% or more of the population (as far as I know). The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year:
about the Democrat Party being the Party of Slavery, the Jim Crow Party, the KKK Party.
Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live. Current poverty among Blacks today is maybe 5% IQ, but 50% crime, and 40% promiscuity (5% other). Because today's crime was influenced so much by the before birth promiscuity of the current criminal's parent, others might claim even higher % for promiscuity.
Today, AA is a little racist against Whites, and for colleges is quite racist against Asians, but in favor of less qualified Blacks. In theory, this reduces Black poverty.
[This assumption might actually be false, but that's a much longer rant.]
BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior.
"When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books."
A book that addresses IQ disparities between racial groups, and particular the disparities of black people, better than the Bell Curve is Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks, White Liberals. And you can be comforted to know that Thomas Sowell doesn't insult Murray's book, albeit he does correct errors and disagree with aspects of it.
""All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure."
No, that is just the limitations of correlational data. Assessing causation can be a complicated enterprise.
"First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)"
No, I didn't claim genetics is essentially insignificant. I claimed that it *could be* entirely irrelevant. Not just insignificant; it could have no causal relevance to the group disparities in cognitive abilities. It could also be very significant. Theoretically. Genetics could be foundational in such a way that without a conscious breeding program, the disparities could be unchangeable. While it could be that a breeding program for blacks would be required, its also possible that a breeding program for whites would be required. The data is such that influence of environment and culture could be so dramatic that blacks as a group still have the genetics that underlie superior cognitive abilities to whites or any other racial group.
It could also be true that genetics underlie individual intelligence substantially but genetics doesn't underlie the disparities of cognitive abilities between racial groups. Proving that genetics underlies the foundation of individual intelligence does not prove that group disparities in cognitive abilities are genetic.
And while I didn't state anywhere to you that genetics are irrelevant; I do indeed actually suspect they are irrelevant. As for evidence that genetics is irrelevant when it comes to *group* disparities, I provided that in a different comment here to someone else. I'll copy and paste that here, just for convenience. And I will clarify my position now: I do suspect the foundation of intelligence is genetic on an individual level but I also suspect there is no genetic basis for disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups.
This is largely paraphrased from Sowell. Among the best evidence against the genetic basis for the disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups is that the average performance on cognitive tests has changed substantially for populations over time. And furthermore, particular ethnic groups have changed their relative position with regard to average performance on cognitive tests when intermarriage was relatively rare.
An example - when Jews took mental tests during WW1 -- American soldiers -- they scored extraordinarily low. However within a decade they were scoring above average. And now they are far above average.
IQ tests are normalized. And this conceals a continuing trend of people on average over time answering more questions correct on cognitive tests. A person can answer the same number of questions correct today as someone 2 decades ago but the former would have an IQ of 100 and the latter an IQ 85. The number of questions “blacks” answer correctly today is similar to the number of questions answered correctly by past generations of “whites”. Blacks today are not meaningfully more different genetically than whites today than whites a few generations ago. If blacks on average differ from whites in IQ today by 15 points but blacks also differ from blacks 2 generations prior by 15 points, and if those 15 points between generations of blacks are best explained by environment why wouldn’t environment explain the difference between blacks and whites today? Since it seems environment could be *sufficient* to explain *all* the difference, why would one not only propose that genetics could theoretically explain some of the difference (it could) but also have so much confidence that genetics explains so much of the difference that it would be futile to change the environment to improve disparities? I’ve got a reason: cuz the person is racist.
"The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year"
I absolutely don't think random white people today are responsible for what particular white people did in the past. Nor have I ever suggested that. You are welcome to quote me where I do. Judging Murray racist doesn't implicate all white people. Not all white people think it is futile to invest resources into attempting to remove disparities between racial groups because they think genetics make the disparities intractable. And some white people who do believe that aren't even racist, they are just ignorant. They may have just read the Bell Curve and didn't read anything like Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Now, if they don't attempt to explore contrary opinions, arguably they are indeed racist. And ignorant. Or I guess.. maybe just intellectually lazy.
"BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior."
Yes, I agree the aggregate behavior of black people is the main reason for the continued disparities between black people and white people, just as the aggregate behavior of white people is the main reason for the continued disparities between white people and asian people. While historical racism can explain some of the disparities in wealth, and can even explain some of the cultural dysfunction of some black people, current racism as a significant causal explanation is erroneous. Black people today are not "structurally" or "systematically" oppressed, albeit, there are still some racists within the system who sometimes harm people who are black due to racism.
And I still think Charles Murray is a racist but that he should be able to safely speak at colleges.
"Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live."
More black people can more frequently use condoms and other forms of birth control. That would be sufficient to adequately reduce children born outside relationships or to people not committed to raising children. People needn't abstain from sex until marriage. That largely explains lower frequency of unwanted pregnancies of other racial groups. Not abstinence. While I disparage indiscriminate sexual relationships, abstinence until marriage is a perverse and worthless norm.
“a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.”
And this is why Murray’s books are such garbage. People such as yourself come out of reading them thinking that from a) follows b), which is erroneous. All the data Murray presents in all of his books can be true, but it means nothing about whether genetics underlay disparities at all. In fact, all the data can be true and the black population can have genetics that theoretically could manifest in higher cognitive abilities than any other racial group -- given the right culture and environment. The fact that you are confident b follows from a or that b follows from the data Murray presents is evidence of your own racial bigotry. Or lack of cognitive ability. Perhaps it’s genetic. In which case it is futile you will ever understand your errors. An “intractable” problem as Murray calls it.
When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books.
"All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure.
Robinson is more clear: "this statement buries the fact that there are very important moral implications to the genetic question: the more the difference can be proven to be genetic in origin, the less responsible white people are for the disproportionate poverty affecting black communities. "
First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)
Much more important is the question of how much white people, both living and dead, are responsible for today's black poverty (in the USA). There's no other country on earth where blacks have less absolute poverty, and are 10% or more of the population (as far as I know). The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year:
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/accepting-the-obvious?s=r
about the Democrat Party being the Party of Slavery, the Jim Crow Party, the KKK Party.
Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live. Current poverty among Blacks today is maybe 5% IQ, but 50% crime, and 40% promiscuity (5% other). Because today's crime was influenced so much by the before birth promiscuity of the current criminal's parent, others might claim even higher % for promiscuity.
Today, AA is a little racist against Whites, and for colleges is quite racist against Asians, but in favor of less qualified Blacks. In theory, this reduces Black poverty.
[This assumption might actually be false, but that's a much longer rant.]
BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior.
"When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books."
A book that addresses IQ disparities between racial groups, and particular the disparities of black people, better than the Bell Curve is Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks, White Liberals. And you can be comforted to know that Thomas Sowell doesn't insult Murray's book, albeit he does correct errors and disagree with aspects of it.
""All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure."
No, that is just the limitations of correlational data. Assessing causation can be a complicated enterprise.
"First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)"
No, I didn't claim genetics is essentially insignificant. I claimed that it *could be* entirely irrelevant. Not just insignificant; it could have no causal relevance to the group disparities in cognitive abilities. It could also be very significant. Theoretically. Genetics could be foundational in such a way that without a conscious breeding program, the disparities could be unchangeable. While it could be that a breeding program for blacks would be required, its also possible that a breeding program for whites would be required. The data is such that influence of environment and culture could be so dramatic that blacks as a group still have the genetics that underlie superior cognitive abilities to whites or any other racial group.
It could also be true that genetics underlie individual intelligence substantially but genetics doesn't underlie the disparities of cognitive abilities between racial groups. Proving that genetics underlies the foundation of individual intelligence does not prove that group disparities in cognitive abilities are genetic.
And while I didn't state anywhere to you that genetics are irrelevant; I do indeed actually suspect they are irrelevant. As for evidence that genetics is irrelevant when it comes to *group* disparities, I provided that in a different comment here to someone else. I'll copy and paste that here, just for convenience. And I will clarify my position now: I do suspect the foundation of intelligence is genetic on an individual level but I also suspect there is no genetic basis for disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups.
This is largely paraphrased from Sowell. Among the best evidence against the genetic basis for the disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups is that the average performance on cognitive tests has changed substantially for populations over time. And furthermore, particular ethnic groups have changed their relative position with regard to average performance on cognitive tests when intermarriage was relatively rare.
An example - when Jews took mental tests during WW1 -- American soldiers -- they scored extraordinarily low. However within a decade they were scoring above average. And now they are far above average.
IQ tests are normalized. And this conceals a continuing trend of people on average over time answering more questions correct on cognitive tests. A person can answer the same number of questions correct today as someone 2 decades ago but the former would have an IQ of 100 and the latter an IQ 85. The number of questions “blacks” answer correctly today is similar to the number of questions answered correctly by past generations of “whites”. Blacks today are not meaningfully more different genetically than whites today than whites a few generations ago. If blacks on average differ from whites in IQ today by 15 points but blacks also differ from blacks 2 generations prior by 15 points, and if those 15 points between generations of blacks are best explained by environment why wouldn’t environment explain the difference between blacks and whites today? Since it seems environment could be *sufficient* to explain *all* the difference, why would one not only propose that genetics could theoretically explain some of the difference (it could) but also have so much confidence that genetics explains so much of the difference that it would be futile to change the environment to improve disparities? I’ve got a reason: cuz the person is racist.
"The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year"
I absolutely don't think random white people today are responsible for what particular white people did in the past. Nor have I ever suggested that. You are welcome to quote me where I do. Judging Murray racist doesn't implicate all white people. Not all white people think it is futile to invest resources into attempting to remove disparities between racial groups because they think genetics make the disparities intractable. And some white people who do believe that aren't even racist, they are just ignorant. They may have just read the Bell Curve and didn't read anything like Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Now, if they don't attempt to explore contrary opinions, arguably they are indeed racist. And ignorant. Or I guess.. maybe just intellectually lazy.
"BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior."
Yes, I agree the aggregate behavior of black people is the main reason for the continued disparities between black people and white people, just as the aggregate behavior of white people is the main reason for the continued disparities between white people and asian people. While historical racism can explain some of the disparities in wealth, and can even explain some of the cultural dysfunction of some black people, current racism as a significant causal explanation is erroneous. Black people today are not "structurally" or "systematically" oppressed, albeit, there are still some racists within the system who sometimes harm people who are black due to racism.
And I still think Charles Murray is a racist but that he should be able to safely speak at colleges.
"Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live."
More black people can more frequently use condoms and other forms of birth control. That would be sufficient to adequately reduce children born outside relationships or to people not committed to raising children. People needn't abstain from sex until marriage. That largely explains lower frequency of unwanted pregnancies of other racial groups. Not abstinence. While I disparage indiscriminate sexual relationships, abstinence until marriage is a perverse and worthless norm.