I'm loath to engage you in discussion, but I am interested in your statement: "We're going backwards at present." Please explain what you mean and the evidence on which your observation rests. Also, how exactly does a "change in attitude" change genetic expression in racial groups? Thank you.
Racial relations are, AFAIK, *more* tense now than they were, say, ten years ago. This may not be obvious, especially to Blacks, but we entered the era of Black Supremacy, mebbe, five years ago. I thought an article titled "Blacks Can Be Racists, Too" might be interesting. But it turned out to be about Blacks acting like White racists. One item in the listicle said Blacks should never say anything negative about a Black-owned business. That explained why White people, necessarily, could *only* say positive things about Black people, right? Do Blacks ever get criticized for *Anything* these days. Well, there's Kanye, but that's about it. And he's got his defenders.
I'm not the first person to point out that these DEI trainings are having a negative effect on race relations. How could they not. And others have pointed out that, with the excesses that are going on, there's a good possibility of a strong *backlash.*
People can work to bring people together. People can work to be great *dividers.* That was Trump's big problem but he is, by no means, alone in that.
Now right up until I mentioned Trump, You probably agreed.
What Your not gonna agree with is that genes don't make the man. Granted, You got two armed camps facing each other. Just like is going on with "racial justice." You got the people that say that, basically, genes determine pretty much everything important. Then You got a large number of stupes who believe the "Blank State" idiocy. That it's *society* which causes people to break laws and kill people.
What the *science* points to, time and time again, is that nature and nurture play a role. No set percentage of which is which. To the extent that they attempt to measure it. Which really can't be very exact with the current state-of-the-art.
The number I "heard" was that intelligence was determined 40% by genetics. That's as likely to be correct as any other guess.
To say that education doesn't play a role in a person's IQ, just doesn't pass the smell test with me. But progressives? They should read the research of somebody who, I think, has the last name of Page Harden. She's a progressive herself. Whoever, she found 1300 different genes that effected intelligence. No single one being important. But analyzing the 1300 can turn up a number, IIRC. Can't find the link now, but pretty sure I saved it.
No matter.
People, mostly, believe what they *wanna* believe.
But when You wanna believe Blacks are, as individuals rather than ITA, just as good as anybody else, in small and large Ways, in similar and different Ways, You can. Anytime. Me? No matter. Doesn't matter if anyone even reads this. Time spent. Break over.
I asked about your "going backwards" comment. You evidently based it on the level of racial tension you perceive. Fine.
As to changes in people's attitudes trumping (is that OK to say?) genetics and the aggregate statistics that define different racial groups, color me (is that OK to say?) skeptical. Imagine that each individual was treated strictly on their own merits. Racial statistical aggregates tell us the result will be a disproportionate representation (relative to population %) of blacks in fields requiring higher levels of IQ (fewer) and in conditions of personal and social pathology (more).
Kathryn Paige Harden is a bit late to the party. Google "boost IQ and scholastic" and you'll be directed to Arthur R. Jensen's seminal 1969 article (124 pages including references): "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Yep, that's not a misprint: 1969. It's all in there and has been for over 50 years and counting (and has been suppressed and hidden behind academic/journalistic paywalls for just as long). Happy reading!
You're funny. You misread Kathryn Paige Harden's article, if that's all You took from it.
Like I 'said,' people will believe what they wanna believe. And although I've not read Jensen's article, I'm familiar with the theory. It's a theory. Going by the introduction I'd be curious how much his ideas on genetics would be seen through the lens of current science. I may, or may not, take the trouble.
When You get into talking about being hidden and suppressed, I begin to wonder. It was easy enough to find, so mebbe it's not hidden but just being ignored. Whether that's for good reason or not is a different question. The bigger point is that current state-of-the-art in genetics isn't far enough along to say what role that plays for certain. Sorry, but that's a fact.
I don't like to repeat myself, but I will. You continue to ignore the point about IQ not being a limiting factor in a lotta ways. Yeah, if You're talking the Olympics of intelligence, then the highest IQ will win. Day-to-day success isn't at the level of the Olympics. And the person with the highest IQ rarely wins in that race, believe it or not.
I'm loath to engage you in discussion, but I am interested in your statement: "We're going backwards at present." Please explain what you mean and the evidence on which your observation rests. Also, how exactly does a "change in attitude" change genetic expression in racial groups? Thank you.
Ah! Just in time. (May be paywalled, dunno.)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
Suit Yourself. Loath on. Learn if You wanna.
Racial relations are, AFAIK, *more* tense now than they were, say, ten years ago. This may not be obvious, especially to Blacks, but we entered the era of Black Supremacy, mebbe, five years ago. I thought an article titled "Blacks Can Be Racists, Too" might be interesting. But it turned out to be about Blacks acting like White racists. One item in the listicle said Blacks should never say anything negative about a Black-owned business. That explained why White people, necessarily, could *only* say positive things about Black people, right? Do Blacks ever get criticized for *Anything* these days. Well, there's Kanye, but that's about it. And he's got his defenders.
I'm not the first person to point out that these DEI trainings are having a negative effect on race relations. How could they not. And others have pointed out that, with the excesses that are going on, there's a good possibility of a strong *backlash.*
People can work to bring people together. People can work to be great *dividers.* That was Trump's big problem but he is, by no means, alone in that.
Now right up until I mentioned Trump, You probably agreed.
What Your not gonna agree with is that genes don't make the man. Granted, You got two armed camps facing each other. Just like is going on with "racial justice." You got the people that say that, basically, genes determine pretty much everything important. Then You got a large number of stupes who believe the "Blank State" idiocy. That it's *society* which causes people to break laws and kill people.
What the *science* points to, time and time again, is that nature and nurture play a role. No set percentage of which is which. To the extent that they attempt to measure it. Which really can't be very exact with the current state-of-the-art.
The number I "heard" was that intelligence was determined 40% by genetics. That's as likely to be correct as any other guess.
To say that education doesn't play a role in a person's IQ, just doesn't pass the smell test with me. But progressives? They should read the research of somebody who, I think, has the last name of Page Harden. She's a progressive herself. Whoever, she found 1300 different genes that effected intelligence. No single one being important. But analyzing the 1300 can turn up a number, IIRC. Can't find the link now, but pretty sure I saved it.
No matter.
People, mostly, believe what they *wanna* believe.
But when You wanna believe Blacks are, as individuals rather than ITA, just as good as anybody else, in small and large Ways, in similar and different Ways, You can. Anytime. Me? No matter. Doesn't matter if anyone even reads this. Time spent. Break over.
I asked about your "going backwards" comment. You evidently based it on the level of racial tension you perceive. Fine.
As to changes in people's attitudes trumping (is that OK to say?) genetics and the aggregate statistics that define different racial groups, color me (is that OK to say?) skeptical. Imagine that each individual was treated strictly on their own merits. Racial statistical aggregates tell us the result will be a disproportionate representation (relative to population %) of blacks in fields requiring higher levels of IQ (fewer) and in conditions of personal and social pathology (more).
Kathryn Paige Harden is a bit late to the party. Google "boost IQ and scholastic" and you'll be directed to Arthur R. Jensen's seminal 1969 article (124 pages including references): "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Yep, that's not a misprint: 1969. It's all in there and has been for over 50 years and counting (and has been suppressed and hidden behind academic/journalistic paywalls for just as long). Happy reading!
You're funny. You misread Kathryn Paige Harden's article, if that's all You took from it.
Like I 'said,' people will believe what they wanna believe. And although I've not read Jensen's article, I'm familiar with the theory. It's a theory. Going by the introduction I'd be curious how much his ideas on genetics would be seen through the lens of current science. I may, or may not, take the trouble.
When You get into talking about being hidden and suppressed, I begin to wonder. It was easy enough to find, so mebbe it's not hidden but just being ignored. Whether that's for good reason or not is a different question. The bigger point is that current state-of-the-art in genetics isn't far enough along to say what role that plays for certain. Sorry, but that's a fact.
I don't like to repeat myself, but I will. You continue to ignore the point about IQ not being a limiting factor in a lotta ways. Yeah, if You're talking the Olympics of intelligence, then the highest IQ will win. Day-to-day success isn't at the level of the Olympics. And the person with the highest IQ rarely wins in that race, believe it or not.
Skunk pissing. Not winnable, so I'll pass. (Kudos for mostly cleaning up the lingo—it's appreciated.)