"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35672932)

that's where it's headed/where we are

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673175)

Still nothing from Sailer on it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673044)

Duncan Osborne

NYC, NY4h ago

Times Pick

Spare me the concerned scientist posture.

If you are a researcher who believes that genetics predicts performance on an IQ test, you also have to concede that the differences in performance on those tests between groups has changed over time with the lowest performing groups showing improvement and performance among all groups improving over time. This disproves the thesis that intelligence, whatever that is, is genetic and shows that environment most certainly plays a role.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673083)

Their minds are so warped by identity politics and the great big boogeyman of racism - that their default argument in these discussion is against a strawman who thinks it's 100% genetic determinism. The fact that the gaps in group-level outcomes/measurements have changed over time is 100% expected.

There's gene-environment interactions, we never said environment contributes 0% you dimwitted delusional freaks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35676382)

Abbos are significantly dumber than even straight up subsuharan Africans.

Even the smartest 1/3rd of them are too dumb to hold down the most menial of jobs. No matter how hard Austrailia tries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673364)

Look at these "indigenous" doctors ljl: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/close-gap-growing-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-medical-workforce

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35677183)

steve

nyc9h ago

Times Pick

This is an important discussion to have and Reich approaches it with appropriate caution. However, he may commit a common philosophical and scientific error.

In his explication of cognition or intelligence, he cites both intelligence tests and years of education. What he does not acknowledge is that both of these measures, which he admits are imperfect, are measures of those things that a controlling population has deemed of value. While I'm not a slavish devotee of theories of multiple intelligence, it is clear from my work as an educator, that many people are brilliant and perceptive in ways that are not measured by standard assessments or valued in the selection process that is a gateway to continuing education.

The self-fulfilling prophetic issue is that a set of "intelligences" and a set of social traits have been ordained as the default standard, thereby perpetuating the perceived value of those humans who determined the standard and possess those particular traits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673178)

"My cat, Mr. Cuddles, is better than snuggling than any other being I have known. How are you to say that Mr. Cuddles is not as "intelligent" as anyone else?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673202)

John Graubard

NYC10h ago

Times Pick

The problem is not that humans differ in many ways, or that these differences are caused by our genetic background. It is not either that these variations tend to be grouped by place of origin, or that these variations do lead to differing abilities.

The problem is that we instinctively categorize people into all-or-nothing groups, and then treat these groups as the only relevant factor. Then, we impose tribalism to define "our" group as superior to the rest. That leads to such absurd results as portraying the ancient Egyptians as white (they were black) or the Chinese as backwards (in 1400 they were the most powerful and advanced country).

Indeed, modern genetic research demonstrates that all non-Africans contain Neanderthal genes. So, if you belong to that group, remember that you, and not they, are descendents of what we have put down as the cavemen.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673193)

Upstate NY4h ago

There was no effort to address the interaction between genes and environment in Reich's article. It sounds like the reified genetics of the 1950s, not considering the role of epigenetics in shaping the reality of genetic expression. Plus, he is completely naive to the ways articles such as this can be misused for political reasons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673209)

Good news - we can test to see if you have the smart gene independent of what gene you have for skin color and you can prove the haters wrong.

Bad news - we can test to confirm what we suspect, that *you* do not have the smart gene.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35673389)

Those two ideas are mutually exclusive and only make sense if you play the shitlib game of changing the definition of race.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35674216)

Unfortunately skin color is the easiest to see and least important phenotype. But if the "IQ" phenotype tends to be missing or express differently in people with west african heritage, and those people also happen to usually have dark skin, so be it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35674386)

Saying race is not a valid concept is absolutely absurd and requires language games.

It's equally as absurd as saying family is not a valid concept.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35674414)

Race is a valid concept, but it's an imperfect correlation with actual genes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35674456)

And almost not categories are perfect. Some imperfection does not invalidate a category. As long as there's some statistical validity, it's a valid category.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35674490)

Edit: But as Earl was pointing out, the most easily visible phenotypes that people often use to classify race are not necessarily the most closely correlated to genetic similarity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35674622)

Sure, if East Africans are at (5,5) and West Africans are at (5,0) while Europeans are at (0,0), they're as far apart from each other as Europeans are from West Africans, but the cluster "African" still gives you information about where they are.

Genetics may be far more dimensional than that, but it is still entirely possible that some traits cluster by 'race' even if there is significant variation within a race.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35674520)

https://www.google.com/search?as_st=y&tbm=isch&as_q=human+genetics+pca+plot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35676404)

i predict that he's going to be crucified for exactly the same reason watson, wade, jensen were even though he does the ritualistic shaming of watson and wade to try to separate himself from them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35677046)

I'm on tenterhooks tbh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3927126&forum_id=2#35712435)