Interesting, but it's just an argument between a smart eloquent white racist and a stupid black, non-racist. Not sure that shows anything at all except racists can have great debating skills.
He's not racist because I don't understand him. He's racist because he thinks black people are genetically uncivilised and his evidence for that is that poor black people looted after Katrina and sub-saharan Africans didn't develop writing and two story buildings.
Both of those appear to be roughly true, but the racist thing is that he's jumped to "must be because they're black", rather than the much more obvious explanations: it's poor people that loot, not black people; they just happen to coincide in America.
And there are a gazillion variables that are more likely to have affected the development of Africa than genetics. Geography, population density, isolation by the Sahara, luck.
This always seems to be the defence despite is not being true. Poor white people evacuated and helped who they could. Poor black people waited to be helped, looted, murdered, and played victims.
It’s amazing that facts are now racist. We can’t identify a problem and try fix it. We just stand back and say “no that’s racist”.
Even if that were true (it appears it is not [0]), do you not understand that there are dozens of non-genetic differences between black people and white people that could easily explain it?
For example it's well known that black people are less likely to trust the authorities for very good reason.
It's not racist to state the facts; it's racist to jump from the facts to "must be black genetics" with no evidence.
There are also significance physical differences between the sexes, but not between races. Maybe hormones or genes have an effect? The former should be easily testable.
AFAIK the greatest genetic variability is within sub-Saharan Africa, the most likely variations will be within groups there. Comparing white to black Americans seems a waste of time at best, and looking for a desired result at worst.
Opponents of such studies are seem to make the racist assumption that the only difference that might be found is that white people are superior. Surely the opposite is just as likely (maybe even more so as black Africans have fewer non-homo sapiens genes).
I is also pretty certain that any difference (between races or sexes) would not be swamped by individual variation. The only noticeable difference would be in the far tails of the distributions.
About 15 years ago I first heard that men generally have higher standard deviation than women over various measurable properties including IQ. I didn't know it was controversial until Damore's controversy at Google in 2017.
I still think it sounds highly plausible, since I didn't hear of any studies that would disprove it (links are appreciated).
If true it would constitute a benign at least partial explanation for men/women imbalance in some professions.
I suspect things have changed somewhat since 1928, but it likely boils down to something quite normal, like, boys are interested in different things to women. Which is surely just an evolutionary thing.
Its also likely to be a direct reflection, back then, of the expectations of that era.
The social construct is such an abstract nonexistent idea that many think is the way it should be, but it that just because we have the ability to reason etc...
Look at where we are holistically, are we really better off today if you look at every comparable data point across time?
Less genome redundancy? Men have a single copy of most X chromosome genes. So if any of them are defective and affect cognition, there is no backup. Women have a second X chromosome, that reduces the impact of a defective gene there. Daltonism and hemophilia are less prevalent in women for this reason.
- IQ is known to be mostly genetic (see e.g. Pinker's "Blank Slate"), so it's unlikely (though not impossible) that the differences in IQ stddev are cultural
- Wikipedia cites another study that found similar effect in birds: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423667/. This kind of difference could evolve due to different reproduction strategies for males and females.
The reasoning I've always heard (over 15 years or so) was that girls/women exhibit autistic traits differently from boys/men, leading to a different in diagnosis rates.
18 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 58.4 ms ] threadLarry Summers just got appointed to the board of OpenAI.
Is society ready to have this conversation? Probably not.
Both of those appear to be roughly true, but the racist thing is that he's jumped to "must be because they're black", rather than the much more obvious explanations: it's poor people that loot, not black people; they just happen to coincide in America.
And there are a gazillion variables that are more likely to have affected the development of Africa than genetics. Geography, population density, isolation by the Sahara, luck.
Clearly very smart. Still racist.
This always seems to be the defence despite is not being true. Poor white people evacuated and helped who they could. Poor black people waited to be helped, looted, murdered, and played victims.
It’s amazing that facts are now racist. We can’t identify a problem and try fix it. We just stand back and say “no that’s racist”.
For example it's well known that black people are less likely to trust the authorities for very good reason.
It's not racist to state the facts; it's racist to jump from the facts to "must be black genetics" with no evidence.
[0] https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/16/hurricane-ka...
On race, more than race itself the issue lies on lacking proper food and resources and parents or neighbours having a role to be reflected.
Tulsa used to it fine in the US with succeding, educated Black people, but you know what happened.
Don't open that can of worms, because it can backslash lots of smartasses.
AFAIK the greatest genetic variability is within sub-Saharan Africa, the most likely variations will be within groups there. Comparing white to black Americans seems a waste of time at best, and looking for a desired result at worst.
Opponents of such studies are seem to make the racist assumption that the only difference that might be found is that white people are superior. Surely the opposite is just as likely (maybe even more so as black Africans have fewer non-homo sapiens genes).
I is also pretty certain that any difference (between races or sexes) would not be swamped by individual variation. The only noticeable difference would be in the far tails of the distributions.
It's amazing how long racist nonsense can sustain itself in a culture once it gets started.
I still think it sounds highly plausible, since I didn't hear of any studies that would disprove it (links are appreciated).
If true it would constitute a benign at least partial explanation for men/women imbalance in some professions.
Its also likely to be a direct reflection, back then, of the expectations of that era.
The social construct is such an abstract nonexistent idea that many think is the way it should be, but it that just because we have the ability to reason etc...
Look at where we are holistically, are we really better off today if you look at every comparable data point across time?
- Wikipedia cites the study that showed this effect for the brain size (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8675415/)
- IQ is known to be mostly genetic (see e.g. Pinker's "Blank Slate"), so it's unlikely (though not impossible) that the differences in IQ stddev are cultural
- Wikipedia cites another study that found similar effect in birds: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423667/. This kind of difference could evolve due to different reproduction strategies for males and females.