>However, that's a different claim altogether from the idea that white and black people (again, an imaginary category) have a statistically significant difference in average intellectual capacity.
1. what counts as "statistically significant difference"? A 0.01% increase can be statistically significant if your sample size is high enough.
2. Going back to a few comments ago, why do you think that differences can materialize between ethnicities, but the differences stop at the brain?
> That said, it's clearly not racial based, because you can take a look at various non-American black populations and see big differences in educational levels and cultural values.
There are big differences in educational levels and cultural views within every racial group. Is that relevant to the question of whether there are significant mean differences between racial groups on the population level?
> But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument.
Why do you believe that genetic differences suddenly stop at the brain stem?
Most people who accept that genetic differences between subpopulations exist, also acknowledge that south-east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are on average more skilled in STEM fields than "white" people. So much for white supremacy.
> I intentionally chose programming as an example because it's an intellectual pursuit. Yes, people of different ethnicities can have different physical characteristics; that much is observable. But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument. Ie, the idea that white people are inherently smarter than black people. It's their justification for racial dominance.
How are intellectual pursuits different from sports pursuits, especially when it's one specific intellectual pursuit? And again, you make the jump from "white people are better at programming than black people" to "white people are more intelligent than black people".
> That is true, but it leads to statical variance across the board. If, for a large enough sample and controlled for mutable factors, white people are more successful at programming than black people, that is an essential trait. Given that we agree that race isn't an objective reality, race can't have essential traits, and thus statistically significant, categorical differences between outcomes must be caused by mutable characteristics like experience, education etc.
No, I think we disagree here. Race isn't an objective reality, but people still can have immutable differences between groups. For example, people with darker skin tend to lack vitamin D more easily in certain latitudes. This is an immutable difference with people with lighter skin. But that difference is a spectrum, and given a specific individual, you can't always put him in a "light skin" or "dark skin" group. What I reject with the idea of race is that everyone belongs to a specific race, and that you can draw clear lines between them. I don't reject the idea of immutable differences between people. I'm personally colorblind. I can't do anything about it. This makes my vision of color strictly worse than most people. But that's one characteristic. I also have brown eyes, which means I'm a bit less sensitive to the Sun than people with green and blue eyes. I belong to the "colorblind" and the "brown eyes" categories of human. But there's no "race" for that. White people have brown eyes and are colorblind. Black people too. But not all of them.
> How does a racial group be better at one field, categorically, unless either a) there are social differences like culture or access to education or b) there are essential, immutable differences between them? The important factor in racist reasoning is the idea that black people are less intelligent than white people. It's not true, but it's used to justify relegating them to a lower class.
Again, I don't understand why you're defending the idea that if there are immutable differences between people, one group must dominate the other. It's possible to accept that one group is better at something than the other without thinking that this group should dominate the other. And one field is not everything. I don't know many popular black programmers, and I don't know many popular white rappers. Who is the more intelligent here? Who should dominate who here? No one.
> We want this society now, except that differences in intelligence are not caused by race. So it's reasonable to investigate circumstances where outcomes are significantly different in order to understand what mutable systems and institutions could be changed to even the playing field so that capable black and white people can both succeed on merit.
I don't think we know for sure the origins of differences in intelligence between people. For example, IQ is highly inheritable, but malnutrition also reduces it a lot. That would mean that even if IQ was perfectly distributed in society between classes (which I don't think it is), the lower classes would slowly have a lower IQ because of malnutrition unless there's some sort of "safety net" against malnutrition. IQ isn't a perfect proxy for intelligence, far from it, but it's a start.
> Secondly, if you accept physical differences exist but refuse to accept mental difference exist.
If you're arguing about mental abilities, you should site studies about mental abilities. Yes, the mind is physical, but it's much more malleable than the musculo-skeletal system, so analogies break down quickly.
> There are barely any white players in the NBA, is that the result of racism or more due to biological factors?
Likely a combination of both biological and social factors.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're right. I'm saying your arguments need improvement.
> I don't agree with that. Black people are heavily overrepresented in sports in the USA. I personally believe that this is partially due to some physical differences that makes them better at sports, and that even if the cultures were exactly the same, they would still be overrepresented (relative to their proportion in the total population).
I intentionally chose programming as an example because it's an intellectual pursuit. Yes, people of different ethnicities can have different physical characteristics; that much is observable. But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument. Ie, the idea that white people are inherently smarter than black people. It's their justification for racial dominance.
> As soon as something involves skill, people will have different levels of success at it.
That is true, but it leads to statical variance across the board. If, for a large enough sample and controlled for mutable factors, white people are more successful at programming than black people, that is an essential trait. Given that we agree that race isn't an objective reality, race can't have essential traits, and thus statistically significant, categorical differences between outcomes must be caused by mutable characteristics like experience, education etc.
> No, this is not. You are making a jump between "a racial group is better at one field" to "a racial group is better than all the other groups", and again to "a racial group is better than all the other groups and should dominate them".
How does a racial group be better at one field, categorically, unless either a) there are social differences like culture or access to education or b) there are essential, immutable differences between them? The important factor in racist reasoning is the idea that black people are less intelligent than white people. It's not true, but it's used to justify relegating them to a lower class.
> Even if deep racial differences existed, I think we could still build a society where people are judged as individuals on what they accomplish
We want this society now, except that differences in intelligence are not caused by race. So it's reasonable to investigate circumstances where outcomes are significantly different in order to understand what mutable systems and institutions could be changed to even the playing field so that capable black and white people can both succeed on merit.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to be taking the position that white people /are/ innately more intelligent than black people but we should ignore that. My position is that they aren't, and even if they were we still shouldn't dominate others.
No, I'm not taking that position at all. My position is the same as yours I think: I don't think white people are more intelligent than black people, and even if they were, that wouldn't give white people any rights over black people.
> The issue is that in saying that, you tend to be saying that black people intrinsically have lower intelligence than white people unless you're careful to be explicit about what you mean.
That's an issue, I don't think it's the issue, not be a long shot. Try being very careful and explicit about what you mean, it's not gonna help one whit, you're already on the third rail as soon as the words black, white and intelligence come out of your mouth.
> That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts.
That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is currently any evidence whatsoever that innate differences between human races are a significant causal factor in the observed power difference, and 2. I think that in the whole of science there are few questions that are less interesting. In fact, while I have occasionally found myself pondering scientific questions that can be said to be utterly ridiculous and pointless, the thought of whether blacks are less intelligent than whites has never even crossed my mind. When a question does cross my mind, I always -- always -- ask myself why is it important to me that I should spend time pondering it, let alone writing about it. I think that in all of science, pretty much the only time uninteresting questions (i.e., those not given explicit justification for study by scientists) become interesting is when there is incontrovertible evidence for something totally surprising (even if uninteresting). I don't think that this is the case with scientific racism, either.
I wonder why it is that this question is so important to you, that you'd rather spend your time writing about it, than say, how cats purr or why we yawn.
> You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share.
I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to believe whites are innately more intelligent than blacks and not be a white supremacist (at least not without some clearly spelled out motivation), or to believe that differences in traits such as intelligence between races are either supported by science or should be studied by science without being a scientific racist, sorry. I sort-of understand your desire to both have a billion dollars and yet not be considered a billionaire, but I'm just not sure how this can be done.
You may claims that scientific racism is an interesting and valid scientific discipline or that your motivations are pure etc., but you cannot argue that you are not a scientific racist if those are your views.
Also, I did not define scientific racism as having specific motivations. I restated the well accepted -- and, AFAIK, the only definition of scientific racism, as the belief that some races are innately superior or inferior to others (usually in qualities that coincide with social power) and that this can and/or should be proven with science. I added, in response to your question, that it has been well established (although that is not the definition) that scientific racism is an all-too-familiar tool being used in the same ways, making the same assertions, time and again by people with similar motivations. Your personal motivations are your own business, but I wonder if you've asked yourself why you are personally so drawn to such questions, especially as most people (even those who care a lot about reality) aren't.
> There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.
I mean it's not controversial to argue that on average caucasian men are taller than asian men. I can't find a quotation for that exact fact right now but let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's a toy example anyway.
If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.
I tried to make a toy example but you get my drift - the use of a scientific fact in argument can be racist.
Even if you don't agree with my toy example (either the made up fact or the toy argument) - would you agree that IF scientific argument is found that e.g. one race has less cognitive ability than another that might be "good science" (although ethically questionalble science) - that most uses of such facts e.g in arguments would in fact still be racist? Or do you still insist that scientific facts make all arguments and actions based on them non-racist?
> How are intellectual pursuits different from sports pursuits, especially when it's one specific intellectual pursuit? And again, you make the jump from "white people are better at programming than black people" to "white people are more intelligent than black people".
Can you name a reason that two populations that only differ in racial category would differ on average in programming capability that isn't rooted in mutable things like culture, socioeconomic status etc? You're aggressively missing my point.
> Again, I don't understand why you're defending the idea that if there are immutable differences between people, one group must dominate the other.
The fuck are you talking about? Point to a single thing I said that defends racial dominance (you can't). Correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to be taking the position that white people /are/ innately more intelligent than black people but we should ignore that. My position is that they aren't, and even if they were we still shouldn't dominate others.
Every other argument you've trotted out here are essentialist about intelligence, that some races and some classes are more intelligent than others. That's a pretty reactionary position, and I don't think it's one you can be argued out of because it is axiomatic rather than empirical.
> Can you identify even one of those disproofs? I've never found any and nobody who's tried to convince me they exist has ever produced any.
Can I identify a proof that Black people can read and self govern? I mean... the modern world? Are you arguing that early race science claims haven't been disproven? Are you familiar with the early claims that race scientists made? You should look up some of them if you're not.
The vast majority of early race science claims can be disproven by your own claims. A 10-15 point IQ gap is not high enough to render someone unable to read, vote, or understand mathematics. If early race science claims were true, then we would expect to see a much larger gap than we currently see. And we don't.
So what's been happening is we've spent a large portion of American history (and pre-American history) listening to people make strong claims that Black people were biologically unable to accomplish certain tasks. Then Black people accomplished those tasks, and scientific racists moved the goalposts a bit and said, "okay, they could accomplish those tasks, but they won't be able to do these ones." And that's continued basically unabated to modern times, where the goalposts are now at, "okay, but they can't achieve equal pay/productivity, they don't have the genetics for that task."
And at no point has the race science community had the presence of mind to take a step back and think, "maybe given that all of our testable predictions have been proven wrong throughout history, we don't understand genetics as well as we think we do."
----
> B) the race/IQ link doesn't line up with our modern understanding of genetics. How is that?
See the remaining paragraphs I wrote in that comment. If you need more clarification, our modern understanding of racial categories is that they are more socially designated than genetically designated (more on that below). Our understanding of intelligence is that it is enormously complex and not likely to be controlled by a small number of genes behind, say, skin color. Increasingly, modern scientists don't even really think of genetic intelligence as being reducible to a single number anyway. Most modern geneticists have rejected a race/IQ link. There's still a lot about intelligence that the scientific community is still learning, but the people in the labs right now doing that research on intelligence do not think your theories are likely to be true.
> C) [...] There can be other differences besides IQ, and there are environmental and cultural factors [...] D) [...] E) [...]
So what's your objection to the equality movement and racial activism? It sounds like you agree there are environmental and cultural factors that suppress Black outcomes, so it should be easy to get on board with eliminating those factors. We can have a debate about genetics after we've eliminated the external non-genetic factors that you agree exist.
We've had a really long conversation at this point for you to just now let on that you think Black outcomes are in fact at least partially influenced by external factors that aren't related to innate ability (ie, systemic racism and/or inequality).
> Indians and Australian Aboriginals don't count regardless of the color of their skin.
??? I'm not sure how to respond to this. African American skin color exists for the same reason that Indian skin color exists, it's an adaptation to living close to the equator. This is a pretty weird objection. It also doesn't change anything about the fact that African American genetics are also not uniform at this point. A large percentage of the Black community is multiracial, and your "commonly used" definition of Black is primarily determined by who looks Black, regardless of the percentage of African American heritage that person actually has.
> If the idea of a correlation happening independently is too far fetched for you then another possibility is their shared lack of recent Neanderthal DNA.
Your research is once again out of date, recent studies suggest that early African Americans also had Neanderthal DNA.
And again, if your ancestry claim was true we'd expect to see very different outcomes in individuals with mixed ancestry, and... we don't see that. So I'm still waiting for an explanation for why mixed-ancestor Blacks with European ancestors have the same outcomes as everyone else in Black communities. That is not a result you would expect to see if this was genetic.
----
> Not knowing about the genes is not a reason to dismiss the possibility they exist.
Yes, it is. I don't know how else to get this across to you, so maybe an analogy will work. I'll entertain your idea once you're able to disprove to me that the the liberal/conservative divide in our current country is based on innate intelligence.
You say there are other explanations for rural/urban income gaps and college demographics that fit that data better? You say that class divides, culture, and location are obviously better explanations? I'm sorry, I'm sure those are contributing factors, but until you conclusively disprove the genetic connection, then we have to entertain the possibility, even though the evidence is spurious and it doesn't really make sense as a causal relationship in the first place. You say that even if it was true, it shouldn't derail conversations about bias or political equity or censorship? That's certainly a perspective, but maybe we should bring the theory up on every conversation about liberal bias anyway. I'm not saying it's the reason, just that it's a realistic possibility that no conservative has ever conclusively found proof against.
Do you see the problem here? It's really easy to make silly and even outright harmful claims like the above and then retreat back behind "just asking questions". That's why (particularly when we're dealing with a field like race science which has a history of being incorrect and harmful) we demand a certain standard of evidence. Like a set of genes. Or at least a correlation that can't be better explained by external stimuli.
> Should that whole theory have been rejected until genes were discovered? Should dog breeders have stopped doing their job until genes were discovered? Of course not. This idea that we can't know it exists without identifying the genes is obviously ridiculous.
But not half as ridiculous as the idea that now that we know genes exist we should ignore them. We have better standards now. This is like arguing that we don't need to identify viruses because some people in olden times washed their hands occasionally.
And to be clear, we knew that dog breeding worked because we could run experiments and see it working. We knew that evolution existed because we could make testable claims and predictions that were proven true. Both of those things are a million miles away from "I have no evidence for this, but you can't disprove it." Evolution was not running around claiming that it should get the benefit of the doubt until it was disproven. It brought real evidence and testable predictions to the table that made sense based on what we knew about the world.
> West Africans and East African are of the same race, but differ in the case of marathon outcomes. Why can’t this be true for intellect?
It can be. Among Africans Igbo show much higher levels of educational attainment than others. I’m sure there are other groups this is true of.
> Discrimination is not some leftist fantasy. Black Americans have been systematically deprived of quality environments for over 400 years. I am talking about truly horrific intellectual deprivation from making it illegal to read during slavery to living in highly polluted sections of segregated cities today.
When we talk about intellectual disparities history needs to be part of the conversation.
I agree. For example Irish IQ scores were historically lower than English and this is no longer true.
> It would be very different because it's very different to be black rather than white in America.
That's a race essentialist myth[^1]. There are no "white experiences" or "black experiences". We assign "white" and "black" labels to diverse individuals with diverse experiences who process their experiences differently. The average black person may have a different experience than the average white person, but the variance is so large (more variance within a race than between races) that this is utterly useless for talking about any individual (the "average white person" and "average black person" don't actually exist).
[^1]: I would say "a racist myth" but that's a bit overloaded these days and it carries some judgmental connotations that I don't want to imply, but it is no less racist than other racist myths.
> What specifically do you think is the reason black people should not be expected to achieve demographic parity in academic math?
I don't expect demographic parity in anything.
> And how does that relate to “blank slate-ism”?
You only expect demographic parity in everything if you think genetics doesn't play a role in what type of careers people choose.
> You seem to be implying that there is some inherent characteristic of black people that prevents them from attaining equal representation in math academia.
Well, for one, it looks like Black students choose Math as a major significantly less often than Asian students do. Blacks having some genetic predisposition to prefer other subjects seems like a pretty decent hypothesis.
> Really the data shows that discrimination is more anti-black than it is pro-white
Or it shows that there is something about the statistically average black person that makes them less successful than the statistically average asian person. I don't claim to know what the difference is, but this is a fairly obvious inference to make. I'd actually say this is, a priori, a lot more likely than "everyone coincidentally discriminates against these particular racial groups but not any of these other ones".
My suspicion (not based on any hard evidence) is that much of this difference is accounted for by the vast and obvious cultural differences between the average asian person in the US and the average black person in the US. Most Asian (South or East) immigrant cultures in the US aggressively push for educational and professional success. Black culture in the US doesn't.
> He then sprinkled it with some cherry-picked and possibly incorrect research, but is the basic premise wrong? No.
If I say "There are clear differences between the performance of black and white people on various cognitive tasks." That's a true statement. If I follow it up with "and that's due to the biological inferiority of the black race", I'm probably a racist, even though my basic premise is not wrong.
The arguments one uses to support a conclusion are as important as the premises one started with.
> Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you deal with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with preconceived notions.
I agree that you can't use race to judge individual people, but it's ridiculous to not "believe in average anything when it comes to race". Again, individuals must be judged on their own merits. But if only 20% of Hispanic students graduate college, versus 40% of white ones, you can't just automatically assume institutional racism. All human sub-populations are not equal. Check out this new book - http://the10000yearexplosion.com/
>> you are implying that, for example, black people think differently from white people for the sole reason that they are black and other people are white.
Not at all. Instead, different people coming from different backgrounds tend to have different life experiences and perspectives, which influence how they approach the world and how they solve problems. It's not inherent to their race or gender, but merely a fact of having lived different lives.
If you get a bunch of people from different backgrounds and cultures then you'll have a better pool to draw new ideas and creative thinking from. Much better than a room full of ~22yo middle-class white guys.
1. what counts as "statistically significant difference"? A 0.01% increase can be statistically significant if your sample size is high enough.
2. Going back to a few comments ago, why do you think that differences can materialize between ethnicities, but the differences stop at the brain?
reply