Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Africans on average are more likely to have darker skin than Europeans on average.

Africans on average are less likely to have an education than Europeans on average.

But the claim you made is that African's -by nature- have lower IQs than European people. More specifically, you are saying -white people- are by nature smarter than blacks. You didn't say that Africa has poorer education. You're saying black people are stupid. There are many issues and errors with "race realism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Because of IQ, and education. It takes a certain degree of intelligence and education to understand capitalism, and to be successful in a capitalist system. Africans are not as intelligent as Europeans, on average. They are also far less educated on average. This does not mean "every African" and "every European." There are some extraordinarily smart Africans, and some extraordinarily dumb Europeans. Which is why judging an individual before you get to know him is often a futile pursuit, and why racism is a futile pursuit. That being said, intelligence and education play a large factor. Many Africans simply are unable to grasp concepts like capitalism and why it is what Africa needs to be successful.

This is "race realism," yes? (Or as Wiki has it, "scientific racism.")

I'm not the person to go into IQ studies, lacking both the expertise and knowledge to discuss them fairly; if I recall correctly, Stephen Jay Gould didn't put much stock into this sort of thing, and thus far in my life, that's good enough for me.

While I'd agree that many people in the world have not been educated well on this subject, or many others, I reject utterly the notion that Africans (of their nature) are unable to grasp concepts like Capitalism.

3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Korea and Japan didn't need that book to see plainly that capitalist countries do better than tribalist ones. They went from war-ravaged countries in the 1950's to global economic powerhouses.

Russia went from a communist country in just a quarter century, to being a country with "the world's 15th highest patent application rate, the 8th highest concentration of high-tech public companies, such as internet and aerospace and the third highest graduation rate of scientists and engineers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia

Meanwhile Africa is still a hellhole. The answer lies in the intelligence and education of the population.

You're making a ton of claims, and a serious undertaking of any of them would probably be its own thread. I don't want to get bogged down in the economic histories of Japan or Russia, for instance (though if we were to consider them, I guess we would have to wonder, if capitalism is plainly superior to alternatives, why Japan persisted in its "tribalist" ways until being forced to change... and why Russia kept its serfs for so long, and then instituted Bolshevism; these particular histories seem to account to far more than some simple notion of racial IQ).

Though I alluded to it earlier, I'd again like to mention Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel as being a very well-researched and intelligent presentation as to why Africa (and elsewhere) had generally different rates of development as against Europe. We don't need to resort to dividing people up by race to explain the current problems in Africa -- and problems in understanding and implementing Capitalism are thus far ubiquitous.

But just so we're clear -- and not to use this as a weapon, or to shut down anyone's arguments, just as a matter of identification -- you realize that you're advocating for racism, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

Though I alluded to it earlier, I'd again like to mention Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel

An excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

Quote

Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures (for example, by facilitating commerce and trade between different cultures) and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.

I haven't read the book. Does he take into consideration the influence of volition? I'm guessing he doesn't from the above synopsis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Let's not pretend like intelligence alone determines the success of an individual, let alone an entire race.

When did I make the claim that intelligence *alone* determines the success of an individual? It plays a large factor, but is by no means the only one. Please present me with some evidence before you make the claim that Africa suffers from higher levels of natural disasters, or that it lacks natural resources, though. That is something you'd need to verify. Europeans colonized Africa in part due to its vast mineral wealth and fertile soil for growing crops.

4 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

So, the IQ scores of caucasian is correlated to their support for free-markets?

I don't believe such a study has ever been concluded. The average IQ score of caucasian countries is higher than black countries. White countries on average excel at measures such as GDP per capita, PPP per capita, educational attainment, patent applications, and other such metrics that we could use to measure economic success. You're free to draw your own conclusions.

 

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I answer people by quote, I think I'll make some basic statements.

People are different. Individuals are different. Groups of people are different from other groups of people. Acknowledging that difference is part of acknowledging reality. It doesn't mean that we have to throw around labels at individuals whom it doesn't fit. That is the definition of prejudice... labeling an individual based solely on what group he comes from, or is perceived to come from.

I've been labeled as a "race realist" by a few people here tonight. I've had certain arguments implied that I made based on this label--when I never actually made them.

Hopefully the irony is not lost on the people who label me, and then proceed to argue with a prejudiced version of what views I must therefore have as a "race realist."

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But the claim you made is that African's -by nature- have lower IQs than European people.

IQ wasn't the only thing I mentioned. I also mentioned education. I also said no such thing as "lower IQs by nature." Environmental factors like lower nutrition and a lack of an education system no doubt play a role in Africa's lagging IQ scores. However, to say that the difference between IQs of Europe and Africa is 100% environmental and 0% genetic is quite an extraordinary claim to make. The same would be true of a claim about the difference in intelligence between whites and blacks in the United States, where there is also a pro-white variance in average IQ scores... even when corrected for environmental factors like income, education, location, etc.

First, everyone reading should ask themselves... Is intelligence heritable? Do smart people tend to produce smart children, and vice versa for people who aren't as smart? If that is the case for families, why couldn't it also be the case for ethnic groups... much bigger "families"? If your answer is "because that would have terrible implications for my belief system" then you aren't using reason, you're using your feelings. Reality is the same either way.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You're saying black people are stupid.

Again, I'm saying no such thing. Please pay attention to my words and not what you want to hear. I choose my words very carefully, particularly around here. I said that on average, African nations have a lower IQ score than European nations. I never said that every black person is stupid, or even that black people are stupid in general. I wouldn't define low-IQ people as "stupid" anyway. There is more to knowledge than IQ... I mentioned education as well specifically for this reason. Nevertheless IQ is a great predictive variable in determining intelligence.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

There are many issues and errors with "race realism".

None of which you've addressed here. Since I'm being accused on all fronts with this notion that I'm a "race realist," let me address it myself.

Knowing an individual's race tells you nothing about that individual other than his skin color. It does not tell you how smart he will be, how fast he can run, or whether he's a socialist or capitalist. For this reason race realism is bankrupt when it comes to individuals.

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Stephen Jay Gould didn't put much stock into this sort of thing, and thus far in my life, that's good enough for me.

Relying on one individual rather than the hundreds of published studies on the matter is quite the folly.

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I reject utterly the notion that Africans (of their nature) are unable to grasp concepts like Capitalism.

Whether it's "of their nature" or not is not the claim that I made. Also whether by nature or environment, it's irrelevant... what is relevant is simply that they do not grasp capitalism, at least not well enough to implement even the crudest of mixed economies like many western countries and Russia have. How else do you explain a map like this. They don't understand how to make their countries better, or they would have by now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Africa should be at least as developed as Russia for goodness' sake. I often hear Russia talked about on O.O. like they're the boogeyman of the world. Nevertheless 26 years after communism they're doing quite well for themselves. Meanwhile 50 years after colonialism and most African countries are failed states that you'd never want to live in.

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Though I alluded to it earlier, I'd again like to mention Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel as being a very well-researched and intelligent presentation as to why Africa (and elsewhere) had generally different rates of development as against Europe.

I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel and own the book... I found its explanations woefully inadequate. It failed to address the elephant in the room... the reasoning faculties nor the intellectual capacity of the people living in the nations in question. It also failed to address philosophy's impact on the culture, as in the case of the Dark Ages vs. the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Any history book that leaves out these two crucial periods in its telling of the history of the world is no history book worth reading.

In fact, I have the book right in front of me, open to the index. No "enlightenment," instead there's a big gaping hole between "English language, geographic history of" and "ENSO." No "Renaissance," instead there's a big gaping hole between "religion" and "resource supply."

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

you realize that you're advocating for racism, right?

I am advocating for no such thing. Racism as a belief system treats individuals differently based on their race. No argument that I have made thus far is applicable to any individual based on his skin color. I am discussing group averages, groups of people, not individuals. If you told me that person A is black, and person B is white, you have told me nothing about their intelligence as individuals, nor any other aspect about them as individuals aside from their skin color.

3 hours ago, 2046 said:

Just another racial collectivist peddling "race realism" and "muh average IQs" ...Sad!

Whining and labeling won't change reality.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I haven't read the book. Does he take into consideration the influence of volition? I'm guessing he doesn't from the above synopsis.

Not only does he not mention volition, he doesn't mention philosophy either. Not a single reference to the Enlightenment or the Renaissance is to be found in the book. See above, where I paged through the index in vain to find them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

When did I make the claim that intelligence *alone* determines the success of an individual?

You don't discuss individuals much. But what did you mean when you said that while Japan, Korea, and Russia have turned to capitalism and prospered,

Quote

Meanwhile Africa is still a hellhole. The answer lies in the intelligence and education of the population.

Are you suggesting that if only Africans were more intelligent and educated then they would embrace capitalism and prosper? What if all black people had the brain of a white person, would Africa be a capitalist utopia?

If there is more to it, then what other factors are involved? All I really see you saying is that intelligence causes economic success. Because I don't understand how education could be a primary factor, since most educated nations reject capitalism and spend much effort trying to socialize or nationalize entire industries.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

You don't discuss individuals much.

Actually I do... you should see some of my other posts on O.O. Since this post is about "it's okay to be white," though, then obviously I am going to spend most of my time bolstering the case that it is, in fact, okay to be white. That necessitates talking about race, which is by definition a group characteristic. There is no "race" of one.

29 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Are you suggesting that if only Africans were more intelligent and educated then they would embrace capitalism and prosper?

That's what Russia, South Korea, and Japan have done, so... yes.

29 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

What if all black people had the brain of a white person, would Africa be a capitalist utopia?

It depends on which white person. If they had the brain of Bernie Sanders, then no. If they had the brain of Thomas Sowell, then yes.

Wait, Thomas Sowell is a black man... yet I'm listing him as an example of an intelligent, capitalist-minded person. Guess I'm not as racist as some of you thought.

29 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

If there is more to it, then what other factors are involved?

Reason, and a reasoning process which leads to the right conclusions. Since there is no Reason Quotient (RQ), I am relying on other factors to come to the conclusion that African nations are not organized on reasoned principles.

Here is another troubling variable for you... patent applications to the US Patent Office by country.

It's not adjusted per capita, unfortunately, but it's worth noting that Nigeria, with 150 million people, sports all of 36 patent applications, while tiny New Zealand (population 5 million) sports 4960 patents.

Would you agree that inventiveness is a result of a reasoning mind? If so, how do you explain Nigeria's tiny, tiny number of patents relative to their population size?

29 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

since most educated nations reject capitalism and spend much effort trying to socialize or nationalize entire industries.

You are correct that most educated nations, including the United States, are mixed economies. However, mixed economies that incorporate partially capitalist, partially socialist elements tend to succeed better than ones that that have no elements of capitalism at all. Would you agree that GDP per capita is a good way of measuring how capitalist a country is? I would say so, because it measures how wealthy individuals are, and capitalism is the only system capable of creating wealth on any appreciable scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

You'll notice that, almost without fail, every African country is in the bottom half of that list, while every European country is in the top half of that list.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I haven't read the book. Does he take into consideration the influence of volition? I'm guessing he doesn't from the above synopsis.

Diamond's project is to look for trends in explaining large events in world history, much of it ancient or absent written record. I'm sure he doesn't discount volition on a personal, individual level (and in fact I seem to remember him saying so explicitly in one of his books, and acknowledging its power to shape history) -- but most of what he's trying to account for in Guns, Germs and Steel (as well as Collapse, which I also recommend) does not seem directly accountable to individual decision making (insofar as we have any means of determining individual actors and their decisions). For instance, looking at the specific kinds of large animals available to the populations of Australia versus South America versus Europe (pre-contact), and how that generally affected diet, disease, agriculture, technology, and etc.

57 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

People are different. Individuals are different. Groups of people are different from other groups of people. Acknowledging that difference is part of acknowledging reality. It doesn't mean that we have to throw around labels at individuals whom it doesn't fit. That is the definition of prejudice... labeling an individual based solely on what group he comes from, or is perceived to come from.

I've been labeled as a "race realist" by a few people here tonight. I've had certain arguments implied that I made based on this label--when I never actually made them.

Hopefully the irony is not lost on the people who label me, and then proceed to argue with a prejudiced version of what views I must therefore have as a "race realist."

People are not "prejudging" you as anything. We are looking at your statements and making judgements as to what you believe, based on what you say. That's the opposite of prejudice.

And it's true that we might have you wrong -- judgements can be mistaken -- though based on what you've said thus far, I continue to believe that "race realist" fits.

57 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Knowing an individual's race tells you nothing about that individual other than his skin color. It does not tell you how smart he will be, how fast he can run, or whether he's a socialist or capitalist. For this reason race realism is bankrupt when it comes to individuals.

You're qualifying the idea that "race realism is bankrupt." This is because you think that race realism is valid in some other context, yes?

I mean, your point is that Africa lags behind other areas in the world because its (black) population is by nature (i.e. genetically) intellectually inferior. I know you're saying that there are other factors at play, including diet and education, and that's fine (it's fairly uncontroversial that diet and education in Africa is poor compared to Europe and most of the rest of the world), but let's not shy away from the other thing you're saying, which is that you believe that the white race is intellectually superior to the black race. Right?

If I really have your meaning wrong, this is the place to correct me. But let's not dither about individuals, or whatever, or leave it as some sort of fill-in-the-blank Socratic exchange, just please say what you believe in a straightforward manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

That necessitates talking about race, which is by definition a group characteristic. There is no "race" of one.

It took awhile, but I think we've finally arrived at our fundamental metaphysical disagreement regarding race. Race is not a group characteristic. The group, or collective, does not actually exist as a physical concrete. Thus it can have no physical characteristics, like skin color. Perhaps you define race as a social construct? In which case we absolutely disagree at the deepest level.

Race, like all physical characteristics, is an aspect of the individual human entity. It is identified in relation to a human of a different race. Put one white person next to one black person, and you can differentiate two races without having more than one example of each. No groups whatsoever. Of course, as our understanding of race becomes more sophisticated, we might have to look at one's genetic makeup in addition to superficial features. But still we only need the two different individuals to define separate races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I don't believe such a study has ever been concluded. 

So you do not even know if IQ is correlated with  love of free-markets within a more controlled group of all Caucasians, but you want to make conclusions across groups that are confounded by a host of so many other factors. Not very scientific.

What about your second claim about education level? Are you saying that among Caucasians, the highly educated are more likely to be for free-markets. Are they the ones criticizing Hillary for her left-wing politics?

 

PS: Your HandyHandle is showing :)

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

It took awhile, but I think we've finally arrived at our fundamental metaphysical disagreement regarding race. Race is not a group characteristic. The group, or collective, does not actually exist as a physical concrete. Thus it can have no physical characteristics, like skin color. Perhaps you define race as a social construct? In which case we absolutely disagree at the deepest level.

Race, like all physical characteristics, is an aspect of the individual human entity. It is identified in relation to a human of a different race. Put one white person next to one black person, and you can differentiate two races without having more than one example of each. No groups whatsoever. Of course, as our understanding of race becomes more sophisticated, we might have to look at one's genetic makeup in addition to superficial features. But still we only need the two different individuals to define separate races.

 I think this could be corrected by being more careful.

Physical concretes are all that exist.  Grouping concretes together based on perceived similarities is an epistemological operation.  Some epistemological operations are better than others, better in the sense of justified by corresponding to reality.

Be careful about insisting that a group or collective does not exist as a physical concrete.  Be careful specifically about an erroneous inference that "a group or collective does not exist at all", because that simply denies the entire field of epistemology which is based on concepts.  "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition."

If you were some alien or artificial intelligence that did not have the concept of race, then putting one white person next to one black person would not give you that concept.    The concept of race requires two members, and additionally some theory of how they are causally related which for race is some version of heritability but heritability requires several individuals to engage in reproduction before the referents of the concept of heritability can be perceived.

A concept of race is formed by a mental integration of two or more people which differ from a number of other people by the heritable physiological and behavioral traits they hold in common.  A properly formed concept of race is empirical and evidence based.  Race is a group characteristic by necessity, almost by definition, because it is an epistemological abstraction known as a concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grames said:

A concept of race is formed by a mental integration of two or more people which differ from a number of other people by the heritable physiological and behavioral traits they hold in common.  A properly formed concept of race is empirical and evidence based.  Race is a group characteristic by necessity, almost by definition, because it is an epistemological abstraction known as a concept.

I wrote my last reply while tired last night. It could have been more precisely worded to help retain the context throughout. Still, your description of concept-formation is off, and I'll explain a bit here. Really, though, you should read ITOE chapter 3. In the paragraphs about conceptual subdivision, Rand explicitly mentions race as a conceptual subdivision of the concept "man."

 

Race is an abstraction from an abstraction. While it's true that you need at least two men to form the concept "man," it's also true that you only need two men to form a conceptual subdivision. Actually, you merely need to think of two men in order to do it. Then you can apply the new conceptual subdivision to any new man you see who fits the concept. The new subdivision could be any difference you notice between two examples of "man." It could be left vs. right-handedness, dark vs. light-hairedness, or white vs. black-skinnedness. 

 

These finer points of Objectivist epistemology have been thoroughly debated in the epistemology forum. I know I've gotten into them a few times over there. If you want to continue with this line, let's create a thread over there for this distraction. I had hoped that this thread would focus on Nazis indoctrinating conservatives, and so I'm going to stop responding to purely epistemological issues here, unless someone posts something absolutely revolutionary. 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Would you agree that inventiveness is a result of a reasoning mind? If so, how do you explain Nigeria's tiny, tiny number of patents relative to their population size?

It's a result of an abstracting mind. The moment you form an abstraction, you have become an inventor of mental things. And depending on how well your brain can conceptualize, you might become an inventor of physical things, such as finger-drawings in the sand. And then, if you can reason, you might invent drawing tools, to create more complex drawings. Inventiveness, in its broadest conception, begins before reasoning, at the basic levels of consciousness. In humans, it happens during the process of forming one's first idea. In lower animals, it happens during the process of forming one's first percept.

 

If you want to debate further where inventiveness comes from, let's take it to the epistemology forum. As I told Grames, I'm done discussing such tangential issues in this thread.

 

Regarding Nigeria and patents, I've already answered that point. The Enlightenment took place in Europe, not Africa. And, no, I'm not going to redo the entire debate found in prior posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If I really have your meaning wrong, this is the place to correct me. But let's not dither about individuals, or whatever, or leave it as some sort of fill-in-the-blank Socratic exchange, just please say what you believe in a straightforward manner.

Alright, here goes. I will bold my main premises.

It is valid to categorize groups of men based on certain traits that distinguish all members of one group from all members of another group. We do this all the time in philosophy, calling groups "socialists" or "capitalists," and "parasites" or "producers." We also do this based on physical traits. Men who are categorized as "obese" are all, every one of them, heavier than people who are "thin." That is a valid concept based on different traits that all men in each group share with each other.

It is valid to make generalized statements about each group, based on averages, that goes beyond the term that we use to define the group in the first place. In the case of obese vs. thin, the only thing that all members of each group share in common is a difference of body size. But on average, they also share certain other traits. Obese men have higher incidents of heart disease and cancer than thin men. Does this mean that every obese man will develop heart disease? No. Does it mean that thin men can never develop heart disease? No. But as an objective fact of reality, it is correct to say that obese men have a higher than average level of obesity. Philosophically, it is valid to make a statement such as "obese men are more likely to develop heart disease than thin men" because everything in that statement is a valid concept. Scientifically as well, the statement checks out.

Just as with obese men and thin men, it is correct to categorize men into different racial groups based on skin color... that is at least one trait that each group has. If you are black, then you have dark skin. If you are white, then you have light skin. You can call this trait "race" or "ethnicity" or "skin color," whatever floats your boat. I will call them "racial groups" for the sake of this discussion.

We can justify going further than skin color by assigning different traits on average to men in each racial group, just as we went further with obese men and heart disease. We can make statements like, "black men are more likely to develop sickle cell anemia than white men" or "black men are more likely to have curly hair than white men." Both of these statements are documented, scientific facts of reality. They are based on genetic traits that are correlated positively with skin color. Not every black man has curly hair, some white men have sickle cell anemia... but comparing group averages is just as valid with race as it is with body size. To say that "it is invalid to categorize men based on certain traits and draw conclusions about the group based on things that are correlated with those traits" is to ignore a scientifically documented fact of reality.

Now to the meat of the issue, intelligence.

IQ is positively correlated with intelligence, and is at least somewhat heritable. Is IQ an exact variable that measures intelligence precisely? No. However, it goes a long way towards predicting intellectual success. As to the heritability of IQ, Wikipedia says here: "The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults." Curly hair and sickle cell anemia are also heritable traits. They are genetic. You get them from your parents... and some groups inherit them more than other groups.

Different racial groups inherit different traits on average. Just as black men are more likely to have sickle cell anemia than white men, they are also more likely to have lower IQs than white men. Both traits are heritable to some extent. While sickle cell anemia is 100% heritable, IQ is heritable to some extent between 30-70% according to the APA study that I cited above. Also, without even using a study, we can deduce that intelligence is hertiable to some extent. Smart families produce smart children on average. If it is valid to say this for certain families, then it is valid to say this about larger groups that are interrelated based on factors such as geographic proximity.

Black men have a lower IQ score than white men on average. This difference has been documented both within countries, and between countries. Blacks on average score 11-16 points lower in IQ than whites in the United States (within a country). African, majority black countries have a lower IQ on average than European, majority white countries (between countries).

Black men have lower intellectual achievement than white men, on average. This is shown in other variables besides IQ scores. It would be foolish to rely on just one variable when discussing intelligence. Again, IQ does not explain 100% of the intellectual variation between individuals. However, looking at things like secondary educational attainment and patent applications, both things which require intelligence, African countries lag far, far behind European countries. The same is true within the United States. The high school dropout rate for black youth is 40% higher than for white youth.

At least some of this difference is heritable. IQ is heritable and intelligence is heritable to a certain extent. Certain races are more likely to inherit certain traits than other races. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that some of the difference between blacks and whites in intellectual capacity and achievement is due to heritable factors. To argue otherwise would be to assert that 100% of the difference between black and white intelligence is due to environmental factors alone. That is quite a fantastic claim to make, especially since these differences persist both across international borders (Africa vs. Europe), and within them (the USA).

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation is not causation.

Imagine that if you could control for factors like income, wealth, parent's education level, parent's IQ, and so on. Then, maybe you could try to figure out the correlation between ethnicity and IQ. Some twin studies try doing exactly this, but there are really no great studies. The jury is still out.

But, even that is not the important thing to know. More important is this: if you controlled for everything else, and found that ethnicity and IQ had (say) an 80% correlation, and if you could see that this was a causal relationship, it still would not be an important or useful finding except for very edge-type use-cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Correlation is not causation.

When did I ever say "being black causes a person to have a lower IQ?" That is not my assertion, and I never made a causal claim.  I'm saying that the two things are correlated. Would you agree with that statement?

What the ultimate cause of the correlation is, is unknown. Perhaps, for instance, Africa has a lot of heavy metals in its topsoil such as lead and mercury that hinder mental development. And Africa also happens to be sunny, so people have developed darker skin to shield their bodies from ultraviolet rays. The cause of the continent's geography would be behind both things. But it would still be correct to say that people with dark skin, on average, have lower IQs.

Even saying that, though, appears to be too big a fish for people to swallow. If we are truly being objective here, shouldn't we look at the evidence? There is quite a bit of evidence which I have presented which indicates that blacks and whites have different levels of average intelligence. I have yet to see any evidence presented here to the contrary.

Quote

Imagine that if you could control for factors like income, wealth, parent's education level, parent's IQ, and so on. Then, maybe you could try to figure out the correlation between ethnicity and IQ.

It's been done before. The difference persists even when controlling for all of the things that you mentioned... while the difference does decrease, it does not go away. Then the tests themselves are derided as being
"racist" or "culturally biased," despite the fact that IQ tests do not test for cultural knowledge, they test for abstract skills. Such as, being able to rotate a 2D shape around in your mind. Or the ability to correctly recognize patterns.

Quote

Some twin studies try doing exactly this, but there are really no great studies. The jury is still out.

You can't do a twin study on race and IQ. Twins by definition have the same race if they're from the same two parents. You can only compare race and IQ by comparing different races.

Quote

But, even that is not the important thing to know. More important is this: if you controlled for everything else, and found that ethnicity and IQ had (say) an 80% correlation, and if you could see that this was a causal relationship, it still would not be an important or useful finding except for very edge-type use-cases.

Sure it would be a useful finding.

It would end the notion that the only reason why blacks haven't succeeded in the United States as well as whites have is because of "white privilege" or "institutionalized racism." Instead, we could actually look at each group and determine their characteristics, instead of just blindly blaming white people.

It's okay to be white. It's okay to be black. But the two groups are different from each other in other ways besides just skin color.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

You can't do a twin study on race and IQ. Twins by definition have the same race if they're from the same two parents. You can only compare race and IQ by comparing different races.

You should get some papers that explain how various variants of twin-studies are designed.

 

5 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

It would end the notion that the only reason why blacks haven't succeeded in the United States as well as whites have is because of "white privilege" or "institutionalized racism." Instead, we could actually look at each group and determine their characteristics, instead of just blindly blaming white people.

No, it would not. It may give some rationalizers fodder, but they hardly need it. You should read up on correlation coefficients and what they can and cannot tell you, even when they indicate causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Even saying that, though, appears to be too big a fish for people to swallow. If we are truly being objective here, shouldn't we look at the evidence?

Are you primarily concerned with evidence of corelation, or evidence of causal efficacy? To reiterate:

2 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Correlation is not causation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Are you primarily concerned with evidence of corelation, or evidence of causal efficacy? To reiterate:

Most studies will try to control for all known factors and only vary one factor -- "race" in this case. The idea is that if there is still correlation, it is an indication of causation. The problem is that correlation does not indicate the strength of causation, even if the correlation is actually because of underlying causation. In other words, a strong correlation -- way above 50% (say 80%) -- does not indicate a strong causation, even if that entire 80% correlation is caused by the one factor one is measuring. 

There's also a deeper irony: let's say enough people are sold on the idea that "blacks" have an inborn and inherited inability to succeed as well as other "races". Forget true or false; let's say enough people are convinced of this. What would be the result in a fundamentally altruistic society that tries to redistribute money to make up for inborn disabilities? What would be the result if enough "black" people also became convinced that they're born with less ability to succeed. One would end up proving that white privilege is more than real: that it is going to endure and that there's nothing anyone can do to change it! Won't that be tragically ironic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Causation

How is it that people end up arguing in unison against something that I never said, or a belief that I never espoused? Is there some secret strawman playbook that you're all reading from? :huh: Yesterday I was accused of arguing for race realism; today I'm accused of arguing for racial causation of intelligence. I suppose that I'll get accused of supporting eugenics next. People really need to start reading my posts not for the argument that they hope that I'm making because it's easier to attack, but for the actual position that I am defending.

41 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

You should get some papers that explain how various variants of twin-studies are designed.

If you're trying to determine: which breed of dog is faster on average, a chihuahua or a greyhound, you don't take two greyhounds and compare them to each other. You take a group of greyhounds and a group of chihuahuas and race them on a track, then you compare the results between the two groups and correct for confounding variables. Maybe the track was colder on the day that the greyhounds raced. Maybe the chihuahuas were fed different dog food. But scientists can design studies to correct for confounding variables. That's how IQ studies are designed. They compare across variables.

Also, dogs are the same species yet they can have vastly different levels of speed, size, intelligence, etc. depending on their breed.
Same thing with cats, horses, elephants, and many other animal species. Why is the same thing not true of human beings? It would be a form of special pleading to argue that we are different from all other animals when it comes to variation within our species, which all other species have, that we don't have. It would also be special pleading to say that, okay, maybe those differences do exist with respect to certain heritable traits (incidence of lactose intolerance among Asians, or sickle cell anemia among blacks) but not other heritable traits (intelligence). Especially in the face of overwhelming evidence such as high school dropout rates, educational attainment, IQ scores, and number of patents per capita. Every indicator but the kitchen sink. Are you telling me that they're all 100% environmental?

40 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Are you primarily concerned with evidence of corelation, or evidence of causal efficacy?

As I said, nothing I have posted is about causal efficacy. I do not know the cause of lowered IQ among black people, but it's not their skin color and I never said that it was. The cause of darker skin color is the sun and genetic adaptation in response to the sun. The cause of lowered average IQ is unknown and requires further research.

However, we can still say that the two are correlated. A correlation is all that we need to defeat the notion that black people haven't succeeded in America as well as whites because of some evil racist plot to keep them down. They haven't succeeded because they are less intelligent on average. I am still waiting for somebody to present me evidence that, in fact, black people on average are just as capable as whites are intellectually.

41 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

No, it would not. It may give some rationalizers fodder, but they hardly need it.

But as you claim, they do need it because no correlation can be shown to exist.

You say that derisively. Do you believe that it is improper to blame a man for his own failures? That it is improper to blame a group of men for their own failures? That is what Objectivism is all about, personal responsibility. There is no room in Objectivism for white guilt--or white pride. There is merely room to say that it's okay to be white, because there is nothing "wrong" with being a member of any race.

21 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

One would end up proving that white privilege is more than real: that it is going to endure and that there's nothing anyone can do to change it! Won't that be tragically ironic?

It indeed would be ironic, but that wouldn't change reality. Lots of things are ironic and also true.

It's ironic that transgenderism is increasingly a thing in an age where gender roles matter less and less and we would expect more people to be happy with whatever gender they are.

It's ironic that the death penalty is being abolished in many countries around the world just as DNA evidence is coming about that makes a guilty conviction more of a sure thing than it was when we hung men left and right without any such evidence.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Won't that be tragically ironic?

The direct confrontation of evasion necessarily contains an element of elusiveness in it, else why call it 'evasion'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, softwareNerd said:

Maybe you should read your own posts.

I never said "black skin causes a lower IQ" or anything even remotely similar. I'd challenge you to find a quote of mine where I said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×