race differences (from McDonald's thread)

[Funkyterrance]

You're very correct in that assessment. Indeed, my original proposal comes across as somewhat non-sequitur for a reason. Not many people in this thread have discussed their motivations for joining this fracas. But I've played in these trenches. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, man. I know who holds the perspective I'm criticizing. And some of them are here. Now, I'm as sad as you are that these younger whippersnappers are maybe missing out on having some 98.5% reagent grade knowledge dropped on they asses, but I'm just a man. I have an ATP reserve comparable to that of your average black man. Or white man. Or purple man. I'm here to enjoy myself. Sometimes that involves talking science. But it's hard work. It's difficult to spend time putting an argument together to have Scotty play the race card card and scamper away. It's exhausting trying to explain to Gabon what a peer-reviewed source is, much less to get him to post one. Sometimes its more fun to feed into their paranoia that I just think everyone in the world is a racist. I won't be able to change their mind anyway. I think you know that sometimes taking the high road feels frustrating. Ineffective. Pointless. But you have to ask yourself: are you having fun? You can spend hours of your life explaining the minutiae of the work you love, and then have to stare at the ceiling before you sleep wondering whether addressing these racists legitimizes them. Whether it is really going to make a difference to them. Whether letting them know they kept you up for two minutes one night will just encourage them. I'll let you decide where you draw your line. But if you want to criticize my methods and motivations, then I'll, well, let you have cake.

Like I hinted at above, you and I are very likely in agreement on this.

If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.

[jimboston]

what constitutes IQ and whether it is an actual indicator of anything .. or whether IQ is really measuring the attribute we think is important (ability to aquire new information readily).

Is that what IQ Measures?

LOL... IQ tests measure how well an individual does on an IQ test.

Perhaps.

It certainly doesn't measure the "ability to aquire new information readily"... neither does it measure the "ability to acquire new information readily."

Intelligence is NOT the ability to acquire information.

If you re-read what I said, I said that there is a QUESTION of whether the test is measuring the attribute we think important, whether it actually truly measures the ability to aquire information readily.

Many people assume it does.

If you re-read my post, you will see I am not debating wether or not the tes is effective.

I am debating what you are saying in regards to what it is supposed to measure.
It's not supposed to measure one's ability to acquire (or as you say aquire) new information readily. It's supposed to measure intelligence... the ability to PROCESS information, to think critically and make decisions... not the ability to ACQUIRE information.

[jimboston]

ITT: AoG thinks that 76% of the NBA (or 342 of 450 players) consisting of black men means that the average black person is more athletic than the average white person.

Isn't it a well known fact that White Men Can't Jump?

I saw this in a movie once, so it must be true.

[PLAYER57832]

what constitutes IQ and whether it is an actual indicator of anything .. or whether IQ is really measuring the attribute we think is important (ability to aquire new information readily).

Is that what IQ Measures?

LOL... IQ tests measure how well an individual does on an IQ test.

Perhaps.

It certainly doesn't measure the "ability to aquire new information readily"... neither does it measure the "ability to acquire new information readily."

Intelligence is NOT the ability to acquire information.

If you re-read what I said, I said that there is a QUESTION of whether the test is measuring the attribute we think important, whether it actually truly measures the ability to aquire information readily.

Many people assume it does.

If you re-read my post, you will see I am not debating wether or not the tes is effective.

I am debating what you are saying in regards to what it is supposed to measure.
It's not supposed to measure one's ability to acquire (or as you say aquire) new information readily. It's supposed to measure intelligence... the ability to PROCESS information, to think critically and make decisions... not the ability to ACQUIRE information.

Its supposed to measure both, but it does better at assessing one's ability to acquire information.

[PLAYER57832]

You guys are right, the ONLY thing I based my opinion on is the percent of black basketball players in the NBA.

>mfw
>mfw I have no face

But you are still wrong.. and seem to not have admitted that.

See, the truth is that while many people THINK there is a distinct physical difference between blacks and whites, there actually is not. Training programs, attitudes and upbringing have a lot more to do with what differences exist than genetics.

The fact that I biked 7 miles back and forth to school, plus did assorted other physical chores, from the time I was 6, has impacted my current physical health and stamina... despite the fact that I have become relatively sedentary in these past few years.

My ability to listen, watch and learn was why I could lift heavier things, do more physical work than many guys who were a good foot taller and who had a good deal more muscle mass than I back when I was in my 20's. I was not stronger, but I knew how to use what I had much better.

Those types of differences mean much more than genetics.. and that is the type of difference you see when you look at either the runners of Africa or black basketball stars.

The anomolies you note are occasionally true in a very small population.. a family, a town that is effectively the same family or set of families. If you expand to the level of race, then you find as much or more variation within each race as you do between the races. (and that is even setting aside the question of whether race truly exists at all).

[Neoteny]

*sigh* I'll be less subtle. I thought using the phrase "Cyber Communications" would hint at "The Holy Trinity of Internet Communications," and that the false equivalance argument was obvious enough.


But you do bring up some great points. Yes, people presume knowledge over which they don't know (e.g. economics, BBS). However, there's several ways to address this problem. Two of which are: (1) Encourage people to use different analytical frameworks for understanding causal relationships, or (2) try to shut down the inquiry while labeling people racist.

I opt for #1 by using the econometric way of thinking. You've regrettably opted for #2, which in my opinion is not at all productive/useful because it still leaves people wondering about those causal relationships. At least with the #1 approach, I provide some people the means for framing such questions in order to become more skeptical about their personal observations and the conclusions which they ponder.

Hopefully, that clears up the confusion. RE: your last sentence, Sure, many scientists don't view inquiries about race as decent, but that in no way contributes to the public discourse. Many (even scientists) adhere to th pretense of knowledge, but at least many are willing to understand through questions and argument. Side-stepping and/or undercuttnig the entire debate fails to undermine the sources of racism through idea creation in the non-scientific spheres. I'm tackling this problem, and you're essentially calling people racists (which isn't nearly as useful). It's almost as useless as Symmetry's approach of calling people idiots.

You're very correct in that assessment. Indeed, my original proposal comes across as somewhat non-sequitur for a reason. Not many people in this thread have discussed their motivations for joining this fracas. But I've played in these trenches. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, man. I know who holds the perspective I'm criticizing. And some of them are here. Now, I'm as sad as you are that these younger whippersnappers are maybe missing out on having some 98.5% reagent grade knowledge dropped on they asses, but I'm just a man. I have an ATP reserve comparable to that of your average black man. Or white man. Or purple man. I'm here to enjoy myself. Sometimes that involves talking science. But it's hard work. It's difficult to spend time putting an argument together to have Scotty play the race card card and scamper away. It's exhausting trying to explain to Gabon what a peer-reviewed source is, much less to get him to post one. Sometimes its more fun to feed into their paranoia that I just think everyone in the world is a racist. I won't be able to change their mind anyway. I think you know that sometimes taking the high road feels frustrating. Ineffective. Pointless. But you have to ask yourself: are you having fun? You can spend hours of your life explaining the minutiae of the work you love, and then have to stare at the ceiling before you sleep wondering whether addressing these racists legitimizes them. Whether it is really going to make a difference to them. Whether letting them know they kept you up for two minutes one night will just encourage them. I'll let you decide where you draw your line. But if you want to criticize my methods and motivations, then I'll, well, let you have cake.

Like I hinted at above, you and I are very likely in agreement on this.

As long as my cake comes loaded with ATP, I'm happy.

As far as the High Road Crusade goes, it seems to be the best choice. By analogy, if I took your approach with economics, I'd turn into an 70-year-old white man calling these clowns a bunch of idiots for buying into the political hype and the well-intended nonsense of disastrous socialist policies. But, would that approach be better? Maybe. I'll consider it.

:sigh: I'll be less subtle. I was hoping that the phrase "Let them have cake" would serve as a reference that you are a hypocrite for calling me out on ineffectual baiting directed at people that I find dishonest, malicious, and frustrating. You've already tried my tactic, though on a grander scale, and perhaps with a different goal. Who are you to tell me if the high road is better, BBS? Particularly when my goal is to create a little happiness amidst a depressing situation? Insert master baiter joke here.

PS. If someone actually wants to discuss the science of race, I'm usually happy to do so. Just let me know when the anecdotes about sports give way to something realistic. Until then, I'll probably just bait the race-baiters.

You're very correct in that assessment. Indeed, my original proposal comes across as somewhat non-sequitur for a reason. Not many people in this thread have discussed their motivations for joining this fracas. But I've played in these trenches. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, man. I know who holds the perspective I'm criticizing. And some of them are here. Now, I'm as sad as you are that these younger whippersnappers are maybe missing out on having some 98.5% reagent grade knowledge dropped on they asses, but I'm just a man. I have an ATP reserve comparable to that of your average black man. Or white man. Or purple man. I'm here to enjoy myself. Sometimes that involves talking science. But it's hard work. It's difficult to spend time putting an argument together to have Scotty play the race card card and scamper away. It's exhausting trying to explain to Gabon what a peer-reviewed source is, much less to get him to post one. Sometimes its more fun to feed into their paranoia that I just think everyone in the world is a racist. I won't be able to change their mind anyway. I think you know that sometimes taking the high road feels frustrating. Ineffective. Pointless. But you have to ask yourself: are you having fun? You can spend hours of your life explaining the minutiae of the work you love, and then have to stare at the ceiling before you sleep wondering whether addressing these racists legitimizes them. Whether it is really going to make a difference to them. Whether letting them know they kept you up for two minutes one night will just encourage them. I'll let you decide where you draw your line. But if you want to criticize my methods and motivations, then I'll, well, let you have cake.

Like I hinted at above, you and I are very likely in agreement on this.

If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.

The f*ck?

[jimboston]

Its supposed to measure both, but it does better at assessing one's ability to acquire information.

Memorization is not the same as Intelligence.

IQ does not attempt to measure memorization.

Some of your criticisms may be about what knowledge one has or has-not already acquired. These may be valid criticisms. That said, the test does not attempt to measure one's ability to memorize stuff (or as you pout it "aquire" new information).

[Funkyterrance]

If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.

The f*ck?

I am aware that I am not always perfectly clear at first, my apologies.
It appears that your view towards racists is that they are akin to some other species. A nut to be cracked, if you will. I am suggesting that if you continue to look at a racist as fundamentally different than you, you will never reach one with your "explanations".

[thegreekdog]

You guys are right, the ONLY thing I based my opinion on is the percent of black basketball players in the NBA.

>mfw
>mfw I have no face

Oh sorry, you also mentioned Peyton Hillis and white slot receivers.

Seriously though, did I miss something upon which you've based your opinion? All I saw in this thread was your opinion that blacks, on average, had bigger muscles supported by the fact that there are more black professional basketball players, professional running backs, and professional wide receivers.

[Funkyterrance]

You guys are right, the ONLY thing I based my opinion on is the percent of black basketball players in the NBA.

>mfw
>mfw I have no face

Oh sorry, you also mentioned Peyton Hillis and white slot receivers.

Seriously though, did I miss something upon which you've based your opinion? All I saw in this thread was your opinion that blacks, on average, had bigger muscles supported by the fact that there are more black professional basketball players, professional running backs, and professional wide receivers.

He's admitted to being a racist already. What do you want to do, string him up by his toenails?

[BigBallinStalin]

As long as my cake comes loaded with ATP, I'm happy.

As far as the High Road Crusade goes, it seems to be the best choice. By analogy, if I took your approach with economics, I'd turn into an 70-year-old white man calling these clowns a bunch of idiots for buying into the political hype and the well-intended nonsense of disastrous socialist policies. But, would that approach be better? Maybe. I'll consider it.

:sigh: I'll be less subtle. I was hoping that the phrase "Let them have cake" would serve as a reference that you are a hypocrite for calling me out on ineffectual baiting directed at people that I find dishonest, malicious, and frustrating. You've already tried my tactic, though on a grander scale, and perhaps with a different goal. Who are you to tell me if the high road is better, BBS? Particularly when my goal is to create a little happiness amidst a depressing situation? Insert master baiter joke here.

PS. If someone actually wants to discuss the science of race, I'm usually happy to do so. Just let me know when the anecdotes about sports give way to something realistic. Until then, I'll probably just bait the race-baiters.

*sigh* Eventually, we shall have a layer cake of sighs and longposts.

I guess it depends on the subject matter for deciding between #1 and #2. As you've pointed out, you are aware of some of these people's hidden disposition on race; whereas, I don't, so I give them the benefit of the doubt. In other cases, sure, our strategies will change, but I'm mainly talking about economics and racism. Of course, with some people, I gave up, and of course, baiting is not in all cases wrong.


Let us discuss the SCIENCE! of race.

1. Do you place Asian people in beakers, boil them, collect the residue, and determine its characteristics? (In the name of science of course).

2. Are "black people" and "white people" races? What criteria does the race-scientist use for determining race?

3. What's the proper term for a scientist who studies race? A scienracist?

[Neoteny]

1. We normally only require a small sample for this sort of work, say an arm or a lower leg. This cuts down quite a bit on the waste prevalent during the heyday of raciology.

2. Race was determined to be predominantly related to cuisine, hence recent hierarchies uncontroversially placing many Asian and Middle Eastern races above traditional powerhouses such as the English. With this breakthrough, many labs took to installing these races in their departments. New research indicates they may also serve functional roles in positions regarding science as well.

3. Raciologists, not to be confused with the pseudoscience racology.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. If I eat Asian cuisine, do I become more Asian?

2. If I eat Lean cuisine, do I become more Leanian?

[PLAYER57832]

If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.

The f*ck?

I am aware that I am not always perfectly clear at first, my apologies.
It appears that your view towards racists is that they are akin to some other species. A nut to be cracked, if you will. I am suggesting that if you continue to look at a racist as fundamentally different than you, you will never reach one with your "explanations".

I have lived in CA, Mississippi (DEEP Mississippi, right by the confederate white house!), Buffalo NY, and PA... guess where I found racism to be the worst?

Actually, it depends on your definition. In MIssissippi, I found people who had no problem admitting that they "just did not think the races should 'mix'". These people would work with folks of other colors, might help out if there was a tragedy, such as a house burning or such as long as everyone "followed the rules" and "knew their place". I definitely did not "know my place" and got into some behind-the-scenes type trouble (got a few warnings and such.. no direct threats, and also more I don't want to get into on the internet). That said, many people of all races lived their quite well and, in some instances felt that living down there was easier than living up north. Why? Because down south, you knew where you stood. Racists admitted to being racists and did not try to hide. Up north, a LOT of people give "lip service" to not being racist, to judging people by who they are and not the color of their skin.. may even "embrace" things like Kwanza and such... but, well.....do they have any black friends, do they really and truly associate or know people of other color with whom they work or are they just "water cooler buddies". Are they really happy to rent to blacks or do they somehow find reasons that have "nothing to do with race" to reject anyone who applies who happens to not be white (not their fault, of course... its the people who are applying, they just don't meet the right standards).

Understand, I am not talking about people who are doing these things intentionally. And, the irony is that to go out and intentionally, say, seek black friends and the like is well.. rather racist itself. BUT.. my point is that race has become such a hot button issue that almost no one outside of the deep south will admit to it, most will fully believe they are not racist and yet.... things are still very unequal in the US by any measure.

[Neoteny]

If you continue to look at a racist as somehow different from you on a basic level then yeah you are wasting your time.

The f*ck?

I am aware that I am not always perfectly clear at first, my apologies.
It appears that your view towards racists is that they are akin to some other species. A nut to be cracked, if you will. I am suggesting that if you continue to look at a racist as fundamentally different than you, you will never reach one with your "explanations".

Nah dog. I see two types of racists. One is a sort of casual racist. Uninformed. Operating on societal pressures and trends. Similar to the idea of rape culture in feminism. They don't know or otherwise can't recognize that their biases are degrading or harmful. These people are targets for education. For dialogue. For effort and hope. Their minds can be changed. This is the majority of people.

Then there are the other guys. They tend to be guys, actually. Dudes, often. You can explain the variety of genetic and cultural background that makes up African populations. To them, they're still black or African. You can write sourced essays expounding on the nature of heritability and culture, and how they relate to perception and bias. You post direct links to reputable science, and be met with blogs and YouTube videos. You can write treatises on the power of cooperation and color blindness and be chastised as an opponent of progress and empiricism. Eventually you get to the point where you have to disengage or risk sticking a pencil into your eye. Because, when it comes down to it, you're only helping their cause. Legitimizing it. By taking them seriously, they win. So, the options become 1)ignore them, and let them spew their vitriolic hatred, or 2) tell them not just "no," but "f*ck no!" "Intolerance will not be tolerated." They can spew their hate, and I will shower them with shame. That's all they really know anyway.

So, maybe I do view that class of cretin as inhuman. Maybe I'm just as bad as they are, judging them by their words and actions instead of by their color and nationality. Maybe there will be some crossover. Some collateral from the first group put off by me. But I trust in their rationality. They'll figure it out. But I cannot abide the second group poisoning the process. f*ck 'em.