race differences (from McDonald's thread)

[Symmetry]

You're getting obsessed again.

[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.

[PLAYER57832]

I propose that everyone who has an interest in the scientific inquiry into intelligence or physiology of different "races" are all racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of psychology or physiology that you are as knowledgeable about.

:]><

That is essentially a self-fulfilling definition. The more you know about races, the less you se that any single trait can be tied to any race.

That said, if you narrow any population down, you can get better data than with a broader group. If you take blacks in the US, they are going to be very slightly more closely related than all people in the US, and so just by that measure may come up with better data. In that large a group, the distinction might not matter. (or, as I am sure you are aware, it might just make more of a mess -- by narrowing using the wrong criteria, you create worse data, not better) That said, most data that is studied finds this kind of division is not very useful. When exceptions exist, it is not because of genetic reasons, it tends to be because of behavior/social/lifestyle reasons. Those things ARE tied to race because many options for "living" were just limited for blacks historically in this country. AS the opportunities of all sorts are expanding, it is likely that many of the difficulties tied to "being black" might dissappear.

In addition, we know that many genetic traits are tied together. DNA is, I believe the word is "conservative" -- likes to "reuse" the same information for various purposes (sort of). Pursuing any ties to race is therefore intuitively sensible. However, if you insist that links MUST exist when data does not show that, or to just insist that genetics must be a play because there is a correlation between race and a specific impact , then you are racist.

In short... many studies have turned out to be racist in intent or conclusion. However, the basic idea of seeing IF there is a link is not, in and of itself racist. Science is about investigation. Sometimes we investigate to effectively prove something (eliminate other probable answers).. and sometimes to eliminate it.

[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.

[Neoteny]

I have this nagging feeling that you may have missed a couple of my posts.

[Army of GOD]

nagging

racist

[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.

[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.

[thegreekdog]

I propose that everyone who has an interest in the scientific inquiry into intelligence or physiology of different "races" are all racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of psychology or physiology that you are as knowledgeable about.

:]><

You could use bing.com.

All I'm saying is that if the color of one's skin correlated to athleticism, then on Saturday I would not have seen a white wide receiver from Iowa (or Idaho) outrun a black cornerback.

I wonder if there has ever been any studies on how many [insert sport] players are from poor or lower middle class backgrounds versus middle class, upper middle class or rich backgrounds. I bet 3/4ths of all professional atheletes are from low to middle class backgrounds.

[Funkyterrance]

All I'm saying is that if the color of one's skin correlated to athleticism, then on Saturday I would not have seen a white wide receiver from Iowa (or Idaho) outrun a black cornerback.

I wonder if there has ever been any studies on how many [insert sport] players are from poor or lower middle class backgrounds versus middle class, upper middle class or rich backgrounds. I bet 3/4ths of all professional atheletes are from low to middle class backgrounds.

Wow, you said a mouthful. I'm not arguing your stance but I have some issues with your examples...
White people from the US tend to be economically advantaged, generally speaking. That being considered, wouldn't a white person have, in general, access to more nutritious foods and better facilities for training? Also, what is the inference regarding 75% of professional athletes coming from low to middle class backgrounds? I'm a little behind in this thread so please excuse me if I missed something.

[thegreekdog]

All I'm saying is that if the color of one's skin correlated to athleticism, then on Saturday I would not have seen a white wide receiver from Iowa (or Idaho) outrun a black cornerback.

I wonder if there has ever been any studies on how many [insert sport] players are from poor or lower middle class backgrounds versus middle class, upper middle class or rich backgrounds. I bet 3/4ths of all professional atheletes are from low to middle class backgrounds.

Wow, you said a mouthful. I'm not arguing your stance but I have some issues with your examples...
White people from the US tend to be economically advantaged, generally speaking. That being considered, wouldn't a white person have, in general, access to more nutritious foods and better facilities for training? Also, what is the inference regarding 75% of professional athletes coming from low to middle class backgrounds? I'm a little behind in this thread so please excuse me if I missed something.

I may not have written it in this thread, but I believe a person's lot in life depends mainly upon economic conditions. Someone mentioned it eariler in this thread, but a poor black child may believe his options are limited and one of those options is athletics.

I'm reasonably certain this has not been done, but if we put a black child and a white child, in the same household, under the same economic conditions, feed them the same food and have them train or exercise or go to school the same ways, will there be a difference in the two children? Will the white child be more intelligent and the black child more athletic? I would say no. But I have no scientific basis for that and all my evidence is anecdotal. And I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. I can provide examples until the cows come home. Here's another one:

In high school, the best basketball program in my state was from a Catholic school. The entire team consisted of poor to middle-class white kids. They regularly beat all-black basketball teams.

[Army of GOD]

I propose that everyone who has an interest in the scientific inquiry into intelligence or physiology of different "races" are all racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of psychology or physiology that you are as knowledgeable about.

:]><

You could use bing.com.

All I'm saying is that if the color of one's skin correlated to athleticism, then on Saturday I would not have seen a white wide receiver from Iowa (or Idaho) outrun a black cornerback.

I wonder if there has ever been any studies on how many [insert sport] players are from poor or lower middle class backgrounds versus middle class, upper middle class or rich backgrounds. I bet 3/4ths of all professional atheletes are from low to middle class backgrounds.

ITT: thegreekdog thinks "on average" means "all"

[Phatscotty]

Since Obama got elected and constantly played the race card, nobody knows what a racist is anymore, but everyone is a racist

[Funkyterrance]

All I'm saying is that if the color of one's skin correlated to athleticism, then on Saturday I would not have seen a white wide receiver from Iowa (or Idaho) outrun a black cornerback.

I wonder if there has ever been any studies on how many [insert sport] players are from poor or lower middle class backgrounds versus middle class, upper middle class or rich backgrounds. I bet 3/4ths of all professional atheletes are from low to middle class backgrounds.

Wow, you said a mouthful. I'm not arguing your stance but I have some issues with your examples...
White people from the US tend to be economically advantaged, generally speaking. That being considered, wouldn't a white person have, in general, access to more nutritious foods and better facilities for training? Also, what is the inference regarding 75% of professional athletes coming from low to middle class backgrounds? I'm a little behind in this thread so please excuse me if I missed something.

I may not have written it in this thread, but I believe a person's lot in life depends mainly upon economic conditions. Someone mentioned it eariler in this thread, but a poor black child may believe his options are limited and one of those options is athletics.

I'm reasonably certain this has not been done, but if we put a black child and a white child, in the same household, under the same economic conditions, feed them the same food and have them train or exercise or go to school the same ways, will there be a difference in the two children? Will the white child be more intelligent and the black child more athletic? I would say no. But I have no scientific basis for that and all my evidence is anecdotal. And I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. I can provide examples until the cows come home. Here's another one:

In high school, the best basketball program in my state was from a Catholic school. The entire team consisted of poor to middle-class white kids. They regularly beat all-black basketball teams.

Ok, I can work with this. Thanks for not taking offense to my post because none was intended.
You response made me ponder whether or not growing up under economic stress makes a person "tougher" in an athletic sense. I have known some pretty wirey poor white kids who could definitely jump higher, run faster, punch harder, than all of the more privileged African American kids I knew(not many, admittedly). This is not hard evidence of course as you pointed out we can't perform experiments on people nor would they be controlled if we did. It does however, create a good deal of reasonable doubt in me, considering my personal experiences. Thanks for the nudge.

[thegreekdog]

I propose that everyone who has an interest in the scientific inquiry into intelligence or physiology of different "races" are all racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of psychology or physiology that you are as knowledgeable about.

:]><

You could use bing.com.

All I'm saying is that if the color of one's skin correlated to athleticism, then on Saturday I would not have seen a white wide receiver from Iowa (or Idaho) outrun a black cornerback.

I wonder if there has ever been any studies on how many [insert sport] players are from poor or lower middle class backgrounds versus middle class, upper middle class or rich backgrounds. I bet 3/4ths of all professional atheletes are from low to middle class backgrounds.

ITT: thegreekdog thinks "on average" means "all"

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.