EPTOn August 02 2012 11:40 sunprince wrote:
We already know a decent amount about the heritability of intelligence. For you to insist that we don't know enough to make basic inferences is similar to how creationists insist that we don't know enough about evolution to make basic inferences. True, there's a lot we still don't know, but what we can do is make reasonably educated arguments on the subject.
Regardless, there is more to the selection effects we're talking about than mere intelligence. For example, one of the legacies of slavery is the culturally ingrained attitudes away from education, attitudes that were no doubt fostered by centuries of slaveowners brutally suppressing any slaves who dared to learn. By contrast, a large segment of the more recent waves of Asian immigrants are themselves better educated than average (or the children of better educated parents), with the obvious attendant selection effects on Asian-American cultural attitudes towards education.
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 07:50 plogamer wrote:
Sigh. You accuse me of overlooking things while overlooking the most important part of my reply.
Even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence
/edit
Unless you address this issue directly, I don't think we can have a real discussion - but rather a show of throwing conjectures at each other.
On August 02 2012 06:54 sunprince wrote:
Most of your suggestions don't line up with history. We're very aware that across the board, slaveowners feared that intelligent/educated slaves might rise up, and worked to vehemently crush any who might potentially get out of line (there's also certain cultural effects that result when intellectual activities like reading are heavily punished). The environment did play an important role; the environment of slavery had major selection effects.
You're also overlooking the selection effects of which Africans ended up as slaves in the first place.
On August 01 2012 22:59 plogamer wrote:
That's a gnarly case of rationalization going on here. One of the best I've seen in a while. Obviously, supported by an astute understanding of genetics (and thus "science").
By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
Maybe smarter slaves acted more obedient. Or maybe, slave-owners actually wanted smarter slaves who would be better at their work. Or maybe that, even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence - let alone in the era before emancipation. Or maybe, environment plays an equal, if not more important, role.
On August 01 2012 20:10 sunprince wrote:
Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you?
And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way.
Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive.
User was warned for this post
Edit: Image macro removed as per mod warning.
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:
Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity?
On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears.
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears.
Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity?
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you?
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
[quote]
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way.
On August 01 2012 17:43 frogrubdown wrote:
I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs.
It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims.
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
[quote]
Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently.
This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs.
It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims.
Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive.
User was warned for this post
Edit: Image macro removed as per mod warning.
That's a gnarly case of rationalization going on here. One of the best I've seen in a while. Obviously, supported by an astute understanding of genetics (and thus "science").
By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.
Maybe smarter slaves acted more obedient. Or maybe, slave-owners actually wanted smarter slaves who would be better at their work. Or maybe that, even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence - let alone in the era before emancipation. Or maybe, environment plays an equal, if not more important, role.
Most of your suggestions don't line up with history. We're very aware that across the board, slaveowners feared that intelligent/educated slaves might rise up, and worked to vehemently crush any who might potentially get out of line (there's also certain cultural effects that result when intellectual activities like reading are heavily punished). The environment did play an important role; the environment of slavery had major selection effects.
You're also overlooking the selection effects of which Africans ended up as slaves in the first place.
Sigh. You accuse me of overlooking things while overlooking the most important part of my reply.
Even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence
/edit
Unless you address this issue directly, I don't think we can have a real discussion - but rather a show of throwing conjectures at each other.
We already know a decent amount about the heritability of intelligence. For you to insist that we don't know enough to make basic inferences is similar to how creationists insist that we don't know enough about evolution to make basic inferences. True, there's a lot we still don't know, but what we can do is make reasonably educated arguments on the subject.
Regardless, there is more to the selection effects we're talking about than mere intelligence. For example, one of the legacies of slavery is the culturally ingrained attitudes away from education, attitudes that were no doubt fostered by centuries of slaveowners brutally suppressing any slaves who dared to learn. By contrast, a large segment of the more recent waves of Asian immigrants are themselves better educated than average (or the children of better educated parents), with the obvious attendant selection effects on Asian-American cultural attitudes towards education.
Read on "Heritability and socioeconomic status" on the wikipedia link you gave me and you will find that there is quite a bit of dispute.
Comparing it to evolution versus creationism is the very strawman of which you accuse others. It is a science vs science dispute, not faith vs science.
I'm not saying we need 5 sigmas of certainty to make reasonable arguments, but this is just silly.
