Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 28 2024 14:02 BlackJack wrote: I think most people would accept that there is a genetic component to intelligence. They would also accept that there are genetic differences between racial groups. Combining those 2 ideas is out of the question. Magic Powers seems quite certain that any measured differences in IQ between racial groups is 100% environmental. He has also said in the past that he believes anyone with transgenderism was simply born that way. Most things are some combination of nature and nurture, but obviously not these 2 things. I suspect these beliefs are not founded in robust evidence but instead simply from working backwards from the answer that is most convenient.
I don't think anybody contests that intelligence is due to some combination of nature and nurture. And the genetic component of intelligence is also pretty widely accepted. The thing is that the nurture aspect should not be underestimated. For starters, the environment can cause genes to be more or less expressed through epigenetic factors. So even if you have a gene for being hyper intelligent (assuming there is only one such gene, and it's already pretty much established that intelligence is not linked to any single gene), there may be any number of environmental factors that cause that gene to be expressed or suppressed.
Now, combine this, the fact that intelligence isn't just one gene, the fact that the genetic variation between two humans is greater than the average genetic variation between black and white people, and the fact that IQ tests have biases toward people who received an Anglo-Saxon education (measuring primarily those aspects of intelligence that are valued in Anglo-Saxon culture), and it's fairly clear that claiming "black people are just destined to be stupider than white people" is going to be challenged.
But let's forget about nature and nurture and focus on intelligence. What is it? And why does an IQ test measure it. As I said above, an IQ test only measures a limited part of it, and isn't even very good at that: if a single individual takes two IQ tests at different times they'll get different scores, because, surprise surprise, even expressing the limited intelligence an IQ test measures fluctuates quite wildly during a day/week/month/lifetime... something which should be absolutely obvious to anybody who has had to use their brain, ever. Or, perhaps more fitting on a SC site, has had to watch Maru play horribly af any international tournament because he doesn't eat/sleep/de-stress/whatever as well in a hotel in Katowice/Atlanta/wherever as back home.
I have a hard time believing that if there are genetic differences between racial groups its due to their "race" rather than some type of geographic or group bias. For example, height. Do we think that the inuit are inherently short due to them being inuit? Or over time would this change if height was advantageous or there was a self selection for taller people or intermixing with taller people.
Btw what the fuck are we using as a cutoff for what a race is? Is all of Africa "black", Asia "asian" scandanavian "white" There are huge differences within those places. What about "mixed" people. How far back do you go for someone to be "mixed" ?
The idea of racial intelligence differences just seems stupid to me. Its for sure either an american or european centric short term world view creating some bias or outright racist/neo nazi shit trying to masquerade as a legit/thoughtful question.
On December 28 2024 14:02 BlackJack wrote: I think most people would accept that there is a genetic component to intelligence. They would also accept that there are genetic differences between racial groups. Combining those 2 ideas is out of the question. Magic Powers seems quite certain that any measured differences in IQ between racial groups is 100% environmental. He has also said in the past that he believes anyone with transgenderism was simply born that way. Most things are some combination of nature and nurture, but obviously not these 2 things. I suspect these beliefs are not founded in robust evidence but instead simply from working backwards from the answer that is most convenient.
There is absolutely no logical contradiction in the beliefs that racial IQ differences are not inherent and that gender dysphoria is inherent.
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
I mean I'm good I just don't personally believe there are genetic differences in socioeconomic status, or the genetic ability of different people to earn and manage capital. That's why Oprah is wealthier than essentially 100% of whites. For example, I don't believe women can't work as hard or as well, or that Indians are genetic supercapitalists that causes them to outearn/capitalistically oppress almost everybody else, which I guess you must essentially believe, since once you've acknowledge there are socioeconomic differences, you no longer have the ability to control for them since you can't control socioeconomic factors for themselves.
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
I mean I'm good I just don't personally believe there are genetic differences in socioeconomic status, or the genetic ability of different people to earn and manage capital. That's why Oprah is wealthier than essentially 100% of whites. For example, I don't believe women can't work as hard or as well, or that Indians are genetic supercapitalists that causes them to outearn/capitalistically oppress almost everybody else, which I guess you must essentially believe, since once you've acknowledge there are socioeconomic differences, you no longer have the ability to control for them since you can't control socioeconomic factors for themselves.
I can't comprehend what you just wrote. Is that a copypasta?
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
I mean I'm good I just don't personally believe there are genetic differences in socioeconomic status, or the genetic ability of different people to earn and manage capital. That's why Oprah is wealthier than essentially 100% of whites. For example, I don't believe women can't work as hard or as well, or that Indians are genetic supercapitalists that causes them to outearn/capitalistically oppress almost everybody else, which I guess you must essentially believe, since once you've acknowledge there are socioeconomic differences, you no longer have the ability to control for them since you can't control socioeconomic factors for themselves.
Can you please elaborate on why it's impossible to control for socioeconomic differences? Can't we just compare groups within the same financial bracket/background?
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
I mean I'm good I just don't personally believe there are genetic differences in socioeconomic status, or the genetic ability of different people to earn and manage capital. That's why Oprah is wealthier than essentially 100% of whites. For example, I don't believe women can't work as hard or as well, or that Indians are genetic supercapitalists that causes them to outearn/capitalistically oppress almost everybody else, which I guess you must essentially believe, since once you've acknowledge there are socioeconomic differences, you no longer have the ability to control for them since you can't control socioeconomic factors for themselves.
I can't comprehend what you just wrote. Is that a copypasta?
You could use your renowned internet searching skills to instantly get an answer to that question, my friend.
It's a simple statement, unlike you I don't believe in genetic differences in money and have never seen any evidence for it.
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
I mean I'm good I just don't personally believe there are genetic differences in socioeconomic status, or the genetic ability of different people to earn and manage capital. That's why Oprah is wealthier than essentially 100% of whites. For example, I don't believe women can't work as hard or as well, or that Indians are genetic supercapitalists that causes them to outearn/capitalistically oppress almost everybody else, which I guess you must essentially believe, since once you've acknowledge there are socioeconomic differences, you no longer have the ability to control for them since you can't control socioeconomic factors for themselves.
Do you think genetic factors are the only possible factors that could condemn a group of people to poor socioeconomic status?
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
I mean I'm good I just don't personally believe there are genetic differences in socioeconomic status, or the genetic ability of different people to earn and manage capital. That's why Oprah is wealthier than essentially 100% of whites. For example, I don't believe women can't work as hard or as well, or that Indians are genetic supercapitalists that causes them to outearn/capitalistically oppress almost everybody else, which I guess you must essentially believe, since once you've acknowledge there are socioeconomic differences, you no longer have the ability to control for them since you can't control socioeconomic factors for themselves.
I can't comprehend what you just wrote. Is that a copypasta?
You could use your renowned internet searching skills to instantly get an answer to that question, my friend.
It's a simple statement, unlike you I don't believe in genetic differences in money and have never seen any evidence for it.
So you're unaware that black people are outearned by white people in the US?
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote: Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying. Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
On what basis can you claim there are socio-economic differences among alleged races?
Eh? It's been so extremely well established that there are clear differences that I think it's more on you to disprove the differences. Take black and white people in America. Prove that the socio-economic differences aren't real, go ahead.
I mean I'm good I just don't personally believe there are genetic differences in socioeconomic status, or the genetic ability of different people to earn and manage capital. That's why Oprah is wealthier than essentially 100% of whites. For example, I don't believe women can't work as hard or as well, or that Indians are genetic supercapitalists that causes them to outearn/capitalistically oppress almost everybody else, which I guess you must essentially believe, since once you've acknowledge there are socioeconomic differences, you no longer have the ability to control for them since you can't control socioeconomic factors for themselves.
I can't comprehend what you just wrote. Is that a copypasta?
You could use your renowned internet searching skills to instantly get an answer to that question, my friend.
It's a simple statement, unlike you I don't believe in genetic differences in money and have never seen any evidence for it.
So you're unaware that black people are outearned by white people in the US?
Why am I supposed to care about that if it's not genetic?
Yeah you are all not talking about the same thing. In theory, this could be corrected, but to what end? It's kind of unnecessary for just continuing to discuss U.S. Politics current events.
On December 29 2024 01:49 micronesia wrote: Yeah you are all not talking about the same thing. In theory, this could be corrected, but to what end? It's kind of unnecessary for just continuing to discuss U.S. Politics current events.
Was Elon Musk threatening to buy politicians out of office that don’t follow his agenda something that was already discussed here? I can’t be bothered to check. If not, that seems like it could be an interesting discussion.
On December 30 2024 09:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Reagan used this speech against Carter when he said "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
Sounds familiar. Reagan and Trump both tricked their audiences so that they could make things worse during their presidencies and leave behind terrible legacies.
EPT
