You drop a Korean newborn into a family in the atchafalaya basin the kid will have everything in common with a Cajun and very little in common with a Korean. The physical differences will cause a unique experience because of the archaic idea of race. I agree the cultural and ethic differences are real, but I don’t think people are predisposed to act in a way consistent with their tribe as a whole. Of course there are predisposed differences among all of us. Sowell tells us to get over it. They will always exist.
The research in the time article suggested races are predisposed genetically to certain cultural aspects such as styles of government. Since most children aren’t separated at birth and given to unrelated foster parents, the reality is that race does have an impact as do cultural upbringings, since we don’t live in a world devoid of those influences, even if you choose to ignore it using an unproven hypothetical.
Studies of children separated at birth from their parents have been given personality tests and shown to have a 50% correlation with their birth parents and 50% with their peer group and little relationship to their foster parents. So, genetics can definitely play a major role and how much of that is racially driven would be another study.
But regardless, none of what you said disproves or undermines the points I’ve made, you’ve simply ignored those points and restated a null conclusion. Basically, in a few short posts you’ve gone from “race is purely a societal construction” to “ok, science says there’s a genetic component but I’m going to ignore all that and hold my initial conclusion”, which is just holding a view to hold a view.
I think I alluded to The Bell Curve in another thread that got nuked by own very own Black Swan.
In “The Bell Curve”, the authors stated that there is a statistical difference between IQ levels of blacks and whites. They provided evidence for their claim.
The findings caused such a furor that the American Psychological Association established a special task force to investigate the matter. In the end, they agreed that with the authors’ claims. The said that they did not know what caused the difference, but that it definitely existed.
To date, I am not aware of any valid criticisms of the claim that blacks have lower intelligence than whites.
If OP doesn’t care about race and believes it a human construct, then why did he start a thread obviously related to race? Is it at all germane that Mr Sowell has “recent African descent”? Couldn’t OP have said “I wish this guy had been President”? But no…recent African descent.
How odd.
Greenman, I’m not even sure I nuked it, but if I did it was because the rest of the thread had fallen below redeeming value. With CFAvsMBA, FinancialConsultant and RR going full swing at that time I don’t find that surprising.
I made that exact point in my first post Palantir.
It’s like Christians. Growing up in that circle, they’re the most sexually obsessed group of people I’ve ever met. They don’t have the sex, but they’re obsessed with it. Who’s doing who and how. It seems like a hypocritically unhealthy way to live.
I think that was probably the case. It was when I had first joined AF.
Spurious correlation?
It’s not the race that directly affects IQ, it’s societal factors over many centuries that have led to this.
I know this because I’m a smart white male.
I read a quick overview on wiki of this book and it seems you are extrapolating claims the authors never made. They are merely stating that with their data set it tended to show blacks had lower IQs than whites. They also mention that it is obvious that genes and environment go into a person IQ and it isnt known what impacts it. Based on a quick overview of some of the numbers, and based on everything else I have ever seen, it would appear socioeconomic status has more to do with IQ than race. Access to better healthcare, education (especially early childhood education), single mothers etc. Those are all huge in determining IQ, so its not like this data is perfect. Now do we even really want to discuss if IQ is a particularly great metric to measure something like this on either?
The outrage you brought up appears to be due to the way the book was marketed,as with books today, they try to shock you with that tag line for sales. The actual substance of what the authors were saying was not nearly as bad as what it was made out to say.
You clearly didn’t go to Catholic school.
^^ thats right, they just use the ole poop hole loophole. Remember kids, god only cares if you are technically correct. God must be a lawyer.
I never claimed there are no genetic variations. You’re claiming they’re differences among everyone’s genetics. I agree. Identical twins have slight differences. Your article states we are all part of the same scale. The needle just shifts slightly. That is my argument. The original idea of race suggested that the difference were so great that we couldn’t, and shouldn’t, assimilate to each other’s cultures. That is simply not the case. The term has run its course. And of course, genetics affects personality. Recent studies suggest genes and peers are most influential. Parents a distant third.
This post should be deleted. As a wigger, I am offended.
Sincerely,
CFAvsMBA
The Bell Curve is excellent. One of the book’s arguments was the geographic descent should not be used to allocate public resources. The authors felt intelligence was far more determinant than one’s descent or the economic status of one’s family. We have since learned that someone’s performance on an IQ test is highly sensitive to the cultural appropriateness of the exam. For example, some primitive tribes have done well on parts of exams that use familiar shapes but score very poorly when the exam includes umbrellas and street curbs. This does not discredit the book. The data still holds. The correlation of intelligence, as scored for the book, and success is real. But, it’s become obvious that the tests measured more than intelligence, just as the SAT measures more than aptitude. That does not discount the 0.4 correlation with college performance. Just means that the scores are not entirely set by birth. And we are learning that collective intelligence is far more important than individual intelligence for the advancement of a society, so the debate becomes boorish anyway.
What news source do you trust?
Strangely Sky News (another Murdoch outlet) is among the ones I trust. Maybe his son is more “fair and balanced”, or maybe the British media rules are stricter.
And I trust: CNN (am not old), MSNBC (am not liberal), France 24, BBC, and DW.
I don’t trust the Washington Times, the NY Post and the newspaper back in the early 90’s that wrote about Bat Boy. NY Times is 90% credible; 10% stupid. The Financial Times and the Economist (yes it’s a newspaper, not a magazine) I like the most.
What did you expect me to say? Aljazeera? BTW, Aljazeera uses the same tactics used by Fox News. They’re deceptive, biased and use scare tactics. They’re a media front of the Muslim Brotherhood. They admired Al-Qaida. It was a surprise that they got a license to broadcast in the US. Still the US has to know who’s who in the ME
^Al Jazeera was heavily under US influence, if not control, since circa 2003.
That’s somewhat frightening. I would suggest not trusting any of them, but consume everything and come to your own conclusion. So what source do you think covered the clock boy story accurately?
This was small towns news. I don’t follow such stories as news. I just read about how people react to them. I do the same when policemen shoot black kids for trivial reasons. The clock kid story was taken out of proportion. It’s just good TV for those channels. Especially in slow news days.
When it comes to Islamophobia issues, I get interested in watching Bill Maher. When there is a mass shootings in school, I watch Fox News and listen to their opposition to gun control. The stuff they say is stupidly amusing
Man, those questions, who do you think am I? too much stereotyping. What will be the next question; How many goats am gonna nail this weekend?