friendlybombs.bsky.social
Anglo-Futurist. Muscular centrist.
126 posts
3 followers
30 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
I would still say it's less of an echo chamber than here, mainly by dint of having many more users.
comment in response to
post
Isn't the issue here that one was charged with incitement (perhaps reasonably) for a heat-of-the-moment comment she quickly deleted, while someone who expresses (if we take the claim at face value) deep-seated murderous intent towards a whole group isn't charged for that?
comment in response to
post
No, your failure to understand or address my point isn't on me. Don't be boring.
comment in response to
post
'Racial phenotype' refers, at minimum, to those traits that allow us to identify someone as one race rather than another. I don't see what your issue is with that.
comment in response to
post
Also, please address the earlier issue about intra-group heritability (which made no attributions of causality).
comment in response to
post
I mean, the earring thing is a cute example, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. An adopted twin raised in a poor household does just about as well as his adopted twin raised in a rich household. What's the earring-esque confounder there?
comment in response to
post
Well, this is a separate issue, but if you're trying to suggest that there isn't very well-established evidence of genetic causal influence on IQ variance between individuals, you're running very counter to the mainstream consensus
comment in response to
post
This doesn't *necessarily* disprove environmental accounts. But it is evidence. You'd expect heritability of disease in India to be lower than the US because of worse sanitation. If heritability of disease in India were the same as in the US, that would give less likelihood to sanitary explanations
comment in response to
post
Or rather, affected intra-sex differences among women the same as intra-sex differences among men
comment in response to
post
Say 80% of variance in height among men is heritable and 80% among women. If you wanted to attribute inter-sex height differences to environment -- say infant nutrition -- you'd have to say infant nutrition affected women to the same extent as men, otherwise heritability would be less for women.
comment in response to
post
The heritability within groups is the same across races, ergo -- if there is an environmental factor suppressing black IQ -- the sum total of environmental contributions to black IQ variance is the same as the sum total among whites.
comment in response to
post
No, sure. But put it this way:
-white heritability of IQ = 50-80%
-black heritability of IQ = 50-80%
Ergo, the total of environmental contributions to black variance = 30-50%
If there were an environmental factor that affected certain blacks more than others, heritability would be lower
comment in response to
post
Two people named 'Smith' likely have Anglo-Saxon ancestry, so are likely to be more closely genetically related than someone called 'Smith' and someone called 'Chowdry'.
comment in response to
post
That doesn't follow at all. What are the demographics of Wisconsin vs. WV?
comment in response to
post
No, this inference is definitionally true. If poor education suppresses black IQ, and if it suppresses it more for certain blacks, heritability would be lower as a proportion of black variance (as poor education would count for a greater proportion).
comment in response to
post
I don't know the literature well but this suggests that recent studies fail to replicate the effect
comment in response to
post
I was under the impression stereotype threat was a victim of the replication crisis. Anyway, a lot of purported explanations (like ST) just don't pass the sniff test. Iodine deficiency lowers IQ by ~10 points, yet a condescending teacher accounts for a significant proportion of an SD difference?
comment in response to
post
It's also worth pointing out that similar patterns in IQ scores by race occur in other countries as well, which reduces the prospects of an explanation tied specifically to US history.
comment in response to
post
It isn't an open question. Racial prejudice has, by any metric, declined significantly (in the US, at least). Blacks have a higher self-perception (and a more negative perception of other races) than any other racial group.
comment in response to
post
As I said, the intra-group heritability of IQ is similar for different groups. Say there's a factor - say, poor education - that suppresses black IQ. Given that intra-black heritability is similar to intra-white heritability, you have to suppose that this factor suppresses IQ equally for all blacks
comment in response to
post
Inferring straightforwardly from intra-group heritability to inter-group heritability is a mistake, but equally, when large intra-group differences persist (or grow) despite converging environments, it seems implausible that intra-group heritability tells us nothing.
comment in response to
post
Studies in education tend to find v. small effects (and those finding big effects tend to be poor or fail to replicate). Ofc, effects could be small and cumulative, but when even big hitters like school/teacher quality account for ~5% variance, it looks unlikely that you'll explain much of the gap.
comment in response to
post
If we're talking about education, the evidence suggests that it accounts for a small proportion of the variance between individuals (and even where there is a noticeable effect, there is significant 'fade-out'). This gives us an independent reason to doubt that the effects are large between groups.
comment in response to
post
If there is a bad measure of educational attainment, such as matching for cohorts, then we can take it for granted that any inference from that measure to the importance of education in general is bad, so let's nip that in the bud.
comment in response to
post
It is possible, in the sense that it's possible that reading to a children before the age of 5 makes no difference, but reading to him between the ages of 6 and 7 accounts for a large proportion of variance. But is it likely? Talk of 'interaction with the history of race' just reads like mysticism.
comment in response to
post
Did I say 'any way'?
comment in response to
post
A further point of evidence: intra-racial heritability in IQ is the same as in the whole population. Therefore, either whatever causes the gap affects members of the same race equally (which precludes most shared environmental factors) or there is a similar impact of genes + environment on all races
comment in response to
post
I'm saying that:
-factors widely seen as the most plausible cause (e.g. poverty) fail to explain much of the variance
-this failure gives us reason to infer that similar environmental factors we haven't measured are unlikely to explain much
-there are independent reasons to suspect genes play a role
comment in response to
post
To be clear, again, I'm not making the claim that, because environmental factors can't explain all of the variance, the rest must be explained by genes.
comment in response to
post
Ho! Who ever made that claim? All I've ever said is that I believe genetics account for some significant proportion of the variance.
comment in response to
post
You're also acting as if the inductive probability of a future environmental explanations being forthcoming is independent of the failure of past explanations, but it isn't. If schooling can't explain it, that affects the likelihood that, say, availability of books at home might explain it.
comment in response to
post
No, not 'gaps'. I said the failure of proposed environmental explanations to explain the gap, not the fact that environmental explanations couldn't account for all the variance.
comment in response to
post
That is an absurdly high standard. We never have a 'perfect, unlimited ability' to rule out variables we haven't considered. Almost all theories are underdetermined by the evidence.
comment in response to
post
Doubtless you'll say that those lines of evidence are flawed -- fine, fair enough. You've expressed a desire not to get into the weeds on that and I don't feel compelled to either. But again, don't pretend that I'm making an argument I'm not.
comment in response to
post
Oh, but I've already said that I think there are several lines of evidence independent of the evidence against other explanations. That was my point: not 'There's no evidence for X, therefore Y', but 'Either X or Y, evidence for Y, evidence lacking/disconfirming Y, therefore X'.
comment in response to
post
Arguments to the best explanation are ten a penny. That people falling ill might be explained by some factor we've never considered isn't a black mark against germ theory. And if there are many variables we can think of that are unddressed by 'race science', why are you so reluctant to share them?
comment in response to
post
Then this becomes 'environmental factor of the gaps'. However many environmental factors we measure and find explanatorily lacking, you can always insist that there's some mysteriously indemonstrable environmental factor.
comment in response to
post
Why would I bother presenting evidence when you stated that any evidence I could present would be unconvincing? That is not the sign of someone committed to a serious debate. It's a means of averting a serious debate.
comment in response to
post
Either the gap is caused by genetics or by some environmental factor (unless you can suggest a third option). If none of the environmental factors is consistent with the evidence, and a genetic explanation is, that counts in favour of genetics --unless, as I said, you favour universal agnosticism.
comment in response to
post
There would be no point going into the weeds with you if you dismissed the evidence I present out of hand -- as you've made it clear you will. I never claimed to have a new case for my position. You clearly have some familiarity with the topic, but that doesn't prove you right.
comment in response to
post
I was responding to your assertion that I had no positive evidence. Expecting an immediate fully referenced response isn't exactly reasonable. But then you've dismissed whatever evidence I might present in advance. You're evidently not a reasonable person. I think we're done.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I'm aware of that -- plants in the desert, etc. But it's not true that it says nothing. Per your alien example, we lack any evidence of aliens constructing artefacts on Earth. We have ample evidence of genetic influence on IQ.
comment in response to
post
Incredibly dishonest. I referred to admixture and brain studies. I've since cited further evidence. Your whole schtick is mischaracterisation and condescension without the intellectual heft to back it up.
comment in response to
post
Make the measure of SES as complicated as you like (I think this is just handwaving in an attempt to obfuscate, but whatever). There's no measure of SES, as far as I'm aware, that, when controlled for, removes the racial IQ gap.
comment in response to
post
I stated the affirmative case. We also have overwhelming evidence of the heritability of individual differences, which establishes that genes influence IQ. The failure of the gap to close once you control for many environmental factors is strong evidence that it's not exclusively environmental.
comment in response to
post
It was poor for reasons already given by Hume. Hardly analogous.
comment in response to
post
If the possibility of some better explanation yet undreamt of is enough to commit us to agnosticism, we should be agnostic about pretty much everything. The fact that HBD aligns with the available evidence better than any explanation proffered so far is good reason to believe in HBD. Basic stuff.
comment in response to
post
I understand the distinction between medical and social outcomes. I don't see why it's relevant to the ascription of racism. Both involve one group faring better in some way on account of innate differences. I've also cited sporting ability (which has social outcomes), which you've not addressed
comment in response to
post
There have been studies. www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-bo...
I'm not sure what you're arguing here -- that racial gaps in IQ are derived from people determinedly slicing up the data?
comment in response to
post
How tedious. I was inviting you to offer an explanation, in response to which I would explain why my explanation is better. That is not an argument from ignorance. If all non-alien explanations of pyramids were inconsistent with the evidence, that would indeed be a compelling case for them.