Even if that were true, it is important to note that there is far more variation in IQ between members of the SAME race than there is any variation in the average IQ between races.
Let's say, e.g., that "blacks" have an average IQ that is 2 points lower than that of "whites." That would still mean that a large percentage of blacks are smarter than a large percentage of whites.
Talking about average intelligence tells us exactly NOTHING about the intelligence of individuals.
LibertarianRealist has claimed that race is defined by physical features. I will add that clip in my reply to him. But I would also point out that your initial comment to me was "they never said features define race" and now you are replacing it with "genetic markers define race" but... they ALSO never said THAT either. None of them have been forthcoming about what exactly they mean by race and that was actually a major point in my video.
LibertarianRealist has claimed that race is defined by physical features. I will add that clip in my reply to him. But I would also point out that your initial comment to me was "they never said features define race" and now you are replacing it with "genetic markers define race" but... they ALSO never said THAT either. None of them have been forthcoming about what exactly they mean by race and that was actually a major point in my video.
@OneCerebralSamurai I haven't and you know I haven't. The racial realists have claimed that "race determines intelligence" and then further claimed that "race is defined by physical features" then it follows that the claim they are ACTUALLY making is that "physical features determine intelligence." That's not a straw man.
"then it follows that the claim they are actually making is that physical features determine intelligence"
While I am not sure where I stand on the issue of "race realism" or "race essentialism", I think oncecerebralsamurai is right here. Reducing an idea to absurdity is one thing, and you did that (albeit by taking "someone's" words VERY literally) nicely, but that's not the same as actually refuting their arguments.
When "they" say that race is "defined by physical characteristics", I think they're using the term "define" in a conventional or perhaps epistemological sense, not a causal or a ontological sense, ie race is some "category" or "essence", and members which instantiate this have these features. So they would never say something as absurd as "genes which code for facial features also code for intelligence".
On that note, I think you should have expanded the scope of this video to be a general objection to genetic-determinism. These youtube race-essentialists seem to assume that most, or all, of our characteristics are determined by genes.
1. They don't have to be the same genes for the distribution of the content of the genes responsible for neurological organization to be linked to those of appearance.
4. Selection is dependent on the environment. Though it may be hard to imagine a human society where it would be detrimental, the selective pressure for it does not have to be equal in all societies.
I'm not sure that industrial societies would favor it more but in any case those have only been around for some 1-2 centuries.
People only hear what they want to hear about this matter. Very few look at it dispassionately and objectively. Most will agree with someone only insofar as that other person's particular view aligns with their own politics.
Hence you get cheerleader-ism and politics as usual. The problem, of course, is that this isn't a political issue; it's a scientific one.
We need to develop the moral sensitivities to deal with unpopular and unnerving scientific results; not exercise knee-jerk political reflexes.
Because there could very well come a time in the not-so-distant future when this issue is decided decisively in favor of the hereditarian side... Then what?
The funnier aspect of the whole intelligence argument by race realists is the fact that intelligence as it has evolved in non-primates generally doesn't form from a neocortex. An example of this would be the brains of birds (especially parrots, ravens, and etc). Their brains use their language processing centers for their own ability of cognition.
i would like to add a filth point- stupidity is counter survival so especially in a primitive hunter gatherer culture it would be weeded out by survival of the fittest.
and thank you for owning the race realists we all wish we had done it, they ain't coming back from that.
But come to think of it, it isn't hard to see why many people would react knee-jerk whenever this topic is broached, if at a visceral or implicit level they equate group-differences in average IQ with one group being "stupid." However this clearly is a non sequitur.
Unfortunately, many people's moral faculties are so affectively-laced (meaning emotionally charged and guided), that it is extremely difficult to discuss this topic in an objective, logic- and evidence-based fashion.
When you say “stupidity,” my guess is that what you probably have in mind is something like clinical retardation, which has a threshold cut-off at a certain level of IQ, and even there there are different grades of retardation
Also, the notion of "stupidity" is a red herring in this matter unless you can operationalize the concept vis-a-vis intelligence. Any statistical differences in general intelligence between groups does not make one group "stupid." It is merely a relative comparison.
Independently of whether any "owning" of so-called "race realists" has or hasn't occurred, this video in no way refutes the hereditarian position on race-differences in intelligence nor proves the contra, namely environmentalism.
Rather, it now appears that the propensity to inherit the mental illness is indicative of an individual's mutation load (the combined inheritance of many small yet harmful mutations carried by their paternal and maternal lineages).
I should also add that this situation has relevance to both the molecular- and evolutionary-genetics of intelligence, for reasons I will not elaborate upon for now.
The trait has a radically heterogeneous genetic basis -- 'multiply realizable' by many rare, population-specific alleles -- which, by the way, explains why it has been extremely difficult to find common genes in the genome-wide association studies that have been carried out, which have scanned for molecular markers that might be statistically associated with it.
And in that vein, it's helpful to take note that the emerging view of schizophrenia in psychiatric genetics, evolutionary genetics, etc., which holds that, while heritable, is undergirded by a very expansive genetic architecture.
On the one hand, schizophrenia is both heritable and universal across cultures. Yet at the same time, it is essentially catastrophic to reproductive outcomes (schizophrenics have a greatly reduced likelihood of mating); all of which begs the obvious question: If it is simultaneously heritable, universal, and catastrophic to fitness outcomes, why hasn't selection pruned the alleles subserving schizophrenia?
I'm going to guess that by "stupidity" you're referring to clinically-defined mental retardation. In that case, its etiological basis is not very clear-cut. But at any rate, an analogy with another psychopathology, schizophrenia might be illuminating.
This is really all irrelevant to the actual debate -- for fun, lets just grant that genetics only influences IQ by 10%, if we assume the real world racial difference between whites and blacks at the given 15pts -- you might just have an environment argument.
But inheritibility of IQ has been shown, using meta-data, to be .85 -- it doesn't matter what happened to get there, there it is. That 10% could be all the difference in the world.
"But inheritibility of IQ has been shown, using meta-data, to be .85 -- it doesn't matter what happened to get there, there it is. That 10% could be all the difference in the world."
I would love to see your source for this. The most recent genetic evidence puts the amount of intel. variance caused by genetic differences to be 51%. Which I am fine with, everyone is fine with. I have never claimed that intelligence was in no way heritable, never, and in no way.
@MichaelPayton67 Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9.[5] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[6] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[7]
51% within what range? Take two people in identical environments - any difference between them will be entirely immutable-genetic, since environment is identical - unless you want to say the gene-environment interaction is different between these people, which itself would be acknowledging some innate difference.
The overall environmentality of IQ in SS Africa is probably higher than it is in the US, because there are wider variations in environment - nutrition, literacy and basic schooling. Thus environmental interventions could probably improve IQ in SS Africa, probably not so for the (by global standards) super-rich US blacks.
Meaning that Russian IQ which is about 97 can probably be raised more than black american IQ can.
12:28 "people who are against this racial realism do so ONLY on the basis of political ideology"
Assuming that was actually said...
This is what I call being allergic to the word "all". People use "all" in an informal manner, not a literal manner -- it means "nearly all". And this is true, most people have no background in the debate and display knee jerk reactions to the idea on its face. This is indisputable.
12:03 whether something "exists" or not is determined by its usefulness in general and specifically scientifically useful. It does not require us to know what genes are doing it.
Bulldogs exist because when you mate two of them together, you get another bulldog. Bulldogs don't depart reality if one day someone mates a bulldog with something else. Two bulldogs will still make a bulldog.
"Bulldogs exist because when you mate two of them together, you get another bulldog. Bulldogs don't depart reality if one day someone mates a bulldog with something else. Two bulldogs will still make a bulldog."
This is just intuitive essentialism which is easily undercut by a decent understanding of evolution. Bulldogs only make bulldogs, but then were did Bulldogs come from? I can't be more Bulldogs. That's why specifying particular genes is actually completely necessary.
7:30 -- "Epigenetics would be..." then you go on to talk about how you "change your DNA quite substantially" -- and then you go into Epigenetics again.
However, you are being confusing, perhaps a bad edit because in EG there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism. Only in its expression.
No one is saying that tuning your carburetor isn't important, we are focusing on the carburetor -- that which environment does/cannot change to whatever degree that is true.
7:17 - "for them to not address that in any way, is ridiculous"
The case he was stating was a simplified one, to illustrate one aspect of a more complex reality -- that is not any more ridiculous than saying "when you turn the key, the engine starts"
All he claimed was true, given identical environments, the more we can ascribe -- to genetics.... and this is likely, but not the sole possibility.
In addition, you circumscribe environment to "outside the womb".
4:26- you argue that because one girl makes an ad lib discussion on race in her first vid, that all race realists are operating on intuition than any scientific basis.
This is simply not the case, there are plenty of vids and writings that do just that.
Are you incapable of researching these things yourself? You act so helpless. Some peoples goals are simply to raise awareness that it is finally starting to be ok to speak out on these things.
Wow-- "the genes responsible for race are the same as ones for cognitive ability"
That is out there. No one is saying that.
An analogy of what is being said is -- imagine a tribe going off on a big exploration through the desert -- there, they learn things about the desert. They return and are differentiated from others for a period by callouses on their feet.
You are accusing people of saying the callouses are the cause of their gained knowledge.
"Wow-- "the genes responsible for race are the same as ones for cognitive ability" That is out there. No one is saying that."
Actually in a way they really are and this is why the studies are SO bad. Because when your ONLY manipulation of race is the being "self-identified" as either black or white and you don't account for any genetic variance in those populations at all then you really are, in experimental terms, saying there is a causal relationship between those variables.
Correct me if i am wrong, but this video is not refuting anything race realists have said, but instead tries to make the argument that all these genetic traits in black people are coincidental... and although common.... not exclusive to every black person. I can see why you were reluctant to respond lol, that's not much of an argument
The main argument is methodological. It is that the claim that race is identical to genetics and that genetics can easily be 1) associated in a one-to-one relationship to phenotypes or 2) separated from environmental factors in the way suggested by fringeelements are both wrong. These points, if understood correctly undermine every word in the claim that "race is predictive of cognitive ability." With the possible exception of the words "of" and "is."
@MichaelPayton67 "I have already pointed to more recent studies that put heritability at roughly 51% of variation in intelligence."
By the way, the current intelligence heritability estimates of .40 to .80 within behavior genetics is considered by geneticists as high in hertability. But this is more or less a semantic point.
@DrinkThatHenny But of course no generalizations ought to be made about people on an individual basis, as there is always the possibility that any given individual falls outside the statistical norm for the particular group they happen to be -- in this case genetically -- associated with. Verily, one finds statistical aberrations everywhere in nature.
@MichaelPayton67 Again, I'm not sure what the view of the "racial realists" is, but a hereditarian view need not provide any such essentialist view of race; rather it can keep to a view that is much more biologically plausible, which would be inherently statistical and evolutionarily informed.
@MichaelPayton67 “Okay, sounds wonky but I'll bite. If race = physical traits then we need a list of physical traits and why they are predictive of cognitive ability. If it's genetic, then we need the list of particular "race genes" which the realist is employing. Pick one.”
@MichaelPayton67 "If Rushton and others were interested in truly testing race in a predictive sense then they would likely test degrees of racial inheritance. This is an experimental manipulation they haven't yet tested but would be necessary to make the claim."
I'm not sure if they have or haven't done this, but I agree with your methodological point.
@MichaelPayton67 High within-group heritability, together with some collateral empirical information, inductively establishes a non-zero between-group heritability.
Attacking anything other than this above inductive argument is indeed attacking a straw-man. (Even Richard Lewontin persisted in attacking a straw caricature of Jensen's actual argument -- but that much shouldn't be surprising given that his views were guided by his personal politics.)
@MichaelPayton67 I'm not sure what so-called "racial realists" are suggesting, but while Arthur Jensen's argument does not conclusively determine that genetics explain between-group differences in intelligence, it is nonetheless an inductive argument that can be briefly summarized as follows:
@MichaelPayton67 "I don't care who argued it. The contemporary studies now show that 51% of intel differences can be genetic. That does NOT imply that race is a factor in determining intelligence and it certainly does not imply the amount of variance suggested by racial realists"
@MichaelPayton67 And the reason for this is quite simple: Intelligence testing robustly finds average test-score differences along racial lines, that is by group. Ergo, it then becomes possible to antecedently predict the general intelligence of someone on a statistical basis (the key word here being 'statistical') if one knows their ancestry relatively well.
It's simple: racists are not "race realists", they are people with a pathological need to see *something* about themselves as superior, their actual personal intellect/character/accomplishments notwithstanding. They will willfully misunderstand/misrepresent the science to these ends.
I'm not the first to point out that you hardly ever see someone call themselves a "race realist" and consider themselves a member of what they consider the inferior race.
Race Realists are the same idiots as they always have been, they just took off the sheets. Consider 'race' is the majority of the movement, then consider which race is truly the most violent (I don't know of any world wars started by any part of africa, or crusades, or major conquests of the ancient world, or mass genocides of whole continents of people).
I'm sorry to have to say this, you are being reasonable and rational, but they may not have the 'genetics' to understand your arguement.
Also: Recent evolutionary-genetic studies looking for selective sweeps have even found evidence of such sweeps occurring differently between even very closely related groups located in close geographic proximity, but which have nonetheless experienced different selection pressures.
[This is in reference to my comments regarding selection pressures varying with differing environments.]
The environment of evolutionary adaptedness for humans, as I pointed out, was in Africa during the Pleistocene.
When humans first started to disperse across the globe 40 to 60-thousand years ago, they came face to face with novel environmental challenges in various ecological niches that they had not hitherto come across in their 2-million-plus years of evolution on mostly Savanna territory in continental Africa.
(2) Controlled experimentation on two disparate populations of black capped-chickadees, gathered from the latitudinal extremes of their species' range, for instance, strongly suggest that directional selection for increased general cognitive ability has occurred in these respective populations.
Those black capped-chickadees from the northern population -- living in an ecological niche which has previously been found to be more harsher -- indeed had enhanced cognitive abilities vis-a-vis their southern conspecifics; and both groups were reared together in the experiment, to control for various rearing confounds.
(3) Molecular-genetic data in humans now clearly demonstrates that disparate groups have evolved differences in a variety of traits (as I previously noted, i.e., lactose tolerance, skin color), which have been associated with various genetic polymorphisms in the genome.
There are even genome-wide association study (GWAS) candidate markers for possible effects on cognition. This should tell us that there is no reason to think that such evolutionary change has not also similarly occurred for cognitive traits in the intervening 40 to 60-thousand years of dispersal from Africa.
“2. It is laughable to think there is a single environment, let alone the MULTITUDE of environments that make up the continent of Africa in which intelligence would not be selected for in any way.”
Actually, on the contrary: in some sense it is laughable to equate the ecological diversity of Africa with the ecological diversity of the planet at large, and even those of its terrestrial locales where other groups of human diaspora settled.
In a very real sense, to equate the two would be tantamount to comparing proverbial apples and oranges.
In other words, such evidence at least supports the notion that selection can operate according to relatively fine-grained differences between ecologies, even among those ecologies which are in relatively close geographical proximity.
When we consider the sorts of environmental differences that occur as the distance from equatorial Africa increases, this should caution against thinking that environmental differences could not have exerted any positive directional selection pressures for increased intelligence on human diaspora.
Again, I want to make it eminently clear that I'm not claiming that positive directional selection for intelligence has in fact occurred in non-African groups, or that their is even strong evidence in favor of either the hereditarian or environmentalist positions; my central point is merely that we cannot assume it hasn't, particularly in light of indirect evidence that could be used to support the thesis, as noted above.
I will message you some citations for the above points.
Unfortunately this critique misses the boat by a wide margin.
Racial differences in general intelligence are in no way dependent upon pleiotropic effects of genes for pigment or body morphology which also implicate them in intelligence.
Your citation of recent work in the epigenetics of intelligence is far from a refutation of the argument for race differences in intelligence; in fact, psychometricians and other academics who propound the thesis presume that epigenetic factors affect the development and expression of general intelligence for all humans, not just those with African ancestry.
"psychometricians and other academics who propound the thesis presume that epigenetic factors affect the development and expression of general intelligence for all humans, not just those with African ancestry.
"
Who said that it just effects Africans? I was saying that even small chemical changes in environments would have large effects and dynamical effects on the genotype. So the "either genes or environment" idea" would be a false dichotomy.
"If intelligence is heretable then it would be positively selected for by natural selection and thus be rediscovered repeatedly in all cultures."
My main point was addressing point (4) in your video description. We have no reason to think that such an assertion must hold. I'm not necessarily making a firm positive claim either way -- I'm only claiming that we cannot presume that intelligence must necessarily have been positively selected for in all disparate groups.
This much is assumed in behavior genetics, the intelligence research community and within the literatures, of which you mysteriously did not so much as even mention.
In those literatures, of course, it is a well established consensus that general intelligence is highly heritable -- with estimates ranging from .40 to as high as .80 -- with the heritability even increasing with age (and for that matter, every cognitive and behavioral trait ever measured evinces a heritability number).
It is additionally established that intelligence testing of different groups within the United States demonstrates differences in IQ scores, with African Americans as an aggregate scoring one standard deviation below the norm, at about 85; whites at around 100; and Asians and Jews scoring above the white average, and as high as one standard deviation above it.
Richard Jensen has for years suggested that the high heritability of general intelligence, itself an uncontroversial fact, favors a hereditarian view of race differences.
"Richard Jensen has for years suggested that the high heritability of general intelligence, itself an uncontroversial fact, favors a hereditarian view of race differences."
I don't care who argued it. The contemporary studies now show that 51% of intel differences can be genetic. That does NOT imply that race is a factor in determining intelligence and it certainly does not imply the amount of variance suggested by racial realists
@MichaelPayton67 OK, a couple of corrections to Michael: 1) cancer cells can emerge from alterations of a cell's genome, not just epigenetics. A very improbable one, that's why people tend to get cancer later in life. A cell can become "selfish", but you probably know it. 2) The better fed the population and the more favourable the upbringing, the more % of heritable intelligence. 3) There ARE ethnic differences in intelligence, but we can't say that they are caused by genetics as for now.
@MichaelPayton67 Well, actually, if we take this above assertion literally (and I'll assume for now that you intend it be taken literally, while giving you the right to correct my interpretation to a more charitable one) then if we bracket for a moment the hereditarian/environmentalist debate, race is, in fact, predictive of cognitive ability, if by cognitive ability is meant general intelligence.
@MichaelPayton67 "These points, if understood correctly undermine every word in the claim that "race is predictive of cognitive ability." With the possible exception of the words "of" and "is.""
@MichaelPayton67 Again, it's worth noting the following two epistemic points: (1) neither the hereditarian or environmentalist is really on solid evidentiary grounds to make a firm conclusion, simply because, (2) the debates within the intelligence literature are replete with exchanges involving dense and ceaseless statistical analyses on large amounts of data.
Hence, in light of the above two epistemic points, nobody outside of that literature is really entitled to a strong conclusion.
@MichaelPayton67 This would also broadly be consistent with the claim of Rushton and Jensen that the IQ gap between blacks and whites in the U.S. has essentially not narrowed -- that is, it has remained more or less constant -- and rather scaled at the same rate -- covaried -- in light of the Flynn effect.
@MichaelPayton67 Analagously to eye color, the hereditarian is claiming that there are inherent plasticity limitations to those alleles found amongst, say, African-Americans, statistically speaking, at the quantitative trait loci which subserve intelligence, which is massively polygenic trait, to be sure.
@MichaelPayton67 Biological organisms, including of course humans, are indeed variously malleable; but they are malleable within delineated constraints. I highly doubt this is something you need to be told, at any rate. Which is why it is especially puzzling that you appeal to points (1) and (2) to make a stronger conclusion than is indeed warranted.
@MichaelPayton67 In other words, whatever sorts of developmental trajectories and epigenetic processes might impinge on the genes for blue eyes, we could effectively say that they will not end up giving rise to brown eyes, as such would be outside of its reaction norm.
@MichaelPayton67 yet in spite of this, one could nonetheless maintain that the genes for either of the two eye colors canalize their development (in the sense of Waddington), admitting only of a specifically circumscribed degree of phenotypic plasticity.
@MichaelPayton67 I'm not particularly sure what you mean by “race is identical to genetics.” Perhaps you could expatiate.
But with regard to points (1) and (2), they run the risk of severely straw-manning the hereditarian position. When one speaks of, say, the development of human eyes, one might say that, all things being equal, genes for blue eyes, and genes for brown eyes, are affected equally by epigenetic and developmental factors;
@MichaelPayton67 "The main argument is methodological. It is that the claim that race is identical to genetics and that genetics can easily be 1) associated in a one-to-one relationship to phenotypes or 2) separated from environmental factors in the way suggested by fringeelements are both wrong."
Both Jensen and Rushton have also argued, amongst other things, that transracial adoption data show that black children in the United States raised with affluent white parents end up with IQ scores roughly in the neighborhood of the black populational norm by adulthood; while similarly children of other races raised by affluent white parents end up with IQ scores concordant with their respective group norms.
And while any argument and evidence adduced in favor of the hereditarian thesis for race differences in intelligence is by no means established or a knock-down proof, we should not kid ourselves about the contrasting position: neither is any evidence or argument contra the environmentalist thesis established or similarly a knock-down proof.
The simple truth is that the debate on this issue within the literature has become so statistics- and data-intensive that by far most people on the outside looking in are simply unqualified to take a hard stand on the issue.
Also, with regard to point (4) in your video description (which unfortunately I may have missed discussion of within your video response):
There is absolutely no reason to presume that intelligence would not have been positively selected for in dispersed groups of humans. In fact, we have every reason to think that differing groups have experienced different selective regimes since humans first emigrated from Africa 40- to 60-thousand years ago.
"There is absolutely no reason to presume that intelligence would not have been positively selected for in dispersed groups of humans."
You are missing the burden of proof. We have no reason to believe that it was selected FOR either. You are making the positive claim, not me. Show me your evidence.
The molecular-genetic data is now unequivocal about this point for many traits -- i.e., lactose tolerance; skin color, etc. -- and hence there is no reason to antecedently presume that cognitive traits will necessarily be any different.
With regard to selective pressures for general intelligence, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to think that any directional selection for intelligence will be stronger in environments most unlike our environment of evolutionary adaptedness (which is a statistical composite of spatiotemporal environments throughout the Pleistocene epoch in Africa).
"With regard to selective pressures for general intelligence, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to think that any directional selection for intelligence will be stronger in environments most unlike our environment of evolutionary adaptedness."
What are they? I've been asking this question repeatedly and no one has explained what these selection pressures would be. Cite your claims.
Ergo, precisely those groups who dispersed throughout the world and were concomitantly faced with evolutionarily novel environmental challenges would be those most likely to evolve higher intelligence; and indeed this hypothesis is at least consistent with all the extant psychometric data on IQ scores between groups.
Note that this does not mean that intelligence was “selected against in all of Africa;” all that it entails is that intelligence was no longer positively selected for in Africans -- or more to the point, simply maintained at a certain level or perhaps relaxed to some extent -- else not positively selected for as strongly as was occurring for other dispersed groups in other regions of the world.
You do the debate and discourse a great disservice by taking a harder stance than is currently epistemically warranted, while simultaneously ignoring the intelligence, behavior genetic, and molecular genetic literatures (amongst other things), and accusing those with a view opposed to yours as inherently 'racist'.
These were the kinds of anti-intellectual insults hurled at sociobiologists in the 70s by other scientists and academics simply because certain things did not align with their own politics and moral sentiments.
I'd like to think that the more learned amongst us have moved beyond such tactics and can instead focus on the evidentiary and logical merits of an argument.
"We have no reason to think that genes responsible for phenotypes of facial structure, bone structure or skin tone are identical to those genes responsible for neurological organisation."
Amazing strawman. Let's apply the same reasoning to women:
"We have no reason to think that genes responsible for phenotypes of facial structure, structure of hips or the uterus are identical to those genes responsible for the growth of breasts."
How is this a strawman? You claim that you can't identify the genes. Now you're also saying you can't identify it with ANY phenotypical morphological structure. Other than saying "it's like a breed of dog" when has your side EVER provided any testable definition of race?
What are you talking about? Are you even addressing my comment? Your objections don't rebut anything I say.
I used this analogy: The set of genes that produce the female hip structure tend to be found alongside the genes that produce female sex organs. Does it follow from this that the genes for female hip structure and sex organs are identical? This is addressing 1).
No race realist has ever claimed that the same genes that produce one racial trait produce all others.
I have repeatedly over and over asked what were the selection pressures that cause intelligence to be selected against in africans. Your analogy falls on my side because the same selection pressures for female genitalia and wide hips are the same. So if it wasn't genetic drift then it was a selection pressure. What is the selection pressure?
"I have repeatedly over and over asked what were the selection pressures that cause intelligence to be selected against in africans."
I have responded to that in another comment to you.
I don't see how the existence of many selection processes changes the validity what I said. I was addressing your claim that race realists believe that the "genes responsible for phenotypes of facial structure, bone structure or skin tone are identical to those genes responsible for neurological organisation."
1. Either phenotypes are accidental and the cause of genetic drift or they are actively selected for or against.
2. It is laughable to think there is a single environment, let alone the MULTITUDE of environments that make up the continent of Africa in which intelligence would not be selected for in any way.
3. So therefore intelligence cannot be selected against in all of Africa
4. Therefore it must be an example of genetic drift
You have continued to make irrelevant objections to the points I make. When I point out that no race realist believes that the wide variety of racial traits in any particular race all come from an identical set of genes, you decide to steer the debate away to talking about the causes of the aggregate genetic differences - which is clearly irrelevant. You implied that if traits come together they must by produced by identical genes - which is clearly untrue for both gender and race.
But that IS the claim. If you are correlating body morphology to cognition then you are actually saying that there is some causal link between these two.
Populations that have been subjected to the same natural selection processes will develop similar genes. Genes that are developed for environment X will tend to find themselves alongside other genes for environment X. Just because traits tend to go together, this does not mean they come from a common set of genes. They come from common natural selection processes. Nobody is saying that the genes responsible for facial structure also control neurological organisation.
Again, I have asked this a million times and no one has answered. Why was intelligence selected against in all of Africa in such a way that skin colour is predictive of intelligence?
I don't know what specific selection processes led to lower aggregate IQ in Africa. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable does. There are all sorts of lines of reasoning that work both directions, for both lower or higher relative IQ. You are just using one line of reasoning that would lead to higher IQ. Thus the only way to proceed to look at empirical data.
Also I was criticising 1) not 4), so asking me to address 4) distracts from my criticism.
I couldn't think anything worse then boxing off populations of humans and subjecting them to localized inbreeding.
Any farmer can tell you the benefits of hybrid vigor.
I find mixed races especially seem to turn out some of the most beautiful women.
I know that's nothing to do with whats being said here....I am just simply saying the very idea of shutting yourself off and the inevitable inbreeding that will follow is just crazy.
I am not a "Race Realist" (as a proper noun)... but I would LIKE to think that I'm realistic about race in general, whatever conclusions may be drawn from it all. TRUTH is truth, no matter what the public thinks should be correct.
In my recent video on the topic, I made the very basic points...
1) All people are different, with groupings amongst various "races" being distinctive.
2) These differences are among a ton of different metrics.
Excellent take. The only way to establish whether IQ is an indication of genetic superiority is to measure reproductive and survival success... in other words , to demonstrate there is an evolutionary advantage to having a genetically based higher IQ.
The term equality doesn't mean to be equal in every ability, but to be equal in how an individual is given a chance. Many racists get confused on this.
@deepashtray "The only way to establish whether IQ is an indication of genetic superiority is to measure reproductive and survival success."
Why would you think that? It's more than enough that a group of people decide that they value IQ over other aspects of humanity and then proceed to rank genomes depending on how well they do. This is also the point being made by people who claim to observe IQ differences along classical racial lines.
@deepashtray That is, that IQ measures traits that are valuable to modern civilization, as opposed to whatever is responsible for success in a hunter-gatherer society. It's possible that they're mistaken about this, but g has a fair bit of predictive power with regards to success in modern societies it's somewhat likely that they may have a point there, although much of the IQ difference measured no doubt is due to malnutrition in developing countries.
@Gnomefro To put it more simply, the whole thing about saying there is some kind of superiority of one race over another is complete bullshit. There's nothing to it. To find out if IQ does impart "superiority" would require taking 2 groups of people, 1 determined to have "high" IQ and 1 "average" IQ, put each of them on a pair of absolutely identical islands and check them in 3 million years to see who has the larger surviving population.
Your first rebuttal is a strawman. In the clip he was NOT asserting that the genetic differences that make visible ethnicity are the same differences for any of his other points. You're assuming that the only genetic differences are physical characteristics and he makes a very good argument to the contrary. You missed his argument completely...which is exactly what they're saying you are doing. That being said, I think he's very wrong... but its his theory that he should do research to defend.
I normally enjoy your videos, mike, but this is easily one of the most boring ones you've made, to my knowledge.
These individuals are hardly worth answering at all, and the issue is basically cut and dry enough that even discussing it is bound to be little more than a reiteration of what most of us already know, and what these people SHOULD know, if they truly dont in the first place.
For the most part, I feel that racial-nationalists are better ignored entirely where possible.
I think you got # 1 a tad wrong. What fringe and others often claim is that (a) there are geographic variations in the genetic set of humans, and (b) some of them relate to IQ, and (c) there is a causal relation between the environment these sets exist in and the IQ genes. While I agree that fringe circumnavigates the necessity of defining races by so doing, he falls short of detailing (b) and when it comes to (c) the only thing I see is hand pushing air around i a circular pattern.
I think the opposition (Ruka) are easily confused by big words. They like to keep things simple. "We don't like them, so we can come up with reasons to isolate them from us."
Racial realism reminds me of creationism in a way. Its proponents attempt to use science to justify their beliefs and further their agenda, but fail due to a lack of understanding of science.
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you are right. I did a lot of reflecting before entering into this thing and made my decision based on the idea that I could help clarify some issues. I'm sorry if you disagree.
@MichaelPayton67 Fair enough. I don't disagree with you there. You always make good (usually great) videos, but what I'm questioning is ... where's the line?
How absurd can a claim be, yet still command attention? Or is it numbers? How many people have to believe something mindbogglingly stupid before it's worth a response?
I guess I just thought this was below *anyone* responding to it, let alone yourself.
Lack of nutrient, poisons and illnesses during the development of the fetus and time from birth to adulthood affects so much. It must necessary to follow that poor people at near of the equator have worst status in healthy development which must affect to their IQ. Also dark skin does not create as much vitamin D as white skin. Vitamin D is known to aid against illnesses an keeping people active so dark skinned folk at north should take D to improve their own and their children activity/health.
Also want to add that in twin studies it doesn't just show that IQ is highly heritable, but also many personality traits, the obvious physical traits and hormone levels like testosterone.
Furthermore this video shows how race denialist come to reject race realism/hereditarianism base on straw-men of our positions.
@DKshad0w If you were intellectually honest you say what the parent/child IQ correlation really is, rather than throw around idle shells like "IQ is highly heritable". (Hint: 0.75 is wrong).
And if you'd be honest you'd engage with the literature that discussion twin studies themselves, or heritability and how these concepts are thought of.
But you are not. The accusation that you guys are empty shells of superficial rhetoric is blatantly obvious to anybody who has just minimal knowledge.
@DKshad0w In short you are still running around doing the same idle apologetics you have been doing all this time. An ignoramus and about it lying too.
This is not a straw-man of the racial realist position. I have been told repeatedly that race cannot be boiled down to particular genes, but rather should be associated with physical traits. Okay, sounds wonky but I'll bite. If race = physical traits then we need a list of physical traits and why they are predictive of cognitive ability. If it's genetic, then we need the list of particular "race genes" which the realist is employing. Pick one.
The reason that I employ physical traits in this way is that this is the ONLY manipulation that Rushton and others focus on. They ask for self-identification. Someone could be of highly mixed racial background and yet self-identify as black. If Rushton and others were interested in truly testing race in a predictive sense then they would likely test degrees of racial inheritance. This is an experimental manipulation they haven't yet tested but would be necessary to make the claim.
On your point 2 and 3. Hereditarians do not deny that environment have an effect so that's a straw-man. On point 4, twin studies have been done and IQ is highly heritable. Furthermore not every environment has the same selection pressures, so there's no reason to believe that intelligence will be selected for equally around the range of environment on this planet.
@DKshad0w Where is that wonderfully controlled longitudinal (and reproduced) twin study that would establish that this applies to "racial" differences and using what genetic definition of race? Because Scarr et al does not count. It's a confounded study that gives evidence that environmental correlates explain the observed gaps, making it poor evidence in either direction.
@socrates856 The Minnesota twin study, is NOT THE ONLY TWIN STUDY. I'm willing to engage in discussions on twin studies, but not with you because you lie, blocked me and a coward.
@DKshad0w From the researchers you guys like: Rushton & Jensen (2005):
"[..] (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). It is also _the only_ transracial adoption study that includes a longitudinal follow-up, with testing at ages 7 and 17 years."
My emphasis. You are back to lying again. (And yeah I block perpetually dishonest people.)
@DKshad0w You claim it's "racial", hence studies that directly test the effect, logitudinal cross-racial studies is what you need. But yes Michael has correctly identified that science is twisted here. You want us to ignore the most pertinent evidence, muddle terms and so forth. But you still haven't answered my question: What is the parent child IQ correlation reported in studies, that even your favorites (Rushton, Jensen etc) cite, report? That is independent of "race".
@socrates856 I'm not falling that that one again, if I don't answer EXACTLY the way you want you'll just accuse me of being ignorant again. Then you'll accuse me of lying when it's clear, from the evidence on my channel page that you're the liar. I wasn't talking to you anyways, piss off.
@DKshad0w I accuse you of lying about being competent on the subject. That's already established. And you twist facts to server your narrative. Here is what you say: "IQ is highly heritable" Yet you don't tell people about the complexity around IQ nor do you explain what "heritability" as a technical term means. The unassuming observer will think it's the amount of IQ you get from your parents. Now one can test that model by looking at measured parent/child correlation of IQ. It's 0.2. "Highly"?
@socrates856 I proved that you are deceptive and lied about me not answering your questions, and I have actual evidence not just empty assertions. Far be it that I twist facts to serve a narrative, at least I have facts to back myself up.
I think the question was, 'which 'facts' are those'. From which studies?
But I will add another question. . . what are YOUR qualifications to accurately understand and interpret the sources from which you derive your 'facts'?
@tlrlml I don't really understand what you are asking. There are many studies done on the heritability of traits among other things, really there are large amount of twin studies done on the subject. Also there are many studies done on the genetic of racial groups, and their frequency of traits.
I don't have any credentials but I understand the hereditarian argument. If ones needs qualifications to talk about the subject, then MichaelPayton67 shouldn't have made this video.
Well then I come to understand your argument, or lack there of.
"WHAT?!?!", you say.
You have no argument, because you fail to define what it is your arguing, because you lack the credentials to define the base term of the argument. (That is 'what is the definition of 'race'' if you fail to understand what the base term is.) Opining on someone else's opinion of someone else's study, is an opinion NOT an argument.
@tlrlml I was responding to MichaelPayton67's straw-manning of the race realist/hereditarian argument. WTF I need credentials to define race? I have read many of these studies, so I'm not just "opining" on them, I'm relying the information.
@tlrlml I wasn't "debating" MichaelPayton67, I was addressing his straw-mans, you have no comprehension skills. MichaelPayton67 didn't define what "race" is either he just assert hereditarians believes it's a social construct. I didn't even mention race to MichaelPayton67, I was establishing the rule of genetics in the development of intelligence and personality.
How do credentials magically allow me to understand a study? So no one can understand anything without credentials? You're an idiot.
You don't want to test my comprehension skills. You were, IN FACT, debating both the uploader and socrates856 over both the so-called straw-man and the existence of studies that back your position. AND you were also doing while neither producing your definition of race or the studies which you claim to cite as your proofs. So, I say, for every straw-man there is an equally disingenious (blind) appeal to authority in support of a non causa pro causa. (cont.)
I also find it hard to conceive that you don't understand the need for credentials if you are proposing to establish anything, especially if it is as detailed and complex a subject as genetic science. You may ASSERT that you know the rules of genetic science, why would anyone presume that, on your own word, you have the expertise to do so?
The uploader has not stated a positive claim on, for, or against the term race. You have, the burden of proof is yours! (cont.)
@tlrlml MichaelPayton67 hasn't even responded to me, and I wasn't "debating" socrates856, I was telling him off because he is a coward and a liar. I will bring up specifics if MichaelPayton67 asks for them. MichaelPayton67 did posit positive claims, he asserted that hereditarians hold certain positions, but the ones he posited were straw-men. Credentials are not required for my arguments to be truth-apt. I didn't use an ad hom, I never said your argument is wrong because you're an idiot.
You are correct, you did not use 'AN' ad hominem, you used two ad hominems. One to discredit my position that you have presented no argument because he have provided no evidence to back your position (i.e. I lack comprehension), two to discredit my own person (i.e. the assertion that I am an idiot). I will be expecting your proofs of these positions, or your timely apology.
Good to hear someone intelligent exposing racial essentialism for the hypocritical pseudo-science it is.
razoodocks 1 month ago
@LighterPlanet
Even if that were true, it is important to note that there is far more variation in IQ between members of the SAME race than there is any variation in the average IQ between races.
Let's say, e.g., that "blacks" have an average IQ that is 2 points lower than that of "whites." That would still mean that a large percentage of blacks are smarter than a large percentage of whites.
Talking about average intelligence tells us exactly NOTHING about the intelligence of individuals.
ClumsyRoot 4 months ago
Dumb shit
fieldcommandereyesin 4 months ago
@OneCerebralSamurai
LibertarianRealist has claimed that race is defined by physical features. I will add that clip in my reply to him. But I would also point out that your initial comment to me was "they never said features define race" and now you are replacing it with "genetic markers define race" but... they ALSO never said THAT either. None of them have been forthcoming about what exactly they mean by race and that was actually a major point in my video.
MichaelPayton67 5 months ago
@OneCerebralSamurai
LibertarianRealist has claimed that race is defined by physical features. I will add that clip in my reply to him. But I would also point out that your initial comment to me was "they never said features define race" and now you are replacing it with "genetic markers define race" but... they ALSO never said THAT either. None of them have been forthcoming about what exactly they mean by race and that was actually a major point in my video.
MichaelPayton67 5 months ago
@OneCerebralSamurai I haven't and you know I haven't. The racial realists have claimed that "race determines intelligence" and then further claimed that "race is defined by physical features" then it follows that the claim they are ACTUALLY making is that "physical features determine intelligence." That's not a straw man.
MichaelPayton67 5 months ago
"then it follows that the claim they are actually making is that physical features determine intelligence"
While I am not sure where I stand on the issue of "race realism" or "race essentialism", I think oncecerebralsamurai is right here. Reducing an idea to absurdity is one thing, and you did that (albeit by taking "someone's" words VERY literally) nicely, but that's not the same as actually refuting their arguments.
migkillertwo 4 months ago
Comment removed
migkillertwo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When "they" say that race is "defined by physical characteristics", I think they're using the term "define" in a conventional or perhaps epistemological sense, not a causal or a ontological sense, ie race is some "category" or "essence", and members which instantiate this have these features. So they would never say something as absurd as "genes which code for facial features also code for intelligence".
migkillertwo 4 months ago
On that note, I think you should have expanded the scope of this video to be a general objection to genetic-determinism. These youtube race-essentialists seem to assume that most, or all, of our characteristics are determined by genes.
migkillertwo 4 months ago
1. They don't have to be the same genes for the distribution of the content of the genes responsible for neurological organization to be linked to those of appearance.
4. Selection is dependent on the environment. Though it may be hard to imagine a human society where it would be detrimental, the selective pressure for it does not have to be equal in all societies.
I'm not sure that industrial societies would favor it more but in any case those have only been around for some 1-2 centuries.
certaintythrudoubt 5 months ago
People only hear what they want to hear about this matter. Very few look at it dispassionately and objectively. Most will agree with someone only insofar as that other person's particular view aligns with their own politics.
Hence you get cheerleader-ism and politics as usual. The problem, of course, is that this isn't a political issue; it's a scientific one.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
We need to develop the moral sensitivities to deal with unpopular and unnerving scientific results; not exercise knee-jerk political reflexes.
Because there could very well come a time in the not-so-distant future when this issue is decided decisively in favor of the hereditarian side... Then what?
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago 7
I agree with you, but the stats still show. :( I think it's imprinting...I think, not know.
Donatellangelo 5 months ago
The funnier aspect of the whole intelligence argument by race realists is the fact that intelligence as it has evolved in non-primates generally doesn't form from a neocortex. An example of this would be the brains of birds (especially parrots, ravens, and etc). Their brains use their language processing centers for their own ability of cognition.
ladyattis 5 months ago
I have a question:
People say race is a social construct, what evidence would be required for it to not be a social construct?
mindprism 6 months ago
i would like to add a filth point- stupidity is counter survival so especially in a primitive hunter gatherer culture it would be weeded out by survival of the fittest.
and thank you for owning the race realists we all wish we had done it, they ain't coming back from that.
death9719 6 months ago
@death9719
But come to think of it, it isn't hard to see why many people would react knee-jerk whenever this topic is broached, if at a visceral or implicit level they equate group-differences in average IQ with one group being "stupid." However this clearly is a non sequitur.
Unfortunately, many people's moral faculties are so affectively-laced (meaning emotionally charged and guided), that it is extremely difficult to discuss this topic in an objective, logic- and evidence-based fashion.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@death9719
When you say “stupidity,” my guess is that what you probably have in mind is something like clinical retardation, which has a threshold cut-off at a certain level of IQ, and even there there are different grades of retardation
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@death9719
Also, the notion of "stupidity" is a red herring in this matter unless you can operationalize the concept vis-a-vis intelligence. Any statistical differences in general intelligence between groups does not make one group "stupid." It is merely a relative comparison.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@death9719
Independently of whether any "owning" of so-called "race realists" has or hasn't occurred, this video in no way refutes the hereditarian position on race-differences in intelligence nor proves the contra, namely environmentalism.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@DrinkThatHenny yes but how does stupidity not get weeded out of the gene pool.
death9719 5 months ago
@death9719
Rather, it now appears that the propensity to inherit the mental illness is indicative of an individual's mutation load (the combined inheritance of many small yet harmful mutations carried by their paternal and maternal lineages).
I should also add that this situation has relevance to both the molecular- and evolutionary-genetics of intelligence, for reasons I will not elaborate upon for now.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@death9719
The trait has a radically heterogeneous genetic basis -- 'multiply realizable' by many rare, population-specific alleles -- which, by the way, explains why it has been extremely difficult to find common genes in the genome-wide association studies that have been carried out, which have scanned for molecular markers that might be statistically associated with it.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@death9719
And in that vein, it's helpful to take note that the emerging view of schizophrenia in psychiatric genetics, evolutionary genetics, etc., which holds that, while heritable, is undergirded by a very expansive genetic architecture.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@death9719
On the one hand, schizophrenia is both heritable and universal across cultures. Yet at the same time, it is essentially catastrophic to reproductive outcomes (schizophrenics have a greatly reduced likelihood of mating); all of which begs the obvious question: If it is simultaneously heritable, universal, and catastrophic to fitness outcomes, why hasn't selection pruned the alleles subserving schizophrenia?
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@death9719
I'm going to guess that by "stupidity" you're referring to clinically-defined mental retardation. In that case, its etiological basis is not very clear-cut. But at any rate, an analogy with another psychopathology, schizophrenia might be illuminating.
DrinkThatHenny 5 months ago
@DrinkThatHenny no i mean unintelligent like race realism stupidity would die out in competition.
death9719 5 months ago
This is really all irrelevant to the actual debate -- for fun, lets just grant that genetics only influences IQ by 10%, if we assume the real world racial difference between whites and blacks at the given 15pts -- you might just have an environment argument.
But inheritibility of IQ has been shown, using meta-data, to be .85 -- it doesn't matter what happened to get there, there it is. That 10% could be all the difference in the world.
mindprism 6 months ago
@mindprism
"But inheritibility of IQ has been shown, using meta-data, to be .85 -- it doesn't matter what happened to get there, there it is. That 10% could be all the difference in the world."
I would love to see your source for this. The most recent genetic evidence puts the amount of intel. variance caused by genetic differences to be 51%. Which I am fine with, everyone is fine with. I have never claimed that intelligence was in no way heritable, never, and in no way.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9.[5] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[6] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[7]
Wiki- the references are there
mindprism 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MichaelPayton67 "The most recent genetic evidence puts the amount of intel. variance caused by genetic differences to be 51%."
in adults?
hitssquad 5 months ago in playlist Videos from MichaelPayton67
51% within what range? Take two people in identical environments - any difference between them will be entirely immutable-genetic, since environment is identical - unless you want to say the gene-environment interaction is different between these people, which itself would be acknowledging some innate difference.
fringeelements 3 months ago
The overall environmentality of IQ in SS Africa is probably higher than it is in the US, because there are wider variations in environment - nutrition, literacy and basic schooling. Thus environmental interventions could probably improve IQ in SS Africa, probably not so for the (by global standards) super-rich US blacks.
Meaning that Russian IQ which is about 97 can probably be raised more than black american IQ can.
fringeelements 3 months ago
12:28 "people who are against this racial realism do so ONLY on the basis of political ideology"
Assuming that was actually said...
This is what I call being allergic to the word "all". People use "all" in an informal manner, not a literal manner -- it means "nearly all". And this is true, most people have no background in the debate and display knee jerk reactions to the idea on its face. This is indisputable.
Having that be one of your points is pretty weak.
mindprism 6 months ago
12:03 whether something "exists" or not is determined by its usefulness in general and specifically scientifically useful. It does not require us to know what genes are doing it.
Bulldogs exist because when you mate two of them together, you get another bulldog. Bulldogs don't depart reality if one day someone mates a bulldog with something else. Two bulldogs will still make a bulldog.
mindprism 6 months ago
@mindprism
"Bulldogs exist because when you mate two of them together, you get another bulldog. Bulldogs don't depart reality if one day someone mates a bulldog with something else. Two bulldogs will still make a bulldog."
This is just intuitive essentialism which is easily undercut by a decent understanding of evolution. Bulldogs only make bulldogs, but then were did Bulldogs come from? I can't be more Bulldogs. That's why specifying particular genes is actually completely necessary.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
7:30 -- "Epigenetics would be..." then you go on to talk about how you "change your DNA quite substantially" -- and then you go into Epigenetics again.
However, you are being confusing, perhaps a bad edit because in EG there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism. Only in its expression.
No one is saying that tuning your carburetor isn't important, we are focusing on the carburetor -- that which environment does/cannot change to whatever degree that is true.
mindprism 6 months ago
7:17 - "for them to not address that in any way, is ridiculous"
The case he was stating was a simplified one, to illustrate one aspect of a more complex reality -- that is not any more ridiculous than saying "when you turn the key, the engine starts"
All he claimed was true, given identical environments, the more we can ascribe -- to genetics.... and this is likely, but not the sole possibility.
In addition, you circumscribe environment to "outside the womb".
mindprism 6 months ago
4:26- you argue that because one girl makes an ad lib discussion on race in her first vid, that all race realists are operating on intuition than any scientific basis.
This is simply not the case, there are plenty of vids and writings that do just that.
Are you incapable of researching these things yourself? You act so helpless. Some peoples goals are simply to raise awareness that it is finally starting to be ok to speak out on these things.
mindprism 6 months ago
Wow-- "the genes responsible for race are the same as ones for cognitive ability"
That is out there. No one is saying that.
An analogy of what is being said is -- imagine a tribe going off on a big exploration through the desert -- there, they learn things about the desert. They return and are differentiated from others for a period by callouses on their feet.
You are accusing people of saying the callouses are the cause of their gained knowledge.
mindprism 6 months ago
@mindprism
"Wow-- "the genes responsible for race are the same as ones for cognitive ability" That is out there. No one is saying that."
Actually in a way they really are and this is why the studies are SO bad. Because when your ONLY manipulation of race is the being "self-identified" as either black or white and you don't account for any genetic variance in those populations at all then you really are, in experimental terms, saying there is a causal relationship between those variables.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
Correct me if i am wrong, but this video is not refuting anything race realists have said, but instead tries to make the argument that all these genetic traits in black people are coincidental... and although common.... not exclusive to every black person. I can see why you were reluctant to respond lol, that's not much of an argument
culturalhonesty 6 months ago
@culturalhonesty
The main argument is methodological. It is that the claim that race is identical to genetics and that genetics can easily be 1) associated in a one-to-one relationship to phenotypes or 2) separated from environmental factors in the way suggested by fringeelements are both wrong. These points, if understood correctly undermine every word in the claim that "race is predictive of cognitive ability." With the possible exception of the words "of" and "is."
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 "I have already pointed to more recent studies that put heritability at roughly 51% of variation in intelligence."
By the way, the current intelligence heritability estimates of .40 to .80 within behavior genetics is considered by geneticists as high in hertability. But this is more or less a semantic point.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@DrinkThatHenny But of course no generalizations ought to be made about people on an individual basis, as there is always the possibility that any given individual falls outside the statistical norm for the particular group they happen to be -- in this case genetically -- associated with. Verily, one finds statistical aberrations everywhere in nature.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Again, I'm not sure what the view of the "racial realists" is, but a hereditarian view need not provide any such essentialist view of race; rather it can keep to a view that is much more biologically plausible, which would be inherently statistical and evolutionarily informed.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 “Okay, sounds wonky but I'll bite. If race = physical traits then we need a list of physical traits and why they are predictive of cognitive ability. If it's genetic, then we need the list of particular "race genes" which the realist is employing. Pick one.”
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 "If Rushton and others were interested in truly testing race in a predictive sense then they would likely test degrees of racial inheritance. This is an experimental manipulation they haven't yet tested but would be necessary to make the claim."
I'm not sure if they have or haven't done this, but I agree with your methodological point.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 High within-group heritability, together with some collateral empirical information, inductively establishes a non-zero between-group heritability.
Attacking anything other than this above inductive argument is indeed attacking a straw-man. (Even Richard Lewontin persisted in attacking a straw caricature of Jensen's actual argument -- but that much shouldn't be surprising given that his views were guided by his personal politics.)
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 I'm not sure what so-called "racial realists" are suggesting, but while Arthur Jensen's argument does not conclusively determine that genetics explain between-group differences in intelligence, it is nonetheless an inductive argument that can be briefly summarized as follows:
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MichaelPayton67 "I don't care who argued it. The contemporary studies now show that 51% of intel differences can be genetic. That does NOT imply that race is a factor in determining intelligence and it certainly does not imply the amount of variance suggested by racial realists"
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 And the reason for this is quite simple: Intelligence testing robustly finds average test-score differences along racial lines, that is by group. Ergo, it then becomes possible to antecedently predict the general intelligence of someone on a statistical basis (the key word here being 'statistical') if one knows their ancestry relatively well.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Brilliant video, I totally agree!
sonnygll 6 months ago
It's simple: racists are not "race realists", they are people with a pathological need to see *something* about themselves as superior, their actual personal intellect/character/accomplishments notwithstanding. They will willfully misunderstand/misrepresent the science to these ends.
I'm not the first to point out that you hardly ever see someone call themselves a "race realist" and consider themselves a member of what they consider the inferior race.
bowlsallbroken 6 months ago
Race Realists are the same idiots as they always have been, they just took off the sheets. Consider 'race' is the majority of the movement, then consider which race is truly the most violent (I don't know of any world wars started by any part of africa, or crusades, or major conquests of the ancient world, or mass genocides of whole continents of people).
I'm sorry to have to say this, you are being reasonable and rational, but they may not have the 'genetics' to understand your arguement.
tlrlml 6 months ago
Also: Recent evolutionary-genetic studies looking for selective sweeps have even found evidence of such sweeps occurring differently between even very closely related groups located in close geographic proximity, but which have nonetheless experienced different selection pressures.
[This is in reference to my comments regarding selection pressures varying with differing environments.]
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
The environment of evolutionary adaptedness for humans, as I pointed out, was in Africa during the Pleistocene.
When humans first started to disperse across the globe 40 to 60-thousand years ago, they came face to face with novel environmental challenges in various ecological niches that they had not hitherto come across in their 2-million-plus years of evolution on mostly Savanna territory in continental Africa.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
There are various reasons to at least think that this may very well have affected the evolution of cognitive ability in these groups:
(1) There is at least correlational evidence that statistical averages for group IQ score scale up as a function of distance from equatorial Africa.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
(2) Controlled experimentation on two disparate populations of black capped-chickadees, gathered from the latitudinal extremes of their species' range, for instance, strongly suggest that directional selection for increased general cognitive ability has occurred in these respective populations.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Those black capped-chickadees from the northern population -- living in an ecological niche which has previously been found to be more harsher -- indeed had enhanced cognitive abilities vis-a-vis their southern conspecifics; and both groups were reared together in the experiment, to control for various rearing confounds.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
(3) Molecular-genetic data in humans now clearly demonstrates that disparate groups have evolved differences in a variety of traits (as I previously noted, i.e., lactose tolerance, skin color), which have been associated with various genetic polymorphisms in the genome.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
There are even genome-wide association study (GWAS) candidate markers for possible effects on cognition. This should tell us that there is no reason to think that such evolutionary change has not also similarly occurred for cognitive traits in the intervening 40 to 60-thousand years of dispersal from Africa.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
“2. It is laughable to think there is a single environment, let alone the MULTITUDE of environments that make up the continent of Africa in which intelligence would not be selected for in any way.”
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Actually, on the contrary: in some sense it is laughable to equate the ecological diversity of Africa with the ecological diversity of the planet at large, and even those of its terrestrial locales where other groups of human diaspora settled.
In a very real sense, to equate the two would be tantamount to comparing proverbial apples and oranges.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
In other words, such evidence at least supports the notion that selection can operate according to relatively fine-grained differences between ecologies, even among those ecologies which are in relatively close geographical proximity.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
When we consider the sorts of environmental differences that occur as the distance from equatorial Africa increases, this should caution against thinking that environmental differences could not have exerted any positive directional selection pressures for increased intelligence on human diaspora.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Again, I want to make it eminently clear that I'm not claiming that positive directional selection for intelligence has in fact occurred in non-African groups, or that their is even strong evidence in favor of either the hereditarian or environmentalist positions; my central point is merely that we cannot assume it hasn't, particularly in light of indirect evidence that could be used to support the thesis, as noted above.
I will message you some citations for the above points.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Unfortunately this critique misses the boat by a wide margin.
Racial differences in general intelligence are in no way dependent upon pleiotropic effects of genes for pigment or body morphology which also implicate them in intelligence.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Your citation of recent work in the epigenetics of intelligence is far from a refutation of the argument for race differences in intelligence; in fact, psychometricians and other academics who propound the thesis presume that epigenetic factors affect the development and expression of general intelligence for all humans, not just those with African ancestry.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@DrinkThatHenny
"psychometricians and other academics who propound the thesis presume that epigenetic factors affect the development and expression of general intelligence for all humans, not just those with African ancestry.
"
Who said that it just effects Africans? I was saying that even small chemical changes in environments would have large effects and dynamical effects on the genotype. So the "either genes or environment" idea" would be a false dichotomy.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67
"If intelligence is heretable then it would be positively selected for by natural selection and thus be rediscovered repeatedly in all cultures."
My main point was addressing point (4) in your video description. We have no reason to think that such an assertion must hold. I'm not necessarily making a firm positive claim either way -- I'm only claiming that we cannot presume that intelligence must necessarily have been positively selected for in all disparate groups.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
This much is assumed in behavior genetics, the intelligence research community and within the literatures, of which you mysteriously did not so much as even mention.
In those literatures, of course, it is a well established consensus that general intelligence is highly heritable -- with estimates ranging from .40 to as high as .80 -- with the heritability even increasing with age (and for that matter, every cognitive and behavioral trait ever measured evinces a heritability number).
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
It is additionally established that intelligence testing of different groups within the United States demonstrates differences in IQ scores, with African Americans as an aggregate scoring one standard deviation below the norm, at about 85; whites at around 100; and Asians and Jews scoring above the white average, and as high as one standard deviation above it.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Richard Jensen has for years suggested that the high heritability of general intelligence, itself an uncontroversial fact, favors a hereditarian view of race differences.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@DrinkThatHenny
"Richard Jensen has for years suggested that the high heritability of general intelligence, itself an uncontroversial fact, favors a hereditarian view of race differences."
I don't care who argued it. The contemporary studies now show that 51% of intel differences can be genetic. That does NOT imply that race is a factor in determining intelligence and it certainly does not imply the amount of variance suggested by racial realists
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago 2
@MichaelPayton67 OK, a couple of corrections to Michael: 1) cancer cells can emerge from alterations of a cell's genome, not just epigenetics. A very improbable one, that's why people tend to get cancer later in life. A cell can become "selfish", but you probably know it. 2) The better fed the population and the more favourable the upbringing, the more % of heritable intelligence. 3) There ARE ethnic differences in intelligence, but we can't say that they are caused by genetics as for now.
r0galik 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Well, actually, if we take this above assertion literally (and I'll assume for now that you intend it be taken literally, while giving you the right to correct my interpretation to a more charitable one) then if we bracket for a moment the hereditarian/environmentalist debate, race is, in fact, predictive of cognitive ability, if by cognitive ability is meant general intelligence.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 "These points, if understood correctly undermine every word in the claim that "race is predictive of cognitive ability." With the possible exception of the words "of" and "is.""
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Again, it's worth noting the following two epistemic points: (1) neither the hereditarian or environmentalist is really on solid evidentiary grounds to make a firm conclusion, simply because, (2) the debates within the intelligence literature are replete with exchanges involving dense and ceaseless statistical analyses on large amounts of data.
Hence, in light of the above two epistemic points, nobody outside of that literature is really entitled to a strong conclusion.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 This would also broadly be consistent with the claim of Rushton and Jensen that the IQ gap between blacks and whites in the U.S. has essentially not narrowed -- that is, it has remained more or less constant -- and rather scaled at the same rate -- covaried -- in light of the Flynn effect.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Analagously to eye color, the hereditarian is claiming that there are inherent plasticity limitations to those alleles found amongst, say, African-Americans, statistically speaking, at the quantitative trait loci which subserve intelligence, which is massively polygenic trait, to be sure.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Biological organisms, including of course humans, are indeed variously malleable; but they are malleable within delineated constraints. I highly doubt this is something you need to be told, at any rate. Which is why it is especially puzzling that you appeal to points (1) and (2) to make a stronger conclusion than is indeed warranted.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 In other words, whatever sorts of developmental trajectories and epigenetic processes might impinge on the genes for blue eyes, we could effectively say that they will not end up giving rise to brown eyes, as such would be outside of its reaction norm.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 yet in spite of this, one could nonetheless maintain that the genes for either of the two eye colors canalize their development (in the sense of Waddington), admitting only of a specifically circumscribed degree of phenotypic plasticity.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 I'm not particularly sure what you mean by “race is identical to genetics.” Perhaps you could expatiate.
But with regard to points (1) and (2), they run the risk of severely straw-manning the hereditarian position. When one speaks of, say, the development of human eyes, one might say that, all things being equal, genes for blue eyes, and genes for brown eyes, are affected equally by epigenetic and developmental factors;
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 "The main argument is methodological. It is that the claim that race is identical to genetics and that genetics can easily be 1) associated in a one-to-one relationship to phenotypes or 2) separated from environmental factors in the way suggested by fringeelements are both wrong."
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 You are an idiot.
DollaBiIIz 5 months ago
Both Jensen and Rushton have also argued, amongst other things, that transracial adoption data show that black children in the United States raised with affluent white parents end up with IQ scores roughly in the neighborhood of the black populational norm by adulthood; while similarly children of other races raised by affluent white parents end up with IQ scores concordant with their respective group norms.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
And while any argument and evidence adduced in favor of the hereditarian thesis for race differences in intelligence is by no means established or a knock-down proof, we should not kid ourselves about the contrasting position: neither is any evidence or argument contra the environmentalist thesis established or similarly a knock-down proof.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
The simple truth is that the debate on this issue within the literature has become so statistics- and data-intensive that by far most people on the outside looking in are simply unqualified to take a hard stand on the issue.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Also, with regard to point (4) in your video description (which unfortunately I may have missed discussion of within your video response):
There is absolutely no reason to presume that intelligence would not have been positively selected for in dispersed groups of humans. In fact, we have every reason to think that differing groups have experienced different selective regimes since humans first emigrated from Africa 40- to 60-thousand years ago.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@DrinkThatHenny
"There is absolutely no reason to presume that intelligence would not have been positively selected for in dispersed groups of humans."
You are missing the burden of proof. We have no reason to believe that it was selected FOR either. You are making the positive claim, not me. Show me your evidence.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
The molecular-genetic data is now unequivocal about this point for many traits -- i.e., lactose tolerance; skin color, etc. -- and hence there is no reason to antecedently presume that cognitive traits will necessarily be any different.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
With regard to selective pressures for general intelligence, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to think that any directional selection for intelligence will be stronger in environments most unlike our environment of evolutionary adaptedness (which is a statistical composite of spatiotemporal environments throughout the Pleistocene epoch in Africa).
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
@DrinkThatHenny
"With regard to selective pressures for general intelligence, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to think that any directional selection for intelligence will be stronger in environments most unlike our environment of evolutionary adaptedness."
What are they? I've been asking this question repeatedly and no one has explained what these selection pressures would be. Cite your claims.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
Ergo, precisely those groups who dispersed throughout the world and were concomitantly faced with evolutionarily novel environmental challenges would be those most likely to evolve higher intelligence; and indeed this hypothesis is at least consistent with all the extant psychometric data on IQ scores between groups.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
Note that this does not mean that intelligence was “selected against in all of Africa;” all that it entails is that intelligence was no longer positively selected for in Africans -- or more to the point, simply maintained at a certain level or perhaps relaxed to some extent -- else not positively selected for as strongly as was occurring for other dispersed groups in other regions of the world.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
You do the debate and discourse a great disservice by taking a harder stance than is currently epistemically warranted, while simultaneously ignoring the intelligence, behavior genetic, and molecular genetic literatures (amongst other things), and accusing those with a view opposed to yours as inherently 'racist'.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
These were the kinds of anti-intellectual insults hurled at sociobiologists in the 70s by other scientists and academics simply because certain things did not align with their own politics and moral sentiments.
I'd like to think that the more learned amongst us have moved beyond such tactics and can instead focus on the evidentiary and logical merits of an argument.
DrinkThatHenny 6 months ago
"We have no reason to think that genes responsible for phenotypes of facial structure, bone structure or skin tone are identical to those genes responsible for neurological organisation."
Amazing strawman. Let's apply the same reasoning to women:
"We have no reason to think that genes responsible for phenotypes of facial structure, structure of hips or the uterus are identical to those genes responsible for the growth of breasts."
Therefore gender is a social construct.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty
How is this a strawman? You claim that you can't identify the genes. Now you're also saying you can't identify it with ANY phenotypical morphological structure. Other than saying "it's like a breed of dog" when has your side EVER provided any testable definition of race?
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67
What are you talking about? Are you even addressing my comment? Your objections don't rebut anything I say.
I used this analogy: The set of genes that produce the female hip structure tend to be found alongside the genes that produce female sex organs. Does it follow from this that the genes for female hip structure and sex organs are identical? This is addressing 1).
No race realist has ever claimed that the same genes that produce one racial trait produce all others.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty
I have repeatedly over and over asked what were the selection pressures that cause intelligence to be selected against in africans. Your analogy falls on my side because the same selection pressures for female genitalia and wide hips are the same. So if it wasn't genetic drift then it was a selection pressure. What is the selection pressure?
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
"I have repeatedly over and over asked what were the selection pressures that cause intelligence to be selected against in africans."
I have responded to that in another comment to you.
I don't see how the existence of many selection processes changes the validity what I said. I was addressing your claim that race realists believe that the "genes responsible for phenotypes of facial structure, bone structure or skin tone are identical to those genes responsible for neurological organisation."
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty
1. Either phenotypes are accidental and the cause of genetic drift or they are actively selected for or against.
2. It is laughable to think there is a single environment, let alone the MULTITUDE of environments that make up the continent of Africa in which intelligence would not be selected for in any way.
3. So therefore intelligence cannot be selected against in all of Africa
4. Therefore it must be an example of genetic drift
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
You have continued to make irrelevant objections to the points I make. When I point out that no race realist believes that the wide variety of racial traits in any particular race all come from an identical set of genes, you decide to steer the debate away to talking about the causes of the aggregate genetic differences - which is clearly irrelevant. You implied that if traits come together they must by produced by identical genes - which is clearly untrue for both gender and race.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
Absolutley NOBODY is saying that the genes for skin colour are the same genes for intelligence.
What a total strawman.
I can only hope you did this unintentionally.
MensRifleAssociation 6 months ago
@MensRifleAssociation
But that IS the claim. If you are correlating body morphology to cognition then you are actually saying that there is some causal link between these two.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67, No really, it isn't.
Because that *would* be crazy.
The claim is for a correlation - not a causation. Important difference.
MensRifleAssociation 6 months ago 3
@MichaelPayton67
Populations that have been subjected to the same natural selection processes will develop similar genes. Genes that are developed for environment X will tend to find themselves alongside other genes for environment X. Just because traits tend to go together, this does not mean they come from a common set of genes. They come from common natural selection processes. Nobody is saying that the genes responsible for facial structure also control neurological organisation.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty
Again, I have asked this a million times and no one has answered. Why was intelligence selected against in all of Africa in such a way that skin colour is predictive of intelligence?
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67
I don't know what specific selection processes led to lower aggregate IQ in Africa. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable does. There are all sorts of lines of reasoning that work both directions, for both lower or higher relative IQ. You are just using one line of reasoning that would lead to higher IQ. Thus the only way to proceed to look at empirical data.
Also I was criticising 1) not 4), so asking me to address 4) distracts from my criticism.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
I couldn't think anything worse then boxing off populations of humans and subjecting them to localized inbreeding.
Any farmer can tell you the benefits of hybrid vigor.
I find mixed races especially seem to turn out some of the most beautiful women.
I know that's nothing to do with whats being said here....I am just simply saying the very idea of shutting yourself off and the inevitable inbreeding that will follow is just crazy.
myjizzureye 6 months ago
I am not a "Race Realist" (as a proper noun)... but I would LIKE to think that I'm realistic about race in general, whatever conclusions may be drawn from it all. TRUTH is truth, no matter what the public thinks should be correct.
In my recent video on the topic, I made the very basic points...
1) All people are different, with groupings amongst various "races" being distinctive.
2) These differences are among a ton of different metrics.
Thus: Who knows who is better or worse, eh?
eagleeye1975 6 months ago
Excellent take. The only way to establish whether IQ is an indication of genetic superiority is to measure reproductive and survival success... in other words , to demonstrate there is an evolutionary advantage to having a genetically based higher IQ.
The term equality doesn't mean to be equal in every ability, but to be equal in how an individual is given a chance. Many racists get confused on this.
deepashtray 6 months ago
@deepashtray "The only way to establish whether IQ is an indication of genetic superiority is to measure reproductive and survival success."
Why would you think that? It's more than enough that a group of people decide that they value IQ over other aspects of humanity and then proceed to rank genomes depending on how well they do. This is also the point being made by people who claim to observe IQ differences along classical racial lines.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@deepashtray That is, that IQ measures traits that are valuable to modern civilization, as opposed to whatever is responsible for success in a hunter-gatherer society. It's possible that they're mistaken about this, but g has a fair bit of predictive power with regards to success in modern societies it's somewhat likely that they may have a point there, although much of the IQ difference measured no doubt is due to malnutrition in developing countries.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Gnomefro To put it more simply, the whole thing about saying there is some kind of superiority of one race over another is complete bullshit. There's nothing to it. To find out if IQ does impart "superiority" would require taking 2 groups of people, 1 determined to have "high" IQ and 1 "average" IQ, put each of them on a pair of absolutely identical islands and check them in 3 million years to see who has the larger surviving population.
deepashtray 6 months ago
Your first rebuttal is a strawman. In the clip he was NOT asserting that the genetic differences that make visible ethnicity are the same differences for any of his other points. You're assuming that the only genetic differences are physical characteristics and he makes a very good argument to the contrary. You missed his argument completely...which is exactly what they're saying you are doing. That being said, I think he's very wrong... but its his theory that he should do research to defend.
SezSays 6 months ago
I normally enjoy your videos, mike, but this is easily one of the most boring ones you've made, to my knowledge.
These individuals are hardly worth answering at all, and the issue is basically cut and dry enough that even discussing it is bound to be little more than a reiteration of what most of us already know, and what these people SHOULD know, if they truly dont in the first place.
For the most part, I feel that racial-nationalists are better ignored entirely where possible.
Etimos 6 months ago
I think you got # 1 a tad wrong. What fringe and others often claim is that (a) there are geographic variations in the genetic set of humans, and (b) some of them relate to IQ, and (c) there is a causal relation between the environment these sets exist in and the IQ genes. While I agree that fringe circumnavigates the necessity of defining races by so doing, he falls short of detailing (b) and when it comes to (c) the only thing I see is hand pushing air around i a circular pattern.
timeofwonder2009 6 months ago
You honestly expect 'race realists' to understand epigenetics?
HybridD91 6 months ago
"If intelligence is heretable then it would be positively selected for by natural selection ..."
Not necessarilly.
CousinoMacul 6 months ago
I think the opposition (Ruka) are easily confused by big words. They like to keep things simple. "We don't like them, so we can come up with reasons to isolate them from us."
drfoxcourt 6 months ago
Racial realism reminds me of creationism in a way. Its proponents attempt to use science to justify their beliefs and further their agenda, but fail due to a lack of understanding of science.
Akira625 6 months ago
Not worth making a video on.
Skindoggiedog 6 months ago
@Skindoggiedog
But somehow it's worth commenting that you won't make a video on it. Nice.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago 10
@MichaelPayton67 Posting a comment takes less than 10 seconds.
morrowrail 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 "But somehow it's worth commenting that you won't make a video on it."
No, you read that wrong, that's not what I meant.
It wasn't worth YOUR time to make a video about. You caved to peer-pressure.
You should have stuck to your guns.
Skindoggiedog 6 months ago
@Skindoggiedog
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you are right. I did a lot of reflecting before entering into this thing and made my decision based on the idea that I could help clarify some issues. I'm sorry if you disagree.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Fair enough. I don't disagree with you there. You always make good (usually great) videos, but what I'm questioning is ... where's the line?
How absurd can a claim be, yet still command attention? Or is it numbers? How many people have to believe something mindbogglingly stupid before it's worth a response?
I guess I just thought this was below *anyone* responding to it, let alone yourself.
Skindoggiedog 6 months ago
Lack of nutrient, poisons and illnesses during the development of the fetus and time from birth to adulthood affects so much. It must necessary to follow that poor people at near of the equator have worst status in healthy development which must affect to their IQ. Also dark skin does not create as much vitamin D as white skin. Vitamin D is known to aid against illnesses an keeping people active so dark skinned folk at north should take D to improve their own and their children activity/health.
SystemLordNemo 6 months ago
Also want to add that in twin studies it doesn't just show that IQ is highly heritable, but also many personality traits, the obvious physical traits and hormone levels like testosterone.
Furthermore this video shows how race denialist come to reject race realism/hereditarianism base on straw-men of our positions.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w If you were intellectually honest you say what the parent/child IQ correlation really is, rather than throw around idle shells like "IQ is highly heritable". (Hint: 0.75 is wrong).
And if you'd be honest you'd engage with the literature that discussion twin studies themselves, or heritability and how these concepts are thought of.
But you are not. The accusation that you guys are empty shells of superficial rhetoric is blatantly obvious to anybody who has just minimal knowledge.
socrates856 6 months ago
@DKshad0w In short you are still running around doing the same idle apologetics you have been doing all this time. An ignoramus and about it lying too.
socrates856 6 months ago
@socrates856 Go to HannibalBarca13 channel, tell him how much of a lying ignoramus he is for thinking different races are different species.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
This is not a straw-man of the racial realist position. I have been told repeatedly that race cannot be boiled down to particular genes, but rather should be associated with physical traits. Okay, sounds wonky but I'll bite. If race = physical traits then we need a list of physical traits and why they are predictive of cognitive ability. If it's genetic, then we need the list of particular "race genes" which the realist is employing. Pick one.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
The reason that I employ physical traits in this way is that this is the ONLY manipulation that Rushton and others focus on. They ask for self-identification. Someone could be of highly mixed racial background and yet self-identify as black. If Rushton and others were interested in truly testing race in a predictive sense then they would likely test degrees of racial inheritance. This is an experimental manipulation they haven't yet tested but would be necessary to make the claim.
MichaelPayton67 6 months ago
On your point 2 and 3. Hereditarians do not deny that environment have an effect so that's a straw-man. On point 4, twin studies have been done and IQ is highly heritable. Furthermore not every environment has the same selection pressures, so there's no reason to believe that intelligence will be selected for equally around the range of environment on this planet.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w Where is that wonderfully controlled longitudinal (and reproduced) twin study that would establish that this applies to "racial" differences and using what genetic definition of race? Because Scarr et al does not count. It's a confounded study that gives evidence that environmental correlates explain the observed gaps, making it poor evidence in either direction.
socrates856 6 months ago
@socrates856 The Minnesota twin study, is NOT THE ONLY TWIN STUDY. I'm willing to engage in discussions on twin studies, but not with you because you lie, blocked me and a coward.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w From the researchers you guys like: Rushton & Jensen (2005):
"[..] (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). It is also _the only_ transracial adoption study that includes a longitudinal follow-up, with testing at ages 7 and 17 years."
My emphasis. You are back to lying again. (And yeah I block perpetually dishonest people.)
socrates856 6 months ago
@socrates856 I wasn't talking about the Transracial Adoption Study, I was talking about twin studies. Learn to read.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w You claim it's "racial", hence studies that directly test the effect, logitudinal cross-racial studies is what you need. But yes Michael has correctly identified that science is twisted here. You want us to ignore the most pertinent evidence, muddle terms and so forth. But you still haven't answered my question: What is the parent child IQ correlation reported in studies, that even your favorites (Rushton, Jensen etc) cite, report? That is independent of "race".
socrates856 6 months ago
@socrates856 I'm not falling that that one again, if I don't answer EXACTLY the way you want you'll just accuse me of being ignorant again. Then you'll accuse me of lying when it's clear, from the evidence on my channel page that you're the liar. I wasn't talking to you anyways, piss off.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w I accuse you of lying about being competent on the subject. That's already established. And you twist facts to server your narrative. Here is what you say: "IQ is highly heritable" Yet you don't tell people about the complexity around IQ nor do you explain what "heritability" as a technical term means. The unassuming observer will think it's the amount of IQ you get from your parents. Now one can test that model by looking at measured parent/child correlation of IQ. It's 0.2. "Highly"?
socrates856 6 months ago
@socrates856 I proved that you are deceptive and lied about me not answering your questions, and I have actual evidence not just empty assertions. Far be it that I twist facts to serve a narrative, at least I have facts to back myself up.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
I think the question was, 'which 'facts' are those'. From which studies?
But I will add another question. . . what are YOUR qualifications to accurately understand and interpret the sources from which you derive your 'facts'?
tlrlml 6 months ago
@tlrlml I don't really understand what you are asking. There are many studies done on the heritability of traits among other things, really there are large amount of twin studies done on the subject. Also there are many studies done on the genetic of racial groups, and their frequency of traits.
I don't have any credentials but I understand the hereditarian argument. If ones needs qualifications to talk about the subject, then MichaelPayton67 shouldn't have made this video.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
Well then I come to understand your argument, or lack there of.
"WHAT?!?!", you say.
You have no argument, because you fail to define what it is your arguing, because you lack the credentials to define the base term of the argument. (That is 'what is the definition of 'race'' if you fail to understand what the base term is.) Opining on someone else's opinion of someone else's study, is an opinion NOT an argument.
tlrlml 6 months ago
@tlrlml I was responding to MichaelPayton67's straw-manning of the race realist/hereditarian argument. WTF I need credentials to define race? I have read many of these studies, so I'm not just "opining" on them, I'm relying the information.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
You neither state what those studies define as race, nor state what you define as race.
You either, have no skill in debate, which explains your willingness to lose this one by not defining your terms at the outset.
Or, you lack the ability to understand the studies which you claim to have read, and therefore can not define the terms about which you debate.
Either way, 'reading' a study can ONLY give you an 'OPINION' if you lack credentials in that field.
tlrlml 6 months ago
@tlrlml I wasn't "debating" MichaelPayton67, I was addressing his straw-mans, you have no comprehension skills. MichaelPayton67 didn't define what "race" is either he just assert hereditarians believes it's a social construct. I didn't even mention race to MichaelPayton67, I was establishing the rule of genetics in the development of intelligence and personality.
How do credentials magically allow me to understand a study? So no one can understand anything without credentials? You're an idiot.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
You don't want to test my comprehension skills. You were, IN FACT, debating both the uploader and socrates856 over both the so-called straw-man and the existence of studies that back your position. AND you were also doing while neither producing your definition of race or the studies which you claim to cite as your proofs. So, I say, for every straw-man there is an equally disingenious (blind) appeal to authority in support of a non causa pro causa. (cont.)
tlrlml 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
I also find it hard to conceive that you don't understand the need for credentials if you are proposing to establish anything, especially if it is as detailed and complex a subject as genetic science. You may ASSERT that you know the rules of genetic science, why would anyone presume that, on your own word, you have the expertise to do so?
The uploader has not stated a positive claim on, for, or against the term race. You have, the burden of proof is yours! (cont.)
tlrlml 6 months ago
@tlrlml
And may I say thank you for the Ad Hominems. I will now require your proofs that I have no comprehensions skills and/or that I am an idiot.
tlrlml 6 months ago
@tlrlml MichaelPayton67 hasn't even responded to me, and I wasn't "debating" socrates856, I was telling him off because he is a coward and a liar. I will bring up specifics if MichaelPayton67 asks for them. MichaelPayton67 did posit positive claims, he asserted that hereditarians hold certain positions, but the ones he posited were straw-men. Credentials are not required for my arguments to be truth-apt. I didn't use an ad hom, I never said your argument is wrong because you're an idiot.
DKshad0w 6 months ago
@DKshad0w
You are correct, you did not use 'AN' ad hominem, you used two ad hominems. One to discredit my position that you have presented no argument because he have provided no evidence to back your position (i.e. I lack comprehension), two to discredit my own person (i.e. the assertion that I am an idiot). I will be expecting your proofs of these positions, or your timely apology.
tlrlml 6 months ago