My argument is that social influences are less than genetic factors — Hallucinogen

Yes, I gather that, but you said...

The information I've linked to outright refutes this — Hallucinogen

It does not. It demonstrates a correlation between IQ and future wealth. It shows a alack of correlation between class and future wealth. It does not "outright refute" the suggestion that class-related factors, or any other inherited advantages are not also correlated with future wealth.

Wouldn't sex at birth be a genetic influence? — Hallucinogen

Yes. You said...

I view outcome as a function of ability, with very little difference in opportunity between people. — Hallucinogen

Sex at birth is not an 'ability'.

I have difficulty seeing how attaining wealth could change one's genes. Or that necomjng wealthy would raise one's IQ, especially given pre-existing evidence that variation in IQ is ~75% due to genetic variation. — Hallucinogen

That's not the point. The point is that to claim that the correlation between IQ at 10 and increased wealth is indicative of variation in genetic ability being responsible for variation in life outcomes, you'd have to show a mechanism, which is exactly what is missing from the correlations with other factors you dismiss. Where is your evidence, for example, that IQ at ten is not causally correlated with social opportunity more strongly that genetic ability?

It demonstrates a correlation between IQ and future wealth. — Isaac

I am referring Gregory Clark's research.

I am referring Gregory Clark's research. — Hallucinogen

Do you have a link (or have you already provided one?)

My working formula:
Prejudice (e.g. "racial"-color stereotypes/biases) +
Power (i.e. majority/over-Class) =
Racism (i.e. modes/strategies of discrimination against "racial" minority/under-Class) — 180 Proof

Racism is a type of prejudice - not something separate.

You seem to have missed my post about the differences between cultures in which systemic racism exists (Nazi Germany) and cultures that don't (the U.S.). Do you know what "systemic" means and did you know that blacks are part of the system? It seems to me that Barak Obama, among many other blacks in the U.S. hold more resources than I do and therefore has more power than I do. So according to your formula, I couldn't be racist against Obama, but he can be racist to me.

It's much simpler (and consistent) to say that a particular type of prejudice, or any kind of treating people differently based on the color of their skin, is racist, and it can come from anyone regardless of their power - as we all have some kind of power over one another.

IQ, like most things, is not a simple thing to assess. Studies have shown that it's culturally influenced and tests a pretty narrow range of abilities.

But let's assume for a moment that it could accurately measure important skills. Adoption studies have shown over and over again that environment plays a huge role in determining IQ. It's a mixture of nature and nurture. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

Just like height. We're born with a predisposition to be a certain height range, but nutrition and exercise and emotionally stable environments determine where exactly we wind up.

And I was saying that of course it does, and to pretend that it doesn't is fairly shitty. It shouldn't according to some fantasy of social relations, but it does. So I acknowledge the fact, and if you would have the honesty to do the same, then we could begin to talk about whether there is anything to be done about it. When I see @180 Proof walking down the street, I'm watching to see if he pulls out a weapon. And he knows my white fear, and he's watching me the same way. Until maybe we say hi, and then since we are both liberal to a degree, he might let me move in next door or marry his daughter.

This “fantasy” was the goal of the best part of the civil rights era, and the message was used to end apartheid and Jim Crow, back when people were openly persecuted for their skin color. This “fantasy” was espoused by MLK and Mandela, both of whom were thrown in jail while speaking it. Rather than promote their “fantasy” you’re reiterating the same color consciousness as their jailers, and illustrate it by proving your suspicion of another man because of his skin color.

Adoption studies have shown over and over again that environment plays a huge role in determining IQ. It's a mixture of nature and nurture. — Artemis

Exactly.

One of the many studies, no doubt, which form part of the "virtually all measures of social mobility previously developed by other researchers, which Clark claims are flawed" From Wikipedia on Gregory Clark, whom @Hallucinogen claims as a source who "outright refutes" the concept of social status affecting life chances.

In my mind, the only meaningful difference between any two random people on Earth is cultural. i.e language, values, beliefs, etc.

Another thing too is people process information so fast on conscious and sub-conscious levels that surface level judgments are made extremely quickly about people. These judgments often are influenced on past experiences a person has had with that type of pervious experience. They can also be based on things you’ve heard or believe about things even if you haven’t experienced them yet. Surface level stuff is superficial and meaningless. Once you get within an experience that is past that surface level judgment humanity starts.

In my mind, the only meaningful difference between any two random people on Earth is cultural. i.e language, values, beliefs, etc. — La Cuentista

Does your mind take no account of the mind of others and no account of society? It is all too often the the case that 'they' decide that you are Jew or a Gypsy, or a mental defective, or some other un meaningful term and have no consideration for your views at all as the assault, imprison, or kill you, in ways that your mind will find difficult to deny.

People say such things so frequently about race, but they very rarely say it about that other social construct, property and money.

and tests a pretty narrow range of abilities. — Artemis

Completely wrong. It predicts lifespan, lifetime earnings, hesd circumference, success in many school subjects, the sizes of numerous brain gyri and the size and speed of your brain cells.

Adoption studies have shown over and over again that environment plays a huge role in determining IQ. — Artemis

By huge, do you mean 20%?

It's a mixture of nature and nurture. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/ — Artemis

How many studies which actually measure heritability, which this one doesn't, did you have to disregard before cherrypicking this one?

From the study itself:

"Although the 2- to 5-IQ-point advantage in the adopted-away children is smaller than differences reported in earlier and smaller studies, it is important to bear in mind that the environmental difference between the adoptive and biological families was not especially large, compared with earlier adoption studies that intentionally sampled children from extremely deprived backgrounds."

The genetic effect on IQ is far bigger than 5 points.

Exactly. — Isaac

No, not exactly. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105

No, not exactly. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105 — Hallucinogen

Are you reading these studies? This latest put heritability of intelligence by 12 yrs at 0.46, less than half. Ie intelligence at 12 is caused more by external factors than it is by genetics. It also specifies "Intelligence is associated with education and social class" as one of its key findings.

To support your position it is not sufficient to demonstrate simply that intelligence is inherited and is a significant factor in measures of future life achievements. You need to demonstrate that intelligence is the major factor and that it is more caused by genetics than environment. None of the studies you've cited so far demonstrate this. Every single one simply confirms what is now well known (the latest study you cite even refers to it as a 'law of genetics'), that any measure of human ability will be determined in part by genes and in part by the environment acting on those genes. The environment part is what people concerned with racial and class disparities in opportunity are trying to address. If you want to claim that those efforts are pointless, you'll have to demonstrate that they have no effect.

This “fantasy” was the goal of the best part of the civil rights era, and the message was used to end apartheid and Jim Crow, back when people were openly persecuted for their skin color. This “fantasy” was espoused by MLK and Mandela, both of whom were thrown in jail while speaking it. Rather than promote their “fantasy” you’re reiterating the same color consciousness as their jailers, and illustrate it by proving your suspicion of another man because of his skin color. — NOS4A2

Sometimes it seems that people are intentionally not even trying to understand what the other one is saying and only trying to put the other one in the worst light possible. Just take the message the worst way possible. And oh boy, do people love their strawmen.

Is it really so that people here think that colorblindness is a fantasy, something totally unreachable? That we utterly cannot judge people by their actions and not the color of their skin? That hence to speak about colorblindness is actually something negative, harmful and wrong?

And the other way around for the other side:

Is it so now that people aren't judged at all by their skin? It's something really meaningless now? So is now everything really OK? Especially in a country where the white people call the poor people of their own race "White trash", just to give one example? So no xenophobia and judgement of others whatsoever worth talking about?

What I do agree on is that if we take this reinstate race and gender in an macabre way to our discourse, it's not going to improve anything. But then again, people can ruin anything worth doing something about.

Are you reading these studies? This latest put heritability of intelligence by 12 yrs at 0.46, less than half. Ie — Isaac

At 12 years. In adulthood it is about 80%.

At 12 years. In adulthood it is about 80% — Hallucinogen

Yes, but IQ at 11 years is the only measure we have been given (in your previously cited study) to show a correlation with future measures of life achievement, so it is the heritability of that specific trait which is in question here.

Completely wrong. It predicts lifespan, lifetime earnings, hesd circumference, success in many school subjects, the sizes of numerous brain gyri and the size and speed of your brain cells. — Hallucinogen

Are you branching out into phrenology now?

Smart people tend to have certain life outcomes (maybe), smart people tend to do well in school (or not, because smarter people can also tend to slack off), and your points about brain speed are almost tautological. Like saying faster people's legs move faster and more efficiently.

By huge, do you mean 20%? — Hallucinogen

Are you trying to say if it were 20% that would be negligible? By your own theory, that would correlate to a twenty percent better life. I think most people would say 20% is a big improvement on life.

did you have to disregard before cherrypicking this one? — Hallucinogen

This is such a ridiculous statement, especially coming from the dude who previously presented his own, singular, piece of evidence that wasn't even directly related to the issue of race and IQ.

I should add, for clarity, the quote I replied "Exactly" to was...

that environment plays a huge role in determining IQ. It's a mixture of nature and nurture. — Artemis

You said...

No, not exactly. — Hallucinogen

...and proceeded to cite a study which demonstrated exactly what @Artemis said - that IQ (in the context we're discussing) is determined in huge part by environment.

Is it so now that people aren't judged at all by their skin? It's something really meaningless now? So is now everything really OK? Especially in a country where the white people call the poor people of their own race "White trash", just to give one example? So no xenophobia and judgement of others whatsoever worth talking about?

As you said, this another common strawman. Of course people are judged by the color of heir skin. That’s no question. Color blindness is merely that we shouldn’t judge people by the color of their skin. It’s not to deny racism exists, it’s to refuse to engage in racism, to refuse racialize others, and to refuse to utilize these outmoded categories.

As you said, this another common strawman. Of course people are judged by the color of heir skin. That’s no question. Color blindness is merely that we shouldn’t judge people by the color of their skin. It’s not to deny racism exists, it’s to refuse to engage in racism, to refuse racialize others, and to refuse to utilize these outmoded categories. — NOS4A2

Well, people are perhaps in love with their own narrative, so happy in their own echo chamber in the discourse and simply aren't willing to listen.

And people simply aren't anymore ready to engage other one's thoughts on the level of "I agree with you on x, however I disagree with y". Seems like you are giving your little finger to the Devil if you acknowledge that the people you disagree with have also a point.

Well, people are perhaps in love with their own narrative, so happy in their own echo chamber in the discourse and simply aren't willing to listen.

And people simply aren't anymore ready to engage other one's thoughts on the level of "I agree with you on x, however I disagree with y". Seems like you are giving your little finger to the Devil if you acknowledge that the people you disagree with have also a point.

And what point would that be?

And what point would that be? — NOS4A2

HAHAHA!

Well, if you don't find ANYTHING you would agree on with the people for example here on PF you mostly disagree with and argue with, then the above description fits you. :wink:

HAHAHA!

Well, if you don't find ANYTHING you would agree on with the people for example here on PF you mostly disagree with and argue with, then the above description fits you.

I agree on some things and disagree on others. If they say the water is wet, I would agree. As for this particular topic, there is little to no agreement.

Really?

Just re-read the first page on this thread and it's totally obvious that people are talking about separate issues and without bothering to think about what others are talking about.

As you said above "Of course people are judged by the color of heir skin. That’s no question." Then read just from the first page replies like of Maw and 180Proof, and I'm quite sure people agree on something here… but, of course, that doesn't matter. You are worried about the woke intersectionality rising and the "attack" on colorblindness and the racialization of nearly everything and they just notice hmm…. perhaps hypocrite white denial or see right wing tropes and go on the counterattack. Or something.

I appreciate your comment. Perhaps we can discuss further?

In order to discriminate, on any level, one must have a difference identified between two things. You can’t discriminate ‘twixt two of the same. So, when we talk about discrimination toward people, this must be stemming from a perceived difference in said people. I deny the manifestation of genetic differences as having any ground to begin to differentiate people on any meaningful level. At least in terms of human and civil rights issues and basic “all men are created equal” values. (things like artistic, athletic, or intellectual gifts, etc. are not involved in what I mean with genetic manifestations, to be clear. Surface level bodily makeup stuff is what I’m referring to)

Meaningful differences between people start with cultural and ideological differences and thus my view avoids considering someone’s skin color or other genetic traits insofar that those traits (in and of themselves) should influence any sort of discriminatory or negative value judgement.

Labeling someone a Jew, Gypsy or mentally defective are examples of culturally constructed “types” and of course people are discriminated against for reason’s other than just “race”. I recognize not everyone holds my same view and of course I’m as vulnerable as anyone to be discriminated against.

I’m not sure I get what you mean--What do people frequently say about race and how is what they say related to social constructs like property and money?

Really?

Just re-read the first page on this thread and it's totally obvious that people are talking about separate issues and without bothering to think about what others are talking about.

As you said above "Of course people are judged by the color of heir skin. That’s no question." Then read just from the first page replies like of Maw and 180Proof, and I'm quite sure people agree on something here… but, of course, that doesn't matter. You are worried about the woke intersectionality rising and the "attack" on colorblindness and the racialization of nearly everything and they just notice hmm…. perhaps hypocrite white denial or see right wing tropes and go on the counterattack. Or something.

I guess I’m unsure how this is a problem and why I am the one being called out on it.

I deny the manifestation of genetic differences as having any ground to begin to differentiate people on any meaningful level. At least in terms of human and civil rights issues and basic “all men are created equal” values. (things like artistic, athletic, or intellectual gifts, etc. are not involved in what I mean with genetic manifestations, to be clear. Surface level bodily makeup stuff is what I’m referring to) — La Cuentista

I repeat, you can deny it all you want and I might even agree with you in one sense. but in another sense there really are differences of skin colour, and they really do make a significant difference to one's chances of surviving the KKK lynch-mob.

So we have skin colour as a partially genetically determined variable, and that, in a particular society, is closely correlated with the chances of being lynched. So what in this are you denying?

Racism is a type of prejudice - not something separate. — Harry Hindu

That's like saying 'Rape is a type of fucking - not something separate.' :brow:

That's like saying 'Rape is a type of fucking - not something separate.' — 180 Proof

Absolutely, well said. As if the taxonomy of the thing was the most important issue!

That's like saying 'Rape is a type of fucking - not something separate.' :brow: — 180 Proof

That's your response to my post? :lol:

Absolutely, well said. As if the taxonomy of the thing was the most important issue! — Isaac

That wasn't the issue, but 180 wants to make that the issue to avoid what was said in the rest of the post they quoted.

I repeat, you can deny it all you want and I might even agree with you in one sense. but in another sense there really are differences of skin colour, and they really do make a significant difference to one's chances of surviving the KKK lynch-mob. — unenlightened

Wow. Some people are still living in the 1950s.

There are differences in eye and hair color as well, but most people seem to be focused on skin color. Why? Probably because of how you were raised.

Or are you saying that there are real differences in the behavior of people with different skin colors? How do those differences come about - culturally (how you were raised) or genetically (how you were born)?