The study showed that external factors impact IQ, not that genetics doesn't impact it.
Why is it such a hard concept to grasp that environment and genetics play a role in, not only our intelligence but our health, our success/failure, and so on?
CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
Why is it such a hard concept to grasp that environment and genetics play a role in, not only our intelligence but our health, our success/failure, and so on?
The study confirms that socioeconomic conditions can have a large effect on IQ test results.
Contrast that confirmed effect with the summary of the state of knowledge on genetics within groups of humans.
The only things that effects IQ tests are environmental and socioeconomic.
No one here is denying that genetics can have such a role. They're pointing out that no one — not you, not any cited sources — has established any such genetic role connected with a concept defined as 'race'.
Which means no one has any solid rational grounds for saying stuff like: 'black' people (whoever they are, no one has defined it) as a 'race' (whatever that is, no one has defined it) have lower intelligence (that at least has been defined into many varying sub-categories like 'cognitive-functioning', IQ etc. They're related but mutually exclusive, so precision is essential. Cross out "intelligence', specify 'Binet-Stanford IQ scores'). But when we examine the cited proof that, black people as a race have lower Binet-Stanford IQ scores, we find it states no such thing.
Not that the lack of solid rational grounds has ever stopped anyone from saying anything, but WWII and slavery are vivid examples of how horribly sensible people can go wrong when they work with irrational fictions like 'race'. Which is why we must constantly press those who won't stop doing so, to justify their assertions. You haven't yet justified yours.
----------
Personal PS: For all my opposition to your arguments Small, I'm impressed by your commitment to making them honestly and the efforts you put into supporting them. We're all on TERB for pleasure, and here for the fun of arm-wresling over politics, and you give good measure. Thanks.
But you're still wrong.
Worth preserving and framing.
Most people don't go through life racially categorizing everybody they meet and resenting them. Sure, everybody at the court house notices that Judge X is Jewish or Judge Y is Black. But few - aside from those who think like you - are pissed off about it. Most people say stuff like "Judge X deserves it. She worked hard and is a good judge." or "Judge Y is a bad appointment because he has a short temper." The over riding thought is not "Judge X is a Jew. She is biologically pre destined to achieve judgehood, as are other Jews. They steal the top jobs everywhere!"
And it's not true anyway - Aside from in your twisted mind, Jews don't "take all the top jobs".
I believe that the Nazis said that Jews are as smart or smarter than Aryans, but they were corrupt and sneaky and took all the top jobs. They never said that Jews were dumber than Aryans.
I suspect strongly that what you're putting forward in this thread is a group position and you belong to some organized neo Nazi group and this sort of stuff is the normal topic of conversation among yourselves. Which of the small, nasty range of groups you belong to, I don't know. But these "insights" into genetic inferiority and racial groups sound like they're well organized and carefully arranged.
Once people accept that "races" can be classified as inferior or superior based on genetics, suddenly Hitler becomes a nice guy who was simply "misunderstood" and harassed by Lefties like Stalin and Roosevelt. His research into eugenics becomes "valuable work that was suppressed by fools". And neo Nazism becomes sort of an interesting new take on world history.
Can you comment on this? Do you get your ideas from Richard Spencer? The Proud Boys? Which group most influences you?
To paraphrase and put it another way: If you identify the genetically better runners and use that to exclude them 'for their unfair advantage', how will you ever produce a winning track team? That's no way to win races.
Sorry about the pun, but not about the fact.
Nothing is gained by distorting the facts. Richard Spencer's repeatedly stated position on race is that he does not hold the view that whites are "superior". Rather his theory is that American values were established by white settlers/immigrants. He wants those values to remain paramount in America, and he wants white people to organize politically to control immigration in order to maintain those values. I think his theory is wrong, but it is not a theory of racial superiority. It is a theory based on his cultural value preferences. The KKK, by contrast, believe that blacks are racially inferior and therefore shouldn't enjoy the same civil rights. The Proud Boys don't ascribe to either view. If they have a cohesive philosophy, it could be fairly described as: a) pro conservative political policies, b) anti-political establishment, c) anti-activist left, and d) pro individual responsibility and anti-nanny state.
You're not reading the statement properly. It does NOT say that the ONLY thing that effects IQ tests is environment.
There has been a lot of terrible things that have happened as a result of racial theories, and that's why any science with an overtly racial component today, is a tough sell.
I don't think it's fair to say anyone "steals" the top jobs nor take "all" the top jobs. Neither is accurate.
Jewish Americans are very successful because they're smarter than your average non-Jewish American. One doesn't have to be a Jewish brain surgeon to understand that.
You didn't read my post properly, as I didn't say that the study tested anything other then socioeconomic influences on IQ results.
All I did was add that with the statement from your wiki page that says there are no studies that have shown genetics within groups of humans have any influence on IQ results.
Put it together:
Socioeconomic and environmental influences change IQ results
genetics, within groups, don't
I don't belong to any Nazi group or anything close to it. I don't know why you would think something so radical. The "insights" into genetic differences is "well organized" and "carefully arranged" because it's science.
For the record, I'm not sure that Nazis thought Jews took all the top jobs - Jews are a tiny minority so even if they were all employed in good jobs, they would represent a small fraction of good jobs in Germany.
Terminology is important. A high or low intellect doesn't make someone superior or inferior. I think we'd all prefer to befriend and drink a cold beer with someone of average intellect than a jerk that happens to be a rocket scientist.
But if you truly believed in equality, you would want to help those who need it most, and to do so requires looking at all possibilities realistically.
Conversely, if we identify genetically better runners, we could use that knowledge to find ways to improve the running ability for the rest of us that were not so naturally endowed.
Science is neither good nor evil. It's how you use it.
You may not be, but it appears that you share some beliefs with them, namely that some people are genetically smarter (though you claim this doesn't make them superior).
Spencer says he wants to ethnically cleanse the US of all non-white folks, you don't back that one either do you?
That's not accurate. He's been questioned on this directly. He doesn't propose that any current US citizens be forced to leave the country. However, he proposes immigration policy that preserves whites as the racial majority. Again, I don't agree with Spencer's theories about how to make America the best it could be, but how about dealing with his actual position, instead of a made up one?
If he was just one racist wacko, his individual position wouldn't be very important, but because he tries to and does persuade others — many others — we have to consider implications and possibilities beyond his personal statements.
How has he proposed to stop or prevent more enthusiastic and less-principled[sic] exponents of his white superiority beliefs from extending his preservation concept to the forced migration he eschews, Or to limiting births, sterilization and forced abortions? Or outright extermination? All for the noble purpose of preserving the dominance the more important and valuable race, of course.
Not that you're defending his position, but without conjuring up a Supreme Being who has anointed that race, he and his defenders also owe an explanation of why that 'superior' race should be 'preserved' in North America or anywhere. For what purpose beside the selfish gratification of its members? After all, even the 'races' of inferior colouration have managed to survive for millennia, develop agriculture, art and science, exterminate animal populations and navigate the globe. Who says white-folks' massive global industrial pollution, littering of near-orbit space and obliteration of the ozone layer that once protected us from the sun and sunscreen is a good thing anyway? Whites?
What's wrong with just letting this stuff work out according to the same-old evolutionary crap-shoot as always? Who are white folks to tell us who they're gonna keep outta the country to stop my sister from marrying?
Sorry, of course I don't expect you to speak for him. Just consider that last to be more of my rhetorical excesses.
To answer your question directly, I don't think he's stated any public position on this. You are right that there are people out there who are white supremacists. I'm not sure how many of them see Richard Spencer as their leader, given that he's been so express in distancing himself from white supremacy based doctrine.
