Systemic racism is not a rational explanation by any means. Even culture does a better job at explaining racial disparities than mere environmental factors.
I agree with you that environmentalists do a very poor job of giving a coherent theory and evidence for average differences in intelligence between races, but I would add that hereditarians do a equally poor job of explaining where those average differences come in the first place.
There is compelling evidence that differences in average intelligence are the outcome of societal differences, not the cause of those differences.
Hereditarians are missing a big opportunity to use genetic ancestry, geography and society type to explain differences in outcomes between groups:
I know this is going to sound old, but it's not nature. It's nurture.
White parents, like Asian parents, drive their children to be the best they can be. They urge studying, sports, and life experiences. Black families, if they aren't single parents with one in jail, tell their kids they can't be any better than they are unless they play sports and get in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.
If you want to compare apples to apples, let's compare White farmers to black farmers. White farmers work from sunup to sundown, work weekends, and go to church. The black farmers, if there are any, don't work as hard and depend on the government to help them.
I can make it even more personal. My wife and I adopted two black children from CPS. My son doesn't want to read and would rather play sports. My daughter would love to read if she didn't have dyslexia and loved to draw and paint.
Why do white and Asian parents urge their children to strive but black parents don't? Does this behaviour appear out of thin air? To say 'It's their culture' is a circular argument.
Imagine that white and Asian people have a genetic predisposition for education. Wouldn't those parents be more likely to urge their children to study? And wouldn't their children, who have inherited this genetic disposition, be more likely to 'take to' education?
In Asian societies, particularly China and Korea, passing the national entrance exam for civil servants was the only route for the commoners to achieve upward social mobility - hence the term “scholar-aristocrats”.
I'm kind of surprised that you interpret your adopted son's dislike of reading and your daughters inability to read as due to nurture. After all, it is you who is nurturing them. How would things look if genes were involved? Wouldn't it look exactly like the situation you are describing?
Let's see, you are sitting in a room and your task is to choose the first white person to enter the room. There's a Chinese from Shanghai, a Somali from Mogadishu, and a Dane from Copenhagen. The test subjects draw lots to see which one enters the room first, second, third. You can only guess once, if you get it right you get $1 million, if you miss we hang you. Dare you?
Oh, yea, someone was spewing that race commie redefinition and on looking up race on Wikipedia it was double-lie-makeup-talk, on and on, I even tried to do that recursive jump to learn a phrase or Satanic worshipping theology label, and finely decided it was meaningless BS and the old meaning worked - so why 'fix' it!
Like all topic you know are False on Wikipedia, all recent studies since perhaps the 1980 but likely before are filled with Fraud to hide Truth, or push False ideology.
Oh, hiding relevant differences - reporting falsely low IQ avg of 110 for Ashkenazi Jews - the disappearing trick - when it is more then 120 as I recall from studies before Feelie-based or funding-based fraud became the standard as men were excluded and women started dominating science fields,
With research funded meritless crammed down their throats while better researchers without the Card were funding-starved from career .. so they can protect us all from the Truth, like that puberty blocker women resources that found they do significant harm children, but refused to publish because SCOTUS had a relevant case pending and she would rather untold numbers of children harm then her ideology threatened.
Anyway, back to the projectile vomit of poison and lies in the rest of the article.
'inherited environments that vary in their amenities and opportunities'
It's kind of amazing that all of us, including very clever people who must have spotted this is all guff at a cursory forst glance, still find ourselves wrestling with such woolly ideas. Reading this stuff like being enjoined to swallow a barium meal.
'[Kirkegaard] found that the gap tends to be smaller where there are more whites and more Republicans'.
Does this suggest that the environment does play a role, albeit in the opposite direction to the one predicted by racism-done-it? But then no one is suggesting that the environment has NO effect on IQ. Having said that, the fascinating fact that Ashkenazi Holocaust survivors score no worse on IQ tests than those who were relatively unaffected by the Nazi years suggests that environmental factors can't be so influential on IQ scores.
'In a recent study, Meng Hu found that Asian students whose parents didn’t finish high-school score higher on the SAT/ACT than black students whose parents completed a master’s degree'.
Ouch. Still, I'm sure Kev and Marcus will say this is due to a culture of educational striving among east Asians which arises from...they know not where.
The parts of their paper you quote from had a soporific effect on me. Not only are their ideas banal but their prose is turgid and sleep-inducing.
Stepping for a moment outside of the human species, I believe there is a parallel with different breed types/population groups of dogs. All the same species, but populations evolved in different environments, under different pressures for reproduction.Anyone with half q brain and one eye can see that some breed/types are smarter (and more difficult) than others. Would humns be different from other of Earth's species?
Being only a few paragraphs in, it seems the paper's authors and the substack writer are referring to quite different things (talking past each other).
Apparently the paper's authors refer to 'socially defined races' not phenotypically defined ones. As, by their definition "race" is socially defined, it is accurate to refer to differences between these races as being 'racist'.
Noah, thanks for the excellent, realistic view of the nature/nurture controversy.
If one looks at the achievements of the various races prior to significant interaction between the races, it is clear genetics is the reason for the variance.
What if we turned this argument around and asked hereditarians how genes are supposed to explain black-white IQ gaps? Some individual genes have been found to be associated with IQ differences, but how and why they have this effect is, to my knowledge, completely unknown.
"Some individual genes have been found to be associated with IQ differences, but how and why they have this effect is, to my knowledge, completely unknown."
The fact is genes do cause IQ differences; how and why are not pertinent to the fact that they do. You are setting up a strawman.
Yes, but how does cranial size cause IQ differences? As an example of what I’m looking for, scientists have some theories about Down syndrome affects the brain to cause intellectual disability: there are known abnormalities in the structure and functioning of some neurons in Down syndrome sufferers. But scientists have no idea how most of the gene variants associated with IQ differences affect the brain. And until they know that, heritability estimates don’t tell us much of interest. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10769995/
The paper that is cited ( 'Embedded racism: Inequitable niche construction as a neglected evolutionary process affecting health ') states 'Racial health disparities are a pervasive feature of modern experience and structural racism is increasingly recognized as a public health crisis.'
It also states 'Evidence that humans do not have biological races has been written extensively'
Black men get prostate cancer at a higher rate than white men.
Is this because white men have better access to those special tablets which help prevent you getting prostate cancer? (You know the ones I mean.....)
The NBA is 75% black because of anti-white racism.
I've written two essay responses to Nathan Cofnas detailing why the cultural hypothesis for racial disparities is more reasonable than the woke hypothesis: https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/wokism, https://zerocontradictions.net/misc/nathan-cofnas-emails
Systemic racism is not a rational explanation by any means. Even culture does a better job at explaining racial disparities than mere environmental factors.
Of course, I believe that hereditarianism is an even better explanation than culture (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race).
Really, we’re doing this again? What year is it?
I agree with you that environmentalists do a very poor job of giving a coherent theory and evidence for average differences in intelligence between races, but I would add that hereditarians do a equally poor job of explaining where those average differences come in the first place.
There is compelling evidence that differences in average intelligence are the outcome of societal differences, not the cause of those differences.
Hereditarians are missing a big opportunity to use genetic ancestry, geography and society type to explain differences in outcomes between groups:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-race-cannot-explain-human-history
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global
I appreciate the courage it takes to write this essay.
I know this is going to sound old, but it's not nature. It's nurture.
White parents, like Asian parents, drive their children to be the best they can be. They urge studying, sports, and life experiences. Black families, if they aren't single parents with one in jail, tell their kids they can't be any better than they are unless they play sports and get in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.
If you want to compare apples to apples, let's compare White farmers to black farmers. White farmers work from sunup to sundown, work weekends, and go to church. The black farmers, if there are any, don't work as hard and depend on the government to help them.
I can make it even more personal. My wife and I adopted two black children from CPS. My son doesn't want to read and would rather play sports. My daughter would love to read if she didn't have dyslexia and loved to draw and paint.
Why do white and Asian parents urge their children to strive but black parents don't? Does this behaviour appear out of thin air? To say 'It's their culture' is a circular argument.
Imagine that white and Asian people have a genetic predisposition for education. Wouldn't those parents be more likely to urge their children to study? And wouldn't their children, who have inherited this genetic disposition, be more likely to 'take to' education?
In Asian societies, particularly China and Korea, passing the national entrance exam for civil servants was the only route for the commoners to achieve upward social mobility - hence the term “scholar-aristocrats”.
I'm kind of surprised that you interpret your adopted son's dislike of reading and your daughters inability to read as due to nurture. After all, it is you who is nurturing them. How would things look if genes were involved? Wouldn't it look exactly like the situation you are describing?
No, it's nature, not nurture. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race
Let's see, you are sitting in a room and your task is to choose the first white person to enter the room. There's a Chinese from Shanghai, a Somali from Mogadishu, and a Dane from Copenhagen. The test subjects draw lots to see which one enters the room first, second, third. You can only guess once, if you get it right you get $1 million, if you miss we hang you. Dare you?
What do you mean by "social construct"? What you're saying isn't clear or well-defined. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race#social-construct
As for all races being mixed, you're making the pancake fallacy: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race#pancake-fallacy
How? evil white race is how, of course.
Oh, yea, someone was spewing that race commie redefinition and on looking up race on Wikipedia it was double-lie-makeup-talk, on and on, I even tried to do that recursive jump to learn a phrase or Satanic worshipping theology label, and finely decided it was meaningless BS and the old meaning worked - so why 'fix' it!
Okay, this reads better the 3rd time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Enjoy the needless redefinition.
God Bless., Steve
Like all topic you know are False on Wikipedia, all recent studies since perhaps the 1980 but likely before are filled with Fraud to hide Truth, or push False ideology.
Oh, hiding relevant differences - reporting falsely low IQ avg of 110 for Ashkenazi Jews - the disappearing trick - when it is more then 120 as I recall from studies before Feelie-based or funding-based fraud became the standard as men were excluded and women started dominating science fields,
With research funded meritless crammed down their throats while better researchers without the Card were funding-starved from career .. so they can protect us all from the Truth, like that puberty blocker women resources that found they do significant harm children, but refused to publish because SCOTUS had a relevant case pending and she would rather untold numbers of children harm then her ideology threatened.
Anyway, back to the projectile vomit of poison and lies in the rest of the article.
God Bless., Steve
'inherited environments that vary in their amenities and opportunities'
It's kind of amazing that all of us, including very clever people who must have spotted this is all guff at a cursory forst glance, still find ourselves wrestling with such woolly ideas. Reading this stuff like being enjoined to swallow a barium meal.
'[Kirkegaard] found that the gap tends to be smaller where there are more whites and more Republicans'.
Does this suggest that the environment does play a role, albeit in the opposite direction to the one predicted by racism-done-it? But then no one is suggesting that the environment has NO effect on IQ. Having said that, the fascinating fact that Ashkenazi Holocaust survivors score no worse on IQ tests than those who were relatively unaffected by the Nazi years suggests that environmental factors can't be so influential on IQ scores.
'In a recent study, Meng Hu found that Asian students whose parents didn’t finish high-school score higher on the SAT/ACT than black students whose parents completed a master’s degree'.
Ouch. Still, I'm sure Kev and Marcus will say this is due to a culture of educational striving among east Asians which arises from...they know not where.
The parts of their paper you quote from had a soporific effect on me. Not only are their ideas banal but their prose is turgid and sleep-inducing.
Stepping for a moment outside of the human species, I believe there is a parallel with different breed types/population groups of dogs. All the same species, but populations evolved in different environments, under different pressures for reproduction.Anyone with half q brain and one eye can see that some breed/types are smarter (and more difficult) than others. Would humns be different from other of Earth's species?
Being only a few paragraphs in, it seems the paper's authors and the substack writer are referring to quite different things (talking past each other).
Apparently the paper's authors refer to 'socially defined races' not phenotypically defined ones. As, by their definition "race" is socially defined, it is accurate to refer to differences between these races as being 'racist'.
Noah, thanks for the excellent, realistic view of the nature/nurture controversy.
If one looks at the achievements of the various races prior to significant interaction between the races, it is clear genetics is the reason for the variance.
What if we turned this argument around and asked hereditarians how genes are supposed to explain black-white IQ gaps? Some individual genes have been found to be associated with IQ differences, but how and why they have this effect is, to my knowledge, completely unknown.
It's all a big mystery, which is why heritability estimates are ultimately uninformative and not relevant to social science or policy. For more see my: https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/twin-studies-exaggerate-iq-heritability?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
No, you're making a fallacy. Everything that you just said about IQ also applies to height, and nobody disputes that height is mostly genetic. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race#mental-traits-inheritance
"Some individual genes have been found to be associated with IQ differences, but how and why they have this effect is, to my knowledge, completely unknown."
The fact is genes do cause IQ differences; how and why are not pertinent to the fact that they do. You are setting up a strawman.
I disagree. The how and the why are extremely important. Otherwise, you do not have a full theory.
Hereditarians only tell half the story, and that is not enough to convince most people that they are correct.
Genes evolve for a reason, and those reasons are at least partly due to the historical environment.
There is compelling evidence that differences in average intelligence are the outcome of societal differences, not the cause of those differences.
Hereditarians are missing a big opportunity to use genetic ancestry, geography and society type to explain differences in outcomes between groups:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-race-cannot-explain-human-history
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global
"I disagree."
Yes, we disagree...you are wrong.
Leave a comment at the bottom of the articles to explain why. I would like to hear why you think so.
Could physical factors like cranial size be more informative than heritability estimates?
Yes, but how does cranial size cause IQ differences? As an example of what I’m looking for, scientists have some theories about Down syndrome affects the brain to cause intellectual disability: there are known abnormalities in the structure and functioning of some neurons in Down syndrome sufferers. But scientists have no idea how most of the gene variants associated with IQ differences affect the brain. And until they know that, heritability estimates don’t tell us much of interest. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10769995/
You are a notorious troll on this subject.
Anthropologists studying human evolution use cranial size as a proxy for intelligence.
Is that valid science, if nobody knows how cranial size causes IQ differences?
Google 'Inference to best explanation'
All the more reason to study such things so that ultimately they could be informative for social policy.
Maybe this takes the matter forward. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RMNbXhspq29Cza482/the-virtuous-circle-twelve-conjectures-about-female
The paper that is cited ( 'Embedded racism: Inequitable niche construction as a neglected evolutionary process affecting health ') states 'Racial health disparities are a pervasive feature of modern experience and structural racism is increasingly recognized as a public health crisis.'
It also states 'Evidence that humans do not have biological races has been written extensively'
Black men get prostate cancer at a higher rate than white men.
Is this because white men have better access to those special tablets which help prevent you getting prostate cancer? (You know the ones I mean.....)