Human Genetics

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not mixing up anything, you were the one banging on about the starting grids for sprint events being majority black, you were the one linking it to being of African origin.

That you are now attempting to back-pedal on that fools utterly no-one.

Huh? Back-pedal on what?

They are majority/exclusive black and I still think genetics plays a factor in that.

I'm not mixing up anything, you were the one banging on about the starting grids for sprint events being majority black, you were the one linking it to being of Black African origin.

This all came from you saying:

Your own claim of the 'twitch xx gene' proves that, you attempted to claim it came from two population centres (those of African descent in the US and Caribbean). In doing so you ignored that those population centres are not a race and that the gene mutation isn't even close to being unique to those two populations

- I never talked about a "twitch xx gene"
- I never said any genes were unique

Again, I think you're getting confused with exclusivity and prevalence since you also said:

...if you're not saying its a black African gene then why are you so determined to state that it's only found in people of black African descent?"

when I clearly didn't say that.

That you are now attempting to back-pedal on that fools utterly no-one.

I'll go a bit deeper with the cystic fibrosis example to try and clear this up....

As said in my previous post, cystic fibrosis is more common in white populations compared to black ones.

If we look at a paper from when the genetics were first being understood you can see that they acknowledged a difference in the genetics between black and white sufferers of the disease:

The recent identification of the cystic fibrosis (CF) gene confirms that genetic heterogeneity occurs in CF. A three—basepair deletion in exon 10 resulting in a loss of the phenylalanine residue at amino acid position 508 of the gene product, termed the CF conductance regulator protein, accounts for 70% of cases of CF in white subjects. However, this gene defect occurs in only 37% of affected blacks. Analysis of CF genes from American blacks has revealed a number of mutations, most of which are unique to that population.

You can also see that there were mutations unique to American blacks, but that's beside the point.

Here is a more recent piece acknowledging the differences:

The researchers found that 90% of white patients and 83% of Native Americans with CF have a particular mutation (p.Phe508del), and about half of these individuals have two copies of these mutations. However, they found that 30% of Hispanics, 38% of blacks, and 41% of Asians did not even have one copy of the mutation. Patients of Hispanic, black, or Asian ancestry were also less likely to have two identified CFTR variants. “Our results confirm the widely held notion that the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics list of 23 mutations that was specifically designed for carrier screening is inadequate for diagnostic testing, even though it is used widely,” commented Dr. Schrijver.

As you can see, this is just looking at genetic differences amongst those affected - you would expect therefore to see large heterogeneity between the general populations.

Then why did you ignore it utterly when quoting (misleadingly) from your source?

You have repeatedly, over numerous threads, attempted to either remove or downplay environmental factors, instead focusing on the genetic link.

Wait what?

My own quote from the source shows environmental effects!

I included this:

Rather, my point is that an excessive emphasis on ACTN3 as a major explanation for Jamaican success does a grave disservice to the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors required for top-level athletic performance.

and:

The ACTN3-centred argument also dismisses the importance of Jamaica's impressive investment in the infrastructure and training system required to identify and nurture elite track athletes, the effects of a culture that idolises local
track heroes, and the powerful desire of young Jamaicans to use athletic success to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

So let's turn the tables and ask you, do you believe genetics play a part in sprinting success and do you believe these genes are unevenly spread throughout the world's populations?

Then you don't understand what quote mining is.

I was literally explaining the results of the actual study(ies)

 

[TexRex]

...

And that, boys and girls, is why black people are stupid.

/s

 

[HenrySwanson]

...

And that, boys and girls, is why black people are stupid.

/s

I think Imari said it best (I can't find his post after searching) - that trying to find out which group is smarter than who is pointless, for reasons he described far more eloquently than I could have.

All I was trying to argue was that there likely are differences between groups of people in certain traits due to genetics, or at the very least we don't know that there is.

 

[Danoff]

All I was trying to argue was that there likely are differences between groups of people in certain traits due to genetics, or at the very least we don't know that there is.

I wonder if you understand how incestuous this comment is.

Let's suppose that everyone on the planet had the same skin color.... we'll call it brown. Let's suppose that everyone on the planet had the same eye and hair color. Let's suppose that everyone on the planet had the same quantity of key internal organs, etc.

Now let's suppose that you found a genetic difference. Some people have 4 wisdom teeth, some people have 3, some people have 2, some people have 1, and some people have none. And let's say you can trace this to genetic inheritance. If you define groups according to the number of wisdom teeth they present with, you will find differences in traits due to these genetics, and you don't have to look any farther than teeth to do it. One obvious trait would be the number of wisdom teeth they have, which would have a 1:1 correlation with number of wisdom teeth they have.

So you've defined a population with 2 wisdom teeth, and you find that a common trait they have due to genetics is 2 wisdom teeth. I've now shown your statement to be correct. Do you understand why it is meaningless?

Now let's say that you could measure the height of these people. Let's also suppose that we know of no underlying reason why height would be associated with number of wisdom teeth. Let's suppose that you find that the height of the people you measured with 2 wisdom teeth is less than the height you measured with 4 wisdom teeth on average. I mean, if you were do actually run this experiment, there would obviously be a difference in the measurement. The likelihood of them being the same is nil.

But of course, the average is not the end of the story. You'd need to understand the variance of the numbers that went in to computing the average. So when you look at these samples from a statistical perspective, you'd likely find that statistically they are in agreement, even if the actual number is different. Now, there are ways to find a statistically meaningful difference. You might find that height is extremely correlated with wisdom teeth, and that would send you to do research on the underlying reason why the there is a genetic link between wisdom teeth and height.

 

[Scaff]

Huh? Back-pedal on what?

They are majority/exclusive black and I still think genetics plays a factor in that.

And you have failed to prove that genetics plays a significant factor (to the degree of being the main one) and your own source doesn't;t support you on that.

This all came from you saying:

Your own claim of the 'twitch xx gene' proves that, you attempted to claim it came from two population centres (those of African descent in the US and Caribbean). In doing so you ignored that those population centres are not a race and that the gene mutation isn't even close to being unique to those two populations

- I never talked about a "twitch xx gene"
- I never said any genes were unique

Again, I think you're getting confused with exclusivity and prevalence since you also said:

...if you're not saying its a black African gene then why are you so determined to state that it's only found in people of black African descent?"

when I clearly didn't say that.

You provided the source (and claimed it supported you) that introduced this, not me.

I'll go a bit deeper with the cystic fibrosis example to try and clear this up....

As said in my previous post, cystic fibrosis is more common in white populations compared to black ones.

If we look at a paper from when the genetics were first being understood you can see that they acknowledged a difference in the genetics between black and white sufferers of the disease:

The recent identification of the cystic fibrosis (CF) gene confirms that genetic heterogeneity occurs in CF. A three—basepair deletion in exon 10 resulting in a loss of the phenylalanine residue at amino acid position 508 of the gene product, termed the CF conductance regulator protein, accounts for 70% of cases of CF in white subjects. However, this gene defect occurs in only 37% of affected blacks. Analysis of CF genes from American blacks has revealed a number of mutations, most of which are unique to that population.

You can also see that there were mutations unique to American blacks, but that's beside the point.

Here is a more recent piece acknowledging the differences:

The researchers found that 90% of white patients and 83% of Native Americans with CF have a particular mutation (p.Phe508del), and about half of these individuals have two copies of these mutations. However, they found that 30% of Hispanics, 38% of blacks, and 41% of Asians did not even have one copy of the mutation. Patients of Hispanic, black, or Asian ancestry were also less likely to have two identified CFTR variants. “Our results confirm the widely held notion that the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics list of 23 mutations that was specifically designed for carrier screening is inadequate for diagnostic testing, even though it is used widely,” commented Dr. Schrijver.

As you can see, this is just looking at genetic differences amongst those affected - you would expect therefore to see large heterogeneity between the general populations.

And that disputes a single thing posted in what way?

Wait what?

My own quote from the source shows environmental effects!

I included this:

Rather, my point is that an excessive emphasis on ACTN3 as a major explanation for Jamaican success does a grave disservice to the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors required for top-level athletic performance.

and:

The ACTN3-centred argument also dismisses the importance of Jamaica's impressive investment in the infrastructure and training system required to identify and nurture elite track athletes, the effects of a culture that idolises local
track heroes, and the powerful desire of young Jamaicans to use athletic success to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

You are now you are backpedalling, your original argument was limited to genetics, I can keep posting the quotes and you can keep ignoring them if you like.

"OK, work with me here, I'm showing that people descended from black Africans are quicker in the 100m and your source proves that because they are all descended from black Africans!

Bolt, Gay, Coleman - they are all descendants from black Africans!"

So let's turn the tables and ask you, do you believe genetics play a part in sprinting success

Potentially, it depends on the gene in question, but its certainly not proven as a dominant factor.

and do you believe these genes are unevenly spread throughout the world's populations?

That depends on the gene, and in the example of sprinting, you're a long way from showing it's limited to the populations in question.

I was literally explaining the results of the actual study(ies)

Nope.

I think Imari said it best (I can't find his post after searching) - that trying to find out which group is smarter than who is pointless, for reasons he described far more eloquently than I could have.

All I was trying to argue was that there likely are differences between groups of people in certain traits due to genetics, or at the very least we don't know that there is.

No one (literally no one) has disputed that differences in populations exist in genetic terms, however, what you have ignored is that these differences are smaller than the genetic differences that also exist within populations. What you have also ignored is that as a result race is not genetic, but a social construct (something that is agreed by the vast majority of people in the field of genetics).

As such race is not a factor in intelligence (or for that matter sprinting), which was the hill you picked to die on at the start of this.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I wonder if you understand how incestuous this comment is.

Let's suppose that everyone on the planet had the same skin color.... we'll call it brown. Let's suppose that everyone on the planet had the same eye and hair color. Let's suppose that everyone on the planet had the same quantity of key internal organs, etc.

Now let's suppose that you found a genetic difference. Some people have 4 wisdom teeth, some people have 3, some people have 2, some people have 1, and some people have none. And let's say you can trace this to genetic inheritance. If you define groups according to the number of wisdom teeth they present with, you will find differences in traits due to these genetics, and you don't have to look any farther than teeth to do it. One obvious trait would be the number of wisdom teeth they have, which would have a 1:1 correlation with number of wisdom teeth they have.

So you've defined a population with 2 wisdom teeth, and you find that a common trait they have due to genetics is 2 wisdom teeth. I've now shown your statement to be correct. Do you understand why it is meaningless?

Now let's say that you could measure the height of these people. Let's also suppose that we know of no underlying reason why height would be associated with number of wisdom teeth. Let's suppose that you find that the height of the people you measured with 2 wisdom teeth is less than the height you measured with 4 wisdom teeth on average. I mean, if you were do actually run this experiment, there would obviously be a difference in the measurement. The likelihood of them being the same is nil.

But of course, the average is not the end of the story. You'd need to understand the variance of the numbers that went in to computing the average. So when you look at these samples from a statistical perspective, you'd likely find that statistically they are in agreement, even if the actual number is different. Now, there are ways to find a statistically meaningful difference. You might find that height is extremely correlated with wisdom teeth, and that would send you to do research on the underlying reason why the there is a genetic link between wisdom teeth and height.

And if wisdom teeth were as powerful a discriminator as skin colour?

In your example you are trying to say that it is a meaningless distinction between groups but that isn't how it works in the real world when it comes to skin colour because it is twinned strongly with ethnicity.

Black people are unlikely to have blonde children
White people are unlikely to have pronounced epicanthal folds
Asians are less likely to have green eyes.

That's just looking at physical traits - the groups evolved to have these different skin colours/features and we can classify people accordingly. If we substituted black people for those with 2 wisdom teeth, whites with 3 and Asians with 4 and they were as powerfully linked to ethnicity what does it matter? We'd still separate people into groups, just this time according to number of wisdom teeth.

And you have failed to prove that genetics plays a significant factor (to the degree of being the main one) and your own source doesn't;t support you on that.

OK, so I'll ask another simple question because this is dragging....

What is the reason that almost 100% of those who have broken the 10 second barrier in 100m sprinting are descendents of black West Africans?

 

[Scaff]

What is the reason that almost 100% of those who have broken the 10 second barrier in 100m sprinting are descendents of black West Africans?

I'm not going to answer a strawman question.

They are from a small subset of those descendents, and as such are NOT representative of descendants of black West Africans, or even black West Africans themselves, we have literally been over this before!

Edited to add. Nor is 'descendent of black West African' a race, which means you are refuting your own case, even with your absurdly broad attempt to support it.

 

[Danoff]

And if wisdom teeth were as powerful a discriminator as skin colour?

In your example you are trying to say that it is a meaningless distinction between groups but that isn't how it works in the real world when it comes to skin colour because it is twinned strongly with ethnicity.

Black people are unlikely to have blonde children
White people are unlikely to have pronounced epicanthal folds
Asians are less likely to have green eyes.

That's just looking at physical traits - the groups evolved to have these different skin colours/features and we can classify people accordingly. If we substituted black people for those with 2 wisdom teeth, whites with 3 and Asians with 4 and they were as powerfully linked to ethnicity what does it matter? We'd still separate people into groups, just this time according to number of wisdom teeth.

Well you can try... but it's much easier to determine a group of people that has an integer number of teeth than it is to determine what constitutes "black" or "Asian". But you're missing the point of my post, which is that you're looking for a way to link physical genetic traits to other (potentially) genetic traits such as a predisposition for certain kinds of thought. First you'd have to determine a statistically significant correlation. Then you'd have to actually determine the underlying physiology which causes the link, before you could really have a conclusion. Because statistical correlations can easily be caused by some unknown factor that you didn't account for in your sample populations.

You're a long way from showing a statistical correlation between pigmentation and mathematical aptitude, for example. Let alone finding the underlying theory that links them. You're having trouble showing that with something as simple as sprinting!

So here's your problem in a nutshell:
- race is not clearly defined
- intelligence is not clearly defined
- statistically meaningful correlation between race and intelligence is therefore not present
- a theory which explains the non-present correlation is therefore not present

You've lost on all fronts. You think you can define race, but it is an illusion. You think you can define intelligence, but it is also an illusion. You think because you know that whatever that number would be that it wouldn't be the same means that there is a fundamental difference, but that would also be an illusion (statistics!), and you seem to miss the step where this would also require an explanatory theory.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not going to answer a strawman question.

They are from a small subset of those descendents, and as such are NOT representative of descendants of black West Africans, or even black West Africans themselves, we have literally been over this before!

OK....so....let's try another one:

Why are there very few white Americans compared to black Americans in the list?

You're a long way from showing a statistical correlation between pigmentation and mathematical aptitude, for example. Let alone finding the underlying theory that links them. You're having trouble showing that with something as simple as sprinting!

Ehhh....but am I though?

Has there been a cogent argument to explain against genetics being a contributory factor for the over-representation of black athletes in the highest echelon of world sprinting?

 

[TexRex]

All I was trying to argue was that there likely are differences between groups of people in certain traits due to genetics, or at the very least we don't know that there is.

You forgot the part where you were doing so in an attempt to defend the remarks of an individual whose title had been removed by the very same body that bestowed him with it on the basis that those remarks (which he hadn't substantiated in any meaningful way) were very likely founded upon racism.

This was after you attempted to shut down criticism of the remarks by labelling it and the title revocation as "political correctness" (BOO!!!).

(Linked post offered below for convenience.)

Nobel Prize winner James Watson stripped of honourary titles for claiming blacks are genetically inferior in terms of intelligence:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-Watson-90-stripped-honorary-titles-lab.html

As an aside, I've begun to read this particular diatribe of yours as voiced by the villain from Lethal Weapon 2, and doing so has put a big smile on my face.

Well you can try... but it's much easier to determine a group of people that has an integer number of teeth than it is to determine what constitutes "black" or "Asian". But you're missing the point of my post, which is that you're looking for a way to link physical genetic traits to other (potentially) genetic traits such as a predisposition for certain kinds of thought. First you'd have to determine a statistically significant correlation. Then you'd have to actually determine the underlying physiology which causes the link, before you could really have a conclusion. Because statistical correlations can easily be caused by some unknown factor that you didn't account for in your sample populations.

You're a long way from showing a statistical correlation between pigmentation and mathematical aptitude, for example. Let alone finding the underlying theory that links them. You're having trouble showing that with something as simple as sprinting!

So here's your problem in a nutshell:
- race is not clearly defined
- intelligence is not clearly defined
- statistically meaningful correlation between race and intelligence is therefore not present
- a theory which explains the non-present correlation is therefore not present

You've lost on all fronts. You think you can define race, but it is an illusion. You think you can define intelligence, but it is also an illusion. You think because you know that whatever that number would be that it wouldn't be the same means that there is a fundamental difference, but that would also be an illusion (statistics!), and you seem to miss the step where this would also require an explanatory theory.

Fixed.

 

[Scaff]

OK....so....let's try another one:

Why are there very few white Americans compared to black Americans in the list?

Once again a population, not a race. It also fails to address the problem with your argument that black Americans are less likely to be in the list that black Caribbeans when based on total populations they should be far, far more for your claim to hold true (and in fact, Brazilians of black West African descent should be the dominant population).

Has there been a coherent argument to explain against genetics being a contributory factor for the over-representation of black athletes in the highest echelon of world sprinting?

Strawman again (and the same one), it's not 'black athletes' is it, its people from a very distinct and limited population (that is not a race).

In fact, it's a double strawman as well, as no one has said that genetics isn't a factor, what has been said is that other factors play a much greater role and that the genetic factor is not linked to race (as that's actually a social construct).

Now add in that the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim (you) and that you don't prove a negative, and you have managed to rack-up an impressive four logical fallacies in one sentence, that's quite some going.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You forgot the part where you were doing so in an attempt to defend the remarks of an individual whose title had been removed by the very same body that bestowed him with it on the basis that those remarks (which he hadn't substantiated in any meaningful way) were very likely founded upon racism.

This was after you attempted to shut down criticism of the remarks by labelling it and the title revocation as "political correctness" (BOO!!!).

The headline was:

DNA pioneer James Watson, 90, is stripped of the last of his honorary titles after doubling down on his 'reprehensible' views that genes cause a difference between black people and white people on IQ tests

Are you saying genes don't play a part in that observable difference?

 

[Scaff]

The headline was:

DNA pioneer James Watson, 90, is stripped of the last of his honorary titles after doubling down on his 'reprehensible' views that genes cause a difference between black people and white people on IQ tests

Are you saying genes don't play a part in that observable difference?

Science does (as race is a social construct) , and you've spent two years failing to provide any evidence to the contrary.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Science does (as race is a social construct) , and you've spent two years failing to provide any evidence to the contrary.

You haven't shown that though. Amid a lot of bluster you presented studies showing a difference within groups and compared that to differences between groups, but after analysis they still showed there were features that could ascertain an individual's ethnic background genetically pretty accurately.

I don't understand how that shows genes don't play a part in differences in IQ.

Here's a paper looking at differences in cognitive ability that isn't limited to IQ

I've yet to go through it thoroughly but your feedback is welcome.

Once again a population, not a race. It also fails to address the problem with your argument that black Americans are less likely to be in the list that black Caribbeans when based on total populations they should be far, far more for your claim to hold true (and in fact, Brazilians of black West African descent should be the dominant population).

But that would be explained by environmental factors....

Environmental factors don't, however, explain why there are only 2 Asian Chinese sprinters represented in a list of 143....

Also if your population theory holds true, where are the white West Africans?

 

[Scaff]

You haven't shown that though. Amid a lot of bluster you presented studies showing a difference within groups and compared that to differences between groups, but after analysis they still showed there were features that could ascertain an individual's ethnic background genetically pretty accurately.

Utterly untrue, I've cited numerous geneticists and anthropologists.

I don't understand how that shows genes don't play a part in differences in IQ.

Strawman, not what I said.

Here's a paper looking at differences in cognitive ability that isn't limited to IQ

I've yet to go through it thoroughly but your feedback is welcome.

You read past the abstract and didn't spot at least two red flags with it?

I've now read the entire thing and the supporting material, as well as reviewed the journal is was published in. Honestly I'm would be surprised if you did anything more than skimmed the abstract, as its has that many issues with it. This however will be interesting, what issues do you think it has?

But that would be explained by environmental factors....

Environmental factors don't, however, explain why there are only 2 Asian Chinese sprinters represented in a list of 143....

Yes they do, one if your past sources covered this.

Also if your population theory holds true, where are the white West Africans?

Strawman once again.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not sure how we got from "Black people are dumb, and here's the proof!" via "This noted geneticist said it was so, but was silenced by political correctness!" to "You can't prove it's not true, therefore it is!".

Some real "god of the gaps" reasoning appears to be in evidence here.

 

[TexRex]

The headline was:

DNA pioneer James Watson, 90, is stripped of the last of his honorary titles after doubling down on his 'reprehensible' views that genes cause a difference between black people and white people on IQ tests

I saw. Not only did I see it previously, but I clicked it again prior to quoting the post and again got a laugh out of the 'Mail repeatedly swapping "Nobel" with "Noble".

Are you saying genes don't play a part in that observable difference?

Are you saying you can't address what I actually said and you must instead resort to attributing to me that which I haven't said in an effort to strawman?

I said no such thing, however my position is that any supposed correlation isn't meaningful in and of itself, much less to suggest causation.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Utterly untrue, I've cited numerous geneticists and anthropologists.

Where?

Strawman, not what I said.

It's not a strawman!

Your whole argument is that race is only a social construct, but that doesn't counter the fact that we can find genetic differences between ethnic groups.

I'll ask this then:

Is it possible that genes for intelligence, in so far as it could be measured in tests be unevenly distrubuted between ethnic groups?

You read past the abstract and didn't spot at least two red flags with it?

I've now read the entire thing and the supporting material, as well as reviewed the journal is was published in. Honestly I'm would be surprised if you did anything more than skimmed the abstract, as its has that many issues with it. This however will be interesting, what issues do you think it has?

What red flags?

Yes they do, one if your past sources covered this.

Wait a minute.

The only reason that there are 2 Chinese-Asian sprinters on that list is solely because of environmental differences?

Which source says that?!

Strawman once again.

This....is seeming like a dodge strategy.

I mean, you said there weren't many white Americans on the list because of "population not race" (I actually haven't used race for many, many posts now) and now you've said that there's no white West Africans because it's a "strawman".

Isn't the answer because ethnic groups came about because of population genetics and other factors, but that it doesn't disprove the idea that the prevalence of genes beneficial to sprinting would be more likely to be found in black populations?

I saw. Not only did I see it previously, but I clicked it again prior to quoting the post and again got a laugh out of the 'Mail repeatedly swapping "Nobel" with "Noble".


Are you saying you can't address what I actually said and you must instead resort to attributing to me that which I haven't said in an effort to strawman?

I said no such thing, however my position is that any supposed correlation isn't meaningful in and of itself, much less to suggest causation.

Address what?

 

[Scaff]

Where?

I've posted and cited them numerous times across two threads, that you have repeatedly ignored them is not my issue.

However to humour the inane once again, the American Society of Geneticists says your talking bollocks.

It's not a strawman!

Your whole argument is that race is only a social construct, but that doesn't counter the fact that we can find genetic differences between ethnic groups.

I'll ask this then:

Is it possible that genes for intelligence, in so far as it could be measured in tests be unevenly distrubuted between ethnic groups?

Go back and read what you asked again, if you don't think it's a strawman, then you don't know what a strawman is.

What red flags?

You honestly read that entire paper, checked on it authors and its publication and came across nothing at all that concerned you?

Nothing!

If that's the case then your not looking at it even remotely critically and quite frankly don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Wait a minute.

The only reason that there are 2 Chinese-Asian sprinters on that list is solely because of environmental differences?

Nope, but feel free to prove that.

Which source says that?!

Yours, given that you cited them I would have expected you to have read them. However based on your inability to read critically that's in doubt as well.

This....is seeming like a dodge strategy.

Nope. You keep arguing the strawman. The issue is yours not mine.

I mean, you said there weren't many white Americans on the list because of "population not race" (I actually haven't used race for many, many posts now) and now you've said that there's no white West Africans because it's a "strawman".

Quite clearly someone doesn't understand the concept of a strawman.

Isn't the answer because ethnic groups came about because of population genetics and other factors, but that it doesn't disprove the idea that the prevalence of genes beneficial to sprinting would be more likely to be found in black populations?

The onus isn't on anyone to disprove it, but rather for you to prove it.

That would also then only be step one, you then have to take that correlation and prove causality from it, you then have to prove that ties to an entire race (which means you have to prove race is genetic and not social - which would be Nobel level) and then you have to start all over again to try and do the same with intelligence, with the added challenge of coming up with a test that in no way is bias against any group of any form.

Have fun.

 

[TexRex]

Address what?

What I actually said.

The forum software actually makes things very easy and convenient for users. See, when you quote a user directly, embedded in the quotation is code that contains information about the quoted post so that it can be accessed later. In the little quote box is the text that was quoted, the name of the user that posted said text and, if the post was quoted directly, a hyperlinked 'up' arrow that, when clicked, redirects to the post itself. Users can then follow these quotes back to earlier points in the discussion.

Using the information I've just provided and a little critical thought, you can find your way back to the words that I actually used and that which you failed to address, instead opting to employ a strawman by attributing to me words that I didn't actually use.

I'll give you a huge hint and say that what I actually said is in this thread, as well as that my first post in this thread appears on the third page. If you somehow manage to leave this thread during your search for what I actually said, you've made a wrong turn.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What I actually said.

The forum software actually makes things very easy and convenient for users. See, when you quote a user directly, embedded in the quotation is code that contains information about the quoted post so that it can be accessed later. In the little quote box is the text that was quoted, the name of the user that posted said text and, if the post was quoted directly, a hyperlinked 'up' arrow that, when clicked, redirects to the post itself. Users can then follow these quotes back to earlier points in the discussion.

Using the information I've just provided and a little critical thought, you can find your way back to the words that I actually used and that which you failed to address, instead opting to employ a strawman by attributing to me words that I didn't actually use.

I'll give you a huge hint and say that what I actually said is in this thread, as well as that my first post in this thread appears on the third page. If you somehow manage to leave this thread during your search for what I actually said, you've made a wrong turn.

Erm.

The only one that I can think of was this:

You forgot the part where you were doing so in an attempt to defend the remarks of an individual whose title had been removed by the very same body that bestowed him with it on the basis that those remarks (which he hadn't substantiated in any meaningful way) were very likely founded upon racism.

This was after you attempted to shut down criticism of the remarks by labelling it and the title revocation as "political correctness" (BOO!!!).

(Linked post offered below for convenience.)

But:

1) I didn't "shut down criticism of the remarks", I just ruminated that it may be in part due to political correctness.
2) I gave the actual headline and elaborated on the point (somewhat contradicting me "shutting down criticism")
3) The question asked was reasonable considering this is what got Watson punished

 

[Scaff]

1) I didn't "shut down criticism of the remarks", I just ruminated that it may be in part due to political correctness.
2) I gave the actual headline and elaborated on the point (somewhat contradicting me "shutting down criticism")
3) The question asked was reasonable considering this is what got Watson punished

Ahh the PC claim rears its head when people have to face the consequences of racism.

Except in this case its not PC gone mad, but scientific institutions breaking ties with someone (with a long history) of making the same unsupported claim you are.



https://www.vox.com/2019/1/15/18182530/james-watson-racist

 

[TexRex]

Erm.

The only one that I can think of was this:

Winner. Winner. Chicken. Dinner.

1) I didn't "shut down criticism of the remarks", I just ruminated that it may be in part due to political correctness.

Lipstick. Pig.

Supposed "political correctness" (BOO!!!) is your and many others' cause célèbre and you invoke it when it pleases you as a response to policies and actions that you perceive as negative. A theme persistent in the invocations is that policies and actions are intended to infringe upon rights to free speech (where they exist) and that the aim of these policies and actions is to groom people into behaving a certain way under threat of penalty; a supposed normative agenda. By invoking this bogeyman, you allege that those who criticize and/or penalize individuals and groups for their views (particularly when this criticism and/or penalty doesn't rise to the level of state censure necessary for it to be a free speech matter; indeed that's how the invocation as it's used today came about) are party to this supposed agenda.

2) I gave the actual headline

I saw.

and elaborated on the point (somewhat contradicting me "shutting down criticism")

No, you didn't.

3) The question asked was reasonable considering this is what got Watson punished

It may or may not be reasonable to ask whether I believe observable differences may be attributed to genes. That, however, is very much not what you asked.

What you actually asked was "So you're saying..." in an effort to misrepresent what I said (which, for those playing the home game, had absolutely nothing to do with genes) as a strawman against which you could more easily argue. This is a tactic you have demonstrated a propensity to employ, and it's dishonest.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What you actually asked was "So you're saying..." in an effort to misrepresent what I said (which, for those playing the home game, had absolutely nothing to do with genes) as a strawman against which you could more easily argue. This is a tactic you have demonstrated a propensity to employ, and it's dishonest.

So could they?

Ahh the PC claim rears its head when people have to face the consequences of racism.

Except in this case its not PC gone mad, but scientific institutions breaking ties with someone (with a long history) of making the same unsupported claim you are.



https://www.vox.com/2019/1/15/18182530/james-watson-racist

Ehhhh.....

If PC wasn't an issue and purely a bogeyman, I'm not sure we would have seen a petition against this paper.

 

[Scaff]

If PC wasn't an issue and purely a bogeyman, I'm not sure we would have seen a petition against this paper.

**** me, if it isn't another strawman.

You've tangented to a totally different paper, from a totally different person, and attempted to not only use it as a rebuttal, but also are inferring that it's the standard response to such papers.

You also forgot to mention the reason behind the petition, which disputed that it was based on solid empirical evidence! Not to mention that you seem to have failed to understand that a right to free speach doesn't equal a right to freedom from consequences. Under your logic, Trump fans destroying Nike gear is PC gone mad. (an in that lies the lie of PC gone mad, the rights double standard).

 

[TexRex]

So could they?

They could or they could not. But then you'd need statistically significant evidence to suggest that gingers, in addition to having no soul, are genetically predisposed to perform poorly on an IQ test (which itself isn't meaningful).

 

[HenrySwanson]

**** me, if it isn't another strawman.

You've tangented to a totally different paper, from a totally different person, and attempted to not only use it as a rebuttal, but also are inferring that it's the standard response to such papers.

You also forgot to mention the reason behind the petition, which disputed that it was based on solid empirical evidence! Not to mention that you seem to have failed to understand that a right to free speach doesn't equal a right to freedom from consequences. Under your logic, Trump fans destroying Nike gear is PC gone mad. (an in that lies the lie of PC gone mad, the rights double standard).

Sorry I didn't think I'd have to point this out but I'm saying PC is an issue in relation to the general debate, and is not limited to one example. That's actually not a strawman.

Also they didn't dispute that - that was an inference made by the article writer (you'll note that "empirical evidence" doesn't appear at all in the petition).

They could or they could not. But then you'd need statistically significant evidence to suggest that gingers, in addition to having no soul, are genetically predisposed to perform poorly on an IQ test (which itself isn't meaningful).

Why?

 

[Scaff]

Sorry I didn't think I'd have to point this out but I'm saying PC is an issue in relation to the general debate, and is not limited to one example. That's actually not a strawman.

You are using a different argument to try and prove a position on another case, Watson was not stripped on his titles and offices due to Political Correctness, and a different point, about a different paper doesn't suddenly make that true.

Also they didn't dispute that - that was an inference made by the article writer (you'll note that "empirical evidence" doesn't appear at all in the petition).

That really is some rather pathetic semantics.

Directly from the petition:

"However, the paper completely neglects the role played by environmental injustice, housing segregation, and related forms of discrimination in producing these differences"

The above is quite clearly raising an issue about the standards of evidence, as it then builds on with an example:

"For instance, it is a well-established fact that black Americans suffer from higher rates of lead poisoning, including in utero and during childhood, than white Americans. Lead is a neurotoxin that impairs intelligence, especially in people who are exposed to it during development. The paper completely ignores this crucial environmental factor."

It then goes on to state:

"We also support free speech and free inquiry, but insist that free inquiry should be guided by norms of accuracy and expertise"

Again quite clearly referencing a need for empirical evidence.

Yet you argue that none of the above counts because the exact phrase 'empirical evidence' isn't used? That's weak to the point of utter dishonesty.

Raising concerns about a paper and asking for it to be withdrawn due to issues with accuracy, standards of evidence and potential bias isn't political correctness at all, it's how science works.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You are using a different argument to try and prove a position on another case, Watson was not stripped on his titles and offices due to Political Correctness, and a different point, about a different paper doesn't suddenly make that true.



That really is some rather pathetic semantics.

Directly from the petition:

"However, the paper completely neglects the role played by environmental injustice, housing segregation, and related forms of discrimination in producing these differences"

The above is quite clearly raising an issue about the standards of evidence, as it then builds on with an example:

"For instance, it is a well-established fact that black Americans suffer from higher rates of lead poisoning, including in utero and during childhood, than white Americans. Lead is a neurotoxin that impairs intelligence, especially in people who are exposed to it during development. The paper completely ignores this crucial environmental factor."

It then goes on to state:

"We also support free speech and free inquiry, but insist that free inquiry should be guided by norms of accuracy and expertise"

Again quite clearly referencing a need for empirical evidence.

Yet you argue that none of the above counts because the exact phrase 'empirical evidence' isn't used? That's weak to the point of utter dishonesty.

Raising concerns about a paper and asking for it to be withdrawn due to issues with accuracy, standards of evidence and potential bias isn't political correctness at all, it's how science works.

Come onnnn....did you read it

From the paper:

Nevertheless, we cannot technically say that the environmentalist explanation for the IQ gap has been falsified. The fact that the gap did narrow since the early twentieth century gives some credibility to the idea that environment is playing a role.

Are you expecting the author to go into every environmental factor by list in order for the paper to be deemed credible?

 

[Scaff]

Come onnnn....did you read it

Yes, quite why given the standard of papers and the lack of critical evaluation you give them I don't know why I bother, but I do. And technically this one is an article rather than a paper.

From the paper:

Are you expecting the author to go into every environmental factor by list in order for the paper to be deemed credible?

As many as possible I certainly do, to ignore one as well known and proven as lead poisoning is one well worth pointing out to say the least.

To highlight it as missing and call the conclusions of the article into doubt, as a result, is, once again, not Political Correctness. It is, however, a valid concern about the article and its accuracy. As such your 'PC gone mad' flag-waving was more than inaccurate.