Political Correctness

[HenrySwanson]

So how does one conclude from that information, that there are genetic differences beween ethnicities that define potential in intelligence?

We don't.....

We simply acknowledge that there are so many differences in other variables that it is likely there is likely a difference in intelligence too. Or we choose to ignore it, as most other posters are doing,

 

[UKMikey]

Do you have diabetes?

No.

ACEI are preferred agents for those with diabetes but the NICE guidelines for non-diabetics are that someone who is 55 or younger is prescribed an ACEI only (unless it isn't controlled in which case you have more anti hypertension drugs) unless they are of Afro-Caribbean descent in which case they would have a CCB as first line.

The NICE guidelines I dug up (as you didn't provide a link) mentioned this guideline for anyone of African descent, not just Afro-Caribbeans. I don't know why this would be the case and the guidelines don't explain this but maybe it's something to do with lactose intolerance.

However I wasn't offered a CCB despite my dad being Gambian and am using an ACE inhibitor without any problems so far. Maybe my cardiologist elected to ignore the guideline.

Even if the reason is genetic though it's a long way from an indicator that black people are genetically predisposed to be stupider.

Also, where did I say "a black"?

Here.

- Effects of medications (e.g. in Medicine in the UK a first line drug for high blood pressure is something called an ACE inhibitor, providing you are younger than 55. However, due to differences in genetics blacks would be started on a different drug called a calcium channel blocker which has a totally different method of action.)
- Differences in lab test results (e.g. eGFR results for blacks)

I'd prefer to be known as a black person rather than one of the "blacks" because I believe my skin colour is a descriptor, not everything that defines me as a person. Fortunately most official documentation I've read (such as the NICE guidelines I just linked to) seems to agree.

We simply acknowledge that there are so many differences in other variables that it is likely there is likely a difference in intelligence too. Or we choose to ignore it, as most other posters are doing,

To put it kindly, this is a bit of a stretch. It doesn't even make sense as a conclusion to me. Scientific racism is out of fashion these days. Without cold, hard evidence I'll continue to ignore such findings.

 

[PocketZeven]

We don't.....

We simply acknowledge that there are so many differences in other variables that it is likely there is likely a difference in intelligence too. Or we choose to ignore it, as most other posters are doing,

Again, how do you conclude there are "likely" differences on a genetic level related to potential in intelligence? You would be more correct if you stated that it is "it is very unlikely there are differences in intelligence". Why conclude a likelyhood and then look for evidence? Shouldnt you look for peer reviewed evidence and then make a conclusion? What peerreviewed evidence suggests potential intelligence varies between ethnicities? There are far more genetic similarities nthen there are differences.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

It is like saying the earth is likely flat and then cherrypicking evidence to prove your point. Is your motivation that you likely think you "race" is more intelligent then others?

 

[Danoff]

I think it's fair to say that at birth, any person around the world has the same capacity for 'intelligence' as any other person.

That's definitely not true. Many people are born with diminished intellectual potential. Some of them are born with genetic disorders that render them unable to ever fully function as adults. I think you meant "healthy" people, but I think again that you're over simplifying the situation. I was raised in the same environment as my sisters, and I can tell you for certain that we don't have the same intellectual aptitudes. It's not even really particularly close. That's because we have significantly different genetic combinations of my parents, and they had very different genes to contribute, some of which were never received by each of their offspring.

People are genetically different, and that includes intellectual aptitudes and predispositions. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that all healthy people have the same capacity overall for intelligence. But I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that that's not the case either. That's because I don't believe we can reliably estimate overall intelligence, or even figure out what that means. So the conclusion that it's evenly distributed is unfounded (and unnecessary).

We don't.....

We simply acknowledge that there are so many differences in other variables that it is likely there is likely a difference in intelligence too. Or we choose to ignore it, as most other posters are doing,

No. That's not how it works. We know there are genetic differences among people of different "races", in fact, we know there are genetic differences between all individuals. You don't need to keep supporting the notion that people are physiologically different, they are. All of them. There are differences in blood types, predisposition to various diseases (some of which are genetic), height, bone density, muscle mass, etc. etc. among all individuals (ok, maybe not for identical twins). Every single person has a different genetic propensity for these traits. It's true that some traits go together, you might be able to generalize a set of "racial" characteristics for certain genetic physiological predispositions.

The problem is you seem to keep wanting to generalize that to intelligence, and that's basically impossible to do. We can't even measure what you're talking about, so proving a difference is not going to be forthcoming. I can tell you for sure that there are certain genetic traits that are exactly even handed among the races. You're not any more likely to have a 3rd eye, be missing a 2nd eye, have 3 arms, two hearts, two brains, etc. etc.

So there is no reason to suspect that everything is different just because some things are often different in various fairly arbitrary bins that you group people in.

 

[TexRex]

We don't.....

We simply acknowledge that there are so many differences in other variables that it is likely there is likely a difference in intelligence too. Or we choose to ignore it, as most other posters are doing,

I feel like the publishers of every scientific journal ever would look at this sort of "but it's like this for other things"...*cough*..."methodology"...and die in a fit of laughter.

Scientific racism is out of fashion these days.

 

[huskeR32]

I guess but that's assuming they had different nutritional patterns before the study that suddenly changed at the onset of the study.

No, it's not assuming anything. It's wanting a fairly large hole in the data to be filled in so that nothing has to be assumed.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No.

The NICE guidelines I dug up (as you didn't provide a link) mentioned this guideline for anyone of African descent, not just Afro-Caribbeans. I don't know why this would be the case and the guidelines don't explain this but maybe it's something to do with lactose intolerance.

Here's a review (I'm sorry it's only one, I'm trying to reply to everyone here):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29808707

However I wasn't offered a CCB despite my dad being Gambian and am using an ACE inhibitor without any problems so far. Maybe my cardiologist elected to ignore the guideline.

It's something I would ask. This is in no way saying I know more than a consultant but it would be interesting to know the response.

I'd prefer to be known as a black person rather than one of the "blacks" because I believe my skin colour is a descriptor, not everything that defines me as a person. Fortunately most official documentation I've read (such as the NICE guidelines I just linked to) seems to agree.

I can change that then in future contributions

To put it kindly, this is a bit of a stretch. It doesn't even make sense as a conclusion to me. Scientific racism is out of fashion these days. Without cold, hard evidence I'll continue to ignore such findings.

It's not a conclusion. But that cold, hard evidence will never appear if we don't even attempt to test it

Again, how do you conclude there are "likely" differences on a genetic level related to potential in intelligence? You would be more correct if you stated that it is "it is very unlikely there are differences in intelligence". Why conclude a likelyhood and then look for evidence? Shouldnt you look for peer reviewed evidence and then make a conclusion? What peerreviewed evidence suggests potential intelligence varies between ethnicities? There are far more genetic similarities nthen there are differences.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

It is like saying the earth is likely flat and then cherrypicking evidence to prove your point. Is your motivation that you likely think you "race" is more intelligent then others?

So I've given you 8 differences between different human populations, but you assume that something that is influenced by so many more genes is likely to be the same across all populations and you think that is the more likely assumption?

No. That's not how it works. We know there are genetic differences among people of different "races", in fact, we know there are genetic differences between all individuals. You don't need to keep supporting the notion that people are physiologically different, they are. All of them. There are differences in blood types, predisposition to various diseases (some of which are genetic), height, bone density, muscle mass, etc. etc. among all individuals (ok, maybe not for identical twins). Every single person has a different genetic propensity for these traits. It's true that some traits go together, you might be able to generalize a set of "racial" characteristics for certain genetic physiological predispositions.

The problem is you seem to keep wanting to generalize that to intelligence, and that's basically impossible to do. We can't even measure what you're talking about, so proving a difference is not going to be forthcoming. I can tell you for sure that there are certain genetic traits that are exactly even handed among the races. You're not any more likely to have a 3rd eye, be missing a 2nd eye, have 3 arms, two hearts, two brains, etc. etc.

So there is no reason to suspect that everything is different just because some things are often different in various fairly arbitrary bins that you group people in.

So the crux of the matter is we can't define intelligence. Or more specifically we can't test it.

I feel like the publishers of every scientific journal ever would look at this sort of "but it's like this for other things"...*cough*..."methodology"...and die in a fit of laughter.


View attachment 803789

But you're proposing that we leave it as "we all have the same capacity for intelligence, END OF". Doesn't sound very scientific to me

No, it's not assuming anything. It's wanting a fairly large hole in the data to be filled in so that nothing has to be assumed.

I mean a study like that would be very hard to conduct. Your reasoning is sound however, although I * seriously doubt nutrition in early childhood is that significantly different between those populations.

* Yes my conclusion

 

[Danoff]

So the crux of the matter is we can't define intelligence. Or more specifically we can't test it.

Yes and... when the definition of intelligence starts to approach something that looks realistic based on the information we have today, it calls into question the relevance of the metric at all. Intelligence goes from being something specific and finite and concrete to something broad, nebulous, and time-varying. And so why should we bother ourselves with testing various populations to see how they fare compared to each other, when the answer will be something broad, nebulous, and time-varying.

In other words, you don't have the information to ask the question, and if you had it, you wouldn't ask it.

 

[TexRex]

But you're proposing that we leave it as "we all have the same capacity for intelligence, END OF". Doesn't sound very scientific to me

Yeeeeaaahh...I'm going to have to ask you to quote me as having said anything even remotely along those lines.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yeeeeaaahh...I'm going to have to ask you to quote me as having said anything even remotely along those lines.

So you're saying you'd be happy to progress from works like this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17100794
that show a mean IQ difference between ethnicities?

Yes and... when the definition of intelligence starts to approach something that looks realistic based on the information we have today, it calls into question the relevance of the metric at all. Intelligence goes from being something specific and finite and concrete to something broad, nebulous, and time-varying. And so why should we bother ourselves with testing various populations to see how they fare compared to each other, when the answer will be something broad, nebulous, and time-varying.

In other words, you don't have the information to ask the question, and if you had it, you wouldn't ask it.

Now I think such information could be useful. I know it's not PC to say this but if sub-Saharan Africans were found to be on average less intelligent could their nations be given help in ways other than financial aid. Obviously this would have to be done without any hint of imperialism

 

[Danoff]

Now I think such information could be useful. I know it's not PC to say this but if sub-Saharan Africans were found to be on average less intelligent could their nations be given help in ways other than financial aid. Obviously this would have to be done without any hint of imperialism

I don't even know what it means for a people to be "on average less intelligent". So how the heck do I know what kind of aid would help with that? I will say that education can help many people right now, for sure. So if you want to help educate the world, be my guest.

 

[TexRex]

So you're saying you'd be happy to progress from works like this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17100794
that show a mean IQ difference between ethnicities?

Why should I click a link if you can't be bothered to address my actual remarks and instead choose to double down on suggesting I've said things that I haven't?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why should I click a link if you can't be bothered to address my actual remarks and instead choose to double down on suggesting I've said things that I haven't?

That's what I've inferred from your posts on the subject.

It seems an easy get out clause to say that intelligence is too broad to quantify yet one of the best, if not the best universities in the world adopts a measure that does exactly that.

 

[TexRex]

That's what I've inferred from your posts on the subject.

I can't imagine how, given that I don't believe I've remarked at all on the subject of race and instead remarked on the subject of intelligence and the manner by which it's quantified.

It seems an easy get out clause to say that intelligence is too broad to quantify yet one of the best, if not the best universities in the world adopts a measure that does exactly that.

I'd argue that what they determine isn't intelligence but aptitude and how it relates to one's future in academia.

 

[Danoff]

It seems an easy get out clause to say that intelligence is too broad to quantify yet one of the best, if not the best universities in the world adopts a measure that does exactly that.

US Universities use a variety of metrics to try to determine the best applicants. Those metrics include standardized testing in the form of the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, SAT, ACT, and grades in various classes. Sometimes grades in some classes (like Calculus) are considered more important for an applicant than grades in other classes (such as P.E.). Universities are looking for a very specific aptitude that they think will align with a chosen applicant, especially if they're looking to slot that applicant into a selected major.

So I'm not sure that using an IQ test for a particular major really validates it as an overall measure of intelligence any more than the SAT, or your high school Calculus grades.

Edit:

There is also an "I'll take what I can get" issue here, where Universities are not going to refuse information in light of the fact that they can't get "good" information. If they consider it to be of some value, they'll use it (hopefully to the degree that it truly is of value).

When you browse potential donors from (for example) a sperm bank, you'll often get SAT scores and religious affiliation for the donor. It's up to you to determine how much to value that information when selecting a donor.

 

[Biggles]

Theories of "Scientific racism", as well as Eugenics, was very popular in the US (& elsewhere) in the early 20th century. It's worth reading about Madison Grant, who wrote The Passing of the Great Race in 1916.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant

"In the book, Grant recommends segregating "unfavorable" races in ghettos by installing civil organizations through the public health system to establish quasi-dictatorships in their particular fields.[8] He states the expansion of non-Nordic race types in the Nordic system of freedom would actually mean a slavery to desires, passions, and base behaviors.

...this corruption of society would lead to the subjection of the Nordic community to "inferior" races, who would in turn long to be dominated and instructed by "superior" ones utilizing authoritarian powers. The result would be the submergence of the indigenous Nordic races under a corrupt and enfeebled system dominated by inferior races ..."

 

[HenrySwanson]

US Universities use a variety of metrics to try to determine the best applicants. Those metrics include standardized testing in the form of the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, SAT, ACT, and grades in various classes. Sometimes grades in some classes (like Calculus) are considered more important for an applicant than grades in other classes (such as P.E.). Universities are looking for a very specific aptitude that they think will align with a chosen applicant, especially if they're looking to slot that applicant into a selected major.

So I'm not sure that using an IQ test for a particular major really validates it as an overall measure of intelligence any more than the SAT, or your high school Calculus grades.

Edit:

There is also an "I'll take what I can get" issue here, where Universities are not going to refuse information in light of the fact that they can't get "good" information. If they consider it to be of some value, they'll use it (hopefully to the degree that it truly is of value).

When you browse potential donors from (for example) a sperm bank, you'll often get SAT scores and religious affiliation for the donor. It's up to you to determine how much to value that information when selecting a donor.

And wouldn't those appilcants who score highly be seen as more intelligent than their peers?

 

[TexRex]

And wouldn't those appilcants who score highly be seen as more intelligent than their peers?

This seems pertinent:

 

[Danoff]

And wouldn't those appilcants who score highly be seen as more intelligent than their peers?

Circular. They're seen as more intelligent by some, therefore they should be seen as more intelligent.

 

[HenrySwanson]

See the thing I'm finding debating here is that everyone is saying intelligence is so broad that it is impossible to quantify....

Surely that inadvertently strengthens my argument since you're saying that something even more wide reaching than what I'm proposing is spread equally among the different populations (in which case less likely to be true).

 

[Danoff]

See the thing I'm finding debating here is that everyone is saying intelligence is so broad that it is impossible to quantify....

Surely that inadvertently strengthens my argument since you're saying that something even more wide reaching than what I'm proposing is spread equally among the different populations (in which case less likely to be true).

Nope.

The farther you pull back from humans, the more we look the same. Broadly speaking, we all have very similar characteristics. It's only when you get down to the minutia that we look significantly different. The narrower your definition of intelligence, the less likely it is to be evenly spread among the population - down to the point where you might have a particular ethnicity that is best at, for example, chess. Or you could find a particular ethnicity perhaps that is best at mental math. That's the kind of very specific aptitude that might be linked with inherited traits that are unique to a particular population. The broader you look, the more likely you're going to find that people have similarly useful brains that are put to various tasks very efficiently everywhere.

 

[TexRex]

See the thing I'm finding debating here is that everyone is saying intelligence is so broad that it is impossible to quantify....

Surely that inadvertently strengthens my argument since you're saying that something even more wide reaching than what I'm proposing is spread equally among the different populations (in which case less likely to be true).

It seems as though you're saying there have to be differences because there's nothing to suggest that there can't be differences*, but you've yet to propose a definition of intelligence that can be accepted across the board, let alone a method of quantifying all aspects of it across all populations to whom you propose it be attributed.

*See how I didn't attribute comments that you didn't make to you by saying "so what you're saying is..."? TRY THAT!!!

 

[HenrySwanson]

Nope.

The farther you pull back from humans, the more we look the same. Broadly speaking, we all have very similar characteristics. It's only when you get down to the minutia that we look significantly different. The narrower your definition of intelligence, the less likely it is to be evenly spread among the population - down to the point where you might have a particular ethnicity that is best at, for example, chess. Or you could find a particular ethnicity perhaps that is best at mental math. That's the kind of very specific aptitude that might be linked with inherited traits that are unique to a particular population. The broader you look, the more likely you're going to find that people have similarly useful brains that are put to various tasks very efficiently everywhere.

I'm not so sure.

Those little differences would then add up to a multitude of things that "separate" us. Take for example Down Syndrome individuals from the non-affected population. At a superficial level there is a intellectual difference, i.e. a difference in one measure. Looking at it more broadly however we find that Down Syndrome patients have:

- A reduced amount of neurogenesis when the brain develops
- Smaller cerebellar size leading to difficulty with movement tasks
- A difference in the ratio of excitatory vs inhibitory neurons in the brain
- Different facial features
- Different features of the hands/feet

As such I don't understand how a wider definition would lead to more homogeneity.
(Granted there are flaws with using a population affected by a chromosomal abnormality but I think it illustrates my point.)

* I also liked your post because I think certain "qualities" are universal, and therefore you will find them shared.

It seems as though you're saying there have to be differences because there's nothing to suggest that there can't be differences*, but you've yet to propose a definition of intelligence that can be accepted across the board, let alone a method of quantifying all aspects of it across all populations to whom you propose it be attributed.

*See how I didn't attribute comments that you didn't make to you by saying "so what you're saying is..."? TRY THAT!!!

I'm struggling to come up with a definition, but I can use examples to illustrate such as the Harvard testing requirements. Another would be that of Oxbridge having colleges which admitted no black students in recent years:

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

 

[TexRex]

I'm struggling to come up with a definition, but I can use examples to illustrate such as the Harvard testing requirements.

There's no definition of intelligence to which you subscribe and yet you've demonstrated comfort in suggesting others' definitions are inappropriate? That's odd.

And surely recent events call into question the manner by which universities select prospective students.

Another would be that of Oxbridge having colleges which admitted no black students in recent years:

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-student

Yeeeeaaahh...because I can't think of any reason someone else would refuse admission of black people other than "them is stupid".

 

[Danoff]

I'm not so sure.

Those little differences would then add up to a multitude of things that "separate" us. Take for example Down Syndrome individuals from the non-affected population. At a superficial level there is a intellectual difference, i.e. a difference in one measure. Looking at it more broadly however we find that Down Syndrome patients have:

- A reduced amount of neurogenesis when the brain develops
- Smaller cerebellar size leading to difficulty with movement tasks
- A difference in the ratio of excitatory vs inhibitory neurons in the brain
- Different facial features
- Different features of the hands/feet

As such I don't understand how a wider definition would lead to more homogeneity.
(Granted there are flaws with using a population affected by a chromosomal abnormality but I think it illustrates my point.)

Yea, you can find lots of little differences. But they don't add up when you ask broad questions. Someone's eye color might be different, and hair color, and the size of their forearm, and even the strength of their bones. Each individual is different from each other individual in millions of little ways. You probably couldn't count them if you wanted to. My blood pressure is different than yours, and my heart beat rate, and the size of the arch in my foot, and the size of my foot... etc. etc.

Does it add up when we're asking broad questions? Like whether I can run? Stand on two feet? How about whether I have stereo vision? Or whether I can reason abstractly? Or whether I can perform mental math at all? Or whether I can memorize facts? Operate a computer? Navigate to a website and type a post in a particular thread on topic in response to someone else's post which addresses the points they raised? These are things we have in common despite millions of small differences.

The bigger the question, the more we look the same. And when you broaden your definition of intelligence, you'll find that that wider net catches more people.

 

[HenrySwanson]

There's no definition of intelligence to which you subscribe and yet you've demonstrated comfort in suggesting others' definitions are inappropriate? That's odd.

And surely recent events call into question the manner by which universities select prospective students.


Yeeeeaaahh...because I can't think of any reason to refuse admission of black people other than "them is stupid".

I think it's based on old fashioned metrics of intelligence, but can't give a definition. For example the first result for "intelligence definition" on Google is:

the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Something I don't agree with, especially when comparing populations.

Also I take issue with the refusal to admit black people solely because of their race (which is what I assume you were getting at with your last comment). Oxbridge and other Russell Group unis are dying to increase their diversity quota, with some I suspect of using affirmative action in their application review phase. This is not to say black people are more likely to fail once they are accepted onto the course that isn't affected by affirmative action - it's quite the contrary from my experience at a good London uni.

Yea, you can find lots of little differences. But they don't add up when you ask broad questions. Someone's eye color might be different, and hair color, and the size of their forearm, and even the strength of their bones. Each individual is different from each other individual in millions of little ways. You probably couldn't count them if you wanted to. My blood pressure is different than yours, and my heart beat rate, and the size of the arch in my foot, and the size of my foot... etc. etc.

Does it add up when we're asking broad questions? Like whether I can run? Stand on two feet? How about whether I have stereo vision? Or whether I can reason abstractly? Or whether I can perform mental math at all? Or whether I can memorize facts? Operate a computer? Navigate to a website and type a post in a particular thread on topic in response to someone else's post which addresses the points they raised? These are things we have in common despite millions of small differences.

The bigger the question, the more we look the same. And when you broaden your definition of intelligence, you'll find that that wider net catches more people.

It may catch more people, but I don't know if their potential is the same.

 

[TexRex]

I think it's based on old fashioned metrics of intelligence, but can't give a definition. For example the first result for "intelligence definition" on Google is:

the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Something I don't agree with, especially when comparing populations.

Also I take issue with the refusal to admit black people solely because of their race (which is what I assume you were getting at with your last comment). Oxbridge and other Russell Group unis are dying to increase their diversity quota, with some I suspect of using affirmative action in their application review phase. This is not to say black people are more likely to fail once they are accepted onto the course that isn't affected by affirmative action - it's quite the contrary from my experience at a good London uni.


It may catch more people, but I don't know if their potential is the same.

If you can't define intelligence, you can't quantify it, and if you can't quantify intelligence, you have no basis for establishing one supposed group's superiority or inferiority. Simples.

 

[Danoff]

I'm having a hard time picking which thread this video most belongs in, but I'm picking this one. I'm picking it partly because I perceive people chasing ghost accusations or unprovable accusations more on this topic than on some of the others where this fits. I enjoyed this video, and especially how far he goes into making sure that you have evidence of harmful behavior before accepting that you're a harmfully biased individual based on "tests".

 

[huskeR32]

Also I take issue with the refusal to admit black people solely because of their race

You take issue with the notion that white people are sometimes racist, but you're fine with the idea that black people are dumber than whites?

I've really been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt while reading through your posts, but I think it's time for you to take a long look at what you really believe here.

 

[Novalee]

After New Zealand mosque shootings and civil rights backlash, Facebook bans white nationalism, separatism

Facebook is banning explicit praise, support or representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram, including phrases such as "I am a proud white nationalist," following deadly attacks at two New Zealand mosques and a backlash from black history scholars and civil rights groups.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-ban-white-nationalism-separatism/3285419002/

Not sure why its in bold ,but it is good facebook is taking action is my opinion.