Biology of Race

[mbdix]

No worries. I wouldn’t be offended if you were directing that at me. I did not find anything you wrote disrespectful.

[mbdix]

These two examples are ways that would prevent a person from achieving intelligent evolution.

[therajraj]

@anon71262119

To assume that individuals who live in hunter gatherer societies are not able to learn new knowledge, because of biological differences, seems to be what Raj is arguing here, and that he believes biological differences are the primary reason for such societies to lack modern technology.

And society is a racial construct.

[treco]

@anon71262119

@treco

Where did you read that first term?

Treco, I’m not sure which post your reply was connected to. If you were talking about the list of Cognitive Biases, you can look them up on wikipedia. Please let me know if that’s not what you were talking about.

The continued influence effect.
I was only speaking to the coincidence that l came across that defined in somrthing l read yesterday.

Thanks for the nice words a couple of days ago.
Likes don’t bother me if positive. Used as a piling on strategy - bah, not a fan.

[ActivitiesGuy]

@treco

Likes don’t bother me if positive. Used as a piling on strategy - bah, not a fan.

I don’t give a moment’s thought to the number of Likes a post has, including my own, but it was funny that raj complained that I’m not here to talk about the subject (just “whoring for likes”) when I took a deep dive into the scientific article he posted and explained its findings for him.

[anon50325502]

This thread has officially reach Zeppelin level territory.

On the one hand you have:
@ActivitiesGuy a biostatistician just shredding “evidence” left and right.

@anon71262119 a psychologist that clearly knows what she’s talking about as she’s explaining complex issues in a way a layman can understand them.

@Aragorn a biochemist that is pursuing additional education in genetics and epigenetics and works with geneticists and molecular biologists for a living. Another example of someone that clearly knows what he’s talking about.

and @EyeDentist a published ophthalmologist. I would say something nice about ED, but he’s a flaming liberal so I just can’t…

Vs.

@therajraj who I guess is an accountant.

Incredible…

[therajraj]

If titles are what matter then you just discredited your own posts

[anon50325502]

It’s not the titles, it’s the knowledge necessary for the titles and, as far as I can tell, they’ve all agreed with what I’ve put up thus far so…

[SkyzykS]

I just liked your post. Now gimme a lap dance!

[therajraj]

Is intelligence written in the genes?

[anon50325502]

@SkyzykS

I just liked your post. Now gimme a lap dance!

Shit, this ain’t the B squad, one like isn’t enough for a private dance, Sailor.

[anon50325502]

@therajraj

Is intelligence written in the genes?

[therajraj]

@anon50325502

@therajraj

Is intelligence written in the genes?

This is just one piece of evidence of many I’ve posted. It’s cumulative

[anon50325502]

@therajraj

This is just one piece of evidence of many I’ve posted. It’s cumulative

Uhuh, whatever you say, boss.

[therajraj]

@EyeDentist

Just to be clear: You think IQ tests unfairly values people who are good in things such as Science, Technology, Engineering, math and unfairly undervalues people who aren’t?

@EyeDentist

@therajraj

Just to be clear: You think IQ tests unfairly values people who are good in things such as Science, Technology, Engineering, math and unfairly undervalues people who aren’t?

“Unfairly”? Not sure why you’re trying to put that sort of word in my mouth. If a bathroom scale is off, we don’t say it’s ‘unfair.’

I am saying that mainstream IQ tests are skewed toward certain sorts of cognitive abilities, and that this in turn renders them imperfect measures of ‘intelligence.’

Okay now tell me which cognitive abilities aren’t adequately represented in an IQ test? And pretty much most things are imperfect measures.

[ActivitiesGuy]

@anon71262119

For example, When someone tells you that height is 80% heritable, does that mean: a) 80% of the reason you are the height you are is due to genes. b) 80% of the variation within the population on the trait of height is due to variation of the genes. The answer is b. I’m just trying to point out how very technical this can become.

We’re not even touching on things that come up when you bring up “the evolution of intelligence.” What are we talking about there? What kind of intelligence? What kind of evolution? Evolutionary psychologists start talking about phylogenetic and ontogentic factors.

Not directed at anyone in particular. There’s no reason not to talk about these things, but if we’re going to start delving into journal articles, or using terms that are poorly defined, then it quickly turns into a big wreck.

This was an excellent post, and exactly why it’s so maddening to have a scientific discussion with someone determined to make their Google findings fit a specific conclusion. It’s maddening enough when we have these sorts of discussions between scientists who all have a relatively similar understanding of the topic; it’s impossible when raj posts “g is 86% heritable” as though that’s all there is to say on the subject. That article contained a lot extremely sophisticated statistical modeling, and had a bunch of interesting analyses and conclusions. It was a whole lot more complex than “intelligence is heritable.”

[pfury]

@therajraj

And pretty much most things are imperfect measures.

You’re willing to admit these measures are imperfect but you’d still like people to judge groups that consist of billions of people based on imperfect measures of averages that may or may not apply to the individuals in question? Am I reading that right?

[therajraj]

@pfury

@therajraj

And pretty much most things are imperfect measures.

You’re willing to admit these measures are imperfect but you’d still like people to judge groups that consist of billions of people based on imperfect measures of averages that may or may not apply to the individuals in question? Am I reading that right?

Doctors use imperfect measures all the time. Is this supposed to be compelling?

[treco]

@ActivitiesGuy

@treco

Likes don’t bother me if positive. Used as a piling on strategy - bah, not a fan.

I don’t give a moment’s thought to the number of Likes a post has, including my own, but it was funny that raj complained that I’m not here to talk about the subject (just “whoring for likes”) when I took a deep dive into the scientific article he posted and explained its findings for him.

I noticed you did not like my post that l opined raj is trolling many of you
Following not singling you out.

Seriously l don’t believe a challenge, explanation, rebuttal is necessary for every statement made by someone you believe intentionally trolling, is willing to lie or misrepresent facts, or is resistant to consideration of expanding their understanding. This also applies to verbal blood fueds that last for dozens (hundreds) of posts. A one time repudiation for an obnoxious or offensive statement is sufficient.

Ignore the posts and they will begin drying up.

This is a great place to ‘converse’, but panning through an hour of alluvial to discover each nugget iof gold is not so great.

[pfury]

@therajraj

Doctors use imperfect measures all the time. Is this supposed to be compelling?

Is that an acceptable excuse for using imperfect measures elsewhere? Are these doctors applying imperfect measures to 7 billion people or to the small subset they deal with?

Also, have you figured out where those 7 billion people fit in your race categories yet? Seems that all of this is useless until you figure out how to organize the population.