The sociologist’s fallacy

I happened to recently reread the passage below found in Neven Sesardic’s “Making Sense of Heritability”:

Sesardic is discussing what has been termed the sociologist’s fallacy. You can read James Flynn’s discussion of this here. On second take, I noticed a more fundamental error occurring than the one discussed by both Flynn and Sesardic.

Sesardic’s characterization is correct. If we match groups on outcomes such as education, and if, on matching, we find a reduction in the magnitude of the IQ gap, knowing nothing else, it’s impossible to tell if the matching produced the IQ reduction by increasing the environmental similarity or by increasing the genetic similarity between groups.

An important point left unelucidated, though – and an obvious one when it is — is that the environmental and genetic explanatory models of the effect of matching presuppose different models of mean differences. Imagine two models. In model one, which we shall call a deviational model, group A is uniformly depressed in IQ with respect to group B by some set of factors. By uniformly, here, we mean across the board or nearly so. That is, almost all member of group A are affected equally by the factors causing the mean difference. In model two, which we shall call a distributional model, the effect is not spread out equally across members of the groups. It’s variable. Some members of our group A are affected more and some less and some not at all.

Now, for an environmental explanatory model of the effect of matching to be correct, our model of mean differences necessarily has to be a distributional one, as in this model only are there some Group A individuals for which the depressing effect is reduced or removed by having environmental effects removed. It is only in this model that environmental similarity is increased. This is obvious, of course, when considered.

It’s also obvious that we are not dealing with a distributional model of mean difference in the case of the Black-White difference. No – or very few – Blacks are not depressed in IQ relative to Whites. None are reaching their supposed genetic potential of W + X, where W is the white IQ mean and X is the Black individual’s deviation from the Black mean. We know this, of course, because the heritabilities of IQ in both populations are approximately the same and because the phenomena of differential regression is no less at the far right end of the bell curve than at the far left end. This last point needs clarifying. If you match Whites and Blacks for IQ, the White siblings and offspring will regress towards a mean of 100 while the Blacks siblings and offspring will regress towards a mean of 85. This differential regression is an index of the depressing effect (genetic or environmental) causing the group deviation. But this effect is no less at the far right of the bell curve than at the far left. To see the implications of this, imagine if 15% of the Black population wasn’t depressed in IQ and if the other 85% was and was so equally. If so, 15% would be depressed in IQ 0 SD relative to the White mean and the remaining 85% would be depressing 1.18 SD, thus producing an average Black-White difference of 1 SD. Were this the case, at an IQ of 130, given a normal distribution, we would have roughly 2.1% x 15% of unaffected Blacks (= 0.315) and 0.069% x 85% of affected Black (= 0.059). The ratio of unaffected to affected Blacks at this IQ would be over 5 to 1. Were this the case, the sib regression difference (at 130) would be less than one fifth of what it was at an IQ of 85, since this differential regression indexes our depressive effect. And yet it is not. This, of course, merely illustrates what we already know based on similar heritability estimates: we are working with a deviational and not distributional model. (The only additional piece of information that the phenomena of differential regression gives us is that the Black and White differences must be due to shared environmental factors. The math does not add up otherwise; this is somewhat of a tautology, of course, as a deviational model, if caused by environmental factors, will necessarily be caused by environmental factors acting between families, between populations.)

Differential regression in the NLSY ’79 and the CNLSY

Now, were we to propose that the effect affecting the Black population was normally distributed — which is the mostly likely environmental scenario — we would also expect to find a narrowing — and indeed convergence — of the sibling regression lines at the far right end of the distribution. Skeptical readers can model the situation for themselves with the aid of excel’s normal distribution function.

The above means that the effect of matching is a genetic one. Matching Blacks and Whites on outcomes matches them on genotypic IQ. This isn’t to say that the mean difference is therefore genetic; it is just to say that the cause of the difference is uniform; as such, statistically controlling for differences has no chance of controlling for environment. Again, environmental factors, or sets of them, could be at work uniformly depressing the Black IQ relative to the White. Now, this being said, correlational research is still informative. Statistical controlling indicates which outcomes could possibly causally explain the differences. For an outcome to cause the difference, there needs to be a mean difference in it and it need to be correlated with IQ within the populations in question. For example, research shows that motivation correlates with tests scores. But it also shows that the mean level of motivation for Blacks is generally greater than or equal to the mean level of motivation for Whites. So differences in motivation are likely not a cause of the mean difference. Alternatively, total wealth differs greatly between Blacks and Whites in the US, but this variable is virtually uncorrelated with IQ within populations. So differences in total wealth are likely not a cause of the mean difference Basically, the outcomes that have been shown to partially statistically explain the difference are the most likely candidates for the supposed environmental cause of the gap. If this is the case, it might be asked, why did we make the point above, concerning the nature of the explanatory effect. The reason is two fold:

Firstly, knowing that we are working with a deviational model is informative. For one, it means that a genetic explanation is tenable; for another, it means that an environmental explanation needs to account for why no or few Blacks have realized their hypothetical genetic potential relative to Whites. Our environmental hypothesis pictures Whites as balloons that have risen near to the ceiling and Blacks as balloons that are tethered to the floor. While having the same mean amount of helium and potential to rise, Blacks, it is argued, float nearer to the ground because they are held down. But by what factors? Elsewhere, we saw that the explanation is not motivation, peer effects, market discrimination, or racist attitudes. And we saw that Blacks underperform despite extensive institutional discrimination for them. Inevitably it will be argued that the IQ gap is caused by the various outcome gaps such as the income gaps. But such explanations seem queer because it’s now usually conceded that Black IQ is antecedent to Black outcomes. This is why matched for IQ Blacks frequently have a better outcome profile than Whites. For example, matched for IQ, Blacks are more educated than Whites:

Quote: “The bachelor’s degree gap between White and Black adults was overwhelmingly due to a higher share of Black adults scoring in the lower deciles of the test score distribution. Black adults in the top two deciles were nearly 30 times as likely to obtain a Bachelor’s degree as their peers in the bottom decile….

Reducing the large academic achievement test gap between Black and White males is critical to all future efforts to close the Black-White college degree attainment gap.”

Source: The educational attainment of the nation’s young black men and their recent labor market experiences: what can be done to improve their future labor market and educational prospects

IQ is driving the education and SES gap, not education and SES the IQ gap.

Of course, it will be argued by some that the IQ gap is due to differences in rearing environments. Accordingly, the adult IQ gap of generation #1 is antecedent to the social outcome gap of generation #1; this social outcome gap is antecedent to the childhood rearing environment gap of generation #2; and this childhood rearing environment gap is antecedent to the adult IQ gap of generation #2.

Ok, the first problem with this model is that the math doesn’t add up. The shared environmentality of IQ in childhood is about 0.4. In adulthood it’s about 0.15. If the Black-White adult IQ gap of generation #1 was 1.1 SD and if the correlation between adult IQ and cognitively relevant childhood rearing environment was the empirically found average of about 0.8, then, assuming that all of the association between parental IQ and childhood environment represented an environmental effect (i.e., no covGE, conditioned on the child’s genotype), the rearing environment gap could be no more than 1.1 SD x 0.8. And the gap in childhood and adulthood would be, respectively 0.8 x 1.1 x SQRT (0.4) and 0.8 x 1.1 x SQRT(0.15). Or 0.6 and 0.3 SD. Parental IQ differences of generation #1 can’t possibly account for more than one third of the adult differences of generation #2.

More relevant ….this still doesn’t explain why a noticeable number of Blacks have not realized their genetic potential to the same extent as Whites. A noticeable number of Blacks are capable of realizing there genetic potential relative to other Blacks. Hence the heritability of IQ, by adolescence, is three times the shared environmentality within the Black population (60% to 20%). Blacks sibling balloons with more helium rise above those with less, despite sharing the same family environment. So why are not some Blacks capable of realizing their genetic potential relative to Whites? One can’t explain this curiosity simply by pointing to mean shared family differences between populations, since these mean differences with populations don’t create the same uniform effect within racial populations. One needs a casual mechanism to account for the uniformity in addition to one or a set of them to account for the mean difference. That is, that the difference is deviational and not distributional is non-trivially interesting. It needs some explaining.
.
Second, knowing that the effect of controlling for outcomes is a genetic and not an environmental effect means that we must face the constraints placed on environmental explanations by the low shared environmentality of IQ. This constraint has been lucidly articulated by Jensen 1973; 1998. To causally environmentally account for a one standard deviation difference, given a shred environmentality of no more than 15%, one needs to posit 2.5 standardized units of environmental effect (1/ (square root 0.15)). This is the same as saying that one needs to maintain that Blacks live in a cognitive affecting environment characteristic of that experienced by the most deprived 1% of Whites.

(This is actually an underestimate of the “environmental differences” needed, since the external factors typically labeled “environment”, are extensively genetically conditioned. The magnitude of the “environmental differences” needed would be:

= d /(SQRT c^2 of IQ)/ (SQRT c^2 of “environment”)

Now, previous attempts to escape this logic have failed; for example, James Flynn has made a reduction ad absurdum by comparing the Black-White difference to the secular difference; but the secular differences has largely turned out to be a function of psychometric bias (Must, & van Vianen, 2009; Wicherts et al., 2004; Beaujean, & Osterlind, 2008, etc.) and the residual magnitude of the difference that actually represents true latent ability differences is utterly compatible with the massive amount environmental differences between generations. The generational differences stand in stark contrast to the Black-White differences both in IQ and in environment. Indeed, a generous appraisal might put the latent ability Flynn effect (as opposed to the manifest score Flynn effect) at 0.1 SD per decade. In Flynn effect metrics, then, the Black-White latent ability difference is equivalent to a century of environmental differences. One century!! Few would honestly maintain that the actual Black-White environmental difference is that tremendous. Now, most sociologists have simply ignored this point, feeling it sufficient to point to the results of correlational studies. Since the IQ difference could be statistically explained, it has been argued, the magnitude of the cognitively conditioning outcome differences must be at least 2.5+ SD. But, as we have seen, this does not follow because the effect of controlling is primarily a genetic, not environmental one.

To summarize: when matching Blacks and Whites for environmental factors, we are matching them for genes. We know this because the within population heritabilities are about the same and because the phenomena of differential regression is no less at the far left end of the bell curve than at the far right end. This means that Black individuals are uniformly depressed – no Black balloons are reaching the ceiling — which, we said, is curious given the dearth of environmental accounts for this curiosity. This also means that showing that the difference can be statistically explained does not shown that the environmental difference between Blacks and Whites is sufficiently large enough to causally explain the differential. It is estimates that in the metrics of the Flynn effect, the B/W difference amounts to an incredible environmental difference of one century.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to The sociologist’s fallacy

  1. Steve Sailer says:

    As the decades go by, we don’t seem to get more supersmart African-Americans. For example, David Blackwell did pioneering work in statistics back in the 1940s.

    Along those lines, here is something kind of strange: where are the supersmart Mexicans … in Mexico? On the 2009 PISA test, for example, Mexico and Turkey did pretty similar overall, but Turkey had a considerably higher percentage score at the highest level:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/12/mexican-mediocrity-quantified.html

    That matches up with my vague, anecdotal impression that Turkey has a small but not nonexistent intellectual elite. Mexico, in contrast, has lots of rich people, but not much of an intellectual elite.

    • Chuck says:

      “As the decades go by, we don’t seem to get more supersmart African-Americans.”

      My point was somewhat different. It was: As decades go by, we don’t seem to get very many African American individuals who are not depressed by the mysterious factors holding down the group on average. This is odd — from an environmental perspective.

      More generally: the dearth of high IQ Blacks is simply a function of the mean difference. No information is added by pointing this out, save that the Black IQ distribution is normal. That there is a dearth of unaffected Black individuals, on the other hand, is interestingly informative as this implies a uniformity of depressive effect. This is especially interesting as the between group difference is measure invariant, which implies (in addition to that the mean score difference is commensurate with the mean latent difference) that the difference is not due to between group factors which would be expected to cause a uniform effect but rather is due to within group factors (see: Dolan et al. 2001), which are, by definition, not uniformly distributed within populations. So one has to propose a mechanism by which factors which are not uniformly distributed within populations are so distributed between populations. Such factors are possible, of course, but, uh… improbable.

      Now, this assumes that my analysis (which is really just an elaboration and correction of Jensen 1974 and Murray 1999) is correct. Specifically:

      (a) That differential sibling regression to the mean indexes depressive effect. (This is obviously true.)

      (b) That the slopes of the regression lines index the dispersion of the depressive effect — i.e., if the effect was not fairly uniformly spread out, the lines would converge at the far right. (It seems that this would be true if the sample sizes were large enough at the extremes for the simple reason that less depressed Blacks would have higher IQs and so higher IQ Blacks would tend to be less depressed in IQ — and so as one moves to the right of the B.C. the depression effect should be less and therefore by (a) so should the differential regression.)

      and importantly

      (c) That what was found prior holds today.

      The key here is (b) and if (b) holds, it would be worth my while to analyze some more recent data (e..g, the NLSY 97 or perhaps the recent ECLS, etc.) to see if (c) holds and maybe extend this to Hispanics, etc. This would be a time/effort consuming project, so I don’t plan to do it — or, at this point, pay someone else to — unless I can get confirmation about (b).

      Would you mind asking someone?

      (I’m uncertain because the track record on this issue is horrible.
      No one who has hitherto extensively discussed regression with regards to race (e.g., Jensen, Rushton, Murray, Brody, Nisbett, etc.) has not erred in one critical manner or another.

      (You know, alternatively, as I was pointing out to JL, the causal uncertainty concerning race differences in IQ can largely be narrowed statistically. For example, as Dolan et al note, causal hypotheses can be tested using MGCFA. See:
      “On the relationship between sources of within-and between-group differences and measurement invariance in the common factor model.” At very least, one could produce more research showing comparable within population heritabilities (and therefore sib correlations and therefore sib regressions)– which would imply our curious between population uniform effect.)

      • Steven says:

        Is there a correlation between degree of introversion or extroversion and IQ?

        Asians seem to be the most introverted and blacks the most extroverted. This personality trait would hold across socioeconomic strata and even if a child is adopted. Just an idea.

        Also, I read that black 18 year olds are equivalent to white 15 year olds in IQ. Black 24 year olds or 20 year olds (whenever fluid intelligence peaks) are equivalent to whites of what age?

        • Steven says:

          My idea being that extroverted kids are less interested in academics, especially when they hit puberty. So this idea can also explain the increasing IQ gap with age.

          Its still perhaps a genetic explanation but its indirect- it implies they have the potential to develop their intelligence but don’t due to their personality. Maybe that calls for a different educational approach.

          I realise this is probably not the correct explanation but I like to throw ideas out to you.

          • Steven says:

            …or does education perhaps not play a big role in the development of intelligence?

          • Chuck says:

            “…or does education perhaps not play a big role in the development of intelligence?”

            It depends on what you mean by “intelligence”. See, here, for example:

            “Instead, the researchers found that educational practices designed to raise knowledge and boost test scores do not improve fluid intelligence. “It doesn’t seem like you get these skills for free in the way that you might hope, just by doing a lot of studying and being a good student,” says Gabrieli, who is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.” http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/even-when-test-scores-go-up-some-cognitive-abilities-dont-1211

            At very least, education raises specific abilities, which can manifest as an increase in IQ scores.

            ….
            As for the B/W UK gaps, I found another data point, which complicates prior interpretations: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=134:
            Naturally, no one cared for this. (I’m still looking into it — I’ll shoot you an email, if you want.)

          • Steven says:

            “At very least, education raises specific abilities, which can manifest as an increase in IQ scores.”

            And those gains show up less on more g loaded tests?

            As for your offer to shoot me an email, sure.

            About the data for 5 year olds, James Thompson wrote:

            “The results are interesting, but the numbers in the ethnic minorities do not correspond to the proportions of ethnic numbers in the population in 2001. This suggests that the selective fall-out has been considerable, and has varied between different ethnic groups. Unless the actual fall-out rate is known, little reliance can be placed on the figures, other than to say that participating children are probably more educated than average.”

            Does this not seem like a very significant point?

          • Chuck says:

            You said: “And those gains show up less on more g loaded tests?”

            Seemingly so.

            te Nijenhuis, J., Jongeneel-Grimen, B., & Kirkegaard, E. O. (2014). Are Headstart gains on the g factor? A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 46, 209-215.

            “As for your offer to shoot me an email, sure.”

            Done.

            “Does this not seem like a very significant point?”

            I didn’t say that it wasn’t. One could check by looking at the score differences between e.g., 3 year olds who also participated at age 5, no? If differential selective attrition was an explanation, this sub-cohort should show significantly reduced differences relative to the full sample. Some other issues: (1) we are dealing with only one subtext, (2) the sample isn’t nationally representative, and (3) the ethnic minority sample sizes were still relatively small, except when it comes to mixed race kids.

            I could look into this some more, but the general response I received was pretty demotivating.
            .

          • Steven says:

            Thanks for the emails.

            “I could look into this some more, but the general response I received was pretty demotivating.”

            If you think its an important thing to look into in order to test the HH, then I’d say its definitely worthwhile and important, regardless of how well received it is among your hereditarian friends.

            When I first read your facts that need to be explained, I could tell that you were unbiased, honest and genuinely in search of the truth.

            I’ll look at those emails and if you want to send me the Dutch report, I’ll see if I can make any sense of it. There must be some tables and charts in there that tell you the scores…? I know some German, which an help a bit with Dutch.

            I’ve been wondering why an IQ gap appears in the A level results when it is absent at GCSE. English, maths and science are compulsory GCSEs so the sample should be representative- poorer black students aren’t excluded since apparently nobody is. A levels, on the other hand, are non-compulsory. From a government website:

            “In England, your leaving age depends on when you were born. You can leave school on the last Friday in June as long as you’ll be 16 by the end of that year’s summer holidays.

            You must stay in some form of education or training until your 18th birthday if you were born on or after 1 September 1997.

            Your options are:

            full-time education – eg at a school or college
            an apprenticeship or traineeship
            part-time education or training – as well as being employed, self-employed or volunteering for 20 hours or more a week”

            A level is the academic route for which you need good GCSE results (at least that’s how it was when I was at school). A levels are the main university entrance qualifications. Are they operating a kind of affirmative action and letting in poorer black A level applicants and that is what makes the gap appear at A level? Or else the less capable blacks are applying more than the less capable whites…

            Perhaps I could look into the % of each group that enters A level.

          • Steven says:

            *****why an achievement gap appears in the A level results I mean.

          • Chuck says:

            “Perhaps I could look into the % of each group that enters A level.”

            I sent some info.

        • Chuck says:

          “The aim of the present study was to investigate to what extent personality, gender, and age can predict psychometric intelligence scores. A total of 900 participants completed the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test, the Graduate Managerial Assessment: Abstract, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Intelligence was found to be most consistently predicted by high Openness and low Neuroticism, which has been repeatedly reported in the past (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Kyllonen, 1997), as well as by low Extraversion and low Conscientiousness, which has also been previously reported (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, under review). Of the demographic factors, there were no gender differences with respect to general intelligence (g), but age was found to be a significant negative predictor of g, in line with previous findings (Matthews, Davies, Westerman, & Stammers, 2000). Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd”

          .http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.471/abstract

  2. statsquatch says:

    So if the graphs converged to the right then this would show that some Black individuals had a different environmental effect than their siblings. Their balloons had been set aloft. Do I have this right? How does this differ from Jensen’s factor X?

    • Chuck says:

      Given a narrow heritability of 0.6, exactly 1.67 SDs of selection. So the parent population needs to be 1.67 SDs above the average — or, 50 generations of parents need to be 0.033 SDs or approximately 0.5 points above average.

  3. I will definitely keep this fallacy in mind everytime a study proports to find an IQ increase of any group after adjusting for “environmental” differences.

    This has all been coming in handy as I’ve been researching the claims behind “The Bell Curve.” Hopefully this material will all become more familiar to me in the months to come.

  4. hucipher says:

    I do not toatally disagree with the Occidentalist assessment of IQ score variations amongst Blacks & Whites however id like to point out this “hypothesis” assumes it understands the effects of racism or precived racism on the Black psyche. It assumes so called “institutional discrimination for them (Blacks)” is significant enough to offset the systemic discrimination against them. By systemic discrimination for them I assume the Occidentalist is referring to college afirmative action enterance quotas. How does this offset the previous decade plus of unequal educational access & what usually is a cultural neglect of academia? Numerical data that results from a study is indicates the result of an effect not the effect it self. When all possible stimuli are nit considered or assumed rendered moot by the numerical out comes themselves we have begun steering the numbers into a diriction that mereley seems to validate our own theories. When highly variable effects of psycho social factors are assumed answered by numericalev data from studies incapable of testing for them we have committed an academic error. The psychological effects of house hold life, the family environment a child is reared in, the immediate social environment a child is reared in, the effects of historical & systemic racism, etc on individuals cannot be easily tested for. The Occidentalist assumes these are non factors or are negated by socioeconomic position alone or are somehow otherwise accounted for. The statement “Blacks underperform despite extensive institutional discrimination for them” is indicative of this flawed pattern of thinking. It displays a disregard for the psycho social effects of racism & poor cultural values developed over centuries of slavery, Jim Crow (which only ended 46 yrs ago) & low economic status. Just as the Occidentalist feels the data from other studies indicate information other than what the creators of the studies state it does one can state they feel otherwise. The Occidentalist has arrived at his conclusion without punching in other variables involved with this dynamic. He simply assumes those variables are accounted for in his math already.

    I would call this the “Staticians fallacy”

    If unknown these variables need to be accurately tested for & or studied.

    I wish to state overall the Occidentalist approach is novel & it does raise very important questions & identifies possible errors in previous studies approaches

    • chuck says:

      Well written! If you write up a formal critique for Open Psychology, I will formally reply.

      In the meantime, you can read my submitted paper on U.S. race differences by migrant generation here:
      http://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=64&page=6
      How does “Jim Crow” account for the poor performance of Black immigrants?

      • Bo says:

        Well they are classified as black. Thats one constant thing effecting their mind, especially in America. Just imagine being black. The most prominent thing in your life is an identity that was born out of negativity and created by some old European asshole long ago. It happens in Africa before they get to America. Black this, black that… non stop. Trust me I know because I live in Africa with middle class blacks. I grew up with them, made good friends too

        Strangely though at least from what I can tell, smartness does not relate to their school grades. Some of them did so badly, but socially did not seem dull at all. Not that I was any good at school either.

        Failed maths but ended up as video game programmer.

        • Chuck says:

          Edits made.

          Bullshit. The IQ/achievement studies are based on self or parental-identified racial/ethnic identification; we are not dealing with other-imposed classifications, except in the weak sense that biological reality imposes itself and people classify themselves accordingly — as in the case of human sexual morphs (males, females). As for racial ID, meta-analysis shows that racial self-identification is positively associated with self-reported well-being among African Americans. Blacks who identify with Black culture/identity feel better about themselves than those who don’t. Moreover, Blacks feel better and more confident about themselves than do Whites. They also report higher levels of academic motivation. If positive racial identity, self-esteem, and academic motivation are causally related to IQ, since Black tend to be advantaged in these traits, then we might deduce that their IQs are inflated relative to their genotype. Whatever the case, this data isn’t obviously consistent with a negative-Black identity hypothesis. It gets worse, though. Self-identifying Blacks with more European ancestry are more intelligent and have superior cognitive- related outcomes than ones with less. Race in its genealogical, not social, form predicts the outcomes differences; the European-Black African differences show up within the self-identifying Black population. Now, you could always reconcile the facts and this hypothesis with epicycles; but then you are leaving the realm of empirical science. And I don’t care to follow. If you think that I am wrong on this, you can show me. I have the data files for the National Longitudinal Study of Freshman on my desktop. I was just looking at it: http://nlsf.princeton.edu/ The file has self reported SAT/ACT data and a host of race identity variables; it also contains a large sample of immigrant Blacks Africans; so, if you want, we could see if supposed negative racial image or whatever statistically explains outcomes differences. I could then help you write up a Human Variety post/Open Psychology paper on it. Of course, I already ran a crude regression analysis. So I know what to expect.

          • Bo says:

            Self identification does not mean that they actually chose it. Muslim kids don’t just choose to be Muslim. Its rammed in their head from day one. Same thing with race, especially for black people. Uncle Ruckus is also around the corner somewhere.

            I have checked all of those things long ago and I am sorry but that is the only bullshit here. Self report of well being? Really? All those black people I grew up with would say exactly all those things if you asked them. But they did not do them or behaved in a way that would predict.

            Dude I grew up with them from when I was 7 years old all the way to graduation at university. Pretty much everyday I was with them. That confidence is fake, its just a defense mechanism and a needed one too. Having to think about being black all the time is in itself a cognitive disadvantage, its not so bad when young but it gets worse and worse as they get older.

            “Self-identifying Blacks with more European ancestry are more intelligent and have superior cognitive- related outcomes”

            It should be like that if environment is causing the difference. You know about epigenetics and prenatal effects, etc. Its been tested on innocent animals and proven beyond doubt. Come on, black kids are born underweight more often to this date even in America.

            This is from the fathers side. Not prenatal.
            http://www.neurorexia.com/2014/04/27/mice-inherit-fathers-trauma-through-small-rnas/

            Look I personally don’t care about some potential temporary average difference in the frequency of people who the same dam alleles, but it looks more like environment to me.

            Direct effects: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14625144

          • B.B. says:

            Bo says:
            You know about epigenetics and prenatal effects, etc.

            Aren’t epigenetic effects already partitioned into non-shared environment in traditional behavioral genetic studies of heritability? At least, that is my layman understanding derived from reading this study.

            As far as prenatal effects go, Chuck has already dealt with this. See Section F. Failure of Causal Biological explanations of The facts that need to be explained.

          • Bo says:

            “Aren’t epigenetic effects already partitioned into non-shared environment in traditional behavioral genetic studies of heritability? ”

            Don’t know, its not like heritabilty studies are so good anyway.

            http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/03/the-trouble-with-twin-studies/

            As with the evidence. Those prenatal influences would compound on top of other environmental and epigenetic causes as people get older on top of the fact that they can also inherit them from even their grandmothers. Its inherited from both sides too as shown in link in previous comment. The kinds of things like stress reaction, trauma, brain structure(eg: decrease in size of specific parts) are perfect fit.

            http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes
            Diet:
            http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17071.full
            GREAT grand mother even.
            http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/2012/05/2012-0713-chemicals-ovary-epigenetic-mice/

            Take the higher SES argument for example: High SES is much more recent for blacks and its being compared with people who had generations and generations more of high SES and the way they get there is different too on average. Black IQ does go up as SES goes up but they are starting from a much worse point than Europeans.

            Look I have been here reading Chucks stuff for a long time, I read Rushtons, Jensens, Jayman(uncle ruckus). Pretty much every ones stuff, but when I read the hard science instead of the soft it makes me lean more and more towards environment.

            Average brain size variation and its “weak-moderate” correlation with IQ are also a perfect fit with the environmental differences. Average variation in those specific parts of the brain that are “correlated” with IQ are shown to decrease with the types of environmental effects mentioned before. It also can effect the ability for people to change the older they get.

            http://champagnelab.psych.columbia.edu/docs/champ18.pdf

            Again I will like to make it clear I have no personal issue with some potential average, that will vanish regardless.

          • Bo says:

            Here very specific behavior that can be conditioned environmentally and then passed down.

            http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n1/abs/nn.3594.html

          • chuck says:

            “That confidence is fake, its just a defense mechanism and a needed one too. Having to think about being black all the time is in itself a cognitive disadvantage, its not so bad when young but it gets worse and worse as they get older.”

            Maybe it’s the evil eye holding them down!

            Or maybe Blacks have a genotypic IQ much lower than their phenotypic one: perhaps they have a low subconscious self-esteem due to an accurate subliminal appraisal of their native intelligence; and their unnaturally high consciously felt/reported esteem artificially raises their measured ability level. Maybe. I can play this just so story game too. I don’t because I’m not in the mood for story time. Simply put, there’s no evidence that Blacks have lower levels of self-esteem, academic or otherwise. But there is that they have higher. This flies in the face of predictions:

            “The psychologists became interested in the topic because much research already has been done on racial differences in self-esteem. Many people assumed that blacks would have lower self-esteem because they belonged to a disadvantaged minority, and some research supported that view, while other work did not.

            “We wanted to look at a large number of studies conducted over a long period to see if by putting them all together we would be able to detect consistent patterns,” she said.

            The researchers collected all the relevant studies they could, including unpublished doctoral dissertations from across the United States, to carry out their analyses. The better the test used to measure self-esteem in the various studies, the more likely they were to find higher self-esteem overall among blacks, Gray-Little said.”
            http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan00/graylit012400.htm

        • chuck says:

          “Strangely though at least from what I can tell, smartness does not relate to their school grades. Some of them did so badly, but socially did not seem dull at all. Not that I was any good at school either.”

          On the individual level, the GPA gap (in the U.S.) is about 2x larger than it “should be” given the cognitive ability (CA) one. But this is probably a population level effect. Black kids don’t just have lower IQs, on average, than White kids; they also have parents, siblings, peers, and teachers with lower IQs. I imagine that parental/teacher IQ exerts an independent effect on GPA; you could check the adoption literature.

      • hucipher says:

        Why thank you, I applaud your ability to auto correct my typos.
        As for Black immigrants im assuming your speaking of Blacks immigrating from 3rd world countries who’s concept of a well equiped class room is a dusty shack with large chalkboard? Africans come primarily from agricultural, pastoralist & nomadic societies. People from these societies do not traditionally do well on test that gauge “how modern thinking” a person is-ie: IQ test

        • chuck says:

          IQ/Achievement tests generally have a high degree of predictive validity in Africa. This is why there are regional testing associations e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_Examinations_Council

          Also, there are a number of regional achievement test programs:
          http://www.sacmeq.org/
          http://www.epdc.org/data-about-epdc-data-epdc-learning-outcomes-data/sacmeq-and-pasec

          These exams are junior versions of the PISA, PIRLS, and TIMSS international exams. The results are taken seriously and for good reason. As for the psychometric characteristics of various tests, you can take a look, e..g, PPVT in Ethiopia based on the Young Lives survey:
          http://www.grade.org.pe/upload/publicaciones/Archivo/download/pubs/NDMtn25.pdf

          Look, this “Africans have never seen standardized tests before because they live deep in the bush” argument is really silly. There are even behavioral genetic programs in the more prosperous nations e.g.,”The Nigerian Twin and Sibling Registry”.

          • hucipher says:

            This is quite a streach to com pare the ubiquity & validity of test taken in a 3rd word county & culture as compared to 1St word nations with in the US EU Japan & urban Chinese university & schools.

          • Chuck says:

            IQ tests in Africa have similar criterion validates as they do elsewhere. You might be interested in this paper: http://humanvarieties.org/2014/04/18/do-national-iqs-predict-u-s-immigrant-cognitive-ability-and-outcomes-an-analysis-of-the-national-longitudinal-survey-of-freshman/
            We looked to see to what extent national/regional IQs predicted SAT/ACT scores and GPA in the U.S.

          • hucipher says:

            The criteria is irrelevant when the access to the knowledge & skills necessary to excel in IQ test is mediocre at best

          • Chuck says:

            You’re confusing issues. The correlation between IQ scores and outcomes is roughly the same in African and out. This is an empirical finding.

          • hucipher says:

            No the issue is quite clear. You have miseducatedv populations of Blacks in America & Africa that are taking test designed by Europeans who have a fudal culture based on colonialism.the only groups that excels them are one that has a culture based in fudalism, speaks a logo-graphic language & a culture based on spiritual attainment via study ie: confuscious & the other evolved in the same fudal marketing system & also place study at the center of their spiritual beliefs. Yes it’s an emperical finding but it is also an emperical causation. Again the staticians give heatheir weight to the numbers that represents the causation & assume the causation is biological when the cultural & enviromental causations are in plain sight &far more accessible

          • Cognition says:

            Could your point be any less relevant to what Chuck is pointing out?

            These are *culture-neutral* examinations (such as Raven’s progressive matrices) that show the same level of predictive validity in US populations as that of Africans.

            Unless you’re willing to say an entire field of science is lying to us, you might want to adjust your views to the evidence at hand.

          • hucipher says:

            Again those states respresent the results of oppression, disparities & culture differences. The data does not account for the causation. If you go back to my original post I was simply pointing this out. Im not saying the numbers them selves are wrong but I am saying any leap to underscoring racial groups as being inherently inferior is a flawed incomplete conclusion. Also who gets to judge what is “culturally neutral”? Sounds a bit arrogant

          • Cognition says:

            I take it Hucipher has never heard of Ashkenazi Jews before.

          • hucipher says:

            & you would state this why? Im aware Ashkenazi Jews & their prolific iq scores. I am also aware they share base cultural & enviromental traits with northwestern Europeans & east Asians & that would be feudal social structure & the vaule based on knowledge to obtain spiritual growth & betterment of man. Torah study, Confucianism & the age of enlightenment in which the Bravarians exceeded beyond other Europeans save the Ashkenazi. This helped establish the German stereotype of uber efficiency. If these things where innate we’d be digging up 2000 yr old pyramids in Berlin but instead Europe’s oldest civilization just scratches the 2 to 3 k mark & the oldest European civilizations are in southern Europe & Eurasia. Areas today that lag behind their northern kin. The only answer I see to this having had happened is that cultures rise & fall & the lucky are the ones who are able to amalgamate new foreign ideas & balance them with their old cultures way of functionality

          • Chuck says:

            You have contributed nothing of interest yet, so I have not offered a more detailed reply. As I have noted, repeatedly, the between group nature/nurture debate is not settled, but (1) it can been, (2) it should be, (3) the totality of the evidence indicates a significant genetic component to certain between group differences, (4) this is why there is a defacto embargo on genetically informed Race-IQ research.

            As for this comment: “If these things where innate we’d be digging up 2000 yr old pyramids in Berlin but instead Europe’s oldest civilization just scratches the 2 to 3 k mark & the oldest European civilizations are in southern Europe & Eurasia.”

            The genetic differences which we are entertaining are not vast — they are no larger than the differences between random individuals. They have become increasing significant with time as global society becomes more g-loaded i.e., cognitively complex.Imagine an analogous argument: “If the differences between nerds who happen to dominate contemporary technomediacracies and the rest were innate, the former should have dominated, to the same extent, millennia earlier.” Ok …but the rules of the game and reward structure have changed since e.g., Achilles was chasing Hector around Troy.

          • hucipher says:

            That truly halarious chuck. Quantum physics doesnt interest a wino but that far from negates its validity. Numbers represents a dynamic they are not the causation of the dynamic. All of your therioes are complicated statistical hyperbole. I appreciated your acknowledgement of the nature nurture debate not being settled but seeing as you admit this why are you so moved by statistical data & not psycho social & socioeconomic dynamics that are far more tangible & readily visible than numerical data that merely represents the precence of a dynamic but does not identify the causation.? Statistics can help you acertain the causation of amatter but they are not the causation. I came accross this study in relation to statistics that display varying rates of incarceration between Blacks Whites & Latinos. Takea look at it perhaps you can tell me what is occuring when people look at these states & are moved to vote one way or the other.

            http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/prison-black-laws-080614.html

          • Chuck says:

            I have explained here, here, and here why a partial genetic hypothesis is probably correct. Pithily put: “There are a number of lines of evidence in support of a racial hereditarian hypothesis for cognitive ability differences (and with them overall quality of life differences). Generally, regional cognitive differences have numerous historic, biological, and genetic correlates; national cognitive differences follow migrants to some degree and transmit across generations in the new regions of origin; within mixed race populations, cognitive related outcomes correlated with racial ancestry.” Regarding Black and White Americans: “One can go on and on. None of these mentioned or other findings rule out every possible environmental hypothesis; though, they surely disprove many commonly posited ones… Racial environmentalists, though, can always posit the existence of mysterious and unfalsifiable environmental X-factors which, across generation and (U.S.) geography, induce, roughly commensurate with racial ancestry, general intelligence loaded and frequently measure invariant differences, the magnitudes of which, as determined by biometric decomposition, happens to co-vary with subtest heritability. This debate, then, will probably only be resolved by the counting of differences in IQ associated alleles; a tallying which has already begun (e.g., Piffer (2013)) and will probably be completed within the next couple of years. There are many other points that could be made. Doing so, though, is beyond the scope of this essay, which is only indirectly concerned with “socially significant” differences. Lest it be thought that a racial hereditarian position is a fringe one, though, it will be noted that a 2013 survey found that the majority of responding intelligence researchers concurred with it. These results, then, mirror those from the last major survey on the topic.”

            Now when I point out the association between genes and group differences, what do you do? Inanely, you argue that there is stronger evidence for environmental causation in the form of found associations between IQ and outcome differences (e.g., in SES). This is none other than the sociologist fallacy. IQ differences can’t cause genetic differences; if an association is found either the relation is (a) causal or (b) mediated by some third factor. If you want to argue an environmental position you have some explaining to do. But genetic IQ differences can cause outcome ones. Thus, there is nothing for me to explain. Your position is in the evidential hole buddy, not mine.

          • hucipher says:

            As for your technomediaavailable dominating nerds theyve allways existed. Today they dominate technomedia in the past & in other enviroments they were the scribes & physicians. Newton, Solon, Imhotep, Archimedies all would be techno nerds today.
            As for the argument society has become more g loaded this does not dismiss the fact that Europe recieved all of its tech from Africa & Asia. What Europe did have was a environment superior for advancing technology. ..not creating it but innovating on it. China invented gun powder but when Europe got their hands on it why did the surpass China in its destructive usages? Is it because Europeans are innately more war like & Asians more docile? Or is because when gunpowder was invented China was at least three x’s the size of all of Europe under peacful rule of one Emperor & his huge buracracy & Europe was balkinized in dozens of kingdoms & principalities all trying to out do & out screw each other. Europes socio political inviroment was fertile ground for arms & tech race. Todays rulers are the heirs to Europes advancement in guns germs (& yes the germs helped kill of the competition)& the empire built off the free labor of slavery. Slavery was Americas chief source of profits. …its most valuable resource. All the other European countries ate from the same colonial plate. So today we are simply in the age of Europa Maxus. Things change. Thats why today the decendents of Germanic tribesmen snub their noses at the decendents of Ceasar & Araliues. Your seeking to justify a position arrived at via treachery with your “stats” doing so will only send your decendents into a free fall tumble sooner than later. Stating a European or any one is innately superior than another is like a cornerman telling his boxer his opponent is open for a left hook when actually the opponents technically a better boxer but has had cut salve in his eyes for the last two rounds. Once the boxers opponent clears his vision….its a wrap for the guy who brought into his corner mans lie

          • Chuck says:

            “Today they dominate technomedia in the past & in other enviroments they were the scribes & physicians. Newton, Solon, Imhotep, Archimedies all would be techno nerds today.As for the argument society has become more g loaded this does not dismiss the fact that Europe recieved all of its tech from Africa & Asia.”

            Take a look at table 5 here. In 1,000 BC Europe was ahead of Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Oceania in terms of technological adoption. In 0 Ad it was ahead of Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. North and Western Europe took of around 1400-1500.

            The causal model needs to be complex and interactive either way e.g., geography and natural resources changed less than gene pools.

          • hucipher says:

            Before I digest the pdf youve attached please take the time to view the Stanford study on incarceration & give your take on it

          • Chuck says:

            New thread started.

  5. chuck says:

    “Don’t know, its not like heritabilty studies are so good anyway”

    Biometric analysis is a research program. Its aim is to partition variance into different components (e.g., additive genetic, dominance, shared environment, non-shared environmental, gene-environment co-variance, error, etc.) Different methods (twin studies, adoption studies, other kinship studies, GCTA, etc.), each with their strengths and weaknesses are employed to this end. Each method is “flawed” in some respect — that is, does not address all issues — but the methods overlap and compliment each other. No criticism has been able to punch through the overlapping findings. So what critics do, a la creationists, is focus on specific methods and their imperfections and ignore the totality.

    “Those prenatal influences would compound on top of other environmental and epigenetic causes as people get older on top of the fact that they can also inherit them from even their grandmothers.”

    This is a good example of the strategy. While kinship studies, using cousins and half sibs, can detect epigenetic influence (see: Tal, 2012: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865906/), these types of analyses are rarely if ever done. Thus kinship studies confound genetic and epigenetic influence. But the degree of variance due to DNA e..g, SNPS can be determined using GCTA (Genome-Wide-Complex-Trait-Analysis). This partitions genetic from all other non-genetic, including epigenetic, influences. Now, GCTA has established the high narrow heritability of general intelligence. It has also established that Kinship studies don’t largely overestimate the genetic influence on g. See, for example:
    http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n3/full/mp2012191a.html

    Taking the results from the different methods we can determine the upper limit of the effect of epigenetics. Total variance = 100%. As shown by GCTA, variance explained by additive effects of DNA ~ 50%. (This is a lower bounds estimate since only common variants are captured). As shown by twin studies, variance explained by measurement error and non-shared environmental effects – 20%. As shown by more elaborate kinship studies, variance explained by epistasis and dominance = ~10% . What you are left with then is 20% of the variance which is explained by (a) shared environment, (b) epigenetics, (c) DNA variance not captured by common variants, and (d) variance due to GxE interactions, The effect of shared environment, of course, can be disentangled from other effects with adoption studies by looking at unrelated sibs. When all is said and done, there’s little to no room for epigenetic effect on g! (Aside: Regarding epigenetics, it’s worth noting that early — pre-Darwin — racial theories proposed these. So an epigenetic explanation, implausible as it would be given that epigenetics can not explain much variance within populations, would not be inconsistent with a historic race model.

    Now, we can repeat this analysis for prenatal environment.
    .
    “Again I will like to make it clear I have no personal issue with some potential average, that will vanish regardless..”

    This statement makes no sense. First, the existence of the differences under discussion are established. There is nothing potential about them. Second, environmental causation doesn’t logically imply that differences will “vanish soon” or are malleable. The Black/White difference in the US, for example, has been nearly constant for 100 years. If this is environmental, then environmental doesn’t imply generationally variable. Also, genetic causation doesn’t imply that group differences will not vanish. For example, White-Aboriginal cognitive differences are rapidly decreasing: See the discussion here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/egalitarian-goals-that-are-bound-to-succeed/ This is because Aborigines are rapidly being Europeanized through intermarriage (up to 70-90% intermarriage rate in 2010) and because more inclusive definitions of “aboriginal”, which allows virtually anyone to declare themselves as this, have been adopted. The same phenomena is happening with regards to the White native Hawaiian gap; despite probably largely being genetic, it’s decreasing because of increasing admixture. I have argued over and over again that the most effective way presently known to reduce the U.S. Black-White gap is to give Blacks 1 biological White or Asian parent (adoptive parents don’t seem to work). Given them two and you eliminate it!

    “Take the higher SES argument for example: High SES is much more recent for blacks and its being compared with people who had generations and generations more of high SES and the way they get there is different too on average. Black IQ does go up as SES goes up but they are starting from a much worse point than Europeans.”

    This is getting tedious. I noted that possibility.

    “Look I have been here reading Chucks stuff for a long time, I read Rushtons, Jensens, Jayman(uncle ruckus). Pretty much every ones stuff, but when I read the hard science instead of the soft it makes me lean more and more towards environment.”

    Why?

    • Bo says:

      “This statement makes no sense.”

      You knew exactly what I meant, don’t be anal.

      “Why?”

      Among most others, even your own evidence:
      http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/

      You don’t realize how bad it actually is do you?

      Goodbye.

      • Chuck says:

        (Edited)

        Yes, goodbye. Liberal creationists are not welcome here. Questioning the high within group heritability of intelligence is no longer intellectually respectable. We have moved on. We are now interested in between group differences.

        As I said: “So what critics do, a la creationists, is focus on specific methods and their imperfections and ignore the totality.”

        We can take the article linked to as another case example.

        Argument #1: “GCTA studies are highly vulnerable to confounding by population stratification”

        Except that a number of statistical methods have been developed to detect and take into account structure.

        Argument #2: “Second, all GCTA estimates are derived from looking only at SNPs, but SNPs are only one form of genetic polymorphism. There are numerous other kinds of prevalent genetic variations, including copy number variations, multiple copies of segments of genes, whole genes, and even whole chromosomes.”

        This is why GCTA provides lower bounds estimates. Thus I said: “What you are left with then is 20% of the variance which is explained by (a) shared environment, (b) epigenetics, (c) DNA variance not captured by common variants, and (d) variance due to GxE interactions“.

        So yes, GCTA doesn’t capture all of the genetic variation; this is why we can reasonably assume that the variance due to genes is higher than the GCTA estimate. Thus, less room for epigenetics.

      • Chuck says:

        Another point: with respect to my argument, within groups heritability is a red herring. My argument depends on the claim that variance explained by shared environment (c^2) is low. C^2 can be assessed directly using adoption and unrelated sibling correlations. It’s low.

  6. Chuck says:

    Because Blacks are cognitively less apt, colonialism was a net good; it jump started African societal development. As for cognitive tests, whether they are predicatively biased or not is an empirical question. The issue of predictive bias is distinct from that of whether scores differences have the same meaning within and between groups. For example, cognitive tests are about as predictive of job performance for first generation Hispanics as for third generation (non-Hispanic) Whites. I can guarantee, though, that the first generation Hispanic/ third generation Whites gap is partially due to linguistic bias. Separate issues. Causation is yet another.

    Is a test equally predicative for group A and B?
    Does the between group score difference have the same psychometric meaning as within group differences?
    Does the score difference have the same causal antecedents as the within group differences?

    Separate questions.As for education, it probably counts for a significant portion of the Black American-Black African Achievement/IQ gaps. One can see that it explains little of the White-Black American one simply by looking at the differentials within schools controlling for attendance selectivity. I did this here using department of defense schools. As for regional performance on IQ tests, I would be surprised if there wasn’t gene-environment co-evolution. If North Eurasian cultures socially and materially rewarded intellectual performance, then, pre-welfare state, there should have been selection for more intelligent individuals. Biology shapes culture; culture shapes biology.

    Maybe read up on the issue some more. Start here.

    • hucipher says:

      Wow….I should be happy a potential opponent underestimates me to such an extent. Id wish more of my chess opponents would do more often.
      An old WWII general stated WWII was a battle between Boy Scouts & Nazi Youth. The Bky Scout were taught to honor your leaders & fight your hardest & simply do the best you can. The Nazi Youth were taught they were innately superior. Innately better than their mongrolized opponents. When allied forces lost a battle they simply haunched their shoulders & gave it another good ole GI Joe go at it. The Nazi’s believed the bullshyt fed to them esepecially after all of those some what “lucky” blitzkrieg victories
      http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/03/24/blitzkrieg/
      so when they start getting their arses kicked by the genetically inferior Slavic sub human soldiers they 1st think its a fluke. Their eating shoe leather & dead Nazi comrads when they realize the so called master race is on the other side of the Volga. They had no philosophy of “hey any body can make it & just trying yer garsh darn best is good enough” they were told they where innately superior better & victory was a forgone conclusion. The battle is just a formality we have to go through but once those who they felt were inferior proved to be their betters psychologically those German soldiers on the Eastern front fell apart. They were supposed to..,, expected….. to win but once the lossess pile up its obvious somethings not right .either this Arayan philosophy is bull shite or im not Arayan enough & thus unable to live up to the uber man expectations of Himmler & the rest. Either way it was a rap. See the world turns it evolves & there will always be new pretenders to the throne. This is why I point to true history. Like ive said man if you dig up a 3000 yr old Pyrimid & complex architecture in Denmark, Sweden or Germany ill shut the hell up & bow to this innate superior intellect. Ill say well you know what looks like theyve always been on top so I guess it makes sence but no we know this us a false history & Barabarian attire was the hieght of fashion circa 1000 bc in north westerns Europe but you still want to tell me you’re innately smarter than me & for some reason Germanic peoples just didn’t flourish back then. Comon sence tells me they were exposed to new ideas gradually & did well with them over the centuries because if you are innately smarter now you should have been so then. Heck 150 years ago we were in horses & buggies & your iphone was a telegraph office, then its the blatant dismissal of physical & psychological brutality of slavery & racism. I guess you have to tell your self all of that stuff has no effect or value in this iq equation in order to swallow your interpretation of your stats but psychology is valid science & its laws dictates that peoples & populations are affected by their environments. The longer the abusebthe longer the symptoms last & in this case the abuse never stopped. It has only changed

      • Cognition says:

        Chuck, you’ve been following this kind of subject matter for much longer than I have.

        Is the word salad of broken tangents above characteristic of most responses you get from critics?

        It reminds me of something: http://flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/bong.htm

        • hucipher says:

          Yes Chuck has & he has alot of statistical data. We merely disagree about the causation of the disparages not necessarily the statistics & data. Hell im being educated here & I appreciate the dialouge about a subject that interest me. You can do a blog on baseball & watch a debate erupt muchless the volatile topic of race genetics & iq.. Also I think Chuck knew better to question if Id ever heard of Jews becuase im sure he reakized id already alluded to them only not in name in previous comments ” only groups that excel at them(iq test) are one that has a culture based in fudalism, speaks a logo-graphic language & a culture based on spiritual attainment via study ie: confuscious & the other evolved in the same fudal marketing system & also place study at the center of their spiritual beliefs(~this was me refrence to the Jews. I understand it’s a bit vague but so vague a knowledgeable person would whimsicaly state id never heard of a group of people that have dominated science & commerce for centuries. Lets be clear here…were not writing college theses here but it seems your incapable of following the tangents, & subtle nuances of certian presented arguments… probably why you think its was …what was that ? “broken salad”

          • Chuck says:

            Out of town; will reply latter.

            To evaluate the historic invention, etc. argument we need to first determine the correlation between population level IQ and inventions/innovations at a given time. I don’t imagine that this would be high (i.e., the number of innovations in 1000 B.C. was a poor index of population level cognitive ability in the same year), so I don’t give this type of argument much weight. But since you are making it, throw about some statistics and some justifications for these. We can then determine what a plausible genetic hypothesis would predict and try to dig up some data on the matter.

            (For example, the correlation between contemporaneous national IQ and noble science prize rates is maybe 0.4; if we take this as the upper bounds correlation between innovations and population IQ around 1000 B.C., given a 50-50 genetic-environmental hypothesis (the max anyone argues) the correlation between contemporaneous national IQ and circa 1000 B.C. innovations would be a mere 0.20 (0.4 x 0.5). We then have to dig up data on 1000 B.C. innovation rates by region.)

          • Cognition says:

            I’ll do my best to refrain from grammar & spelling Nazism here.

            Your basic claim here is still that success on IQ tests is strictly due to cultural factors, correct?

          • hucipher says:

            I do not deny IQ has a heriditable component-truly im not sure but I do know it has an environmental component. My argument basically is that IQ is not genetically predisposed to race. In other words you may get your smarts from your father but its not like one group of people have more genes devoted to iq in the way you find red hair & blue eyes in higher proportion in Whites. Yes I am arguing culture has one of if not thee most dramatic impacts upon the formation of intelligence. Culture is an aspect of environment. To look at it on a simple level culture can be broken down between nuclear family, extended family,local society & larger society.

            A more technical breakdown of culture can be –

            National/Societal: The level of culture that deals with awareness of cultural dynamics and patterns by nationality.

            Identity Group Culture: The level of culture for analyzing the diversification of society by gender, generation, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and other social groups.

            Individual Culture: The level at which the “building blocks” of culture are present,in both intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics. An understanding of this level is important for successfully addressing the concerns at any level of culture-

            Culture is but one aspect of the environment that impacts humans psychologically. Noise, polution, living space, population density, etc all factor into affecting not only IQ but all other aspects of cognitive health.

            Africans from the continent by enlarge come from conqured countries ie: colonies that had a nomadic, pastoralist, tribal non industrialized societies. You can look at IQ scores accross the world & you will see they range from higher to lower as you go from industrialized to agricultural to tribal regions.
            http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html (link is not broken down how id like it but reading it youll see industrialized countries generally rank higher)

            Chuck & others argue that these disparages are because industrial countries have populations who possess “better” iq genes (to put it simply)
            I argue that countries in these regions had a head start due to geography & environment (see,Germs and Steel – Jared Diamond: http://youtu.be/ojU31yHDqiM ) which intern pushed these populations to create more socially complex cultures. The age of colonialisn & the industrial revolution
            acted as a one two punch that has even the Islamic world lagging behind Europe & Asia. Between the Moors, Arabs & Turks Europe was partially conqured or underseige at some point but after 1492 Europe’s rise to un challenged dominace began. China & Japan played catch up quick because neither had been fully subjugated by European powers. Japan was forced to trade with America & Europe & China was forced to concede port cities like Hong Kong to several European powers but never was it toatally subjugated like India & Africa

            The mean iq score in America has resin by 30 pts [ http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx ] over the past 100 years. Are we uber evolving at a fantastic rate or are we simply becoming more modern thus this is being reflected in the iq scores? 100 years ago America was much more of an agricultural society. One thing iq measures is modernity & social complexity. One may point to Han Chinese peoples (China, Japan, Korea) & Ashkinazi Jews as refutiation of my (&others) environmental theory but a closure look will uncover the fact that China had a buracracy that would swallow ours in the 1oth century & to this day have always applied extra effort to study. An aspect of Confuscianism ” rests on the belief that human beings are teachable, improvable, and perfectible through personal and communal endeavor especially self-cultivation and self-creation”
            This translates into self emprovement via education.
            When I was in school Asians went to Chinese school after regular classes. Today they still devote more hours to study than other ethnic groups.
            As for the Ashkinazi Jews they also have long had a very complex culture & society due to their peculiar economic situation & tenuous life in Europe. . They also hold study in high regard. For example,
            “after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish culture replaced its emphasis on ritual with an emphasis on study and scholarship.[15] Unlike the surrounding cultures, most Jews, even farmers,[2]were taught to read and write in childhood. Talmudic scholarship became a leading key to social status. The Talmudic tradition may have made the Jews well suited for financial and managerial occupations at a time when these occupations provided new opportunities.-Manuel Tratjenberg”

            As for current research that supports my argument here is an interesting blog from which ill qoute

            ” They discovered two main findings. First, in samples of both adults and children, they found that the greater the cultural load, the greater the test was associated with IQ:* ”
            Feel free to further digest the link (it has alot of statistical data & those neat scatter plot graphs Chuck likes)

            http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/10/17/the-heritability-of-intelligence-not-what-you-think/

          • B.B. says:

            hucipher said:
            ” They discovered two main findings. First, in samples of both adults and children, they found that the greater the cultural load, the greater the test was associated with IQ:* ”

            Chuck already discussed this paper here.

  7. hucipher says:

    Just to re eterate a comment that failed to post this is what ive stated ie:Europe was a brilliant environment for innovation. Also I dont care how you try to spin it north Western Europe was calledthe dark ages for a reason in 1000 ad. In 1000 bc Egypt, Nubia, Babylonia all out shined anything youd find in Sweden Denmark Germany or even England. You have to group all of Europe ie include Crete & Greece to hold a candle to any acomplished in North Africa. I mean here we go again with some stats that your trying to present to contradict the archeological record. Now hear we are not even speaking of a philisophical take on data. Your dismissing tons of physical evidence that clearly illustrates the level of technology north western europe was on & if your going to include Greece & Crete into European technological history you must include Kemet Nut, Nubia and Axum with Africa. (are you familiar with the fact Axum was regarded as one of the 4 great world power’s along with China Persia & Rome?) As for Africas historical record it has been muddled with racism for centuries. New ancient citys are being dug up in west Africa more now that the neglect caused by scientific racialism has worn off a bit
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2243946/How-ancient-Africans-nerds-Birth-technology-traced-70-000-years-continents-southern-tip.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2243946/How-ancient-Africans-nerds-Birth-technology-traced-70-000-years-continents-southern-tip.html

    • Chuck says:

      From the perspective of a global hereditarian hypothesis (a) Eurasians (including North Africans) were more cognitively selected, due to harsh climates and amplified gene-culture co-evolution than Amerindians, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Oceanians. Across Eurasia, advantageous alleles could also spread more rapidly due to proximity and population size. When you look at the technological records, you do in fact see that Eurasians were generally more innovative and technologically advanced than other regional groups. Of course, diffusion of technology and ideas is a major confound. Now, your criticism is mainly that amongst Eurasians, Northern Europeans were not the leading innovators prior to 1000 AD or so. Well, let’s be clear about what actually is predicted: Generally, it is said that (b) North East Asians have a cognitive edge over Europeans. And it is said that (c) Caucasoid groups such as Middle Easterners, South Asians, and North African have a cognitive disadvantage. Now, given that the genetic distances are low, it’s plausible that there are no large genetic intellectual ones between theses populations; for the most part we are dealing with Caucasoids one way or the other. Also, allele mapping does not show large within continental race differences which suggests the same. On the other hand Middle Eastern and North African migrants in European do underperform generation after generation.

      Whatever the case, again to evaluate the issue, we really need to determine the expectation of a hereditarian hypothesis, say one that proposes that 50% of current differences have a genetic basis. To do this, we have to determine the correlation between population level genetic IQ and our index (e.g., innovations) and we have to control for the various confounds such as information flow and idiosyncratic regional environmental factors. I imagine that this could crudely be done but we really need to dig up some good stats.

      Now since there is variation in rates of innovation and levels of technological advancement, and since you advance an environmental hypothesis, you must attribute this variation to environmental factors. And I would of course agree with you that there was such environmental influence. The question then is: given the environmental influence (e.g., diffusion of information, idiosyncratic regional environmental factors, etc.) are the rates found significantly different then what’s predicted by a genetic hypothesis. To evaluate this, we need:
      A. some estimate of the correlation between population IQ and innovations at time x.
      B. some estimate of non-genetic influences on innovation rates at the same time
      C. some estimate of innovation rates.

      I find your statement that if you found pyramids in Sweden you would be convinced of genetic differences flummoxing, since one should want to know what environmental factors influence societal development. (Also, Pyramids are architecturally primitive.) For example, there are reasons to think that Inuit were more intelligent than Aztecs (larger brains, descendants having higher measured IQs), despite Aztecs having built a more interesting civ. Presumably, ecology and geography were limiting factors for the former. No? Now, it’s telling that you say: “You have to group all of Europe ie include Crete & Greece to hold a candle to any acomplished in North Africa. I mean here we go again with some stats that your trying to present to contradict the archeological record.”

      There clearly were civilizational outcome differences amongst these Caucasoid groups at different times. We just don’t know what the correlation between civilizational feats and population differences in IQ was and what the magnitude of countervailing environmental factors were. This is utterly crucial to you case.

      You might turn around and argue that I face a similar prob. While we know what the contemporaneous correlation between national IQ and national IQ is, we don’t know what the differences in the magnitude of IQ affecting environmental factors is. But in fact this isn’t a problem for me since I don’t rely on score differences to infer genetic ones. This is why I focus on genetically informative indexes, migrant performance, and the performance of admixed individuals. Effectively, you are acting like a lazy “race realist”. You see manifest differences or the lack thereof and you conclude that this indexes genetic ones or the lack thereof. Of course, you are worse than the “race realist” because you employ a worse — or at least less validated — measure.

      Nonetheless, I think that the idea is interesting. But only if it’s pursued empirically and rigorously. This will require some research on your part. Start by addressing A-C above. In his discussion of African cognitive ability, Rindermann noted some historic measures of ability that could be used:
      http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/african-cognitive-ability.pdf
      see also: http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hart_-_understanding_human_history-1.pdf

  8. hucipher says:

    Infact truly cognitive thought evolved in Africa not 40k yrs ago in Europe which even if that was so it would’ve just been some Black guys in Europe because the White skinned Caucasians did exist until 6000 yrs ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1210056/White-Europeans-evolved-5-500-years-ago-food-habits-changed.html
    & Cromagnon yeah he’s a bro too

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2243946/How-ancient-Africans-nerds-Birth-technology-traced-70-000-years-continents-southern-tip.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2243946/How-ancient-Africans-nerds-Birth-technology-traced-70-000-years-continents-southern-tip.html

    Ancient West African Megacities: http://youtu.be/b9LkpJdll9A

    The First Europeans: http://youtu.be/rMiGGyJ-dU8

    ill review your previous links & that 60 plus page pdf while I await your take on the Stanford study

    • Chuck says:

      “In fact truly cognitive thought evolved in Africa not 40k yrs ago …White skinned Caucasians did exist until 6000 yrs ago.”

      I’m well aware of the time frame; this simply demonstrates how fast genetic evolution can act. Regarding intelligence differences, one only needs minimal selection across a couple of hundred of generations to get the magnitudes which are are discussing. That’s why it’s surprising that there aren’t larger differences. There must be balanced selection (negative and positive effects of increased IQ, brain functioning, etc.).

      “I await your take on the Stanford study”

      No comment. I have no doubt that endogenous population level factors prone Blacks to be more criminal than Hispanics > Whites > Orientals — given what acts are typically classified as criminal in post-industrialized societies. See here. The differences show up across the age spectrum and internationally. They show up in parental reports of social deviance, too. They can partially be explained by inter-individual between race/ethic groups IQ difference (at least in the U.K. and the U.S.) but other factors are involved.

      As for Whites supporting tougher crime policies when told that a disproportionate number of Blacks are locked up, I don’t know what the logic is. How do women respond when told that a disproportionate number of men are tossed in prison?

      • Cognition says:

        “How do women respond when told that a disproportionate number of men are tossed in prison?”

        Gold. I’ll remember to say this whenever the subject comes up. 🙂

      • hucipher says:

        “No comment”? Well ok but heres my point. Those stats demonstrate the fact that Blacks simply arent commiting more crime but they are being jailed & sentenced more harshly than their White counterparts who have commited the same offence the same amount of times. This simply issnt a case of “those guys got alot of crooks in their family” its a case of the Black guy & the White guy gets caught as 1st offenders & the White guy gets probation or a fine & the Black guy gets to bunk with bubba. -no beuno

        Also another thing id like to point out is that those stats displayed one set of information but people due to cultural bias read another message from the statistical data. Although the data indicated Blacks were being locked up unfairly the emotion triggered or “ill” logical conclusion was that laws should be even tougher. I feel this is similar to what is occurring when people read iq test scores & stats. Depending on your cultural lense you interpet the data accordingly. In your paticular case you chose not to even venture a comment on the Stanford study. Instead you again provided “stats” to bulk up a belief that Blacks are more criminally prone than Whites & Hispanics. The truth is that Whites commit crimes such as drug use and sales at a higher rate than Blacks. Blacks are just penalized far more often. Other crimes are a result of socio economic position. This is but another opressive factor that stunts academic achievement

        As for the speed of evolution ill repost part of what I mentioned to Cognitive

        “The mean iq score in America has resin by 30 pts [ http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx ] over the past 100 years. Are we uber evolving at a fantastic rate or are we simply becoming more modern thus this is being reflected in the iq scores? 100 years ago America was much more of an agricultural society. One thing iq measures is modernity & social complexity.”
        As to your surprise that the disparities are not greater the reason they are not greater is because your assumption they are genetic is a fallacy
        Just in ending IQ is a cognitive function & when you attempt to use every discipline but the chief one. designed to diagnose cognitive issues ie:
        Psychology you will consestently err in your answer. Its like trying to fix a car thats been in an accident with just body work & not looking under the hood -you’ll probably miss something

        • Chuck says:

          hucipher: “I do not deny IQ has a heriditable component-truly im not sure but I do know it has an environmental component. My argument basically is that IQ is not genetically predisposed to race.”

          The first sentence puts you 1 SD above the mean in terms of sensibility.

          hucipher: “Chuck & others argue that these disparages are because industrial countries have populations who possess “better” iq genes (to put it simply)
          I argue that countries in these regions had a head start due to geography & environment (see,Germs and Steel – Jared Diamond: http://youtu.be/ojU31yHDqiM ) which intern pushed these populations to create more socially complex cultures. The age of colonialisn & the industrial revolution.”

          Chuck & others also entertain the possibility that Diamond-like better environments allowed for the flourishing of societies in which there was positive selection for IQ. Thus head start due to geography & environment –> IQ demanding societies –> increased genetic IQ via gene-culture co-evolution. See, for example: “Are Pleiotropic Mutations and Holocene Selective Sweeps the Only Evolutionary-genetic Processes Left for Explaining Heritable Variation in Human Psychological Traits?: “Selection pressure cannot have remained the same after human dispersals out of Africa and the Upper Paleolithic revolution, especially since the rise of agriculture, domestication, money, and institutionalized monogamy, These changes may not have had enough time to produce complex, new, cross-culturally universal psychological adaptations …but they could have had dramatic effects on the patters of genetic variations underlying personality, psychopathology, and cognitive traits.”

          • hucipher says:

            I previously infered in a post that 150 yrs ago we were barely out of the Iron Age. In that 150 yrs IQ scores have leaped 30pts higher. This could not be a result of biological evolution.
            What I do see is the fact this as other topics are viewed through differing anthropological lenses. This may lead to illogical disagreement but if utilized the correct way perhaps all of the probable causations for cognitive deficit can be looked into. Until I come across new research or overlooked old research or research that can be looked at with a fresh eye my argument has pretty much been stated for now.

      • hucipher says:

        Oh heres a link I forgot to include about the rate of crime in regards to Blacks & Whites
        White America does the crime Black America does the time
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html

        • B.B. says:

          RE: Race and Illicit Drug Use

          From Spawk Talk, To Zaunstar on Race, Intelligence, and Crime:

          It is important to note that these studies which show that blacks and whites are just as likely to be drug users are based on self report data. In other words, what they actually show is that blacks are no more likely to admit to being a drug user than whites are. If blacks and whites are equally honest about such things then this isn’t a problem. But there is evidence to suggest that this isn’t the case. Over the past several decades, criminologists have carried out a multiplicity of studies which tested the accuracy of self report measures of drug use across different populations (41-44). In these studies researchers would ask study participants about their drug use habits over the past month(s) and then compare it with the results of tests of the participants urine or hair which would pick up biological residue from the drugs that they had used in the last month(s). What these studies consistently found was that blacks under-report (lie about) their drug use more than whites do. Given the fact that blacks are more likely than whites to falsely deny using drugs, the fact that blacks and whites are roughly as likely to admit to using drugs actually implies that blacks use drugs more often than whites do.

          Additional evidence comes from data collected by the US government on emergency room visits. Self report surveys of drug use normally suggest that blacks make up something like 10%-15% of drug users. Yet, if you look at data spanning the last 20 years, you find that blacks have made up 30%-40% of emergency room visits related to illegal drug usage (45). As covered previously, in 2009 blacks made up 31% of drug arrests. Thus, the proportion of drug related emergency room visits that blacks make up is highly similar to the proportion of drug related arrests that blacks make up. Of course, this is exactly what we would expect if the black drug-arrest rate accurately reflected the black drug-use rate.

          But let’s say that this evidence didn’t exist and that blacks and whites really were just as likely to be drug users. Would that imply that racism is needed to explain the racial disparity in drug arrest rates? A report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests otherwise (46). Based on an analysis of survey data collected by the Department of Health and Human Services, the report suggests that there are at least 3 important differences in the ways that black and white drug users use drugs which are relevant to how likely they are to get arrested. The first difference is that black drug users use drugs more frequently than white drug users do. For instance, among black drug users it was found that 32% admitted to using drugs weekly compared to just 20% of white drug users. This difference is obscured by simple surveys that ask participants if they are drug users but fail to ask how frequently they’ve used that drug. And this difference in frequency of drug use should have an effect on arrest rates: the more you often you commit a crime the more likely you are to get caught committing that crime. The second difference the report listed is that black drug users tend to use drugs which are more likely to get them caught than the drugs white drug users use. For instance, heroin and cocaine users are arrested at roughly 4 times the rate that marijuana users are. And 20% of black drug users claimed to use heroin or cocaine compared to just 16% of white drug users. This disproportionate use of more dangerous drugs will put blacks at an elevated risk for being arrested even if, on the whole, blacks are no more likely to be drug users than whites are. Finally, the report notes that there is an important difference in where black and white drug users use drugs. Blacks tend to live in urban areas which, due to the high levels of violence in black urban areas, have higher levels of police concentration than the areas where whites live. Naturally, the more police that are around the more likely you are be to be arrested. Thus, there are at least three good reasons for blacks to be arrested more often than whites for drug use even when blacks are no more likely to be a drug user than whites are.

          • hucipher says:

            The systemic racism with in the judicial system is far to well documented to deny it & not be instantly recognized as a person suffering from some form of bias.

             “Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project reports African Americans are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants and 20% more like to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants.”
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html

            As for the stats youve posted it would be great if you provided a link or to to back all that up. Not that im necessarily arguing those statistics your alluding to but it seems I run into studies that dispute the findings you’re touting

            http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/

            Regardless the facts such as the bias present in mandatory sentencing makes the numbers you point to moot.

          • B.B. says:

            hucipher says:
            As for the stats youve posted it would be great if you provided a link or to to back all that up.

            The article I linked to did provide citations.

            hucipher says:
            Not that im necessarily arguing those statistics your alluding to but it seems I run into studies that dispute the findings you’re touting

            So you link to an article that discusses data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which is reliant on the honesty of the people being surveyed. Maia Szalavitz’s article doesn’t dispute the findings I’m touting so much as it doesn’t even acknowledge the methodological problems Spawk Talk brought up.

          • Chuck says:

            Not interested in the topic now. Just a few comments about the ref.

            “One. While African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses – according to 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project.”

            Disproportion =/ evidence of bias.

            “Two. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites.”

            Coviello, D., & Persico, N. (2013). An Economic Analysis of Black-White Disparities in NYPD’s Stop and Frisk Program (No. w18803). National Bureau of Economic Research.

            “We analyze data on NYPD’s “stop and frisk program” in an effort to identify racial bias on the part of the police officers making the stops. We find that the officers are not biased against African Americans relative to whites, because the latter are being stopped despite being a “less productive stop” for a police officer.”

            Three. Since 1970, drug arrests have skyrocketed rising from 320,000 to close to 1.6 million according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.

            Disproportion =/ evidence of bias.

            Four. Once arrested, blacks are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites. For example, the New York state division of criminal justice did a 1995 review of disparities in processing felony arrests and found that in some parts of New York blacks are 33% more likely to be detained awaiting felony trials than whites facing felony trials.

            Need to control for specific felony types, criminal history, and in jail behavior.

            Five. Once arrested, 80% of the people in the criminal justice system get a public defender for their lawyer. Race plays a big role here as well. Stop in any urban courtroom and look a the color of the people who are waiting for public defenders.

            Not evidence of CJS bias. Evidence, perhaps, that Blacks have less foresight or finances regarding investment in a layer.

            Six. African Americans are frequently illegally excluded from criminal jury service according to a June 2010 study released by the Equal Justice Initiative. For example in Houston County, Alabama, 8 out of 10 African Americans qualified for jury service have been struck by prosecutors from serving on death penalty cases.

            “Illegal” selection — Lesson learned from the OJ trial.

            Seven. Trials are rare. Only 3 to 5 percent of criminal cases go to trial – the rest are plea bargained. Most African Americans defendants never get a trial.

            Nothing to do with CJS racial bias.

            Eight. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes.

            Need to control for criminal history, in court behavior, and defense strategy. See point seven.

            Nine. The longer the sentence, the more likely it is that non-white people will be the ones getting it.

            Need to control for offense type.

            Ten. As a result, African Americans, who are 13% of the population and 14% of drug users, are not only 37% of the people arrested for drugs but 56% of the people in state prisons for drug offenses.

            Disproportion =/ evidence of bias.

            Eleven. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics concludes that the chance of a black male born in 2001 of going to jail is 32% or 1 in three. Latino males have a 17% chance and white males have a 6% chance. Thus black boys are five times and Latino boys nearly three times as likely as white boys to go to jail.

            Disproportion =/ evidence of bias.

            Twelve. So, while African American juvenile youth is but 16% of the population, they are 28% of juvenile arrests, 37% of the youth in juvenile jails and 58% of the youth sent to adult prisons. 2009 Criminal Justice Primer, The Sentencing Project.

            How is this evidence of CJS bias?

            Thirteen. Remember that the US leads the world in putting our own people into jail and prison. The US rate of incarceration is five to eight times higher than other highly developed countries and black males are the largest percentage of inmates according to ABC News.

            Disproportion =/ evidence of bias.

            Fourteen. Even when released from prison, race continues to dominate. A study by Professor Devah Pager of the University of Wisconsin found that 17% of white job applicants with criminal records received call backs from employers while only 5% of black job applicants with criminal records received call backs. Race is so prominent in that study that whites with criminal records actually received better treatment than blacks without criminal records!

            This audit design has a number of problems; see here: Heckman, J. J. (1998). Detecting discrimination. Also, contravening evidence suggests labor market discrimination for Blacks.

            Generally, don’t cite HuffPost again, that being a worthless mag. And if you cite some evidence, make sure to preview it. There might be good arguments/evidence out there, but you’ll have to dig. Those cited represented some variant of the sociologists’ other primary fallacy: disproportion = evidence of bias/racism.

          • hucipher says:

            Again we clearly see the world through different goggles.
            Calling a professional periodical worthless does nothing to invalidate its content.
            You site decade’s older studies to validate the systemic racism through out this society. I need not conduct or refer to studies to see & understand this system, this culture is riddled with racism. I need only to refer to my lifes experience & quote history-

            “you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to”
            -Nixon
            Seems he & his cabinet have accomplished this (along with the aid of those with your paticular cultural view point) 

          • Cognition says:

            Goodness, Chuck answered your argument piece by piece and even posed several questions that you can answer to bolster your case if you wanted to.

            What’s stopping you?

          • hucipher says:

            I feel as flustered as you do. I understand we have an argument not only about the data but also because we are viewing data differntly ie: different “goggles” I think we’ve spent enough rounds presenting our hypothesis. I my self feel ive presented enough evidence to establish the fact there exist systemic discrimination (call it a bias if you like) towards Blacks in paticular. Any one should be able to make the small extremely logical leap that this at least one dynamic that effects IQ.
            Also Chuck has presented a ton of stats & other studies I’d rather read thoroughly before further response

          • Chuck says:

            “Any one should be able to make the small extremely logical leap that this at least one dynamic that effects IQ.”

            This was expected. What’s the logic. Spell it out. How does this “bias” manage to depress Black cognitive ability in proportion to the general intelligence loaded-ness of a test. Why doesn’t it equally affect Black personality traits?

            As said, you have presented evidence of disproportion, not of anti-Black racial bias in the CJS. FYI, here are meta-analytic results concerning the effect of race on mock trail results. Contrary to what you might expect, in these studies race is not associated with juror’s verdicts.

          • Cognition says:

            I’ve always wondered what the source for that data has been!

            Thanks for sharing that post, looks like I have a new argument at my disposal now.

          • Steven says:

            hucipher,

            “Those stats demonstrate the fact that Blacks simply arent commiting more crime but they are being jailed & sentenced more harshly than their White counterparts who have commited the same offence the same amount of times.”

            Does this apply to homicide stats? There is a huge difference in the homicide rate of white vs black vs Asian Americans. I am no expert but from what I’ve read, homicide rates are far less subject to judicial or police bias than other crimes.

            It seems to me very likely to be true that black people commit far more homicides than white people in America as the stats say. I recall it being about 8 times more than whites, 20 times more than Asian Americans, something like that? I’m guessing but from what I remember it is in that ballpark.

            If that is true- that they commit more homicides- then it seems logical that they would also be invovled in more violent crime in general.

            Also, check this out:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7856404/Police-statistics-shed-fresh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html

          • Steven says:

            I would like what you are saying to be true by the way. I would love there to be no racial differences in crime. It might make for a more harmonious world. I have no agenda.

  9. hucipher says:

    Cognition says:”Goodness, Chuck answered your argument piece by piece ”
    One answering a question does not validate the answer in its self. Once im aware I view the world differerntly that he/she that I may be debating with….I not only have to dissect their answers but even the source material they refrence. Pointing out the fact Chuck answered something only points out he answered something. Now if that answers correct is another story

    • Chuck says:

      The evolutionary/genetic and environmental/racism models should make at least some competing empirical predictions, no? If not, the choice between them is metaphysical/aesthetic. And there is nothing to discuss. Try to generate a list of differing predictions and then we can discuss these and, after, look at the data to see which it supports more.

  10. hucipher says:

    @Steven
    Violent crime is a sympton of socioeconomic disparages in this system
    This an environmental factor coupled with socio political views on race & crime. To fix this will that eduction (primarily knowledge of self) a mass level & employment & educational programs thst truly connteract the centuries & decades of systemic racism-not mere affirmative actiom quotas that those who see the world askew look at as extreme racism in favor of Blacks that should make up for thr 10 to 20 yrs of under education & educational discrimination suffered by an applicant to college. This is just a biased mode of thought that makes no true academic sence

    Statitical Malpractice in regards of violent crime rates:

    http://www.timwise.org/2013/08/race-crime-and-statistical-malpractice-how-the-right-manipulates-white-fear-with-bogus-data/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/are-blacks-a-criminal-rac_b_8398.html

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078917/-Smearing-Trayvon-Martin-The-True-Lie-that-Black-Men-Commit-More-Crime-than-Whites

    http://prospect.org/article/six-charts-explain-why-our-prison-system-so-insane

    • Chuck says:

      Try showing us a country where West African Blacks have lower crime rates than either Europeans or North East Asians. As best I can tell, the higher than average Black crime rates show up among first and second generation immigrants and across Western and Latin American countries. (Chinese officials in Guangzhou have also found that Black Africans have higher crime rates than the native Han). These patterns likewise show up in Black majority countries and regions. Why? And why don’t other peoples suffer from such historic “legacies” e.g., the descendants of Eastern Europeans serfs? A evolutionary racial theory should be easy to falsify. Just find a couple of countries where the same patterns don’t more or less manifest themselves. Of course, you can always present a patchwork of inconsistent ad hoc theories to account for the inter and intra national variations (e.g., the race gaps in the U.S. are due to Jim Crow, in Europe to majority discrimination, in Black majority West Indian countries and South Africa to historic legacies of slavery, internationally (e.g., Europe + East Asia versus West Africa) to the legacy of colonialism. Of course, these hypotheses should be testable, too. Why don’t you make some predictions that contrast with those of a partial evolutionary hypothesis and then we can look at the data. If you can’t think of any, if your environmental/racism model perfectly mimics a partial genetic model then there is nothing we can discuss further. We simply disagree as to the plausibility of each other’s paradigm.

      As for the HuffPost and DailyKos articles, the authors are not familiar with the research and they rarely provide references to back up their claims. Example:

      “Broad statistics also tell us little about a given population’s capacity or propensity to commit crime. For example, while black men are disproportionately incarcerated, the majority are in jail for drug offenses.”

      We can look at the disproportions broken down by specific crime. Black over-representation in drug related crimes isn’t driving the general over representation in crime, since this is across the board.

      “African Americans are also more likely to be poor than whites. When a researcher accounts for these variables, the story becomes one of class and not race. Further problematizing the true lie that “black equals criminal,” is that disparities in crime largely disappear when you consider the black middle and upper classes in comparison to their white peers.”

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078917/-Smearing-Trayvon-Martin-The-True-Lie-that-Black-Men-Commit-More-Crime-than-Whites

      This simply is untrue. More importantly, it’s also another variant of the sociologist’s fallacy: a significant portion of the crime difference is due to the IQ one; controlling for SES controls for IQ (among other traits e.g., time preference) and with it criminal propensity.

      • hucipher says:

        In China we have Africans that occupy lower class status & racism easily exist in this mostly homogeneous nation

        http://www.thechinaexpat.com/racism-in-china/

        You will find high crime in any power nation/country & again you can see easily check the writers refrences in the periodicals I post
        Again your disagreeing with statements in the articles I post does not invalidate the findings with in
        By the way there are about 100 Nigerians in jail in China a nation with 1,548,498 people in jail
        So you infered a West African crime spree was going on in China why?

        • Cognition says:

          Is it safe to say you think racial discrimination is the cause for ethnic crime disparities and no innate differences have predictive power?

          • hucipher says:

            That would be seat belt safe but I would add socioeconomic conditions as well but the trouble with this is that most minorities are in the socioeconomic position they are in because of racial discrimination. The fact that not only were Blacks barred from simply learning to read while slave but never got a helping hand afterwards. In fact Black codes & Jim Crow laws were created to keep Blacks in a permanent under class soocial conditions

        • Chuck says:

          “So you infered a West African crime spree was going on in China why?”

          I said that Chinese officials found that Black Africans (in Guangzhou) had higher crime rates than the native Han. When I get a chance, I will look for the book chapter which mentioned this. So you haven’t been able to come up with competing predictions?

  11. hucipher says:

    Well Chuck im not the “statistician” you are and perhaps you are correct. we definatley disgaree but truthfully I need not come up with competing set of variables predicting the outcomes of ethnic discrimination upon a target population.
    The out comes and effects are well documented and studied
    To deny them one has to do “numerical, statistical voodoo” in an attempt to invalidate the results of these studies
    For the lay person your stats appear robust but after a closer look we see that they suffer from a typical fallacy most statisticians suffer from
    They regard the numbers as a cause of the effect not simpy a measurment of it ie:They do not point to causation. The numbers are only indicative of a problem. The statistician reads his/her numbers according to their world view (unless they are aware of anthropological lensing and make an effort to look at their numbers objectively)
    Where you see an inherent genetic factor I see environmental and cultural factors.
    I have historical evidence myriad of studies and yes even your beloved statistical data.
    You have a hypothesis that assumes these problems lie in genetics but you have no genes to name so even in your heredity tracking you cant name specific genes and you ignore other causations that can and do play a part even in family legacies.
    In this argument one must always remember Slavery and Jim Crow existed and racism is ever present. Slavery and Jim Grow have had epigenetic effects as well as socio economic and psychological effects. This is simple abc cause and effect. No need for convoluted splatter graphs to prove my position
    Also- yes this is a case of classim as well but racism as long been used as a tool by the opressor to dominate and seperate.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/01/benjamin-todd-jealous-on-gloucester-rebellion/2730559/

    Here are some studies that discribe the effects racism has on a targeted population

    The effects of discrimination on minorities http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915460/

    Blank RM, Dabady M, Citro CF, editors. National Research Council. Measuring Racial Discrimination. Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination. Washington, DC: Comm. Natl. Stat., Div. Behav. Soc. Sci. Educ., Natl. Acad. Press; 2004.

    Physiological and psychological effects of discrimination minorities
    http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/racism-stress.aspx

    Discriminations effects on medical health
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447717/

    • Chuck says:

      “You have a hypothesis that assumes these problems lie in genetics but you have no genes to name so even in your heredity tracking you cant name specific genes and you ignore other causations that can and do play a part even in family legacies”

      First, my model is a genetic and environmental one. So, I don’t need to — and I don’t in fact — ignore environmental factors. Second, it’s no longer true that I have “no genes”. Third, one doesn’t need to know specific genes to determine either within or between group heritablity. Fourth, my model is interesting because it makes novel predictions which yours can only accommodate. For example, “environment/racism” doesn’t predict a correlation between ancestry and IQ in the AA population or that second generation black immigrants will under-preform like native African Americans or that group differences will be largest on the most genetically influenced component, etc. ,etc. Of course, environmental models can be created which accommodate those facts, but a generic non-genetic model doesn’t actually predict these and other

      Think about your specific model and try to come up with a list of predictions, for example, that group differences will be smallest in states where African Americans have more political power. And then we can discuss if a partial genetic hypothesis would predict otherwise and if so look at the data to see which it supports more. .

      • hucipher says:

        Yes I would say you need to identify specific genes especially when your assumption is that they play a role in cognitive function. Not only do you need to identify these genes but you must illustrate they are predisposed to race. Perhaps you could identify these genes that are predisposed to race? Not simply a gene or genetic variations of genes that appear in general accross human populations. The Ashkinazi disease/gene hypothesis need not be mentioned (due to the fact its theory & only applies to one sub group of people)
        To be clear im not arguing iq has no heriditable factor. Im arguing iq is not predisposed to race.
        Your model has some merits but your ignoring or leaving out metigating factors
        It would be inaccurate for me to create a genetic/heritability model when from my argument & my understanding is that affects of racism are primarily psychological.
        Ive provided links discussing the psychological & medical effects of racism on populations. Are you familiar or have you reviewed them?
        Your model may in least in part be measuring environmental effects more so than genetic legacy.
        Here is a paticular take on genetic heratibility & environment to quote:

        “For the rich and well-fed, genes cause most of the variance. But for the poor, environment is key.” -Leo Acadia

        I dont think we would argue the fact that a higher % of AA families are under the proverty line & a higher % only slightly above it

        http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304898704577478482432277706

        Also I feel this points to factors your statistics miss such as the fact environment not only effects the wealthy but plays a crucial role poorer populations. Your stats no doubt are measuring these diffrences but are only touting genetic heratibility as a factor

        Other findings environmental findings:

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-racism-and-the-empire-of-poverty/18263

        “The jobless rate for young black men and women is 30.5 percent. For young blacks — who experts say are more likely to grow up in impoverished racially isolated neighborhoods, attend subpar public schools and experience discrimination — race statistically appears to be a bigger factor in their unemployment than age, income or even education. Lower-income white teens were more likely to find work than upper-income black teens, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, and even blacks who graduate from college suffer from joblessness at twice the rate of their white peers.[38]”

        Actually creating a predictive graph is unnecessary for my argument if for any reason just due to the preponderance of studies echoing my position
        Having said that though you have sparked my curiosity on one thing. I would like to see if predictions based on the psychological effefts of racism could be made. I understand to do so you have to recognize various forms of psychological pathology, collect studies on people who precieve racism in thier daily lives & seperate these from people who may be genuinely cognitively impaired

        • Chuck says:

          “Perhaps you could identify these genes that are predisposed to race? ”

          http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Factor-Analysis-of-Population-Allele-Frequencies-as-a-Simple-Novel-Method-of-Detecting-Signals-of-Recent-Polygenic-Selection-The-Example-of-Educational-Attainment-and-IQ.pdf

          “Here is a paticular take on genetic heratibility & environment to quote:
          –For the rich and well-fed, genes cause most of the variance. But for the poor, environment is key.” -Leo Acadia–
          I dont think we would argue the fact that a higher % of AA families are under the proverty line & a higher % only slightly above it”

          This sounds like a prediction. If the Black/White gap is environmental, then Black heritability should be depressed relative to the White. Would you agree?

          “Having said that though you have sparked my curiosity on one thing. I would like to see if predictions based on the psychological effefts of racism could be made. I understand to do so you have to recognize various forms of psychological pathology, collect studies on people who precieve racism in thier daily lives & seperate these from people who may be genuinely cognitively impaired”

          This sounds like another. If the Black/White gap is due to the psychological toll of harsh, mind crushing racism, then Blacks should exhibit more psychiatric pathologies and more negative affect than Whites. Would you agree?

          • hucipher says:

            The deeply interwoven racism with in our culture naturally leads the writer of this paper you’ve linked to state
            ” On the other hand, populations from Central Asia and the
            “Middle East had factor scores comparable to Europeans,
            suggesting that their lower average IQs can be improved
            through better environmental conditions (nutrition,
            schooling, etc.).”
            So the fact that populations with lower IQ’s are found to have the same or comparable allele frequencies as higher IQ populations but in their case for some reason this paper states this indicates a potential to rise to higher IQ’s rather than it indicating the analysis it self is flawed on some level.
            The fact that all African populations are impoverished due to Western influence seems to again be over looked in this paper
            You would think 3rd world countries are poor simply because they are inept or incapable of building successful economies until you learn that Western powers purposely keep these countries impoverished
            “confessions of an economic hit man”
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc

            We also must understand the presence of these alleles are more than likely the result of epi-genetics ie: environmental influences on short term genetic mutations. If this is the case this would mean that positive environmental change would also change the frequencies of these alleles. Also the fact there is a population with low IQ but similar alleles frequencies puts this papers theory in question As in most of the statistical and theoretical calculations the data could easily be a result of other factors at play

          • Chuck says:

            Huh,

            “The fact that all African populations are impoverished due to Western influence seems to again be over looked in this paper.”

            This sounds like another prediction, since not all African populations are equally impoverished. See, you’re getting the hang of this. We now have 3 predictions: (1) African Americans should exhibit significantly depressed heritabilities, AAs should also exhibit significantly increased rates of psychiatric pathologies, and, (3) taking race into account, wealth should mostly explain the low scores in predominately Black nations.

            Do you have anymore — or should we look at the data now?

            “We also must understand the presence of these alleles are more than likely the result of epi-genetics ie: environmental influences on short term genetic mutations.”

            This isn’t how it works:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylation#Epigenetics
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele

          • hucipher says:

            As you quoted me:

            “We also must understand the presence of these alleles are more than likely the result of epi-genetics ie: environmental influences on short term genetic mutations.”
            If “This isn’t how it works:”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylation#Epigenetics

            Then I must be misunderstanding articles such as-
            Allele-specific gene expression and epigenetic modifications and their application to understanding inheritance and cancer
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22366057

            and your wiki link on Methylation#Epigenetics

            “Methylation contributing to epigenetic inheritance can occur through either DNA methylation or protein methylation”

            To me this seems changes in alleles can be a result of short term epi genetic mutations.
            Why wouldn’t this be the same for alleles such as rs11584700, rs4851266?

            I simply see environment at the causation of even the epi genetics changes
            Epi genetics are highly plastic and any deficit in one area can be over come with exposure to positive environmental stimuli over a proper period of time

            Again the fact Central Asians and Middle Easterners apparently have these “smart” alleles in comparable frequencies but have low IQ’s points to the possibility there is something’s else at play. Again also I must point out the bias conclusion that the Central Asian and Middle eastern group are assumed to be capable of achieving higher IQ if exposed to better environments but Africans aren’t even given this benefit of the doubt when the majority of their environments are far poorer on almost all levels than Central Asia or the Middle East. I see this train of thought directed towards justifying years unscrupulous treatment at the hands of Western powers.
            Its like a mechanic selling a rube a lemon then calling him/her stupid because he/she doesn’t have the mechanical knowledge to be able to see the car wont last 90 days

          • Chuck says:

            “Then I must be misunderstanding articles such as-
            Allele-specific gene expression and epigenetic modifications and their application to understanding inheritance and cancer
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22366057
            and your wiki link on Methylation#Epigenetics
            “Methylation contributing to epigenetic inheritance can occur through either DNA methylation or protein methylation”
            To me this seems changes in alleles can be a result of short term epi genetic mutations.”

            Yes, you’re misunderstanding it. DNA methylation adds a methyl group to a nucleotide; it doesn’t actually change the GCTA sequence. So, in regards to there being allele frequency differences, it would have no bearing,

            As for the lack of IQ related allele differences between Caucasoid groups (Europeans, Middle Easterners, and South Asians), that’s interesting, but I fail to see how it supports your position, which is that global IQ differences index only environmental differences. You yourself have made the point, numerous times, that phenotypic differences don’t imply genotypic ones and that one needs genetically informative data. Now, if you ask nicely, I will help you formulate the argument that you should be making. Until then, I will continue to rightfully dismiss this “argument”.

  12. hucipher says:

    Well not a prediction the mechinations of western powers in Africa, South America & other 3rd world countries are well documented facts. I womt profess im providing you empirical evidence of the undermining of “all” African countries but I can provide limks to several

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa092.html
    Well not a prediction the mechinations of western powers in Africa, South America & other 3rd world countries are well documented facts. I womt profess im providing you empirical evidence of the undermining of “all” African countries but I can provide limks to several

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa092.html

    http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/sanctions32.13170.html

    http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/leftover/whypoor.htm -see root causes #A

    Nether the less the analysis of Central Asians & Middle Eastern alleles seem to contradict your previous links stance

    http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/sanctions32.13170.html

    http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/leftover/whypoor.htm -see root causes #A

    Nether the less the analysis of Central Asians & Middle Eastern alleles seem to contradict your previous links premise

  13. Cognition says:

    Chuck, just wanted to say I’m learning a lot about the issues being discussed here and appreciate the dialogue between you and hucipher.

    I’ll jump in on some old threads I started in response to hucipher on this post soon.

  14. hucipher says:

    Lol I was actually being a little facetious. Your explanation of the way methylation works is answering a question I did not ask nor truly addressess the point I was making. Anyway your wiki link cleary states ” Methylation contributing to epigenetic inheritance can occur through either DNA methylation or protein methylation.” A controbution to epigenetic inheritance sounds like it affects genes on some level. Also when we speak of epi genetic changes we are not talking about the changing of gene sequences only how those sequences are expressed ie: a person born with a spgene sequence of CCC TGT GGA after 50 years of smoking & bad dietry habits genome may look like CCC tGt GGa. I never infered it changed any sequence so this is why im saying your addressing a point never made by me

    Your dimissal of my argument(or not allowing certain post by me to be shown) does nothing to invalidate it. Simply because you cannot or refuse to see that glaring bole in the study you posted doesn’t get rid of the hole. Your study is tracking iq differnces via alleles. Where is it pointing to a
    enviromental factor?

    • Chuck says:

      “Your dimissal of my argument(or not allowing certain post by me to be shown) does nothing to invalidate it..”

      I don’t know what you mean. If you use the same email and don’t include too many links, your comments should post. I don’t monitor this blog so if you comment under an unapproved email or include more than 4 (?) links your comments are likely to find themselves in pending-limbo.

      Your argument is:
      a) Black Africans, South Asians, and Middle Easterners have lower phenotypic IQs than Europeans
      b) Only Black Africans have significantly lower IQ associated allele frequencies.
      c) Therefore, the allele frequencies can’t be right
      d) Therefore none of the phenotypic differences between any populations are due to genes

      This is self-refuting nonsense! If your conclusion is correct then there is no relation between genotypic and phenotypic differences, if so, your conclusion can’t follow, as an inconsistent relation can’t be brought as evidence against genetic differences.

      In contrast, a claim that global population differences are partially heritability runs into no contradiction, because such a claim deals with overall variance not specific cases. When someone says that 50% of the variance in IQ is due to genes they don’t commit themselves to the claim that Billy Bob’s deviation from the mean is, but that 50% of all deviations are so on average. In the same way, when someone claims that 50% of global differences are genetic, they don’t assert that 50% of all differences are, just that 50% of the variance is, some specific differences might be 100% and others 0.

      • hucipher says:

        I meat to say I guess my 6 links were excessive …my apologies. …I was just providing refrences. Now I know the l Iimit of links I’ll avoid posting more than four.
        I would like to state the apparent corrolations Piffer paper illustrates are intriguing but still feel these are probable epigenetic in origin. Change the environment change the way the genes are expressed….nether the less you’ve given me something I need to chew on

  15. hucipher says:

    “Correlation does not equal Causation”

  16. nikcrit says:

    Interesting comment string,particularly the exchanges between Chuck and hucipher; by my lights, they sort-of reinforce the eternal impasse of the ‘nature-vs-nurture’ debate, with all its false allure of offering a once-and-for-all ‘causation-de-absolution’: the labcoats can atomize and atomize ‘g’ forevermore —– but perhaps until they can empirically supply an answer for the earth’s creation, all they will ever rhetorically succeed in is merely peeling off yet another skin in that atomizing onion called HBD,
    Metaphorically speaking and applied to modern racial polemics, the labcoats are the nihilists and stoics while the denialists are the romantics and the cultural epicureans…(rimshot)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s