Does anyone here really believe there are any racial differences?

[Politruk]

I mean hereditary, not cultural, psychological differences between races a traditionally defined. E.g., there used to be a belief so widespread among Americans whites (and blacks too, I shouldn't wonder, since they never heard a word in contradiction) that it needed no defending, it seemed obvious common sense, that blacks are mentally inferior to whites -- and morally inferior too; that is, too primitive and bestial for moral self-control. Does anyone here still believe that?

 

[Politruk]

RWs often hint at it -- disparage anti-racists as clueless idealistic cranks, or as "race-baiters" making something out of nothing, or accuse them of "anti-white" prejudice -- without coming right out and arguing for racial differences.

 

[Saint_Ann]

RWs often hint at it -- disparage anti-racists as clueless idealistic cranks, or as "race-baiters" making something out of nothing, or accuse them of "anti-white" prejudice -- without coming right out and arguing for racial differences.

Can't discuss racial differences without you LWs labeling them as racist. How many race baiting threads are you gonna start?

 

[Politruk]

RWs often hint at it -- disparage anti-racists as clueless idealistic cranks, or as "race-baiters" making something out of nothing, or accuse them of "anti-white" prejudice -- without coming right out and arguing for racial differences.

And why not? If that's how you feel, own it!

 

[Politruk]

RWs often hint at it -- disparage anti-racists as clueless idealistic cranks, or as "race-baiters" making something out of nothing, or accuse them of "anti-white" prejudice -- without coming right out and arguing for racial differences.

Now, they're not all like that -- consider Nacho6690. When you start a thread praising The Turner Diaries, clearly you do not care about maintaining the plausibility of the usual "Racist?! Who, me?!"

But not even Nacho will really argue for racial differences -- he simply assumes them, as most Americans did for a long time.

 

[Politruk]

Nobody?

 

[Saint_Ann]

Nobody?

Just me.

 

[Politruk]

Nobody here even cares to try to make a case for something so fundamental to RW thought?

 

[YDB95]

Nobody here even cares to try to make a case for something so fundamental to RW thought?

As you know, there is one otherwise quite progressive member of this community who is a firm believer that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites. He's been keeping his mouth shut on that particular issue for a while now, but I do not think he's seen the light on it by any means.

 

[Politruk]

As you know, there is one otherwise quite progressive member of this community who is a firm believer that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites. He's been keeping his mouth shut on that particular issue for a while now, but I do not think he's seen the light on it by any means.

Which?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

. He's been keeping his mouth shut on that particular issue for a while now, but I do not think he's seen the light on it by any means.

Nope, he just learned to shut up about his views....

 

[JohnEngelman]

I do not know of anyone who believes "that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites." Such an assertion maintains that every Negro is genetically inferior to every Caucasian. It also begs the question, "What is meant by genetically inferior?"

 

[Politruk]

I do not know of anyone who believes "that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites." Such an assertion maintains that every Negro is genetically inferior to every Caucasian.

No, it could also mean just buying that bullshit about intersecting, but separate and distinct, IQ bell curves. That is a picture that allows black A to have a higher IQ than Caucasian B, but the "racial" groups as wholes are still psychologically different -- which they are not.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No, it could also mean just buying that bullshit about intersecting, but separate and distinct, IQ bell curves. That is a picture that allows black A to have a higher IQ than Caucasian B, but the "racial" groups as wholes are still psychologically different -- which they are not.

Those who assert racial differences should restrict him or herself to what can be maintained scientifically, and with statistics.

 

[Politruk]

those who assert racial differences should restrict him or herself to what can be maintained scientifically, and with statistics.

Then there isn't anything.

 

[YDB95]

Which?

I trust you now know the answer to this.

 

[Politruk]

I trust you now know the answer to this.

Not even John is arguing for the existence of racial differences.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Not even John is arguing for the existence of racial differences.

This is what I said: when discussing racial differences, it is important to speak of averages and tendencies, rather than absolute categories. One should also document statements and avoid emotionally charged adjectives and adverbs.

I lived in downtown San Jose, California during the early 1980's when there was a large migration of Vietnamese war refugees. Many were desperately poor. They were also good people. Vietnamese teenagers respected their teachers and tried to learn, although many knew little English. I would often get off work at 10:00 pm and walk two miles through a largely Vietnamese neighborhood to get to my apartment. I was perfectly safe.

Oakland, California has a high crime rate, but I also felt safe visiting Oakland's Chinatown.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ gives good data regarding the crime rate of a city.

 

[hilton1958]

Of course there are differences in physical appearance, but these differences are really only skin deep, we are all basically the same. The real differences are in the cultures, and they can be vast and deep, as people's world views, opinions, and often their whole way of thinking and their approach to life, are shaped by the culture they grew up in.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Of course there are differences in physical appearance, but these differences are really only skin deep, we are all basically the same. The real differences are in the cultures, and they can be vast and deep, as people's world views, opinions, and often their whole way of thinking and their approach to life, are shaped by the culture they grew up in.

The poor Vietnamese I lived with in downtown San Jose, California had every alibi for crime, illegitimacy, and academic failure. They did not need alibis. The same is true of the Chinese Americans I have known.

I am white. The East Asians I have known were better people than many of the whites I have known.

 

[hilton1958]

Of course personal integrity plays a big part, but again I believe that this is instilled by the culture one is raised in, and more specifically, by the way your parents raise you, and the core values they impart to you.

 

[JohnEngelman]

As you know, there is one otherwise quite progressive member of this community who is a firm believer that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites. He's been keeping his mouth shut on that particular issue for a while now, but I do not think he's seen the light on it by any means.

What is this light of which you speak?

 

[JohnEngelman]

Of course personal integrity plays a big part, but again I believe that this is instilled by the culture one is raised in, and more specifically, by the way your parents raise you, and the core values they impart to you.

How can we improve the culture of people with bad values?

 

[YDB95]

What is this light of which you speak?

Accepting that The Bell Curve is junk science would be a good start.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Accepting that The Bell Curve is junk science would be a good start.

How is The Bell Curve junk science? The different races look so different. Their collective achievements are so different. Why should we assume that the average Australian Aborigine has the same innate potential as the average Ashkenazi Jew?

Also, if a child scores poorly on an IQ test at the age of seven, where the evidence that the right environment can turn that child into a brilliant scholar?

The Bell Curve makes three assertions. First, intelligence is the single most important factor determining academic and economic success. Second, intelligence is primarily determined genetically. Third, average intelligence differs significantly between the races.

All of that is intuitively obvious. The burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.

----------

MIT Technology Review, April 2, 2018

DNA tests for IQ are coming, but it might not be smart to take one​

Scientists have linked hundreds of genes to intelligence. One psychologist says it’s time to test school kids.


Ready for a world in which a $50 DNA test can predict your odds of earning a PhD or forecast which toddler gets into a selective preschool?
Robert Plomin, a behavioral geneticist, says that’s exactly what’s coming.
For decades genetic researchers have sought the hereditary factors behind intelligence, with little luck. But now gene studies have finally gotten big enough—and hence powerful enough—to zero in on genetic differences linked to IQ.
A year ago, no gene had ever been tied to performance on an IQ test. Since then, more than 500 have, thanks to gene studies involving more than 200,000 test takers. Results from an experiment correlating one million people’s DNA with their academic success are due at any time...

To psychologists, IQ tests measure something called “g”—the general factor of intelligence. People who are better at math, spatial reasoning, verbal ability, and other skills that tests can measure have higher g.

And that’s not all. The g factor is strongly correlated with income, happiness, health, and life span. More g seems to be a good thing all around. To Plomin it’s the “omnipotent variable” in life.

It’s also highly heritable. Comparisons of twins, both identical and fraternal, separated at birth or raised together, had shown that genetics must account for more than half of intelligence—a huge effect for genes.

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...coming-but-it-might-not-be-smart-to-take-one/

----------

University of SouthHampton, March 2018

More than 500 genes linked to intelligence have been identified in the largest study of its kind, carried out by the Universities of Southampton and Edinburgh, and Harvard University.

Scientists compared variation in DNA in more than 240,000 people from around the world, to discover which genes are associated with intelligence.

They identified 538 genes that play a role in intellectual ability and found 187 regions in the human genome that are linked to thinking skills.

Scientists say the study sheds new light on the biological building blocks of people’s differences in intelligence.

Published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry , the study showed that genes found to be linked to intelligence also appeared to influence other biological processes while some genes linked to intellectual ability are also associated with living longer.

Catherine Gale, Professor of Cognitive Epidemiology at the University of Southampton, who was involved in the research, said: “This study shows that intelligence is influenced by multiple genes and suggests that one explanation for the well-established link between intelligence and health is that some of the same genes that influence intelligence also influence health.”

The research team also found that genes linked with problem solving powers were associated with the process by which neurons carry signals from one place to another in the brain.

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/03/genes-intelligence.page

----------

BBC Science Focus

Are academic traits genetic?​

You don’t have to be a genius to know that there is correlation between IQ and genetics.

Yes. Unpopular as this is, the evidence has always shown high heritability of IQ, and IQ scores are closely correlated with academic performance, as well as occupation, health and income.

One powerful method compares the abilities of identical and non-identical twins reared together or separately. The most recent conclusion from numerous such studies is that the heritability of intelligence rises from about 20 per cent in infancy to as much as 80 per cent in adulthood. This means that the majority of IQ differences between adults can be attributed to inheritance.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/are-academic-traits-genetic