Yes, and I think my post was more confusing than clear on that point. Studies are going to point out - as several posters have noted - that you’re going to find information showing liberals have higher IQs generally and conservatives have higher IQs generally and studies of all types to support a political talking point that “my” political tribe is smarter than yours, and my opinion is, yes, I agree that the truth on who has the higher IQs is muddled, but more importantly, I simply couldn’t care less because I think those studies reflect exactly squat in terms of meaning.
2 Likes
Exactly!
1 Like
[quote]
You are not taking the whole body of evidence together and evaluating what you want. [/quote]
What evidence have I ignored?
Of course. We live in an environment where we cannot speak candidly about race. Do you think they would ever be able come to the same conclusion as Lynn without being called “white supremacists” ? Just look at how you were quick to label Amren white supremacists.
And this has been going on for decades stretching back to 1969 when Arthur Jensen suggested IQ differences between races was due to genetic factors. BTW guess who at the time came to support Jensen’s work when it became controversial? This scientist you might’ve heard of name Francis Crick. In 1971 he wrote:
[quote]
Unlike you and your colleagues I have formed the opinion that there is much substance to Jensen’s arguments. In brief I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. Moreover I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps are taken to recognize the situation. [/quote]
I also gave you the example of how a Nobel Peace Prize winning geneticists was forced to beg like a dog for research money after stating Africans were less intelligent on average than whites.
On a side note, let me ask you something. All non-white racial groups have advocacy groups in the West. Is it immoral for whites to also have advocacy groups? I don’t see Amren pushing white superiority over all other races, recommending to kill or harm minorities or putting them in camps etc.
Scientists will always be left wing on the whole because they are largely funded by government money. Which ideology is more likely to expand the size of government and government spending (including scientific research)?
Scientists will never be particularly conservative so long as science stays in the publicly funded realm.
It’s muddled is it? Did this study control for race?
The achievement gap between white students and black students has barely narrowed over the last 50 years, despite nearly a half century of supposed progress in race relations and an increased emphasis on closing such academic discrepancies between groups of students.
That’s the finding that a new analysis of a landmark education report calls a “national embarrassment.”
“It’s remarkable,” says Eric Hanushek, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, who authored the analysis. “I knew that the gap hadn’t been closing too much, but when I actually looked at the data I was myself surprised.”
Of course the gap will never close, the gap is largely genetic driven.
First, note that he made this statement in 1971, when our understanding of genetics was vastly more primitive than it is now. So despite his credentials, this assertion is simply hand-waving.
Also, American White and American Black are now races? (Sound more like paint colors to me.)
This has nothing to do with the biology of race, but I will address it (although I suspect your assertion that all non-white racial groups have advocacy groups is an unwarranted exaggeration in rhetorical service of your position). Put simply, dominant groups–those that have long controlled the levers of money, power and influence in a given culture–don’t need anyone to advocate on their behalf for more money, power and/or influence.
Your question is akin to that of a child who says to a parent, ‘There’s a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day–why isn’t there a Child’s Day?’ To which the parent responds, ‘Because every day is Child’s Day.’
That’s because they’ve gotten more savvy from a PR perspective.
Yes, scientists will always advocate for science. Doesn’t make them ‘left wing’ in a general sense.
As we have discussed at length, it is vital that the government continue to support basic science, because the free market won’t do it.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1319, topic:228119, full:true”]
First, note that he made this statement in 1971, when our understanding of genetics was vastly more primitive than it is now. So despite his credentials, this assertion is simply hand-waving. [/quote]
He died in 2004 and never at any point changed or retracted his opinion. There is also Watson who said the same thing essentially in 2007.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1319, topic:228119, full:true”]
This has nothing to do with the biology of race, but I will address it (although I suspect your assertion that all non-white racial groups have advocacy groups is an unwarranted exaggeration in rhetorical service of your position). Put simply, dominant groups–those that have long controlled the levers of money, power and influence in a given culture–don’t need anyone to advocate on their behalf for more money, power and/or influence.
Your question is akin to that of a child who says to a parent, ‘There’s a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day–why isn’t there a Child’s Day?’ To which the parent responds, ‘Because every day is Child’s Day.’[/quote]
I’m not asking you whether they need an advocacy group, I am asking you if they have the same right as other groups to advocate for their group?
Do they have the ‘right’ (in a Constitutional sense) to form advocacy groups? The answer to that trivial, insubstantial question is obviously yes.
And anyway, you asked (originally) not about rights, but rather whether it was “immoral” for whites to have advocacy groups. In that regard:
Do groups advocating for the maintenance of historically asymmetric and unjust relationships among different ethnic groups have the same moral standing as those advocating on behalf of groups that have been historically marginalized? No.
Likewise, do groups whose purpose is to promulgate the view that their ‘tribe’ is inherently superior, or should for any reason enjoy a privileged status in society, have the same moral standing as those advocating for a seat at the table for marginalized groups? No.
1 Like
Right, and as you said just below that the private sector won’t fund even as much as the current level of NIH/NSF funding. And the other response to that bit from raj the answer is–one reason is that science research is bloody expensive. Anybody who has actually run a “wet” lab knows exactly how quick supply costs pile up let alone other costs associated with the work.
That would all be well and good if you only needed a few months to a year to make a breakthrough, but multiple years and decades of work are needed for that due to the complexity of the topics.
Yup. Further, what people fail to realize is that there is no way to know a priori which basic-science research will lead to technological advancements. Scientists who conduct basic-science work are motivated by curiosity–by a desire to expand the global fund of knowledge in their particular area of research. So while they obviously hope their work will result in a dramatic improvement in the quality of the human experience, that result is not something toward which they can gear their work.
3 Likes
Exactly. I attended a lecture by Nobel laureate Kary Mullis in which he said that there was no way he would have invented PCR if he had been trying to solve the problem of gene replication. “It would have been too big a problem” he said. “I would never have known where to start. Instead I was only trying to figure out how to solve this one small problem, a ‘me sized’ problem, and ended up with a solution that did infinitely more.”
I enjoy creating and discovering new knowledge. Curiosity. That’s why I love research.
3 Likes
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1321, topic:228119, full:true”]
Do they have the ‘right’ (in a Constitutional sense) to form advocacy groups? The answer to that trivial, insubstantial question is obviously yes.
And anyway, you asked (originally) not about rights, but rather whether it was “immoral” for whites to have advocacy groups. In that regard: [/quote]
When I said right I meant moral right.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1321, topic:228119, full:true”]
Do groups advocating for the maintenance of historically asymmetric and unjust relationships among different ethnic groups have the same moral standing as those advocating on behalf of groups that have been historically marginalized? No. [/quote]
I have no idea how to do the arithmetic on this.
Irish are white and were once enslaved.
The slave trade was disproportionately owned and operated by jews. They also owned black slaves
Indians (dot and feather ) have advocacy groups and both enslaved their own people.
I reject that they are doing this. I also reject that in the current year, minorities are being marginalized.
Amren even claims Asians are objectively the best in most pro society categories
I’ll just repost my argument against publicly funded science instead of rewriting it
The means under which scientific research would occur would be different but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t occur in the private market. From 1890 to 1940 the US was the richest country in the world and there was absolutely no funding for scientific research yet amazing discoveries continued to occur - The Wright Brothers, Edison etc.Where’s the evidence not publicly funding science would greatly hinder the amount of discoveries from taking place? I mean the Soviet Union greatly funded science and and plenty had lots of Nobel Laureates, would you want to live there?
Secondly as public funding for science occurs, it shows repeatedly that it crowds out private funding for R&D in the private sector. Publicly funded science actually kills economic growth which is what lifts millions of people out of poverty. Think about how many people were helped by the industrial revolution for example and not to mention how many things were invented during that period where public funding for science didn’t exist.
Lastly, there’s this huge canard that people will not fund science unless they’re forced to. This is untrue as before public funding people actually felt an obligation to donate to science and even in modern times people routinely donate to scientific causes. Examples:
-
The cyclotron was privately funded for a million of dollars (a lot of money back then)
-
People routinely donate to causes for projects they want to support - Kickstarter and even Patreon for things they get for free
-
Do you have kids? Kids are economically a terrible decision yet people continue to have them. Clearly people are willing to pay for things that they consider valuable outside of the economic realm.
Lastly, as I mentioned earlier publicly funded science creates the fuckery I mentioned above as well as loads of junk science.
[quote]
I don’t blame your question, but as a scientist it is disheartening to think that this could be asked with a straight face (I assume you’re serious with your question). We must do a better job at getting this across to the general public.[/quote]
This stuff annoys me, scientists today have reached peak Chutzpah. I swear scientists think they’re basically priests where they they’re in a position to tell people what’s best for them and sadly much of the population treats them this way. No it’s for people to freely decide how they want to spend their money. If your scientific research is so goddamn important people will recognize that and fund it.
This I agree with wholeheartedly. I also believe that caution is warranted regarding those truly with “bad intentions” in advocacy and those simply with different viewpoints. I do view that as a major problem right now in any arena where politically sensitive subjects are discussed.
As black complaints get louder, white responses only get sillier
The following may not change your (not speaking to anyone in particular) mind, but it will definitely make you think. I urge everyone to give it a look.
2 Likes
In my opinion, only if it were motivated by a denial of the historical injustice. In contrast, if one acknowledged the legitimacy of the historical injustice, but had objections regarding the appropriateness of AA as the manner by which to redress it, such would not fall into that category.
I disagree with your concerns re the inexorability of identity politics as the endpoint. In fact, I would say the opposite is true; ie, that it is a failure to publicly acknowledge and (attempt to) rectify the aftereffects of our history of institutional racism that would be likely to lead inexorably to racial Balkanization.
Fair enough. I would add personally that while improving as we move forward is a good thing, redress ala reparations (in whatever form) is a minefield. Which leads me to…[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1330, topic:228119”]
I disagree with your concerns re the inexorability of identity politics as the endpoint. In fact, I would say the opposite is true; ie, that it is a failure to publicly acknowledge and (attempt to) rectify the aftereffects of our history of institutional racism that would be likely to lead inexorably to racial Balkanization
[/quote]
We will most likely have to agree to disagree on this topic. While I agree public acknowledgement is important and I am sure we could have an interesting and engaging civil conversation on the topic together I don’t think it is something towards which I have the inclination at this moment.
What about giving them their own ethnostate like Israel but for African Americans?
Would you be open to that?
Just curious: If we go with an AmRen plan of this sort, you do realize you’ll be consigned to that ethnostate along with ‘them,’ yes?