Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[d4m10n]

You should take your own advice.

Agreed. Where exactly did I go awry?

 

[casebro]

My view is that there are almost certainly IQ differences between ethnic groups, but this is no more than an academic point of interest. The knowledge cannot and should not have practical application and therefore cannot be a measure of superiority. People who use it in this way either have an agenda or are too stupid to understand the concept of averages.

I think the difference WITHIN any group is greater than the difference between groups.

Racism is when somebody says that because the group is low, YOU are low. Or high, whichever side of the coin.

And there is probably a bunch of genes involved too. And the most scientific way to find them is to compare two large groups of different avg IQ. So yeah, no matter which group you hope to improve the IQ of, (or both) you need to study both groups.

Every person has about a half million gene SNPs that vary from the norm. Tough job sorting through them. But bet the seven involved in skin color have nothing to do with IQ.

 

[kellyb]

Agreed. Where exactly did I go awry?

I'm curious to know what he means, too.

 

[kellyb]

I think the difference WITHIN any group is greater than the difference between groups.

That's way too obvious to even need stating, unless there's some group completely devoid of low and high IQ outliers out there, which is exceedingly implausible, even assuming the "g factor" as currently measured is 100% valid, which is more than merely debatable.

 

[angrysoba]

Agreed. Where exactly did I go awry?

You are confusing the conclusions that people draw from data, or the misused that people put the data to with the data itself.

As I said, the data cannot be racist. If it shows one thing or another then that is all it shows.

 

[kellyb]

As I said, the data cannot be racist.

Of course data can't be racist, but interpretations of data can be and historically have always been when it comes to race and IQ.

What if we were talking about Caucasian American men and the genetics/DNA of mass shooting and serial killing?

Back to what you said earlier:

How can we disentangle nature from nurture? Etc...

All of these are questions that are probably not settled definitively and for most people the mere existence of the doubt is sufficient to say we cannot and should not try to assert the claim above.

But what if those questions were settled and it became possible to assert the claim truthfully?

If the claim was "The data shows that white men have a higher propensity for being serial killers and mass shooters as a result of nature, and not entirely because of nurture"...is that racist?

How would you know the data had totally ruled out nurture, especially if the people collecting and analyzing the data were, say, scientists in North Korea?

 

[angrysoba]

Of course data can't be racist, but interpretations of data can be and historically have always been when it comes to race and IQ.

What if we were talking about Caucasian American men and the genetics/DNA of mass shooting and serial killing?

Back to what you said earlier:



If the claim was "The data shows that white men have a higher propensity for being serial killers and mass shooters as a result of nature, and not entirely because of nurture"...is that racist?

How would you know the data had totally ruled out nurture, especially if the people collecting and analyzing the data were, say, scientists in North Korea?

If some test could definitively rule that white men as a group have some mean average higher distribution of heritable “mass shooter” traits than any other similar group and the concepts were well-defined and the data properly checked then I would have no cause to question it. The fact that it was discovered by North Korean scientists would be of no issue if they could be shown to have done the work properly.

 

[kellyb]

If some test could definitively rule that white men as a group have some mean average higher distribution of heritable “mass shooter” traits than any other similar group and the concepts were well-defined and the data properly checked then I would have no cause to question it. The fact that it was discovered by North Korean scientists would be of no issue if they could be shown to have done the work properly.

Ok, so what if it was discovered "definitively", and the effect was HUGE. But then someone else discovered a flaw, and some of it went away. And then more data was collected in a better way, and even more of the effect went away, again and again, until we were left with a fraction of the initial claimed effect. Would that make you wonder if there might be something off with the remainder of the claimed genetic disposition to serial killer/shooter relationship?

 

[baron]

I think the difference WITHIN any group is greater than the difference between groups.

Of course, by definition. The larger the sample size the less the difference.

Racism is when somebody says that because the group is low, YOU are low. Or high, whichever side of the coin.

Exactly, that's what I said. When you apply an academic concept based on groups to an individual then either you're of low intelligence yourself, or you have an ulterior motive.

And there is probably a bunch of genes involved too. And the most scientific way to find them is to compare two large groups of different avg IQ. So yeah, no matter which group you hope to improve the IQ of, (or both) you need to study both groups.

Every person has about a half million gene SNPs that vary from the norm. Tough job sorting through them. But bet the seven involved in skin color have nothing to do with IQ.

I doubt it too, it's not a causal link.

 

[angrysoba]

Ok, so what if it was discovered "definitively", and the effect was HUGE. But then someone else discovered a flaw, and some of it went away. And then more data was collected in a better way, and even more of the effect went away, again and again, until we were left with a fraction of the initial claimed effect. Would that make you wonder if there might be something off with the remainder of the claimed genetic disposition to serial killer/shooter relationship?

I think the best approach is to go with what the data says. Again, I have given the example of height. It seems that diet has very obviously a lot to do with height, but it is unlikely that environmental factors alone would close the gap between a Japanese group and a Dutch group. It may, but then again, it may not. What do you think?

 

[d4m10n]

You are confusing the conclusions that people draw from data, or the misused that people put the data to with the data itself.

As I said, the data cannot be racist. If it shows one thing or another then that is all it shows.

Only people can be racist, whenever they believe one group of people is superior to another group of people, on account of disparate ancestry. Data may be used to support racist beliefs, and indeed, often are. If you find yourself using data to show that one group is genetically superior to another (in at least some important ways) you are doing racism in practice.

 

[angrysoba]

Only people can be racist, whenever they believe one group of people is superior to another group of people, on account of disparate ancestry. Data may be used to support racist beliefs, and indeed, often are. If you find yourself using data to show that one group is genetically superior to another (in at least some important ways) you are doing racism in practice.

Yes, if you conclude from the evidence that, say, East Asian people are superior to black people, then yes it is racist. If, on the other hand, you say that the data shows a mean average intelligence higher among East Asians than among black people due, in part, to genetics, then you may just be reporting facts. You can squawk "Racism!" if you like, but that is only the spin you are putting on it.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, if you conclude from the evidence that, say, East Asian people are superior to black people, then yes it is racist. If, on the other hand, you say that the data shows a mean average intelligence higher among East Asians than among black people due, in part, to genetics, then you may just be reporting facts.

Higher average intelligence but not superiority of intellect? Um . . . okay. Seems like you're avoiding the obvious inference here.

 

[angrysoba]

Higher average intelligence but not superiority of intellect? Um . . . okay. Seems like you're avoiding the obvious inference here.

If that's the data that gets spit out, you are saying it is inert, non-racist, right? But then, the moment someone says, "Oh look, it says here..." they become racist.

 

[d4m10n]

If that's the data that gets spit out, you are saying it is inert, non-racist, right? But then, the moment someone says, "Oh look, it says here..." they become racist.

Data don't have beliefs and attitudes, people do.

Maybe you should tell us what racism really means, though.

 

[kellyb]

I think the best approach is to go with what the data says. Again, I have given the example of height. It seems that diet has very obviously a lot to do with height, but it is unlikely that environmental factors alone would close the gap between a Japanese group and a Dutch group. It may, but then again, it may not. What do you think?

Height is a solid metric, and tape measures are rock solidly reliable tools for measuring height.

Height doesn't work well at all as an analogy for testing the probably flawed "g factor" and calling that an evaluation of intelligence.

 

[Wildy]

As an aside, the discussion between Harris and Klein has been released. (Or if you'd prefer listening to Klein's show.)

It is 2 hours long, so clear some time.

 

[angrysoba]

Data don't have beliefs and attitudes, people do.

Maybe you should tell us what racism really means, though.

It would be racist if I said, "As a result of superior IQ, racial group A is superior to racial group B as humans", or "As a result of superior height, racial group A is superior to racial group B as humans," or "As a result of superior athletic ability, racial group A is superior to racial group B," or "As a result of superior heritable health outcomes, racial group A is superior to racial group B."

However, if I noted that in each case, one group or another appeared to have a different distribution of advantageous heritable traits, but am not making a judgment on the value of those groups (or even of those individuals) then I am not being racist.

As it happens, I think that Stephen Hawking was much smarter person than anyone in my family. It is not a declaration that he is a "superior" human to them. Similarly, my three year old son could run faster than Stephen Hawking, but I never made the judgment that it made him a superior person to Stephen Hawking.

People should be treated equally in terms of rights in society regardless of their intelligence, height, health, gender, sexual orientation or whatever else. If you decide that people should be discriminated against because the racial group they come from is comparatively disadvantaged, then you are a racist.

Neither I, nor Harris is making any such claims. I am prepared to accept the science whichever way it goes, but whichever way it goes has no bearing on how racial groups should be treated in society.

That's as clear, and in black and white, as I can make it.

 

[angrysoba]

Height is a solid metric, and tape measures are rock solidly reliable tools for measuring height.

Ah, so what you are saying is that it is incontrovertible that Dutch people are superior to Japanese.

Racist!

Height doesn't work well at all as an analogy for testing the probably flawed "g factor" and calling that an evaluation of intelligence.

That's a separate issue. It may well be that g is not a very rigorous metric. It's one of those examples I gave where I said the claim is a "target rich environment". If we can cast enough doubt on the findings we don't have to think about it anymore and that would be satisfying enough.

However, what if it is a robust metric after all?

Then we presumably have to find another hiding place, right?

 

[d4m10n]

It would be racist if I said, "As a result of superior IQ, racial group A is superior to racial group B as humans", or "As a result of superior height, racial group A is superior to racial group B as humans," or "As a result of superior athletic ability, racial group A is superior to racial group B," or "As a result of superior heritable health outcomes, racial group A is superior to racial group B."

Intelligence, height, athleticism, and health are all important attributes in the game of life (some more than others) but Murray only writes books about the increasing value and centrality of one of them. If we take out the controversial chapters about racial subgroups from The Bell Curve and Coming Apart, what we have left are books about how IQ is by far the most important determinant of life outcomes in modern society.