Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[AmateurScientist]

The only area where I suspect embellishment is that she graduated 4th in her class at Harvard Law School, for the aforementioned reasons. That's a much harder accomplishment than clerking for a supreme court justice (just do the math). And to be fair, I suspect one would have some advantage relative to one's competition class as an black american in securing a clerkship with Justice Marshall, who probably exerted extra effort to make sure that black lawyers received some of his clerkship spots. In contrast, there have been some years since Marshall left the court when none of the justices hired a black clerk.

I am having a lot of difficulty with your incredulity. Someone has got to finish 4th in the class. Why not her? If I mentioned that James Phillip Ashley Whitehead IV happened to be the 3rd person, would you question it?

Oh, and did you not get the PM I sent with the clipping from The New York Times which indicated that she was at the time an associate with Cravath, Swain & Moore in New York (I did some checking, and she's no longer there. She's now General Counsel for a large corporation with over 40,000 employees that you would recognize)? Who do you think they hire?

AS

 

[Dave1001]

I am having a lot of difficulty with your incredulity. Someone has got to finish 4th in the class. Why not her? If I mentioned that James Phillip Ashley Whitehead IV happened to be the 3rd person, would you question it?

AS

A waspy sounding name is a lot less to go on than the information you provided. I am a bit incredulous. I think finishing 4th in one's class from HLS, particularly in that era, would require more than smarts. I think it would also require a certain amount of culturally accepted ruthlessness, institutional advantages, and formative advantages, such as have a parent who was a lawyer. From your description, she seems to have lacked all of those advantages relative to a good chunk of her peerset. For her to then graduate in the top 1% of her class, at harvard law school strains my personal credibility. I'm not saying it's physically impossible. I'm just being honest with you: my doubt-o-meter is registering an "11".

 

[AmateurScientist]

A waspy sounding name is a lot less to go on than the information you provided. I am a bit incredulous. I think finishing 4th in one's class from HLS, particularly in that era, would require more than smarts. I think it would also require a certain amount of culturally accepted ruthlessness, institutional advantages, and formative advantages, such as have a parent who was a lawyer. From your description, she seems to have lacked all of those advantages relative to a good chunk of her peerset. For her to then graduate in the top 1% of her class, at harvard law school strains my personal credibility. I'm not saying it's physically impossible. I'm just being honest with you: my doubt-o-meter is registering an "11".

Nonsense. That era? We're talking about the late 80s, not the 1950s. Good God, man. I was around then, for Ed's sake, and it wasn't that long ago. As I said, the valedictorian of my mostly white high school was a black female -- her sister. Furthermore, the very girl we're talking about clerked for Justice Marshall and was then hired by Cravath, Swain & Moore, the most prestigious law firm in the entire world. They hire only the best of the best. She is one of them. I just don't get how it is so difficult to believe that being 4th in her class is the actual reality of the situation. You'd think I was asserting that she invented the internet. You're just being difficult, in my opinion.

AS

 

[Dave1001]

Nonsense. That era? We're talking about the late 80s, not the 1950s. Good God, man. I was around then, for Ed's sake, and it wasn't that long ago. As I said, the valedictorian of my mostly white high school was a black female -- her sister. Furthermore, the very girl we're talking about clerked for Justice Marshall and was then hired by Cravath, Swain & Moore, the most prestigious law firm in the entire world. They hire only the best of the best. She is one of them. I just don't get how it is so difficult to believe that being 4th in her class is the actual reality of the situation. You'd think I was asserting that she invented the internet. You're just being difficult, in my opinion.

AS

I don't think I'm being difficult, just honest. It's about an order of magnitude easier to be selected to be a supreme court clerk than to be 4th in one's law school class -and maybe even easier than that for a "black female", because clerk selection isn't a blind process. And almost another order of magnitude easier than that to be hired by Cravath -for anybody. I think few would argue it's easier to get a Cravath associate position as a "black female" all other aspects of he job applicants being equal. As for being high school valedictorian -I'm sure high school valedictorians are a dime a dozen even at the bottom of an HLS graduating class. I have no idea where in her HLS class she graduated. But I have heard narrative mythologies spring up about people before. Which is why my first reaction is to doubt this particular aspect of the narrative you're relating to me -that your friend, based on the other details you provided of her, graduated #4 in her class from HLS.

 

[Yahzi]

Oh lord. racism? Can we talk more about "g" and less about race?

Can we talk about what kind of prayer best helps heart patients recover?

Does this most likely correlate with # of synaptic connections?

It doesn't correlate with anything.

I think I remember reading that that was the one thing that distinguished Einstein's brain from most others.

Nothing distinguished Einstein's brain.

What does cutting edge research in the field indicate?

There is no cuttign edge research; there is only baseless speculation.

I gave you a cause that could explain all of the measured differences. Why do you dismiss it without even discussing it?

Why, because it doesn't give you the answer you want.

Let's call a spade a spade. What you are doing here has a name: it is called theology.

 

[Yahzi]

I know much about the bio of race (but I can line people up based on what I think race is. And, I bet if I gave those people a g loaded IQ test, there would be significant group differences based on my eyeball race classification).

What a polite and sophisticated way of saying, "Those n------ sure are dumb!"

Please explain to me how racism and white males have devised a culture such that the black man is unmotivated to rapidly remove his finger from a home key when a lightbulb turns on,

Please explain to me how culture can prevent a social animal like a gorilla from doubling its weight and becoming sexually mature.

When you have an effect of that magnitude, then you get argue. Until then, simple observation demonstrates that culture can, in fact, have massive effects.

Please explain to me how racist IQ tests just so happen to get race differences

You mean those races you can't describe, but can identify by sight?

And you claim my world view's based on unreasonable hunches?!

I claim your world view is based on very carefully ignoring facts you don't want to acknowledge. Like, for instance, that you can't measure what you claim to measure.

Remember that guy who filled skulls with BBs and counted them, to prove that black people were stupid because they had smaller brains? Ya, he actually counted wrong. His bias was so strong it prevented him from counting BBs.

Your bias reminds me of that. Your complete unwillingness to even consider social expectation as an answer, despite the facts observed in primates, is pretty much the equivalent of not being able to count properly.

Cognitive dissonance sucks.

FWIW, I'm certain races differ in mean IQ.

Those races you can't actually describe?

I'm near certain the difference is not due to test bias. I am quite certain that no one knows why races differ, but that ignoring the difference won't make it go away.

The answer that I have been offering - that seems utterly invisible to you - does not require test bias. However, if people ignored the difference, it would go away. If the reason people react differently is because of social expectation, then changing social expectation will change how they react.

You'd think a smart guy like you could have figured that out on your own. I mean, it's a simple logical extrapolation. But your cognitive bias prevents you from actually engaing the concept I am presenting.

I think...

Who gives a **** what you think? You don't have jack for evidence. You have some test that measures exactly what you expect it to measure. A magic test that always give the answer you knew you'd get anyway.

If this were any other topic the skeptics would be shredding your bull****. I think they've all been scared away, and I can understand why. As repulsive as Sylvia Browne is, just talking about her doesn't make me feel dirty.

BTW, I have many black students who would argue that I'm not racist.

Isn't that special. You know, black people are just as racist as white people. Many tests have shown that blacks share the same prejudices against blacks as whites do you. Do you know why this is the case? I'll tell you. It is because black Americans are Americans.

They are members of our culture.

Q.E.D.

 

[Yahzi]

Races obviously exist, as anyone with functional eyesight can easily confirm.

Dr. Kitten, are you listening?

The social theory of race is exactly what I said it is.

 

[Yahzi]

As much as I hate to counter an assertion about tendencies and averages with a mere anecdotal counterexample, I'm going to do it here.

I'm sorry, but I didn't get past the "ancedotal" evidence.

But I'm sure it was a nice story.

 

[Yahzi]

I am having a lot of difficulty with your incredulity.

Would you say that Dave's incredulity is an example of social expectation?

It appears your ancedote got punked.

 

[Dave1001]

Can we talk about what kind of prayer best helps heart patients recover?


It doesn't correlate with anything.


Nothing distinguished Einstein's brain.


There is no cuttign edge research; there is only baseless speculation.

I gave you a cause that could explain all of the measured differences. Why do you dismiss it without even discussing it?

Why, because it doesn't give you the answer you want.

Let's call a spade a spade. What you are doing here has a name: it is called theology.

I don't think what I'm doing is theology. I'm not an expert, neither are you. But unlike you, I have no firm conclusions about this topic: just questions. I think it's clear to most readers, that like me, you do not yet have a rigorous education in cognitive science, population genetics, or just about any field germane to this discussion. I don't think either of us are well-educated even in the basics of such fields.

If anything, your amazingly unswerving faith that you have the answers on this topic doesn't seem to be in the tradition of doubt and skepticism to me. Especially given that there is no consensus on the part of the experts in the field agreeing with your position.

 

[Dave1001]

Would you say that Dave's incredulity is an example of social expectation?

It appears your ancedote got punked.

Well, if she graduated 4th in her class at HLS, perhaps she can point to people like me as being the reason she didn't graduate 3rd or better.

I personally think the reason she didn't is that there's a public record of who graduates 1st and second each year (there's a prize for each spot). If her narrative was that she graduated 3rd, it would be too obvious that the narrative was constructed so that she was *just* out of range of the public record. It's too bad HLS makes their #1 and #2 grads public. It gets in the way of people having competency narratives that they graduated "top of their class at harvard law school".

 

[Yahzi]

I don't think what I'm doing is theology.

The other name for it is far less polite.

But unlike you, I have no firm conclusions about this topic:

Imagine I was talking about ghosts, or psychics, or really, any other line of bull****. Imagine you were arguing with me over how stupid it was. Imagine if I said the above sentence in response.

Ya, that's pretty much what I think of you right now, too.

I think it's clear to most readers, that like me, you do not yet have a rigorous education in cognitive science, population genetics, or just about any field germane to this discussion.

You want to know what my qualifications are?

There are two:

1) A B.A. in philosophy. This means I have a better-than-average chance of smelling out a bull**** argument when I see one.

2) A career in teasing signal out of noise as an engineer. This means I have a better-than-average understanding of just how easy it is to overlook huge baseline factors when you're trying to measure tiny differences.

If anything, your amazingly unswerving faith that you have the answers on this topic doesn't seem to be in the tradition of doubt and skepticism to me.

Is there something wrong with your literacy skills, or is that just the cognitive dissonance speaking?

I quite clearly stated that my theory of social expectation was merely a theory. I have not advanced it as the truth. I have pointed out that it is entirely possible that it is true, and that we currently have no way of discounting it.

In other words, while you geniuses are arguing about how much that flea weighs, I have been pointing out that there is an elephant sitting on the scale, and we don't actually know how much the elephant weighs.

For this I get derided as "one of the faithful?"

Especially given that there is no consensus on the part of the experts in the field agreeing with your position.

Check out the consensus on the part of the experts in the field of theology that agree with my position.

Does that, in any way, make me wrong?

(We're ignoring the fact that the consensus of the experts in this case is that we cannot correlate intelligence with skin color. We're ignoring this fact because I wouldn't want to accuse you of thinking "The Bell Curve" was written by experts. I can't bring myself to be that insulting.)

 

[Dave1001]

The other name for it is far less polite.


Imagine I was talking about ghosts, or psychics, or really, any other line of bull****. Imagine you were arguing with me over how stupid it was. Imagine if I said the above sentence in response.

Ya, that's pretty much what I think of you right now, too.


You want to know what my qualifications are?

There are two:

1) A B.A. in philosophy. This means I have a better-than-average chance of smelling out a bull**** argument when I see one.

2) A career in teasing signal out of noise as an engineer. This means I have a better-than-average understanding of just how easy it is to overlook huge baseline factors when you're trying to measure tiny differences.


Is there something wrong with your literacy skills, or is that just the cognitive dissonance speaking?

I quite clearly stated that my theory of social expectation was merely a theory. I have not advanced it as the truth. I have pointed out that it is entirely possible that it is true, and that we currently have no way of discounting it.

In other words, while you geniuses are arguing about how much that flea weighs, I have been pointing out that there is an elephant sitting on the scale, and we don't actually know how much the elephant weighs.

For this I get derided as "one of the faithful?"

Check out the consensus on the part of the experts in the field of theology that agree with my position.

Does that, in any way, make me wrong?

(We're ignoring the fact that the consensus of the experts in this case is that we cannot correlate intelligence with skin color. We're ignoring this fact because I wouldn't want to accuse you of thinking "The Bell Curve" was written by experts. I can't bring myself to be that insulting.)

Calling my inquiry into human subpopulations and ability variance "belief in ghosts" is as meaningless as if someone called your inquiry into social expectations "belief in ghosts". It only degrades the caliber of the discussion, and I'm disappointed you went that route. As for "correlating intelligence with skin color", not only did I NOT bring that topic up, but I've repeatedly asked you and others to drop that topic and move onto more enlightening topics.

Now, in the previous post, the only thing I mentioned was interest in learning more about "g". That's what you labeled as wanting to discuss the equivalent of "ghosts". But by your own admission, your education a BA in philosophy and work as an engineer, hardly qualifies you to dismiss discussing "g" as the equivalent of discussing ghosts, when many experts in the field believe otherwise.

So in sum, your approach to the discussion in recent posts has been disappointing. I get the sense that you feel lost and confused in this topic beyond making some safe points that white people are not genetically smarter than black people. Rather than write off the rest of the conversation on this topic of human subpopulations and ability variance as "ghosts", let's keep this thread open and see what other intelligent folks have to say on these topics, preferably BEYOND SOCIAL RACE OR COMPARING "WHITES" AND "BLACKS".

 

[AmateurScientist]

Would you say that Dave's incredulity is an example of social expectation?

It appears your ancedote got punked.

No, quite frankly, I'd say he is being difficult and his own racial prejudices are showing. I don't know if that's what you mean by social expectation, but you have no right to dismiss any of it, especially given that you admitted you didn't read it. How skeptical of you.

Dave can't believe that a black female finished 4th in her class. He has no reason to disbelieve that other than his own suspicions because he's heard exaggerations of similar things before. I PMed him solid evidence supporting some elements of my story, and I have more that I've discovered online since then, but unless he requests it, I'm not going to send him additional evidence of it. He didn't even acknowledge receipt of the PMs I sent him earlier.

I can't prove she finished 4th in her class. I've looked, but I don't think such standings exist online where they are readily available. I did find some references which mention that she was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Surely Dave understands that no one gets that position without being in the top of their class. Beyond that, I'm finished trying to convince him. The Dean of the Law School could confirm it directly to Dave's face and I don't think he would believe it. Apparently in Dave's world, black women simply don't compete at that level.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

Well, if she graduated 4th in her class at HLS, perhaps she can point to people like me as being the reason she didn't graduate 3rd or better.

I personally think the reason she didn't is that there's a public record of who graduates 1st and second each year (there's a prize for each spot). If her narrative was that she graduated 3rd, it would be too obvious that the narrative was constructed so that she was *just* out of range of the public record. It's too bad HLS makes their #1 and #2 grads public. It gets in the way of people having competency narratives that they graduated "top of their class at harvard law school".

Using your reasoning, everyone who finishes below 1st and 2nd might as well finish last, because they cannot prove their class rank to you. That's absurd. As I pointed out to you above, someone finished 4th. Why not her?

You couldn't have read it until now, but I have evidence online now that she was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and I showed you that she was an associate at Cravath, Swain & Moore in 1991. She is now general counsel for a Fortune 500 company at age 42. I think your implying her being black had anything to do with being hired at Cravath is the same kind of subtle racism that Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell speak about and dislike so strongly. That's their number one complaint about affirmative action and set asides. They detract from and cast suspicions on the genuine accomplishments of minority overachievers like my friend's sister. You have amply demonstrated that principle with your doubt about my friend's sister's own academic and professional careers. She's a real person, Dave, not a figment of my or anyone else's imagination or fantasy or apocryphal stories.

AS

 

[Dave1001]

No, quite frankly, I'd say he is being difficult and his own racial prejudices are showing. I don't know if that's what you mean by social expectation, but you have no right to dismiss any of it, especially given that you admitted you didn't read it. How skeptical of you.

Dave can't believe that a black female finished 4th in her class. He has no reason to disbelieve that other than his own suspicions because he's heard exaggerations of similar things before. I PMed him solid evidence supporting some elements of my story, and I have more that I've discovered online since then, but unless he requests it, I'm not going to send him additional evidence of it. He didn't even acknowledge receipt of the PMs I sent him earlier.

I can't prove she finished 4th in her class. I've looked, but I don't think such standings exist online where they are readily available. I did find some references which mention that she was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Surely Dave understands that no one gets that position without being in the top of their class. Beyond that, I'm finished trying to convince him. The Dean of the Law School could confirm it directly to Dave's face and I don't think he would believe it. Apparently in Dave's world, black women simply don't compete at that level.

AS

oh lord. The rush to accuse people of racism, sexism, etc.

I never said a black woman couldn't graduate 4th in her class at HLS, although I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't happened yet.

My doubts that your friend graduated 4th in her class are tied into more just her social race, phenotype, or gender, you revealed a number of other details that combined make it seem rather doubtful to me. Further, I never said she lacked the intelligence: I think at HLS one is working against more than mere intelligence to achieve that type of thing, and I said as much in previous posts.

Finally, HLR, like all LRs has a lot of editors. Most editors of any such journal didn't graduate as one of the top 4 people in their class.

No achievement of hers you mentioned would necessitate that she was one of the top 4 people in her class. In fact, in some ways they perhaps counterindicate it: such people often, although not always, become star law professors at elite law schools. Like Barrack Obama's job prior to becoming a U.S. Senator, or Alan Dershowitz's job. And I don't know if either of them graduated in the "top 4" of their respective law school classes, although both were editor in chief of their school's law review (or law review equivalent).

Sure its possible that your friend, who is a partner at Cravath, graduated #4 in her class at HLS. But my honest appraisal of that narrative? I doubt it. You may think that makes me a racist, but I don't think it would take a harvard educated Cravath law partner to make a good case that I'm not.

 

[articulett]

Dog breeds have been artificially selected in a manner that humans have not. As always, analogy is imperfect, but a much better analogy for humans than domestic dog breeds would be North American wolf populations.

Steven

I chose dogs to illustrate how breeding populations that have been isolated for some time can resemble eachother (or refine the founding population genetics)--both inside and outside. African Elephants have large ears; Indian elephants have small ears--They evolved separately for some time and evolved along separate lineages--each lineage evolved it's own set of characteristics that built upon the founding genes and the natural selection in the areas where the diverging species evolved. Now we could start mating all elephants with eachother and soon we'd get only average eared elephants (unless one ear type is a recessive homozygous)--We can presume that the differences which allowed them to diverge in phenotype from their last common ancestor--also caused them to diverge internally for alleles which helped with immunity, skill development, reproductive fitness, etc. for the habitat in which they found themselves. The more closely related individuals are (that is, the closer their most recent common ancestor is), the more genes they will share...and the more likely they are to resemble eachother in genotype and phenotype. People with similar mutations in their genes often resemble eachother too--both physically and mentally--Down Syndrome is an obvious example. But dwarfism is another. Deaf parents are more likely to produce deaf children and whatever genes that enhance reproductive fitness amongst deaf individuals--expressiveness? visual acuity for lip reading? a nuanced understanding of facial expression? (examples). Natural selection chooses for both mental and physical traits--and anyone who has chosen a mate understands that both are part of the process. And if both are part of the process--you can bet that both will be found in inherited traits. Evolution is about building upon what exists via selecting for that which "works" (gets passed on) in a given environment. If genes coding for particular types of intelligence offered reproductive fitness to an isolated breeding population--you will see more of that trait in the population just as you will see physical characteristics and mutations such as sickle cell trait (protective against malaria) in those subpopulations.

Dog breeds have been artificially bread, but it's a good microcosm because artificial selection speeds up evolution immensely--we choose the animals carrying the favorable alleles we want to see more off--be it polka dots or herding mentality or the ability to find dead bodies via sniffing.

Natural selection does the same over eons. It will be less relevant as populations travel and merge--but because humans subpopulations bread in isolation for eons (and later partly do to caste systems) we can learn a lot about our evolution, which traits were valuable, what proteins code for what, and so much else in looking at these populations.

These aren't "just so" theories as Yahtzi thinks. Twin studies and adoptions studies help us weed out nurture vs. nature, and they are extensive. Biological parent I.Q. is far more predictive of I.Q. than any other factor--As a genetic counseler, I was told to cousel my clients that mothers who smoked had children with an I.Q. 5 points lower than average...but I would not...because studies were never done on the parents. If parents who smoke have a 5 point lower I.Q. than average, then that would account for the child's I.Q. drop 100%--and one needn't infer that it was from the smoking. Tests can be designed to address concerns such as Yahtzee has...

Just as we can see why dogs that share more ancestors look more similar (and have now become breeds--though they are just refined wolf sub populations), we can also see that they share mental similarities and similar proneness to different types of illnesses. Grayhounds are faster than the average dog and wolf. Border Collies are particular good service dogs for the deaf and amoung the "more intelligent" when it comes to training for agility. Bloodhounds are known for their excellent scenting abilitities. Many of the smaller dogs are bread to be charming companion animals. Other breeds come from guard dogs. Our brain has learned to intuit these tendencies, because such classification can be useful to us. Science has demonstrated how these differences evolved--all dogs have a most recent common ancestor in a single wolf--but groups of dogs have more recent common ancestors...particularly groups of dogs that have bred in isolation for many generations--that which we know as "purebreds" today. Like with people, there really isn't a genetic test for "purebred" or "race"--just more common alleles in more closely related populations...the more either intermingle...the fuzzier each of these categories gets.

I would be glad to provide evidence for anything that others think is speculative--My point is that "g" like "race" allows us to classify things to get a rough idea about something or other. Just like getting a glimpse of a pitbull might make us wary of setting our baby down--or we might pick a retriever if we liked to go hunting--etc...or we'd shy away from breeds with a tendency towards hip dysplasia if we we worried about that. Some dogs need a "job" and aren't really good playmates or companions--breed can be a clue about this. Mental characteristics are inherited along side physical characteristics and those who have more and more recent ancestors in common are more likely to be similar to eachother--show similar talents then others. And though nurture definitely plays a role---you can't make every adoptible baby into what you might define as a genius by an intense training an education program if their talents and preferences and inherited tendencies lie in a different area. People are not a blank slate. And there are tendencies among groups. Not all of these tendencies are cultural...our twin studies and adoption studies show us this.

 

[articulett]

Race in genetics is used as a rough tool to identify breeding populations that were isolated for some time and so carry more similarities. The race a person identifies with also tells us a little bit about the culture in which they were raised (this was valuable knowledge in cultures that valued male babies over female babies...) And race is no more "valid" a term than "purebred". It's a way of saying my ancestry comes from a place where these particular alleles are frequent.

G is a way of measuring (theoretically) how quickly the brain recognizes patterns or sees connections and analogies. G has a strong genetic component. I think this is important in understanding the best way to teach various people to hone their skills and compensate for any difficulties. It's valuable to know what can be enhanced and changed by education and culture and how much and at what ages. G shows strong genetic linkage no matter what the race--the kids "g" tends to be like mom and dad's "g" no matter the "g" of the people raising him/her...(adoption studies). We're talking about large groups, and not anyone in specific. A kid dropped on his head is unlikely to fulfill his "g" potential and a kid with extra attention might well add some points to "g"--

If we use "self identified race" as a means of assessing race and whatever test you want in regards to anything else--you can look for correlations and it might give you clues about genes, evolutionary benefits, cultural influences, etc. The language one speaks is entirely cultural and affects one's thinking. But language capacity itself is heritable--those with gifts or deficits in their language processing are more likely to have children with similar gifts or deficits--we've identified some of the genest and brain processes involved via family studies. We also know that if a child learns to speak 2 languages fluently in childhood, they will be able to learn all languages easier and the language portion of the their brain will show more connection density. If a child is not taught language due to deafness, isolation, etc.---the language portion of the brain will always show deficits. There is a critical window when environment has the most beneficial effect. The moment a person is conceived, they are a single cell with tons of potential--that cell will eventually divide and those first few cells can become any kind of cell--but as time passes more and more is set in stone...the young brain is more plastic then the older brain--

Many aspects of human development can be enhanced via the environment. And expectations play a critical role. I think it's important to understand what sort of environmental interventions or opportunities enahance desired outcomes, and which ones approach the problem from the wrong angle. I think trying to get more women interested in engineering might be like trying to get more women interested in fanatasy football. Whether it's ability, preferences, or interests, isn't as important as the understanding that it may have to do with something that is different (I'm speaking generally and about large groups of people) about the female brain. If there are fuzzy differences like this in regards to race, then I can understand why people would be interested in finding out what they are.

I went to an integrated school, and we always had a field day on the last day...and the black kids excelled in almost every race taking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd though they made up less then 10% of my school. I was proud to come in 4th. They liked to braid my long hair and stick up for me (I was small), and I'd let them copy my homework or help them out sometime. I had a very easy time with academics. I don't know if the academic differences were racial or not--but I don't doubt that the running speed differences were. Sure, there is a lot of overlap--but talking about the overlap and differences shouldn't be a terrible thing--even if the groupings are fuzzy--comediens do it all the time...and we laugh because we see some sort of truth in it--even when they do a group we align ourselves with.

 

[Dave1001]

Using your reasoning, everyone who finishes below 1st and 2nd might as well finish last, because they cannot prove their class rank to you. That's absurd. As I pointed out to you above, someone finished 4th. Why not her?

You couldn't have read it until now, but I have evidence online now that she was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and I showed you that she was an associate at Cravath, Swain & Moore in 1991. She is now general counsel for a Fortune 500 company at age 42. I think your implying her being black had anything to do with being hired at Cravath is the same kind of subtle racism that Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell speak about and dislike so strongly. That's their number one complaint about affirmative action and set asides. They detract from and cast suspicions on the genuine accomplishments of minority overachievers like my friend's sister. You have amply demonstrated that principle with your doubt about my friend's sister's own academic and professional careers. She's a real person, Dave, not a figment of my or anyone else's imagination or fantasy or apocryphal stories.

AS

My post #216 does most of the work to defend me from the "you're a racist" allegations of this post.

I understand your general point that "someone finished 4th, why not her?" but I don't find it persuasive. If someone told me that they were a white male (they'd have to, like Colbert I don't see someone as having a race unless they tell it to me ) and told me all the same details about themselves that you told me about your friend, then told me that they graduated 4th in their class at HLS, I'd be a bit skeptical too. A white guy without special connections could probably graduate 12th in his class or lower and accomplish all of the things you mentioned about your friend. Given the existence of (social) race based affirmative action, your friend could probably also accomplish all of these things with a somewhat lower class rank than that. So my gut tells me it's more likely she had a class rank somewhere between 12 and 36 (probably closer to 12-16 if HLR was at the time a law journal that doesn't practice race based affirmative action for journal membership selection). Still a very impressive class rank, but not #4. It's not impossible that she graduated 4th in her class, of course, but yet, I doubt it.

 

[Dave1001]

What does the mainstream cognitive science field think of "g"? To what degree is it considered pseudoscientific baloney, like Yahzi argues? To what degree is considered a real, empirically demonstrated phenomenon, like articulett argues? What's the state of the controversy about "g", if any exists? Let's keep the conversation away from applying "g" to social race and talk more about to the extent scientists in the field believe "g" exists and what it is.