Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[AmateurScientist]

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.

This question is probably best addressed by Pesta. Yahzi has exactly 0 credentials in this area, whereas Pesta has the best on this board that I've seen to date. He has a Ph.D in cognitive psychology and is a college professor teaching business students about business law, employment law, and human resources management. If I understand his background correctly, he has done a lot of academic research (not merely amateurish Googling, like so many of us like me) in the field of psychometrics, the study of measuring intelligence. I think he has also published scientific, peer-reviewed papers in the field, if I am not mistaken. Ask him.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

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.

Excellent and dispassionate post.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling Yahzi would accuse you of falling into the socially constructed race bias trap as well. I think he's got a nutty view of race. I don't know if he acknowledges the physical differences in female brains versus male brains, or whether he asserts that they are entirely socially constructed as well. I find those who deny a biological basis (whether it's genetic or morphological) to our observed differences in the sexes and/or "races," however we define them, to be extremists, just as I find those who deny any cultural or social influence on behavior to be extremists on the other end.

I'm no professional in the field, but my own lay observations and casual postulations are very much in line with your own.

AS

 

[Dave1001]

This question is probably best addressed by Pesta. Yahzi has exactly 0 credentials in this area, whereas Pesta has the best on this board that I've seen to date. He has a Ph.D in cognitive psychology and is a college professor teaching business students about business law, employment law, and human resources management. If I understand his background correctly, he has done a lot of academic research (not merely amateurish Googling, like so many of us like me) in the field of psychometrics, the study of measuring intelligence. I think he has also published scientific, peer-reviewed papers in the field, if I am not mistaken. Ask him.

AS

I agree. Pesta, it would be great if you could lead the discussion on this. I'll try to go back and look at your old posts on the subject, too.

 

[AmateurScientist]

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

I was hardly rushing to label you a racist in general. I did detect a subtle sort of racism of the very kind Shelby Steele notes arises out of expectations and suspicions about the achievements of black Americans due to the existence of affirmative action and minority set asides, and the fact that you kept alluding to "narrative cues" as the basis for your doubt is part of that.

My friend and her family are all excellent examples, individually as well as collectively, of persons who have made great achievements academically as well as in business and a profession, without the necessity of affirmative action or minority set asides. They would likely be exactly where they are today, or in comparable positions, or perhaps even more accomplished (which is difficult to imagine in the case of my sister's friend) were they lily white. I demonstated a hint of that in my PMs to you, which you have yet to acknowledge publicly or privately (which I consider a bit rude, frankly, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion).

I wonder if Professor Steele is aware of my friend's family and if he has written or lectured about them.

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.

I don't get how special connections have anything at all to do with class rank. Special connections may have a great deal to do with gaining admission to such a prestigious law school. There's no question about that. Special connections may indeed assist one who already has the class rank necessary to be considered for law review at Harvard to actually be selected to be on law review, and may possibly even serve to assist in becoming an editor of the same.

Class rank is determined solely by grade point average, however. That means it is a reflection of how one performed cumulatively in one's individual courses as indicated by the grades one earned and their numerical average -- grade point average (GPA) -- compared to those of one's classmates. GPA is an objective measure, not something prone to influence by outside forces like connections. It is the ultimate measure of academic merit and achievement at one's school. It is manifestly not influenced by connections or social standing. Your assertion that connections have anything to do with class rank is pig-headed and ignorant. Try getting your daddy or your congressman to use his influence to convince your professors to change your grades so that you finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in the class. I won't be holding my breath for the results.

Everything else you have to say on the matter above is irrelevant to this particular point.

AS

 

[Dave1001]

Quoting AmateurScientist in post#224

I don't get how special connections have anything at all to do with class rank. Special connections may have a great deal to do with gaining admission to such a prestigious law school. There's no question about that. Special connections may indeed assist one who already has the class rank necessary to be considered for law review at Harvard to actually be selected to be on law review, and may possibly even serve to assist in becoming an editor of the same.

Class rank is determined solely by grade point average, however. That means it is a reflection of how one performed cumulatively in one's individual courses as indicated by the grades one earned and their numerical average -- grade point average (GPA) -- compared to those of one's classmates. GPA is an objective measure, not something prone to influence by outside forces like connections. It is the ultimate measure of academic merit and achievement at one's school. It is manifestly not influenced by connections or social standing. Your assertion that connections have anything to do with class rank is pig-headed and ignorant. Try getting your daddy or your congressman to use his influence to convince your professors to change your grades so that you finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in the class. I won't be holding my breath for the results.

AS

I won't call your post "pig-headed and arrogant", but I do think there is a rush to judgment on my latest post which has paralleled your general characterizations of my doubt about your friend's claimed class rank.

In my post I didn't claim that class rank is determined by connections. But rather that even a white male without special connections could achieve everything professionally that you say your friend did (supreme court clerkship, cravath associateship, cravath partnership, fortune 500 GC position) without graduating 4th in his clas from Harvard Law School.

Of course, a good old boy with special connections (for example the son of someone who steers a lot of business to Cravath) could get a cravath associateship with a much spottier resume then even the weakest affirmative action candidate for a cravath associateship. That's why I specified a white male without connections: someone who gets pretty close to zero helping extras for their application other than their resume. I brought this up to demonstrate that I'd doubt your friend's narrative to a degree just based on her accomplishments (which don't give strong evidence of someone who graduated 4th in their class from HLS), although other information about her background does add to the doubt.

Anyways, your rush to judgment about my reasonably clearly written post is instructive to me about where and why this discussion has seemed to go on an endless tangent.

My post again, below:


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.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I won't call your post "pig-headed and arrogant",

I'm in pedantic mode, but I did not call your post "pig-headed and arrogant." I called your assertion (one you can refer to, as I won't restate it again) "pig-headed and ignorant." There's quite a difference in the two meanings, and it arises from both your mistakes in reading my post. We do it all the time in these forum discussions, but these sorts of miscommunications lead to misunderstandings.

In my post I didn't claim that class rank is determined by connections.

You certainly hinted at it with your "doubt-o-meter's" reading 11 and the contextual remarks that part of that reading was due to "certain narrative cues," as you called them, and also with your subsequent refinements of your reasons for doubting her rank.

But rather that even a white male without special connections could achieve everything professionally that you say your friend did (supreme court clerkship, cravath associateship, cravath partnership, fortune 500 GC position) without graduating 4th in his clas from Harvard Law School.

Of course, a good old boy with special connections (for example the son of someone who steers a lot of business to Cravath) could get a cravath associateship with a much spottier resume then even the weakest affirmative action candidate for a cravath associateship. That's why I specified a white male without connections: someone who gets pretty close to zero helping extras for their application other than their resume.

I'm with you so far. Where you lose me is below.

I brought this up to demonstrate that I'd doubt your friend's narrative to a degree just based on her accomplishments (which don't give strong evidence of someone who graduated 4th in their class from HLS), although other information about her background does add to the doubt.

Your apparent conclusion that one who finishes 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in her class at Harvard Law School must then go on to a professorship or something similar is bogus. It is based on a logical fallacy of observing persons like Alan Dershowitz and noting that he finished in the top of his Harvard Law class and is now a Harvard Law professor, and extrapolating from that that all top finishers must then go on to similar career paths. That's patently fallacious, Dave. It's post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

Finishing in the top of one's class in law school, even at Harvard Law, does not compel one to enter a career in academia. That's a special career path usually open only to top law students, but no one who finishes in the top is required to pursue that path. Indeed, those same students used to be lured away -- a sort of "brain drain" -- by much more lucrative and prestigious offers. I suspect very strongly that my friend was inundated with extremely attractive job offers, as was the norm in my day for top finishers (and that changed dramatically shortly after a recession began in about 1990-1991, and the excessive wining and dining of top law students fell off just as dramatically -- it was insane when I was graduated, however, and I was a first hand witness to it). That she chose to accept a position with a Supreme Court Justice is hardly surprising, especially one as kind, historically significant, and noteworthy as Marshall. That she then chose to pursue a graduate degree at the London School of Ecnomics, and then accept an associate position at Cravath, Swain & Moore, the most presitigious and highly competitive law firm in the world, is also not surprising in the least. She has since become a leading expert in mergers and acquisitions (her degree from the London School of Economics probably helped her along that path), which she still practices today at the huge company at which she is Senior VP and General Counsel.

Your additional comment that "other information about her background does add to the doubt" is something I can only regard as a subtle form of prejudice, as I noted above. I don't know how to characterize it any more charitably, as it makes no sense to me in any other context. It would be gratuitous otherwise.

Anyways, your rush to judgment about my reasonably clearly written post is instructive to me about where and why this discussion has seemed to go on an endless tangent.

Although I have been a willing and dogged participant in this tangent, I'll note that it is you who began the tangent with your unfounded incredulity about my friend's class rank. I find it and your arguments just as unpersuasive now as I did after your first post on the tangent.

I'll note that your incredulity about that subject reminds me very much of ID proponents who note the extraordinary physical "coincidences" necessary to have the conditions that gave rise to life in the universe as evidence for an intelligent designer, and supporting their doubt in the Big Bang and a physical cosmology. They fail to grasp that examining a set of existing circumstances in retrospect can lead one to conclude that there are too many coincidences along the way for there not to be a design behind them. In other words, none of us would be here to examine the allegedly suspicious "coincidences" if life had not been formed in our universe. That fact does not speak the existence or non-existence of a designer or a creator. Similarly, your observation that the story of my friend's academic and career success seems too contrived and mythological is the same sort of flawed doubt in retrospect. Her background before her success at Harvard Law School, and her career path since then are not evidence for or against her class rank. They do not speak to it directly one way or another. That she excelled so well in law school is perfectly consistent with her excelling professionally since then, however.

My post again, below:

Repeating your post doesn't add weight to it.

AS

 

[Dave1001]

I think my previous posts already address the new points you made. The rare person who might be interested in that discursion can read my posts and yours and make up their own mind. I don't think any new light is being shed by pushing this farther.

I'll just address the part of your post that begins like this.

Quoting Amateur Scientist


I'll note that your incredulity about that subject reminds me very much of ID proponents ...


end quote

I've noticed (and this is my opinion) that the most able thinkers of the board generally don't resort to critiquing arguments of others on unrelated topics by claiming that they "remind me of ID proponents" or that they "remind me of CT theorists" or that they "remind me of psychics" or some such thing. In fact there often seems to me to be a inverse relation between the critical thinking skills of the board member and their propensity to critique arguments of others on this basis. Sure this is a board that's skeptical of ID, CT, and psychics. But while the more able members of the board may silently humor a post that someone's take on Steve Irwin's death or on population genetics is "wrong because it reminds me of the movie 'Loose Change'", I think they'll be more persuaded by an actual critique of the post on its own merits.*

*liberal use of scare quotes in this post.

 

[Yahzi]

No, quite frankly, I'd say he is being difficult and his own racial prejudices are showing.

And therein lies my point.

Social expectations are so strong that people like Dave automatically discount stories like yours. And people like Dave represent the mainstream of American culture - including black people. I am quite certain the average black person would be as incredulous as Dave is, and for exactly the same reason.

This is the social expectation I mean. Its negativity and pervasiness have just been boldly demonstrated, even while Dave continues to claim that he doesn't want to talk about intelligence, but rather other more "enlightening" concepts. Perhaps he wants to talk about how lazy black people are, or how irresponsible black men are towards their children, or other "enlightening" factors that he cannot possibly tease out from cultural causes, but will continue to pretend he (and others) can.

you have no right to dismiss any of it,

I dismissed it because it was ancedotal. I don't disbelieve a word of it; I am sure it is all true. But the fact that one person or family can overcome prejudice just doesn't affect my argument at all.

Frederick Douglass was not proof that slavery did not exist.

He didn't even acknowledge receipt of the PMs I sent him earlier.

I have to say, AS, your surprise surprises me. I thought you'd dealt with Cognitive Dissonance before. I did make the point that what Dave was doing was theology; surely you're used to theologians utterly ignoring any contrary facts you might present.

Of course, you may have just been surprised that I was right. This is certainly a phenomona unexpected enough to generate perplexity.

If you read Dave's posts, you will see my entire argument laid out: at no point does he ever seriously consider the possiblity that this is all the effect of social expectation. Because that explanation would not give him the answer he wants.

Now please note I have been careful not to call Dave a racist. I don't think he is a racist. What I think is that he has bought into the social theory of race as presented by our culture. He is a de facto racist.

Presumably, if we can show Dave that his ideas are in fact racist, and grounded only in prejudice and tradition, he will stop being racist.

Apparently in Dave's world, black women simply don't compete at that level.

It's not just Dave's world. It is our world, all of ours: including little black girls. This is the social expectation I am talking about. Given that people won't even believe stories about black women graduating 4th from Harvard (while they believe Jesus walked on water and UFOs!!!), how surprising is it that not very many black women even try?

And yet the Daves of the world look at the graduating roles and say, "Gosh! Hardly any black women pushed themselves to achieve a feat that everyone they met or even heard about it would automatically discount as either a lie or the product of a political favor. I guess black women must be genetically stupid!"

Q.E.D.

 

[Dave1001]

And therein lies my point.

Social expectations are so strong that people like Dave automatically discount stories like yours. And people like Dave represent the mainstream of American culture - including black people. I am quite certain the average black person would be as incredulous as Dave is, and for exactly the same reason.

This is the social expectation I mean. Its negativity and pervasiness have just been boldly demonstrated, even while Dave continues to claim that he doesn't want to talk about intelligence, but rather other more "enlightening" concepts. Perhaps he wants to talk about how lazy black people are, or how irresponsible black men are towards their children, or other "enlightening" factors that he cannot possibly tease out from cultural causes, but will continue to pretend he (and others) can.

Is that a reasonable assessment of my likely preferred discussion areas, based on my previous posts? I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Yahzi]

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".

Do you know what the difference is? It is the same difference in my discussions with theologians.

The difference is that I am willing to entertain the notion that I might be wrong, and my opposition is not.

We do not know that social expectation is the cause of these effects we think we are measuring. However, we do know that it could be, and we also know that we have no way of telling at the moment.

So all of this speculation about the possible genetic roots of percieved racial differences is not only useless, it is - if the social expectation theory is correct - also harmful.

To put it another way: Why would someone even talk about the genetic defiencies of an entire group of people, when they didn't have to?

You have been presented with an easy out, a way to set aside all questions of race and at the same time combat the pernicious effects of racism. A perfectly logical, scientific, and valid reason to dismiss all speculation and prejudice. And you won't take it. You won't even give it an honest shake.

Why do you suppose that is, dave? What kind of person does not take the easy out? What kind of person is not relieved to find a way to escape the ugly facts that seem to be presenting themselves?

So in sum, your approach to the discussion in recent posts has been disappointing.

You have no idea how disappointing your approach has been, although I see that AS attempted to give you a sense of that level of disappointment.

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.

I get the sense you can't read.

I have repeatedly explained that our metrics are not as accurate as our measurements, and that there is another perfectly plausible explanation, and that the failure to even consider that explanation (note how casually Bpesta dismissed it) is a sign of prejudice, not dispassionate logic.

Would you care to respond to any of those points? No, I didn't think so. Instead, you'll go on talking about your ectoplasm, even while the skeptics continue to point out no one has ever actually tested any ectoplasm.

It is your unshakable attachment to the answer you want that makes this conversation theological. Note that in all the talks about "g" and tests and citings of professional credentials, no one has mentioned a single test for the effect of social expectation. In exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reason, ghost hunters never talk about testing ectoplasm to see what it is.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I think my previous posts already address the new points you made. The rare person who might be interested in that discursion can read my posts and yours and make up their own mind. I don't think any new light is being shed by pushing this farther.

I'll just address the part of your post that begins like this.

Quoting Amateur Scientist


I'll note that your incredulity about that subject reminds me very much of ID proponents ...


end quote

I've noticed (and this is my opinion) that the most able thinkers of the board generally don't resort to critiquing arguments of others on unrelated topics by claiming that they "remind me of ID proponents" or that they "remind me of CT theorists" or that they "remind me of psychics" or some such thing. In fact there often seems to me to be a inverse relation between the critical thinking skills of the board member and their propensity to critique arguments of others on this basis. Sure this is a board that's skeptical of ID, CT, and psychics. But while the more able members of the board may silently humor a post that someone's take on Steve Irwin's death or on population genetics is "wrong because it reminds me of the movie 'Loose Change'", I think they'll be more persuaded by an actual critique of the post on its own merits.*

*liberal use of scare quotes in this post.

Thanks for giving me all the evidence I need to conclude that debating you further is pointless. Also, given how you have just insulted me and relegated me to the bin of less able posters on this board, and given your rudeness is failing to acknowledge my PMs, I have little else to say to you.

Oh, and get back to studying.

AS

 

[Dave1001]

Now please note I have been careful not to call Dave a racist. I don't think he is a racist. What I think is that he has bought into the social theory of race as presented by our culture. He is a de facto racist.
Q.E.D.

Thanks -er- what?

 

[Yahzi]

People with similar mutations in their genes often resemble eachother too--both physically and mentally--Down Syndrome is an obvious example.

Let's trot that pony out for one more show.

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.

Is that a fact, Dr. Articulette? Is the playing field of nature so wonderfully fair, so cleanly precise? Can we look at the astonishing wealth and knowledge of white people today and say, "Well, it's not our fault: evolution primed us to be better at these things, like survival and stuff. Not that we mean to imply you genetically handicapped idiots are in any way inferior, of course."

Here's a shot from the clue gun: the process you describe already occurred. It was called "homo sapiens." We exterminated everybody that wasn't as smart as us - up to 30 different kinds of hominds. We exterminated everything that was recognizably different, for the last 2,000,000 years, because that is what we do.

Now I grant you, those other hominds probably were stupider than we are. But your idea that a few million years of evolution can be replicated in a few thousand years, that a global effect can be scaled down to a local effect, is simply unwarranted. We have no reason to think evolution can operate on such a fine scale of distinction; we have no reason to think that what makes people more intelligent than monkeys can be subjected to such fine tuning.

Sometimes my souffles come out perfect, and sometimes they aren't quite as airy and light. Do I automatically attribute the difference to the quality of my ingredients? No, I do not, because I am rational.

 

[Yahzi]

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.

This is what I was asking you to do all along, Dave. Before you apply the results of the theory, check into how the theory was derived.

Now let me tell you what you are going to find, Dave. You are going to find that the validity of "g" is supported by... social evidence.

You see, Dave, the way we know "g" really does measure "all the things that make you successful in life" (to paraphrase Bpesta) is that the people in our society who are successful have a lot of "g."

And the reason people are unsuccessful in our society is because they don't have "g."

Exactly like I described "The Bell Curve." This is it, Dave: this is the cutting edge of research in this field. "G" is justified by pointing to the fact that socially successful people have it, and socially unsuccessful people are explained by noting that they lack "g".

Think about that for a minute.

Now are you beginning to see how distasteful this entire conversation has been?

 

[Dave1001]

Let's trot that pony out for one more show.


Is that a fact, Dr. Articulette? Is the playing field of nature so wonderfully fair, so cleanly precise? Can we look at the astonishing wealth and knowledge of white people today and say, "Well, it's not our fault: evolution primed us to be better at these things, like survival and stuff. Not that we mean to imply you genetically handicapped idiots are in any way inferior, of course."

Here's a shot from the clue gun: the process you describe already occurred. It was called "homo sapiens." We exterminated everybody that wasn't as smart as us - up to 30 different kinds of hominds. We exterminated everything that was recognizably different, for the last 250,000 years, because that is what we do.

Now I grant you, those other hominds probably were stupider than we are. But your idea that a few million years of evolution can be replicated in a few thousand years, that a global effect can be scaled down to a local effect, is simply unwarranted. We have no reason to think evolution can operate on such a fine scale of distinction; we have no reason to think that what makes people more intelligent than monkeys can be subjected to such fine tuning.

Sometimes my souffles come out perfect, and sometimes they aren't quite as airy and light. Do I automatically attribute the difference to the quality of my ingredients? No, I do not, because I am rational.

Now that you demolished his strawman can we discuss this topic beyond half the thread members jockeying for the role of Gould in Mismeasure?

Although you do bring up an interesting subtopic, if we remove social race from it.

On what basis are you sure that relatively isolated human subpopulations didn't have enough time to differentiate it various cognitive abilities (or in "g")?

What would be the minimum time that would allow this to occur? I gather from your post that you believe that more than a few thousand years would be needed, but "a few millions years" would definitely be enough? If 30,000 years wouldn't be enough, then why? And on what basis?

 

[Yahzi]

Thanks for giving me all the evidence I need to conclude that debating you further is pointless.

Debating Dave is no more pointless than debating a naive theologian. There is always the possibility - however remote - that he will suddenly realize he has been fed a shell game.

Your problem, AS, was that you were trying to have a scientific discussion. Approach the topic in terms of theology, and I think you will find it both more profitable and less aggravating. After all, you wouldn't expect a Christian to give up his belief in the reserruction just because you presented an ancedotal tale about someone dying and staying dead.

 

[Dave1001]

This is what I was asking you to do all along, Dave. Before you apply the results of the theory, check into how the theory was derived.

Now let me tell you what you are going to find, Dave. You are going to find that the validity of "g" is supported by... social evidence.

You see, Dave, the way we know "g" really does measure "all the things that make you successful in life" (to paraphrase Bpesta) is that the people in our society who are successful have a lot of "g."

And the reason people are unsuccessful in our society is because they don't have "g."

Exactly like I described "The Bell Curve." This is it, Dave: this is the cutting edge of research in this field. "G" is justified by pointing to the fact that socially successful people have it, and socially unsuccessful people are explained by noting that they lack "g".

Think about that for a minute.

Great contribution and starting point. I'd love to hear other threadmembers weigh in on this.

Now are you beginning to see how distasteful this entire conversation has been?

Nope. Now that we're hopefully leaving behind the black/white smart/stupid discussion, it's getting interesting.

I don't share your social aesthetic on taste (mine leans more to wide open discourse and elevating empiricism and skepticism rather than moral boundaries on areas of discourse), although I realize that it's hegemonic enough in our culture that it's prudent for me to discuss these topics anonymously.

 

[Yahzi]

On what basis are you sure that relatively isolated human subpopulations didn't have enough time to differentiate it various cognitive abilities (or in "g")?

On the basis that we have absolutely no reason to know otherwise.

We do not understand what "intelligence" is. We do not know where it comes from. We cannot explain the mechanics that make us smarter than monkeys. How in the world could we begin to illuminate the mechanics that make us smarter than each other?

What would be the minimum time ...

I have no idea. None whatsoever.

The point is... no one else has a clue, either.

Now go back and read Ariculette and Bpesta's posts closely. Do you get the sense from their posts that they recoginze that they have no answer to this question?

The simple lesson we all should have taken from kindergarten:

WE DON'T KNOW. And until we do know, we shouldn't say nasty things about other people.

 

[AmateurScientist]

And therein lies my point.

Social expectations are so strong that people like Dave automatically discount stories like yours. And people like Dave represent the mainstream of American culture - including black people. I am quite certain the average black person would be as incredulous as Dave is, and for exactly the same reason.

This is the social expectation I mean. Its negativity and pervasiness have just been boldly demonstrated, even while Dave continues to claim that he doesn't want to talk about intelligence, but rather other more "enlightening" concepts. Perhaps he wants to talk about how lazy black people are, or how irresponsible black men are towards their children, or other "enlightening" factors that he cannot possibly tease out from cultural causes, but will continue to pretend he (and others) can.

I can't disagree with that. Point taken.

I dismissed it because it was ancedotal. I don't disbelieve a word of it; I am sure it is all true. But the fact that one person or family can overcome prejudice just doesn't affect my argument at all.

Well, even anecdotal counterexamples can serve to disprove theories. As a philosophy student you learned that, as I did as a math student.

It does indeed affect your argument, inasmuch as you seem to assert the degree to which expectations play in performance. My point in offering such a powerful counterexample is that persons can and do overcome or disregard those social expectations and break free of them. My friend's family has amply done so. They are not alone.

Frederick Douglass was not proof that slavery did not exist.

Of course not, but there were lots of freed slaves, and their existence has nothing to do with the fact that slavery still existed. I'm not arguing that social expectations don't exist. I'm taking issue with your apparent assertion that they are as determinative in cognitive performance as I think you're claiming.

I think you're likely discounting the very real influence heritability has on cognitive capacity. That's why I said earlier that I think you are on one extreme of this sort of debate.

I have to say, AS, your surprise surprises me. I thought you'd dealt with Cognitive Dissonance before. I did make the point that what Dave was doing was theology; surely you're used to theologians utterly ignoring any contrary facts you might present.

Of course, you may have just been surprised that I was right. This is certainly a phenomona unexpected enough to generate perplexity.

If you read Dave's posts, you will see my entire argument laid out: at no point does he ever seriously consider the possiblity that this is all the effect of social expectation. Because that explanation would not give him the answer he wants.

I see evidence of Dave falling into the trap of social expectations, yes. His utter disregard of evidence and arguments I suggested does create some cognitive dissonance as well.

Now please note I have been careful not to call Dave a racist. I don't think he is a racist. What I think is that he has bought into the social theory of race as presented by our culture. He is a de facto racist.

Presumably, if we can show Dave that his ideas are in fact racist, and grounded only in prejudice and tradition, he will stop being racist.

I haven't labeled him a "RACIST" in the terms he seems to have taken it either. He does seem to be falling prey to a much more subtle form of racism, however. That's the racism of lowered expectations, which I suspect is precisely what you have been conveying.

Again, as I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread, that's what Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell, both black conservative thinkers and writers, have decried many times. That's their primary criticism of affirmative action and set asides. Those institutional programs reinforce the culture of lowered expectations for blacks and diminish or even discount the real accomplishments of black persons of significant achievement.

I think Steele and Sowell are right on the money. So does my friend's father, who refuses to apply for government contracts under Section 8(a) set asides for minority owned businesses, and always has. He has always wanted to compete on equal terms, and has been extremely successful in doing so by being good and responsive to his customers, not by shouting that he's the victim of racism.

It's not just Dave's world. It is our world, all of ours: including little black girls. This is the social expectation I am talking about. Given that people won't even believe stories about black women graduating 4th from Harvard (while they believe Jesus walked on water and UFOs!!!), how surprising is it that not very many black women even try?

I agree, but I think it's changed a lot more in the past four decades that you seem to acknowledge. I think that is particularly so in my part of the world.

And yet the Daves of the world look at the graduating roles and say, "Gosh! Hardly any black women pushed themselves to achieve a feat that everyone they met or even heard about it would automatically discount as either a lie or the product of a political favor. I guess black women must be genetically stupid!"

Q.E.D.

I don't think Dave is claiming they are genetically stupid, but he is exhibiting the prejudice of lowered expectations. I think he seems to acknowledge that there is a strong social component to such lowered expectations. What he seems to be incapable of believing, however, is that some black persons are capable of charging full speed ahead and ignoring and overcoming possible socially constructed barriers or lowered expectations.

I disagree with your Q.E.D. I don't think your social expectations theory is a complete explanation, or even close to complete. It certainly doesn't allow for notable expections to the performance you would expect from it that my friend and her family make manifest and represent.

AS

 

[Yahzi]

I realize that it's hegemonic enough in our culture that it's prudent for me to discuss these topics anonymously.

There are two topics here.

One of them is: "How did you people arrive at this conclusion?"

The other one is: "What does this conclusion mean?"

One of those topics is perfectly safe to discuss (at least, amongst civilized people. I wouldn't bring it up at a KKK meeting.)

The other topic will, among rational people, instantly generate flak along the lines of, "Before we discuss what it means, how about we discuss how we know it is true."

You started this conversation assuming the "credentialed psychologists" were right. In fact, you assumed it so much you called AS a liar for presenting factual counter-evidence. You got flak, which you fully deserved.

Now that you seem to be interested in the appropriate starting point, I think you deserve some credit, as well. (Not much, mind you. The Coyote has not gone touchy-feely here. )

I have made my case. Let's let the others respond, and see what you think of their arguments.