TRP and racism. | PurplePillDebate

sudo_make_install · 2013-11-08T03:02:10+00:00

Posting in comments due to rules....

[–]sudo_make_install[S] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

I was recently banned from /r/TheRedPill because I opposed white nationalist comments on the subreddit. These comments were heavily upvoted and mine were downvoted. This implies that these ideas are possibly held by perhaps even the majority of redpillers.

This leads me to believe that there is a very strong racist and white nationalist attitude in the community that colors their entire ideology. Although, there is nothing really racist in official ideology, the entire "conflict" against women seems suspiciously similar to how white nationalists view themselves. Despite insistence that TRP is mainly about understanding the truth about sexual relationships and self improvement based on these truths, I sense a very strong hostile siege mentality. A common theme in white nationalism (and many facist movements) is that of a golden past that is being destroyed by modern, degenerate forces. In white nationalism, these values are liberalism and multiculturalism, and TRP seems to treat feminism the same way.

Interestingly, there are white nationalist communities that also adopt the "red pill" moniker, with the same analogy of finding the truth in the sea of the "brainwashed" majority. Although these ideologies and groups are ostensibly different, I can't help but feel, based on what I experienced, that there is a very significant overlap.

You may argue that white nationalism isn't racism, but that is a somewhat separate topic, and by most people's standards, it is pretty much the definition of racism.

[–]fhqwhgads_ 9 points9 points9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sudo_make_install[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points6 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Science_Bro2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

of course trp is racist or more likely to be. how is the white power movement any different from a movement which miss-perceives that the dominant group in society (men), by losing some of the power it traditionally had (when women had no rights/standing/power/freedom), is now oppressed? the trp is not unlike the nazi phenomenon. a depressed, low functioning, selfish mindset angry over the changing world and desiring to return to an older era where germany was dominant. if the modern world became a matriarchy and men really had few rights compared to women, it would be less ridiculous. but as reality actually is, it's kind of funny... except for the fact that delusional depressed males are more likely to act out violently and hurt others. the best way to understand trp is to consider that if 1% or rapes were false, and 99% were true, trp-ites would still care more about the 1% or fake rapes. why? because sociopaths don't care about other people. a crime that doesn't effect them, rape, doesn't matter to them, but one that does, fake rape allegations, is all important even if in the grand scheme of things it's a fraction of evil in the world. sociopaths only care about what could hurt them, fuck everyone/everything else.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sudo_make_install[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sudo_make_install[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

even by cursory inspection very extreme.

Again, according to who? This statement would work if you substituted "even" with "only". They are extreme because you don't believe them.

I would have agreed with you years ago when I accidentally found myself becoming very "beta" in my relationship, but when I stopped wondering why people didn't conform to my preconceived notion of normal behavior and simply observed and reflected on people's interactions it became obvious why such beliefs aren't extreme.

I see it as very irrational and conspiratorial.

"I see it". Not "It is".

I'm not even sure why you're bringing feminism into this discussion.

3rd wave feminism is more commonly discussed by both TRP and its detractors. I used it to make the important point of how perspective can blind you to your own biases (i.e., I can rightfully make the same claims against TRP's opponents).

[–]skinisblackmetallicThe One-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ComplimentingBot2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Why are you jumping from him saying he would hypothetically allow a discussion about racism, or violence on his sub(which is all that was said) to "he believes that violence is an important part of sexual strategy."

That's not what I said, and I don't even believe that. I don't even say that I believe that, and my statement was based on the assumption that he doesn't believe that. I think it's irony that you'll complain about context and twisting words and then do the same thing in literally the same paragraph. Same sentence, even.

You say you could be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe that is a qualifier to get away with misrepresenting what was actually said.

As noted above, it's a qualifier intended to say that I could be wrong about The Red Pill not being purely about sexual strategy. That argument (for this post at least) is based on /u/redpillschool's statement that if he could, he'd allow racism and discussions of violence.

If I'm wrong in my assumption (that /u/redpillschool doesn't believe racism and violence are parts of sexual strategy) and he truly believes his previous statements (that he'd allow discussion of violence and racism if he could get away with it) then that leads me to believe that The Red Pill is something more than sexual strategy.

This is not proof, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can show me where he says the statement in question, I'll approve your comment.

You've taken my words out of context and misunderstood them. I hope that this part of your comment is null, because I never said that he believes racism and violence are part of sexual strategy. It's even part of my evidence that it's not part of sexual strategy.

I'll also make a suggestion. If you think you could be wrong about someone else's position on something, clarify it with them.

He's never going to respond to me. Am I supposed to go to The Red Pill and get banned, or go here and hope for a discussion? I provide context where needed, and I almost always ask for clarification- to the point of rephrasing a question a couple to make absolutely sure that they believe what they say.

He's also said that he's not going to talk to me, so should I just abandon any mention of /u/redpillschool? Actually, this complaint of yours doesn't make sense. I did have a previous discussion with him and I literally linked to the context and only rephrased what he said from "the discussion [of violence and racism] could take place [if I could avoid the ToS]" to "he'd allow discussion of violence and racism if he could get away with it". That's not an accusation.

I'm sure you wouldn't want someone accusing you of something like "You believe that violence is an important part of sexual strategy." without proof that you hold that position.

I didn't even accuse him of that! Re-read my comment! My argument hinges on his belief that those two aren't part of sexual strategy! I only noted that if I was wrong in that assumption, my argument would be wrong. Rather than devolve into yet another rape discussion, I preemptively made obvious the implications of such a counterpoint.

I hope you'll approve my comment and take it for what it is. What he believes is part of sexual strategy is tertiary, and I assumed that he doesn't believe that violence and racism are part of sexual strategy. You've misunderstood or misread me. Maybe if I said "I'd be wrong" rather than "I could be wrong" you'd have gotten my meaning (but then that'd be potentially inaccurate, because it precludes me from pointing other extraneous crap).

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

In blue pill world, allowing discussion to broach the topic of race is racist, and discussion about the reality that violence has been used by some of our ancestors is an endorsement of violence.

More thought police super-sensitive social justice warriorism here. If red pill school said "the discussion could take place" then he whole heartedly endorses basically anything blue pillers want to pretend he endorses.

I'm not engaging this thread, man. At what point do you just think to yourself, well if these people are so hellbent on having a position and feelings about the red pill and me that simple things like reality won't sway them.. well that's not a debate.

I get the vibe that this isn't debate at all, but instead a smear sub. No offense to you, alphamod, cause you've done a good job trying to be impartial, but the level of absolutely absurd bending of statements to serve these people's agenda is tiring.

You can see it with the number of times the "rape" or "voting" debates have happened. We conclude that well rps never really did say that but heck, once we forget the debate took place, we can make the same accusations again.

This sort of thought policing is interesting to me. It's obvious that feminism and the blue pill as a whole has public opinion on their side. But not because public opinion is well informed. Quite to the contrary, they have made boogey men out of red pillers, pointing to rape and misogyny as the reason we shouldn't be trusted. And when the topics are not politically correct, no debate has to take place. No honesty here, no introspection. All you have to do is make sure they realize the topic is not politically correct... and if you have the discussion.. are you sure you're not a rapist? You're talking about rape.. sounds like a rapist to me..

On the topic of introspection, I suspect that the people here arguing against red pill would rather disagree by lying about their own position than admit that we have even one thing in common.

I will admit I was here because it was entertaining to watch and take part in the debate. But frankly I think the fun really has vanished with people like angatar's honesty. This is not an insult- nor an attack. It's quite blatant at this point that he/she has been misquoting me and misrepresenting my opinion since this sub opened, and at this point I'm drawing a line. It happens, you intercede, we finally get to a conclusion that it was wrong, slap on the wrist, on to the next one. Again, and again, and again. Should he/she get caught, changing everything to a question is the simplest way to skirt the rules. "Does RPS rape babies? I don't know, it seems like it but maybe i'm wrong."

These are allegations that I simply will no longer address.

I'm not sure what you or anybody else can do as moderators, but I'm confident that as it stands, this will slowly devolve further into blue pill circle jerk until there is simply just another blue pill sub.

[–]barbadosslim8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ComplimentingBot2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

racist violence and mass murder is bad

this is a package deal i dont accept

racist violence would be a black guy killing an aleut because he HATES eskimos. this is not any worse than anyone killing anyone for any illicit reason.

mass murder is a private citizen going up into a belltower and shooting 100 people, or, say crashing planes into skyscrapers

war and conquest arent murder. murder is the ILLICIT killing of others. war is LICIT. in war a soldier is acting as an agent of the sovereign and is imbued with the sovereigns monopoly on th elegal use of violence. there has never been a colonization or conquest that was based on "racism" but on the desire to gain access to more resources or spread an religion or ideology. that one ethnic group happens to conquer an ethnic group doesnt make it "racist violence", it makes it war and conquest

and no, i dont think "war" (what youre calling racist violence and mass murder)is bad in the abstract, like clausewitz said, war is politics carried out by othe rmeans. its a natural part of the human condition that is sometimes necessary

[–]barbadosslim4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwobBlue Pill Schmue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sudo_make_install[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sudo_make_install[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure dude, you can basically label anything you disagree with as concern trolling. And it is blatantly obvious that you (and by extension your moderator team) practice selective enforcement on off topic issues that it's kind of laughable that you claim to be fair. Any inflammatory post (this really depends on your viewpoint) that offends you is labeled as "disrespectful" and ones that don't "contribute to the discussion".

Let's be clear. There is a bar past which an idea can be considered racist, or else the word basically loses all meaning. White nationalists and their supporters try to keep moving this goal post in order to avoid the negative (and rightly so) connotations of the word "racism". No one likes to think they're wrong, but this is such a common tactic that you might not even realize that you're using it.

Just from a practical point of view, your subreddit should in theory have nothing to do with race, but your selective enforcement and self-confirmation bias is making it one. Just because you oppose the mainstream on one issue doesn't mean you should just openly accept anything else that also opposes it.

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But he will clarify. He'd probably be more inclined to do so if the question was worded neutrally as well. Just the other day we cleared up a common misconception, about the whole women voting thing.

He doesn't respond to me. He wrote up a whole essay for you and didn't even respond to me. Just the other day, you had to ask him because he wouldn't respond to me.

If I'm supposed to take his words as literal, then his quote (from an now deleted comment, but you can search his comment history from a couple days ago during the voting discussion to see in full) that says:

I'm not ashamed. I am, however, done talking to you.

is to be believed, he's not going to respond to me.

Saying he will allow racism on his sub is not the same as saying he will allow discussion of racism. That's what I'm complaining about.

Then I suppose we just have different interpretations. I asked about suggestions of violence and racism. If he's tired of people not understanding him, he can say things more clearly.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]drop_commentator1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is some amount of racial talk I leave up, for instance a few of our more prominent endorsed contributors are black, asian, and middle eastern. I find comments on their cultures interesting. I have to add that when I see discussion about, say, black women, that it's a reference to the american black culture and not an actual intrinsic property of women who are black.

I don't doubt that there might be differences between the races but based on the amount of time humans evolved genders vs races, I doubt they're very big differences mentally (if at all) and I don't think it's relevant to our discussion.

Talk about cultural differences are encouraged though.

If you see any real racism where somebody is actually hating on a group by color, message the mods so we can ban them. This is expressly not allowed.

BTW some of our black members use the term "niggers" and I don't consider it hate speech but instead the way they speak.

[–]Wolfwoodd2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I don't really see how the element of race plays a role in sexual strategy. If anything, being raciest just limits the number of girls you can have sex with. For that alone, racism should be discouraged. I don't see how somebody Red Pill could make a rational argument that being racist is a good thing.

On the flip side, guys who are new to TRP tend to be bitter individuals, who have been badly burned by past relationships. Guys who are bitter and angry tend to lash out at easy targets: women, minorities, etc. One of the goals of the red pill is to take this anger and bitterness and channel it towards self improvement. Once guys start making the transition from anger-filled beta to confident alpha.. I think the hateful thoughts greatly diminish. After all, it's easy to hate things/people when your life sucks.

Just my 2 cents.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HanSwoleOh[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HanSwoleOh[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HanSwoleOh[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HanSwoleOh[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HanSwoleOh1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KipHackmanFlairs are for betas6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure you've heard, it's purely cultural, right? No. African Americans originate from a region in West Africa. One physical difference between West Africans and other races is their bones are far denser. This is great for sprinting, which is what West Africans are built for, but horrible for swimming. They sink! African American culture is void of swimming because with their bodies, swimming is not enjoyable and quite dangerous.

This is untrue.

Evidence indicates that people of African descent were generally stronger swimmers than people of European descent. Many Africans used these skills on a daily basis. They incorporated swimming into various occupations, such as fishing, canoeing and salvage diving. Africans also shifted these abilities into recreational activities, including surfing. As enslaved Africans were shipped throughout the Atlantic world, many took these skills with them, incorporating swimming and diving into their work and recreational activities.

I'd recommend reading the entire paper, as it discusses the importance of swimming during American slavery and theorizes as to why the prevalence of swimming has declined in the African-American community.

[–]puaSenatorRed Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]puaSenatorRed Pill5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]puaSenatorRed Pill5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KipHackmanFlairs are for betas5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfwoodd1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, to a point. Generalizations and stereotypes are the easiest way to describe a group of people. Where they go wrong is when they are applied to an individual. Furthermore, as globalization becomes more prevalent, the races will intermingle to a point where it wont even matter.

Anyway, the point I'm attempting to make is that espousing racial thinking in a social environment isn't going to improve your odds of getting laid. Therefore, racism and TRP don't actually mix very well.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to point out that we are talking about radically different things. I was talking about the prevalence of race-based discrimination in the TRP subreddit and you are talking about racial qualities originating from bio-diversification. It's apples and oranges.

EDIT2: Also, whoever downvoted my first comment can fuck themselves. It's extra-annoying when people go out of their way to do that in this subreddit. It's the main reason I typically avoid posting here. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[–]luguren0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (55 children) | Copy Link

the red pill metaphor is used by many different groups who feel they have "pierced the veil of lies" in our extremely politically correct culture. there is often an intersection, for example, with redpill, conspiracy theories, paleo dieting, race realism:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_realism

and particularly human biodiversity. i ended up discovering the man o sphere via the humanbiodiversity (HBD) sphere, quite by accident

HBD primer here:

http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#modern

note that #2 on the list of the table of contents is biological sex differences

because HBD intersects with "race realism" and race realism also attracts common racISTS, you end up with a clusterfuck of related, but not always in agreement, groups all seeking to use the information found in HBD to political or racist ends, as opposed to just understanding the humans

[–]IRScientistSober6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (41 children) | Copy Link

Assume it's true for a moment. Should we lock this information away and hide it? Some would say yes, for the greater good of society in general. This is the problem with political correctness in general, it gets married to a particular thesis, and anyone who disagrees must lose their job or be discredited and ejected from academia. There is a climate of fear on certain topics, such as the RP, because the implications are too severe and would upset too many people if proven true.

Feminism has too much invested in the noble ideal of equality to consider RP theory. People open to RP tend to question everything that is assumed to be true by society with a high degree of political correctness attached to it. Political correctness can be used as a system of control to stifle debate on a wide range of sensitive issues, and some people are acutely distrustful of it. For this reason, I suspect most RPers are atheists as well, but far fewer say boo about that today (however they sure did 100+ years ago).

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

What studies?

This one

Who is that again?

Arthur Jensen

Because its not true - everyone is equal - and thinking otherwise justifies the degradation of targeted communities to various degrees. It just spreads misery under the illusion of fairness.

People aren't equal. People aren't born equal. However we should treat people equally and grant people equal opportunity. I don't see how this would change with the knowledge that some races have slightly lower IQs than others.

People cannot prove that they are equal and worthy if you deny them the capacity to do so.

We're talking about averages here. Even if African Americans were to have lower IQs than average, there would be significant statistical overlap. Besides, hiring someone based on race rather than merit is profiling, and it's actually illegal. I don't see how any IQ findings could change that.

[–]IRScientistSober4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Neither of these sources really seems to strongly support a racial component of intelligence.

From Wiki:

Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one."

From the Times article:

Today, some psychologists say that Professor Jensen’s work has been misunderstood. In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Douglas Detterman, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University who edits the journal Intelligence, said: “If you look at the Harvard Educational Review paper, he discusses race very little in that paper, but he did say that it’s a possibility that there are genetic differences among racial groups. And that was not a very popular idea when that paper came out.”

Professor Detterman, who in 1998 devoted a special issue of Intelligence to Professor Jensen’s work, added: “When he wrote that paper, probably a large portion of psychologists wouldn’t have believed that there was a hereditary basis for intellectual ability. Now, there’s very little argument about that in the field. Whether there are differences between races is another thing altogether.”

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

He's famous for ignoring evidence that contradicts his position and for woefully misunderstanding/misrepresenting concepts like heritability in order to make the claims he does.

Are you kidding? This guy was one of the most respected figures in his field. Before him, everyone thought intelligence was 100% the result of environment. Now, it's commonly accepted that genetics and heritability are the largest factors in determining intelligence. He completely changed the field.

Which is understandable, as you can't exactly get millions of dollars of funding from white nationalist organisations and then conclude that there are no differences in the races.

This is a logical fallacy. As much as I hate Fox News, you can't point to any article they write and say it's biased. You have to examine the article and point out whats wrong. Same goes for your argument. It doesn't matter if this was funded by the KKK, you have to read it and judge it on it's own merits.

His work is only "convincing" if we don't actually analyse his methodology or the validity of his claims.

His work is convincing on it's own, and definitely merits further study. Go read his papers. Without reading it, you can't really criticize it.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Are you kidding? This guy was one of the most respected figures in his field.

Well that's a pretty controversial claim. He added some valuable information to the work on IQ and psychometrics in general, but his research into race differences in IQ was highly contested and not overly respected. Just look at how the field reacted to the pseudoscience contained in "The Bell Curve", which largely cited his work.

Before him, everyone thought intelligence was 100% the result of environment. Now, it's commonly accepted that genetics and heritability are the largest factors in determining intelligence. He completely changed the field.

That's just blatantly false. IQ was conceptualised initially as a genetic construct, which is why the eugenics movement focused so heavily on trying to breed smart people and leaving 'stupid' people out of the gene pool. This position has been tempered over time but there has never been a blank slatist view of behavior in science, particularly in respect to intelligence.

This is a logical fallacy. As much as I hate Fox News, you can't point to any article they write and say it's biased. You have to examine the article and point out whats wrong. Same goes for your argument. It doesn't matter if this was funded by the KKK, you have to read it and judge it on it's own merits.

There's no logical fallacy because I never claimed that he was wrong because of his association and I criticised his work for the content of his claims. I pointed out his conflict of interest because it is a recognised confound in research and necessarily leads us to be careful in interpreting the results.

Of course it doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong, which is why I'd never suggest that.

His work is convincing on it's own, and definitely merits further study. Go read his papers. Without reading it, you can't really criticize it.

I have read his work, in detail and it really isn't convincing. He constantly confuses the concept of 'heritability', fails to account for a range of environmental variables, and dismisses most major environmental/learning contributions to IQ as irrelevant. He literally refers to anybody who disagrees with his work as the "culture-only" view, even though there are no blank slatists in the field.

To lay my cards out on the table, I'm not even opposed to the possibility of there being a true difference in IQ between races. There is already an observed difference and I'm not currently convinced that it can all be accounted for by environmental factors. But Jensen's work is as embarrassing as Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve". If a true genetic difference in IQ was ever to be found between races, it won't be because of any contribution to the field by idiots like Jensen or Rushton.

[–]CFRProflcopter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well that's a pretty controversial claim.

Not really, this is from the NYT article:

"Because of his empirical work in the field on the quantification of general intelligence (a subject that had long invited a more diffuse, impressionistic approach), he was regarded by many colleagues as one of the most important psychologists of his day."

That's just blatantly false. IQ was conceptualised initially as a genetic construct, which is why the eugenics movement focused so heavily on trying to breed smart people and leaving 'stupid' people out of the gene pool.

Dr Douglas Detterman said "When he wrote that paper, probably a large portion of psychologists wouldn’t have believed that there was a hereditary basis for intellectual ability. Now, there’s very little argument about that in the field. Whether there are differences between races is another thing altogether.”

Eugenics was basically dead in 1945, 20 years before Jensen's paper was published.

I pointed out his conflict of interest because it is a recognised confound in research and necessarily leads us to be careful in interpreting the results.

Yes. This is a logical fallacy. A person's motives are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the methodology and the results.

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not really, this is from the NYT article: "Because of his empirical work in the field on the quantification of general intelligence (a subject that had long invited a more diffuse, impressionistic approach), he was regarded by many colleagues as one of the most important psychologists of his day."

Three points:

1) "important" doesn't mean "respected". Freud is also considered an important figure in psychological history, but he never was respected and he currently isn't (in Freud's case, he also had very little impact on the development of psychology at all),

2) weasel words. "Many colleagues"? Who? How many? Is it just the opinion of the journalist who has no science training?, and

3) I haven't doubted the contributions Jensen had on the concept of IQ, I simply pointed out that when he tried to extend his research into race differences his work suffered.

Dr Douglas Detterman said "When he wrote that paper, probably a large portion of psychologists wouldn’t have believed that there was a hereditary basis for intellectual ability. Now, there’s very little argument about that in the field. Whether there are differences between races is another thing altogether.”

Weasel words. A "large portion"? Name a couple. Name one. Why is his word more authoritative than mine?

Eugenics was basically dead in 1945, 20 years before Jensen's paper was published.

Yes, so you're suggesting that over the span of 20 years, we went from practically every single psychologist in the field believing that IQ was genetic, to practically no psychologist believing that, and then back to most/all of them believing it. I find this hard to believe, given that the bulk of researchers across that time span would be ones that were there before and after it, so we have to believe that they did a complete 180 on their position numerous times within a very short time period.

Yes. This is a logical fallacy. A person's motives are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the methodology and the results.

Except that it's not. This is why researchers are required to explicitly state their conflicts of interest, as even with stellar methodology and logically consistent conclusions, the work can be biased. There's a decent article on the topic here: Can the Source of Funding for Medical Research Affect the Results?.

The quick summary is that a consistent finding in science is that research that has industry or politicised funding is far more likely to find results that support the conclusion they want than other research.

It's not a logical fallacy to point out that a source of bias and a significant confound might affect the results.

[–]CFRProflcopter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"important" doesn't mean "respected". Freud is also considered an important figure in psychological history, but he never was respected and he currently isn't (in Freud's case, he also had very little impact on the development of psychology at all)

Why wouldn't he be respected? He advanced the science immeasurably. He changed the way people though about intellectual ability. The race thing was a side-effect of his work, not the focus. The guy was a legitimate far-left progressive and socialist, not a racist.

I haven't doubted the contributions Jensen had on the concept of IQ, I simply pointed out that when he tried to extend his research into race differences his work suffered.

The racial differences was a side effect of his work. If IQ is largely heritable, then there's a solid chance that the statistical racial differences we see are partially the result of heritability. For Jensen, that was a disturbing conclusion.

Weasel words. A "large portion"? Name a couple. Name one. Why is his word more authoritative than mine?

Dr. Douglas Detterman was the president of the International Society for Intelligence Research until 2011. He was also a fellow of the American Psychological Association. I think it's fair that I take his word's over yours, as those were his colleagues. He knows the history of the field better than you or I.

Yes, so you're suggesting that over the span of 20 years, we went from practically every single psychologist in the field believing that IQ was genetic, to practically no psychologist believing that, and then back to most/all of them believing it.

Kinda, yes. Although eugenics wasn't nearly as popular as you're making it. It was more of a social policy than a widely accepted scientific concept.

Since Hitler was such a proponent of Eugenics, the idea of gene's being tied to a humans intellectual ability became extremely unpopular after World War II. Basically no one was willing to claim that for several decades. It was a topic that was left untouched, with the assumption that genes had nothing to do with intellectual ability. Jensen was part of a wave of developmental psychologists in the 1960s that took the subject head on, and came to the inevitable conclusion that genes do play a role in intellectual development.

Except that it's not. This is why researchers are required to explicitly state their conflicts of interest, as even with stellar methodology and logically consistent conclusions, the work can be biased.

I'm not disputing that most times conflicts of interest lead to biased results, however that doesn't render Jensen's work biased. His work stands on it's own merits.

It's not a logical fallacy to point out that a source of bias and a significant confound might affect the results.

"Might affect the results" is irrelevant. "Did it affect the results" is what matters. The focus of Jensen's studies wasn't race. It did receive funding from white supremacists, but only because they already knew his previous work indirectly supported their ideology.

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why wouldn't he be respected? He advanced the science immeasurably. He changed the way people though about intellectual ability.

Which is why I brought up the fact that his work into race tarnished his reputation. To claim he was "one of the most respected figures in his field" is massively overstating the case.

The race thing was a side-effect of his work, not the focus.

It was a significant enough aspect of his work to affect his reputation.

The guy was a legitimate far-left progressive and socialist, not a racist.

I don't really care about his political beliefs or affiliations. The fact remains that his work into race differences was shoddy at best.

The racial differences was a side effect of his work. If IQ is largely heritable, then there's a solid chance that the statistical racial differences we see are partially the result of heritability. For Jensen, that was a disturbing conclusion.

"Solid chance" based on what grounds? There's a possibility, sure, but that's a claim that needs to be evidenced.

Dr. Douglas Detterman was the president of the International Society for Intelligence Research until 2011. He was also a fellow of the American Psychological Association. I think it's fair that I take his word's over yours, as those were his colleagues. He knows the history of the field better than you or I.

Does he? How do you know? Importantly, since we've been discussing logical fallacies lately, I'll point out that this is an appeal to authority. It's not a valid one because I've asked for specific evidence to support the claim that he's made and I'm just getting referred back to his authority.

I don't recognise an off-the-cuff remark by him to be an accurate representation of history, especially since I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the history of psychology in that area at that time and I can't see how he could ever support such a claim.

Kinda, yes. Although eugenics wasn't nearly as popular as you're making it. It was more of a social policy than a widely accepted scientific concept.

Many of the major scientists at the time, including the person who coined the concept of IQ and the g factor, viewed IQ as an innate measure of intelligence. Even to this day, many psychologists will attempt to argue that it measures the underlying intelligence that is unaffected by environmental variables.

I need evidence to suggest that there was a number of massive revisions to the concepts of IQ and intelligence within a short period in order to accept it, especially when the recent shift away from viewing IQ as an innate variable caused a fair amount of controversy (i.e. I don't understand why it would be so controversial if a large portion of scientists in the past had made the same shift).

Since Hitler was such a proponent of Eugenics, the idea of gene's being tied to a humans intellectual ability became extremely unpopular after World War II. Basically no one was willing to claim that for several decades. It was a topic that was left untouched, with the assumption that genes had nothing to do with intellectual ability. Jensen was part of a wave of developmental psychologists in the 1960s that took the subject head on, and came to the inevitable conclusion that genes do play a role in intellectual development.

That's pure nonsense though. It's true that the 40s onwards saw a shift towards sociocultural explanations for IQ gaps but this was simply because the evidence for those factors was growing. The idea that IQ is heritable never went away and I can't find any evidence of a blank slate view of intelligence anywhere in psychological history.

I'm not disputing that most times conflicts of interest lead to biased results, however that doesn't render Jensen's work biased. His work stands on it's own merits.

And that's why I argued that his work falls based on its lack of merit. I then proposed that a possible reason for his bad methodology and conclusions might come from his bias in the form of conflicts of interest.

"Might affect the results" is irrelevant. "Did it affect the results" is what matters.

And it probably did, that's my argument. I haven't argued that his work is wrong because he has a conflict of interest. I've argued that his work is wrong due to a number of methodological and scientific issues, and that these mistakes probably came about due to his conflict of interest.

The focus of Jensen's studies wasn't race.

And that doesn't matter at all since we're specifically discussing his research on race.

It did receive funding from white supremacists, but only because they already knew his previous work indirectly supported their ideology.

I don't quite understand what relevance this has. It doesn't matter why they funded him, it doesn't even matter if Jensen agreed with their political beliefs. All that matters is that he was getting paid because he was reaching a particular conclusion. That is a strong incentive to keep looking for evidence that supports that conclusion, whether done consciously or unconsciously.

This might explain why the whole reason he thought that the white-black gap was genetic was because he woefully misunderstood the concept of IQ testing - i.e. he initially thought that IQ was a measure of an innate ability and that there were no cultural or environmental biases affecting the results. When the evidence came in that this view was wrong, he didn't drop that position, he simply searched for evidence that it might still be correct in some way.

He basically played the god of the gaps game with intelligence.

[–]CFRProflcopter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It was a significant enough aspect of his work to affect his reputation.

Can you source this claim?

The fact remains that his work into race differences was shoddy at best.

Can you source this claim? What exactly was shoddy about the work. I don't think it was perfect, but it was very interesting and presented a good case.

"Solid chance" based on what grounds?

Based on the grounds that nothing else they tried could compensate for the statistical difference, and there really wasn't anything left. Then his studies showed that intellectual ability was partially inherited. Dozens of other's studies have since come to similar conclusions. It's not definitive, but I don't think anyone would argue it is. It's just "a serious possibility" (quote from Jensen himself).

Especially since I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the history of psychology in that area at that time and I can't see how he could ever support such a claim.

The 1950 UNESCO statement on race said this:

"In short, given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to reaize their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same. The scientific investigations of recent years full support the dictum of Confucius 'Men's natures are alike; it is their habits that carry them far apart.'"

I then proposed that a possible reason for his bad methodology and conclusions might come from his bias in the form of conflicts of interest.

What, specifically, was wrong with his methodology?

When the evidence came in that this view was wrong, he didn't drop that position, he simply searched for evidence that it might still be correct in some way.

He didn't do this. He acknowledged that environmental factors play a role. He thought they couldn't explain the entire gap. To this day, the gap remains unexplained and disputed. There is no consensus on the issue.

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Can you source this claim?

Haha well, I asked first. But the idea that his reputation wasn't affected by his race research depends on you rejecting one or more of a number of claims:

1) that his research wasn't controversial

2) that having research that is viewed as controversial doesn't affect your reputation

I'm not sure how you could do so, especially when his controversial work was never shown to be accurate. Also, there's a decent reaction to his research early on here: High Impact Science and the Case of Arthur Jensen.

Can you source this claim? What exactly was shoddy about the work. I don't think it was perfect, but it was very interesting and presented a good case.

I described some of the issues above, but mainly the problems were his failure to understand contradicting viewpoints (e.g. referring to people criticising his work as "culture-only" proponents), blatantly ignoring evidence that didn't fit into his beliefs, and constantly confusing the concept of heritability (as famously noted by Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man").

Based on the grounds that nothing else they tried could compensate for the statistical difference, and there really wasn't anything left. Then his studies showed that intellectual ability was partially inherited. Dozens of other's studies have since come to similar conclusions. It's not definitive, but I don't think anyone would argue it is. It's just "a serious possibility" (quote from Jensen himself).

But that's only true if we ignore all the contradicting evidence. As has been found for over half a century now, environmental variables account for a large chunk of the gap, if not the entire thing. The question is no longer whether genetic differences between races can explain the gap, but whether there is any gap left to explain after everything else has been accounted for.

The 1950 UNESCO statement on race said this: "In short, given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to reaize their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same. The scientific investigations of recent years full support the dictum of Confucius 'Men's natures are alike; it is their habits that carry them far apart.'"

That doesn't support your point, given that the sections you snipped out directly contradict your point. In full:

"9. Whatever classification the anthropologist makes of man, he never includes mental characteristics as part of those classifications. It is now generally recognised that intelligence tests do not in themeslves enabIe us to differentiate safely between what is due to innate capacity and what is the result of environmental influences, training and education. Wherever it has been possible to make allowances for differences in environmental opportunities, the tests have shown essential similarity in mental characters among all human groups. In short, given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to realise their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same. The scientific investigations of recent years fully support the dictum of Confucious (551-478 B.c.): ‘Men’s natures are alike; it is their habits that carry them far apart.’"

The first bit makes an explicit reference to innate and learnt factors contributing to intelligence. They simply go on to say that the evidence shows that when we account for a range of environmental factors, this difference disappears to the point where each group is about the same - which is still a scientific fact to this day.

That is not even a rejection of the genetic influence on IQ (which you're supposed to be demonstrating), nevermind a rejection of the genetic influence on the IQ gap between blacks and whites.

He didn't do this. He acknowledged that environmental factors play a role. He thought they couldn't explain the entire gap.

He did do exactly that. When he found out that his interpretation of IQ tests was wrong, he went in search of evidence that aspects of the g factor demonstrated an innate effect instead of questioning the validity of his position.

To this day, the gap remains unexplained and disputed. There is no consensus on the issue.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "unexplained and disputed". There are a number of variables affecting the gap that have been found and the gap, if it still exists, is now recognised to be a fairly small one to explain. It's certainly still an ongoing area of research but it's not like there's this massive effect that we're struggling to explain.

[–]CFRProflcopter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I described some of the issues above, but mainly the problems were his failure to understand contradicting viewpoints (e.g. referring to people criticising his work as "culture-only" proponents).

I don't see what's wrong with that. There are "culture-only" proponents.

blatantly ignoring evidence that didn't fit into his beliefs, and constantly confusing the concept of heritability (as famously noted by Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man").

I don't really think he ever did this. "The Mismeasure of Man" did criticize Jensen, but it did so in a flawed way. It tried to discredit the method of determining intellectual inability, with the premise that it destroys the entire argument. However this ignores large portions of Jensen's work. And indeed "The Mismeasure of Man" was criticized on several other levels, including political bias.

This difference disappears to the point where each group is about the same - which is still a scientific fact to this day.

No, it isn't. The difference is still unaccounted for. Some scientists argue that it's down to biological differences. Other scientists argue that it's cultural/environmental. There is no scientific consensus on the issue.

When he found out that his interpretation of IQ tests was wrong

His interpretation was never found to be wrong. He went out of his way to fortify his previous assertions by incorporating other methods of determining intelligence.

It's certainly still an ongoing area of research but it's not like there's this massive effect that we're struggling to explain.

A lot of reputably research scientists would disagree with this. There's still an as of yet unaccounted for 5-10 point gap, which is small but relevant. There are still 4 distinct schools of thought on the matter.

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't see what's wrong with that. There are "culture-only" proponents.

"Culture-only" proponents of IQ, no there aren't. In terms of the black-white gap, there are some because that's what the current evidence suggests, but he conflates many criticisms of his position as being from people arguing from a different view from his own.

I don't really think he ever did this. "The Mismeasure of Man" did criticize Jensen, but it did so in a flawed way. It tried to discredit the method of determining intellectual inability, with the premise that it destroys the entire argument. However this ignores large portions of Jensen's work. And indeed "The Mismeasure of Man" was criticized on several other levels, including political bias.

You seem to have ignored my actual point and gone on to criticise the book. The problem is with Jensen's understanding of the concept of heritability, which biologists and anthropologists have criticised him for.

If you prefer, there's a decent overview of the issue here: How Heritability Misleads about Race.

No, it isn't. The difference is still unaccounted for. Some scientists argue that it's down to biological differences. Other scientists argue that it's cultural/environmental. There is no scientific consensus on the issue.

The intelligence task force doesn't quite agree there: Intelligence: Known and Unknowns

"If group differences in test performance do not result from the simple forms of bias reviewed above, what is responsible for them? The fact is that we do not know. Various explanations have been proposed, but none is generally accepted. It is clear, however, that these differenceswhatever their origin-are well within the range of effect sizes that can be produced by environmental factors. The Black/White differential amounts to one standard deviation or less, and we know that environmental factors have recently raised mean test scores in many populations by at least that much (Flynn, 1987: see Section 4). To be sure, the “Flynn effect” is itself poorly understood: it may reflect generational changes in culture, improved nutrition, or other factors as yet unknown. Whatever may be responsible for it, we cannot exclude the possibility that the same factors play a role in contemporary group differences."

True, it suggests that the exact answer is unknown, so does that mean there is debate over whether the gap is largely genetic or environmental? Well..

"The genetic hypothesis. It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis."

As I say, there is still ongoing research and discussion and there might not be an absolute conclusion formed at the moment, but we have good evidence that can account for the difference.

His interpretation was never found to be wrong. He went out of his way to fortify his previous assertions by incorporating other methods of determining intelligence.

He stated with absolute certainty that IQ tests are not culturally biased... He even went so far as to claim that the accuracy of the test "stood like a Rock of Gibraltar in psychometrics".

He was wrong.

A lot of reputably research scientists would disagree with this. There's still an as of yet unaccounted for 5-10 point gap, which is small but relevant. There are still 4 distinct schools of thought on the matter.

The APA conclusion is that there is, at most, one SD difference between the scores. This difference can entirely be accounted for by environmental variables and that there is currently no convincing evidence of a genetic component. The only debate seems to be over what environmental factors are the most relevant and to what degree they affect the result.

This is in fact a far stronger position than I had imagined, as I thought there was still some gap left to be explained but apparently there isn't, as accepted by major scientific organisations.

[–]CFRProflcopter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you prefer, there's a decent overview of the issue here: How Heritability Misleads about Race.

That was an interesting read, but I don't see how it refutes Jensen's arguments or his assertions about heritability. If I remember correctly, they view heritability like this:

Phenotype (P) = Genotype (G) + Environment (E).

They assume the Genotype is 60% and thus the Environment is 40%. You can argue those specific numbers (I would say there isn't enough evidence to give any percentage), but their understanding of the concept was sound.

The APA conclusion is that there is, at most, one SD difference between the scores. This difference can entirely be accounted for by environmental variables and that there is currently no convincing evidence of a genetic component. The only debate seems to be over what environmental factors are the most relevant and to what degree they affect the result.

But there's also no body of convincing evidence that accounts for the gap with environmental factors. Genetic factors OR environmental factors could realistically make up 100% of the gap. However none of these factors have been proven for sure. There's still debate and conflicting conclusions.

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That was an interesting read, but I don't see how it refutes Jensen's arguments or his assertions about heritability.

The reasons why it is relevant is:

1) Jensen interprets heritability as genetic influence, when something can be highly heritable without being genetic (e.g. wearing earrings used to be a highly heritable trait).

2) heritability is a concept that can only be applied within populations, it cannot be used to compare populations as Jensen attempts to do.

But there's also no body of convincing evidence that accounts for the gap with environmental factors. Genetic factors OR environmental factors could realistically make up 100% of the gap. However none of these factors have been proven for sure. There's still debate and conflicting conclusions.

You've misunderstood, I think. When the APA says that the entire gap can be explained by environmental variables, they mean that the defined factors and current evidence shows that environmental changes can produces changes in IQ that eliminates the gap. The question is simply over what role each environmental variable plays and how they interact.

The genetic perspective, on the other hand, currently lacks any evidence that it can account for any of the difference, nevermind the whole difference. Sure, theoretically we could argue that there's a possibility that the gap could be entirely explained by genetics, but unlike the environmental view, there's no actual evidence that it can be.

It hasn't been proven for sure because that's not how science works. It depends on the weight of evidence and whilst there's still more evidence to come in, we currently know that a significant chunk of the gap, if not the whole thing, can be accounted for by environmental variables.

[–]CFRProflcopter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How do you know that people aren't born equal?

Because people inherit different traits. 40 to 60 percent of personality is genetic. Intelligence is partially heritable. People are born different from each other.

I don't see how you could treat others equally if you don't believe them to be inherently equal to you. I don't see how your beliefs wouldn't impact your actions in some regard. I mean - if that's what you think, that's what you think - I'm not here to police your thoughts.

We do it now. It's widely accepted in the scientific community that people are born with different capabilities and that heritability shapes how who we are just as much as than the environment in which we're raised. Yet despite this, if you were to take a poll of citizens, most people would say that people should have equal opportunity. Most people will say that you shouldn't profile based on race or gender. Does profiling happen? Yes. But most people in society disagree with it on principal.

You're just affirming what you believe here without any evidence to justify it. I'm not saying such an experiment would prove that some races have consistently lower IQs than others, I believe this experiment would show the exact opposite.

It was a hypothetical suggestion and argument. If we found a difference.

If we conducted this experiment not just once, but multiple times, I believe we would find that the average IQ of every race changes in relation to other races' average IQs over time.

Based on what? IQ is partially hereditary. So if races didn't intermingle and produce interracial offspring, it's safe to say that if any [specifically genetic] correlations were found today, they'd still exist in the future.

Just because such an experiment can be imagined doesn't mean we have automatically reached the verdict of your favor. But if we were to collect evidence that conclusively showed one race's lower IQ average for a significant duration of time - and I really doubt we would - that could be used to justify unfair treatment. But again, I doubt the difference would be that vast or constant.

(1) I agree. I don't think this has been proven in any way. It's still hotly debated in the scientific community. (2) Why could results be used to justify unfair treatment?

We have never conducted such an experiment nor will we ever because there is no real doubt that the races aren't more or less intellectually equal.

Actually, there really is doubt. These concepts are hotly contested in the relevant fields. By definition, that means there's doubt in the scientific community. We're probably 40-60 years away from knowing the answer.

We shouldn't discuss averages, we should discuss outliers - the geniuses found within each race that demonstrate that race's intellectual potential. We shouldn't discuss averages, we should discuss outliers - the geniuses found within each race that demonstrate that race's intellectual potential.

No, they demonstrate that a person with that particular DNA has intellectual potential. IQ can realistically only be influenced by environment so much. Most people, regardless of upbringing, simply could never have genius IQs.

What we should be talking about is that not all people are born with the same capabilities, but we should give everyone the tools they need to reach their potential, make sound decisions, and live a happy life regardless of their intellectual ability. It's nice to be smart, but it's nicer to be nice.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HanSwoleOh[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ComplimentingBot1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1990 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1992 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	TRP and racism.
Author	sudo_make_install
Upvotes	14
Comments	158
Date	November 8, 2013 3:02 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1q5fri/trp_and_racism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/trp-and-racism.286643 https://theredarchive.com/post/286643

Comments