|
|
#51
10-17-2007, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So tell me this, how does the "race" gene(s) correlate to the "intelligence" gene(s)? Given the following: One race has a higher average IQ than another race. Race is genetically determined. Intelligence is genetically determined (in part). Don't those three facts have to be put together before there is any scientific basis for Watson's conclusion? [/ QUOTE ] All of those facts would be stipulated by anyone with even a minor knowledge of biology, right? Which of those three do you disagree with? [/ QUOTE ] You missed the question. I don't disagree with any of the 3 "facts" (discount the apparent lack of very accurate IQ tests). How do you know genetics is the REASON why a race is testing at a higher IQ than another? That is, unless you can prove that genetics is 100% responsible for intelligence. 
|
|
#52
10-17-2007, 02:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know genetics is the REASON why a race is testing at a higher IQ than another? That is, unless you can prove that genetics is 100% responsible for intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] This proposition is a false alternative. Why does genetics being responsible for intelligence have to be a binary value? 100% or 0%? It might be 3% or 98%. The fact that science makes a correllation to it having some effect seems to offend you. I would suggest that you exercise some emotional intelligence, set that offense aside, and consider the question rationally.
|
|
#53
10-17-2007, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So tell me this, how does the "race" gene(s) correlate to the "intelligence" gene(s)? Given the following: One race has a higher average IQ than another race. Race is genetically determined. Intelligence is genetically determined (in part). Don't those three facts have to be put together before there is any scientific basis for Watson's conclusion? [/ QUOTE ] All of those facts would be stipulated by anyone with even a minor knowledge of biology, right? Which of those three do you disagree with? [/ QUOTE ] You missed the question. I don't disagree with any of the 3 "facts" (discount the apparent lack of very accurate IQ tests). How do you know genetics is the REASON why a race is testing at a higher IQ than another? That is, unless you can prove that genetics is 100% responsible for intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] I don't. Merely that if there is any genetic basis whatsoever, then it will have some impact on intelligence.
|
|
#54
10-17-2007, 02:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
So how does all that apply to this thread? Well, the point is that even if race DOES have an impact on intelligence, it still is very likely nearly the WORST POSSIBLE tool you could use. [/ QUOTE ] Excellent point. Why not group by hair color or eye color instead of skin color? What about tall people vs short people? Which is more intelligent overall as a group? And if for those who say..."Why would grouping by height matter or eye color matter or even be of any significance?" ...then ask yourself... "Why does the grouping by skin color matter?" [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] And are those with male pattern baldness more intelligent? Maybe so? Maybe not? Apparently no one is motivated to study it or find reason to support one way or the other. But for some reason, in regards to skin color....they are. Funny how that works....huh? All in all, we're all pink in the middle, and some of us are more intelligent than others. This we know. That some choose to group it for comparision by skin color alone in support of their other motivations is an entirely different topic.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#55
10-17-2007, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] How do you know genetics is the REASON why a race is testing at a higher IQ than another? That is, unless you can prove that genetics is 100% responsible for intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] This proposition is a false alternative. Why does genetics being responsible for intelligence have to be a binary value? 100% or 0%? It might be 3% or 98%. The fact that science makes a correllation to it having some effect seems to offend you. I would suggest that you exercise some emotional intelligence, set that offense aside, and consider the question rationally. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it's that "science made a correlation to race having some effect on intelligence" that is offending him...moreso that "science" appears to be only testing for the correlation between a certain genetic grouping compared to another based on a prejudice and a desired result, as opposed to evaluating other possible correlations that may have a much stronger relationship...such as eye color, hair color, or how much hair you have on your back.
|
|
#56
10-17-2007, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How do you know genetics is the REASON why a race is testing at a higher IQ than another? That is, unless you can prove that genetics is 100% responsible for intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] This proposition is a false alternative. Why does genetics being responsible for intelligence have to be a binary value? 100% or 0%? It might be 3% or 98%. The fact that science makes a correllation to it having some effect seems to offend you. I would suggest that you exercise some emotional intelligence, set that offense aside, and consider the question rationally. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it's that "science made a correlation to race having some effect on intelligence" that is offending him...moreso that "science" appears to be only testing for the correlation between a certain genetic grouping compared to another based on a prejudice and a desired result, as opposed to evaluating other possible correlations that may have a much stronger relationship...such as eye color, hair color, or how much hair you have on your back. [/ QUOTE ] Well, its generally true that race, as defined by skin color, is a silly way to group people. But even so, studying differences between groups of people who were historically isolated from one another has more scientific merit than studying groups of people who share some arbitrary characteristic. Race is sort of a shorthand for "having origins in group X who lived all by themselves at location Y for a hundred thousand years allowing for genetic differentiation." It is arbitrary in the sense that skin color has no more impact on intelligence than eye color, but it is non-arbitrary in that skin color is a better rough tool for grouping people into ethnicities than eye color. Its still obviously imperfect, and that reminds me of my favorite rebuttal to people who argue that race is a real thing because "even a 5 year old can tell which people are black and which ones are white just by looking at them!" And that is: Nearly everyone thinks Tiger Woods is black, LOL. Dummies.
|
|
#58
10-17-2007, 02:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, hair color and type as well as eye color are well corelated with skin color. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, maybe I should have said "superficial racial features" rather than skin color. I was more trying to argue about RedBean's point about hairy backs and male pattern baldness and stuff like that.
|
|
#59
10-17-2007, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So tell me this, how does the "race" gene(s) correlate to the "intelligence" gene(s)? Given the following: One race has a higher average IQ than another race. Race is genetically determined. Intelligence is genetically determined (in part). Don't those three facts have to be put together before there is any scientific basis for Watson's conclusion? [/ QUOTE ] All of those facts would be stipulated by anyone with even a minor knowledge of biology, right? Which of those three do you disagree with? [/ QUOTE ] You missed the question. I don't disagree with any of the 3 "facts" (discount the apparent lack of very accurate IQ tests). How do you know genetics is the REASON why a race is testing at a higher IQ than another? That is, unless you can prove that genetics is 100% responsible for intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] I don't. Merely that if there is any genetic basis whatsoever, then it will have some impact on intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] This statement is wrong. Assume: Race is 100% genetic Intelligence is 50% genetic Intelligence is 50% environmental Avg IQ of Caucasian 100 Avg IQ of African 90 How do you know that the difference in IQ is not achieved entirely by the 50% of intelligence that is environmentally determined? You would need to place babies of African racial genetics in the exact same environment as Caucasian babies and then test their intelligence to prove this. Since Watson makes no reference to IQ data being gathered in this way, and he also provides no proof that IQ is 100% genetic, his entire hypothesis is bunk. EDIT: poorly worded major point! [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]
|
|
#60
10-17-2007, 03:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
Its still obviously imperfect, and that reminds me of my favorite rebuttal to people who argue that race is a real thing because "even a 5 year old can tell which people are black and which ones are white just by looking at them!" And that is: Nearly everyone thinks Tiger Woods is black, LOL. Dummies. [/ QUOTE ] Dummies indeed. Not so much because they are wrong in regard to his ethnicity, as much as they are for feeling the need to define him by it. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
