nijato
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 198
- Location
- Charm City, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I apologize for my absence of late, but I am happy to continue this conversation.
Agreed. That's just silly.
Accepted again! It would appear that neither of us are attempting to do more than establish the validity of our positions. I agree that to discount either is folly. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is almost certainly SOME race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. The degree to which they impact intelligence is very debatable.
Fair enough. the 2SD / 95% certainty line is a tall order, especially in measuring something as diffuse as cognitive ability. However, it is my contention that the assertion that certain racial groups are genetically superior to others requires a high bar. And let us not forget the limitations of IQ testing to begin with - we must accept that it measures only a fraction of the many abilities that compose "intelligence."
Well, I will agree with you once again - it is an invalid position to reject completely the POSSIBILITY of race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. Intelligence is THE key adaptation that differentiates Homo sapiens from Pan trogdolytes.
Here, I must disagree. Although my review of the literature was far from thorough, even a cursory exploration was sufficient to discover a very high degree of uncertainty in the literature measuring the heritability of cognitive ability. Also, remember my only goal is to establish the validity of the "predominant environment" position as a defensible one, and the "predominant heritability" position as uncertain. As the non-expert (with some relevant training in molecular genetics) I am confident I have shown this.
Interestingly though, it seems we have arrived at many more points of agreement than disagreement. This is unsurprising considering that we have been at least somewhat reserved (perhaps with help from the opposing side) to claiming only what is shown in objective, peer-reviewed research. Damn, I love the process of science. Dogmatism fills me with an urge to vomit.
You go too far. Liberal creationists deny that the hereditarian hypothesis isn't even worthy of consideration, that it can't possible function as a mechanism which explains what is happening. That's why they're creationists.
Agreed. That's just silly.
I'm not saying that you must accept that such variance in intelligence MUST result, I'm saying that you have to accept that this is an entirely legitimate question, that it follows logically from a sound premise, and as my last post argued, that it in fact should be the null hypothesis if you wish to avoid wearing the label of creationist. This still leaves plenty of room for debate on determining how to explain the variance we measure while not rejecting the body of science that has developed around evolutionary principles.
Accepted again! It would appear that neither of us are attempting to do more than establish the validity of our positions. I agree that to discount either is folly. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is almost certainly SOME race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. The degree to which they impact intelligence is very debatable.
Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata put it better than I can:
Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion?
This is just wordsmanship that you're engaged in. Defining a 2 SD variance as being small and inconsequential is a bold move that might convince some people who are not up to speed on the details of what exactly it is that you're talking about, but a 2 SD variance is not "a small range of variance" when used by statisticians and scientists. You're making a political statement.
Fair enough. the 2SD / 95% certainty line is a tall order, especially in measuring something as diffuse as cognitive ability. However, it is my contention that the assertion that certain racial groups are genetically superior to others requires a high bar. And let us not forget the limitations of IQ testing to begin with - we must accept that it measures only a fraction of the many abilities that compose "intelligence."
I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I was setting out to conclusively make the case. If I wanted to set out on that task I'd have to marshall more than 2,000 papers I have sitting on my hard drive. What I was doing was answering challenges from liberal creationists. I enjoy doing that. I find pleasure in their presenting an objection that they think closes down the debate and I come back and undermine their rejection. This back and forth display is available for all to follow over the two threads that hosted this discussion.
Well, I will agree with you once again - it is an invalid position to reject completely the POSSIBILITY of race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. Intelligence is THE key adaptation that differentiates Homo sapiens from Pan trogdolytes.
That's funny to read. You're taking more authority onto yourself than is warranted considering that this topic seems to be entirely new to you. All you're doing is engaging in a political show which seeks to give cover to liberal creationists to continue on in their ways of rejecting evolution as being applicable to humans and to human intelligence. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with engaging in political polemics, but please drop the act of your position being based on your thorough review of the evidence - this is a discussion board, for pete's sake, and you've just skimmed the literal surface of all the material from a number of disparate disciplines which produce mutually reinforcing evidence in support of the hereditarian position. You have not established any grounds to justify speaking with such reassuring authority.
Here, I must disagree. Although my review of the literature was far from thorough, even a cursory exploration was sufficient to discover a very high degree of uncertainty in the literature measuring the heritability of cognitive ability. Also, remember my only goal is to establish the validity of the "predominant environment" position as a defensible one, and the "predominant heritability" position as uncertain. As the non-expert (with some relevant training in molecular genetics) I am confident I have shown this.
Interestingly though, it seems we have arrived at many more points of agreement than disagreement. This is unsurprising considering that we have been at least somewhat reserved (perhaps with help from the opposing side) to claiming only what is shown in objective, peer-reviewed research. Damn, I love the process of science. Dogmatism fills me with an urge to vomit.