3 ms·

If you want to make this argument, first prove IQ measures genetic intelligence. Is that even a thing? Can someone with no education but genetic IQ be shown to

If you want to make this argument, first prove IQ measures genetic intelligence. Is that even a thing? Can someone with no education but genetic IQ be shown to be more intelligent than someone with a higher education and lower genetic IQ? This sounds absurdly easy to refute. This test would also need to apply across cultures and communities. Maybe you’re just playing devil’s advocate, but I can’t understand how anyone can make these arguments without serious scientific evidence. We shouldn’t be making statements on entire groups of people with our beliefs. Also, people of color are genetically identical to those not of color.

celticmusic 7y ago
what the hell are you on about? I made no argument, simply explained why some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Hey, you're the who's pathetically attempting to white-wash Eric Raymond's long well documented track record of racism by making the ludicrous claim that he has "empathy towards the black community". "The average IQ of the Haitian population is 67... Haiti is, quite literally, a country full of violent idiots." -Eric S Raymond "... The minimum level of training required to make someone effective as a self defense shooter is not very high... unfortunately, this doesn't cover the BLM crowd, which would have an average IQ of 85 if it's statistically representative of American blacks as a whole. I've never tried to train anyone that dim and wouldn't want to." -Eric S Raymond https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/780839196231630848 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/780839196231630848 Empathy, riiiiight. How about "contempt".
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    that's nowhere close to a reasonable reading of any of my posts. You're on a crusade that no one else cares about.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      Well, I care about it. I've been watching this exchange, and believe that your original comment, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 , incorrectly describes the issue, and that the explanations you give for why "some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement" are both something that a racist - perhaps different racists - might agree with. Your first point: > If you believe IQ is completely genetic, then a statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as racist against blacks. The evidence is that parts of what is measured in an IQ test is indeed genetic. There are people with genetic problems which, for example, make those people unable to advance beyond the mental skills of a baby. However, there is no evidence that whatever it is that an IQ test measures has any association with the genetics of black skin, and the evidence against a causative relationship continues to grow. Bear in mind that the genetic diversity of people with black skin is much higher than that of people with white skin, and the genetics show a "white race" is NOT a meaningful genetic concept. Your second point: > if you believe IQ is malleable (fixable to some extent), then the statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as a lambasting of the system, and empathy towards the black community. As codezero pointed out, the question that must be addressed first is, is IQ testing meaningful, and if so, what does it measure? A large body of evidence shows that IQ testing was developed alongside "scientific racism", and definitely used as part of the American eugenics programs. There's also a long line of justified complaints that many of the tests were "Eurocentric", and not just in knowledge of facts but also on how it relates to certain cultural viewpoints. As a result, most of the people who make an argument based on IQ, rather than economic inequality or systemic racism, are on shaky grounds to start with, so must make a much harder effort to justify their arguments - something that Raymond hasn't done. As he styles himself an anthropologist, he must surely know the issues. His interpretation, as best as I can tell, is that there's a conspiracy against talking about the truth. My own interpretation is that he's wrong, and that "the truth" is mostly an expression of racist beliefs combined with cherry-picked information and misinterpreted statistics. Going back to how you "explained why ... others do not think it's a racist statement." Do you agree that a racist might make a racist comment and not think it's racist? So your clarification might be completely correct, but still describe an expression of a racist viewpoint. The most influential anti-vaxxer don't say that vaccination should be banned. They instead "caution" about unexpected consequences, and big-pharma coverups, and the like. The most influential racists no longer cry out "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Raymond has a long history of saying things that a racist would agree with, and it's much more likely that your interpretation of his non-rascist intent is not correct. For example, "bullets slathered in pork fat", mentioned in another subthread of this discussion, is a not uncommon xenophobic phrase. The bullet is to kill Muslims, and the pork fat alludes to religious prohibitions on eating pork. The phrase is constructed to imply that Muslims should be killed, and desecrated in such a way they cannot enter heaven. It's also based on a false understanding of Islam. (It also echoes complaints by both Muslims and Hindus in India about cultural suppression during the rule of the British East Indian Company. The grease for the Enfield P-53 rifle cartridges could contain beef and pork tallow, which was offensive to soldiers who were adherents of either religions. This helped lead to Indian Rebellion of 1857.) The quote comes from Raymond's comment on NadaNet, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.org/esr/nedanet/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.o... . NadaNet was "a network of hackers formed to support the democratic revolution in Iran. Our mission is to help the Iranian people by setting up networks of proxy severs, anonymizers, and any other appropriate technologies that can enable them to communicate and organize — a network beyond the censorship or control of the Iranian regime." He also wrote on that page "I already got my jihadi death threat from Iran in 2006 before NedaNet" which is itself odd as, quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism "The term jihadist is almost exclusively used to describe Sunni extremists". Yet "90–95% of Iranians associate themselves with the Shia branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 5–10% with the Sunni and Sufi branches of Islam" says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran . I don't know what that death threat was, but characterizing it as 'jihadi' when coming from Iran seems based in ignorance - which is something that a racist would easily do but something any anthropologist deserving of the description should know to avoid.

celticmusic 7y ago

what the hell are you on about? I made no argument, simply explained why some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
DonHopkins 7y ago
Hey, you're the who's pathetically attempting to white-wash Eric Raymond's long well documented track record of racism by making the ludicrous claim that he has "empathy towards the black community". "The average IQ of the Haitian population is 67... Haiti is, quite literally, a country full of violent idiots." -Eric S Raymond "... The minimum level of training required to make someone effective as a self defense shooter is not very high... unfortunately, this doesn't cover the BLM crowd, which would have an average IQ of 85 if it's statistically representative of American blacks as a whole. I've never tried to train anyone that dim and wouldn't want to." -Eric S Raymond https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/780839196231630848 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/780839196231630848 Empathy, riiiiight. How about "contempt".
- celticmusic 7y ago
  that's nowhere close to a reasonable reading of any of my posts. You're on a crusade that no one else cares about.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Well, I care about it. I've been watching this exchange, and believe that your original comment, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 , incorrectly describes the issue, and that the explanations you give for why "some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement" are both something that a racist - perhaps different racists - might agree with. Your first point: > If you believe IQ is completely genetic, then a statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as racist against blacks. The evidence is that parts of what is measured in an IQ test is indeed genetic. There are people with genetic problems which, for example, make those people unable to advance beyond the mental skills of a baby. However, there is no evidence that whatever it is that an IQ test measures has any association with the genetics of black skin, and the evidence against a causative relationship continues to grow. Bear in mind that the genetic diversity of people with black skin is much higher than that of people with white skin, and the genetics show a "white race" is NOT a meaningful genetic concept. Your second point: > if you believe IQ is malleable (fixable to some extent), then the statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as a lambasting of the system, and empathy towards the black community. As codezero pointed out, the question that must be addressed first is, is IQ testing meaningful, and if so, what does it measure? A large body of evidence shows that IQ testing was developed alongside "scientific racism", and definitely used as part of the American eugenics programs. There's also a long line of justified complaints that many of the tests were "Eurocentric", and not just in knowledge of facts but also on how it relates to certain cultural viewpoints. As a result, most of the people who make an argument based on IQ, rather than economic inequality or systemic racism, are on shaky grounds to start with, so must make a much harder effort to justify their arguments - something that Raymond hasn't done. As he styles himself an anthropologist, he must surely know the issues. His interpretation, as best as I can tell, is that there's a conspiracy against talking about the truth. My own interpretation is that he's wrong, and that "the truth" is mostly an expression of racist beliefs combined with cherry-picked information and misinterpreted statistics. Going back to how you "explained why ... others do not think it's a racist statement." Do you agree that a racist might make a racist comment and not think it's racist? So your clarification might be completely correct, but still describe an expression of a racist viewpoint. The most influential anti-vaxxer don't say that vaccination should be banned. They instead "caution" about unexpected consequences, and big-pharma coverups, and the like. The most influential racists no longer cry out "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Raymond has a long history of saying things that a racist would agree with, and it's much more likely that your interpretation of his non-rascist intent is not correct. For example, "bullets slathered in pork fat", mentioned in another subthread of this discussion, is a not uncommon xenophobic phrase. The bullet is to kill Muslims, and the pork fat alludes to religious prohibitions on eating pork. The phrase is constructed to imply that Muslims should be killed, and desecrated in such a way they cannot enter heaven. It's also based on a false understanding of Islam. (It also echoes complaints by both Muslims and Hindus in India about cultural suppression during the rule of the British East Indian Company. The grease for the Enfield P-53 rifle cartridges could contain beef and pork tallow, which was offensive to soldiers who were adherents of either religions. This helped lead to Indian Rebellion of 1857.) The quote comes from Raymond's comment on NadaNet, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.org/esr/nedanet/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.o... . NadaNet was "a network of hackers formed to support the democratic revolution in Iran. Our mission is to help the Iranian people by setting up networks of proxy severs, anonymizers, and any other appropriate technologies that can enable them to communicate and organize — a network beyond the censorship or control of the Iranian regime." He also wrote on that page "I already got my jihadi death threat from Iran in 2006 before NedaNet" which is itself odd as, quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism "The term jihadist is almost exclusively used to describe Sunni extremists". Yet "90–95% of Iranians associate themselves with the Shia branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 5–10% with the Sunni and Sufi branches of Islam" says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran . I don't know what that death threat was, but characterizing it as 'jihadi' when coming from Iran seems based in ignorance - which is something that a racist would easily do but something any anthropologist deserving of the description should know to avoid.