Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
- Posts: 510
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
I would like to begin by defining what I mean by the term “White Identity”. White identity is simply a recognition by Whites that they have interests in common which must be defended. All other racial groups take this for granted, i.e; that it is necessary to band together along racial lines, to work together for common interests. Thus, what I am proposing for America’s Whites is nothing over and beyond something that is utterly widespread and well - understood among all other races. Blacks in the United States, for example, have a very clear racial identity, take, for example, the Black Congressional Caucus. it exists for one reason, and only reason. it's purpose is to examine proposed legislation from the point of view of “What's in it for us Black folks ? ” That is the only thing the black congressional caucus actually does, it doesn't even pretend to have the nation's interest in mind. They are purely interested in what's good for Black people. The Hispanic caucus has exactly the same perspective for Hispanics. There's also an Asian Caucus, likewise, with a similarly narrow view, i.e; not of what's good for the country, but merely what's good for our group. Of course, if anyone were to dare propose a White Congressional Caucus, it goes without saying that this would be considered grotesquely immoral !
it is also well known that in every profession, on every university campus, in every State police force or Fire service, every Department of the US government, there are, again, racially exclusive groups working predominantly for the interests of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. In the American Anthropological Association ,for example, there's a group of Black anthropologists and Hispanic anthropologists who are looking out for their own interests. The same thing is widespread on University campuses as well, with Black, Asian and Hispanic Student Councils and societies of various kinds being standard features of campus life; but if a White student were to ever propose that he would like to establish, say, a White Student Union the mere suggestion would , again,be considered grotesquely immoral and trigger a reflex chorus of panicky opprobrium from College administrators.
If we can imagine a sharp diplomatic conflict between Mexico and the United States I think there can be no doubt whatsoever which side Mexican -Americans, citizens or non citizens alike would take. And it goes without saying that virtually every other Hispanic group would join along with them, this because in the US there is not just a strong Mexican racial identity, there is a strong pan - Hispanic identity - an extended form of racial identity in which all Hispanics/Latinos feel a loyalty to their group, and work for their own interests at the expense of others or the common good of the nation. That's why in America Mexicans are just part of a national political organisation called, for example, the national Council of La Raza (NCLR) , La Raza, BTW, means, “The Race”. The NCLR advocate amongst other things for : progressive, pro -Latino reforms to immigration policy; for the creation of paths leading to US citizenship for illegal immigrants and for a reduction in the number of deportations. So again, the NCLR perspective is a very narrow one, namely, “What's in it for our group; what's in it for our race.”
What about Asians in the US? Asians were once considered the model minority, and one of the reasons for that was that in the past they didn't form these kind of race - based groups to agitate for their own interests. But since then they have looked around and they now see just how effective that approach has been for Blacks and Hispanics, and so increasingly, what used to be Chinese, Japanese or Korean groups are now spreading out and broadening their Horizons to implement a kind of pan-Asian approach so that they can exert the same kind of full -scale pressure on American politics that Blacks and Hispanics have successfully brought to bear to date. A good example of this new strategy is something called the “80/20 Initiative” (officially known as “The 80/20 Political Action Committee). it is a political pressure group that promises to deliver 80% - fully 80% - of the American Asian vote either nationally or locally to any candidate who agrees to push the Asian agenda. Once "80/20" endorses a candidate, it organises an Asian - American bloc vote for him or her by a range of methods: recruiting volunteers to advocate for "80/20"s ' chosen contender; broadcasting on ethnic media radio; placing print and television advertisements in the electoral constituency and communicating via email with it's 700,000+ base of Asian American supporters, their families and friends. It is noteworthy, I think, to mention that the “ 80/20” lobby group endorsed the Democrat candidate in the 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 US Presidential elections.
To continue. Let me make a confession. I have a White identity, I am, like the American Founding Fathers , a White man of direct English (Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) descent. I have no hesitation in confirming that I naturally prefer the company of other White Europeans. I have White children, and I hope to have White grandchildren. I want to live in a White majority country. I can get along fine with non- Whites - and I have done so on many occasions to date - but being White is an important part of my life. Now, does this all sound scandalous to you? Do you think what I have said rightly marks me as some kind of extreme political reactionary : a neo-Nazi, a White Supremacist, an Alt-Right "fascist" ? If so, Just think for a moment how, virtually all white people agree with me - how they quietly agree - with most of what I am saying and what I think about race. The only difference is that America's White "silent majority" don't openly talk about it, or, if they do talk about it, the chances are, they lie about it.
White Americans say they're all in favour of integration and yet there is a profoundly important act of integration that they could undertake but that they never actually do. A white person could buy a house in a black neighborhood; nowadays, there are plenty of middle - class Black neighborhoods in the US where a White person would be perfectly safe. But the fact is, not even the most Liberal whites will take that basic integrationist step. Despite what they say, they too, prefer the company of other Whites. Interestingly, the statistics for residential segregation in the US today are almost exactly identical to what they were 50 or 60 years ago. Thus, despite all of the encouragement and propaganda that has been devoted to promoting racial mixing in America, Whites still prefer to live with whites, Blacks still prefer to live with Blacks, Asians with Asians and Hispanics with Hispanics; there is, in short, self-segregation virtually across the board.
If you're a church-goer, BTW, consider this; 95% of American churches are at least 85% one race. This is because when people are free to choose, they choose to be with people like themselves. Could I advise as well, that if you're a White American and you cannot think of a single majority non-White school that you'd be happy to send your children to, then, you have a White Identity, even if you didn't think that you did.
So, what would be the interests of Whites ? What might they try to work for if they were able to express their Identity in the same way that every other racial group in the US does? Let's consider immigration.
One could make a very strong case to shut down US immigration tomorrow, strictly on environmental grounds. America already has 350,000,000 people living in its Territories, and at present, the government imports another 2,000,000 every year. At this rate of growth there will, by the mid-century, be 1/2 BILLION individuals living in the USA. Is this a good thing ? At this rate, would America need to be building a tremendous amount new infra-structure, for example, as 8000 new schools per decade. There is much, in addition, much talk of the US achieving energy independence, and yet the idea of adding millions and millions more people to the population from outside foreign countries, surely makes a complete mockery of this worthy goal.
Shouldn't it be a legitimate subject for discussion in America, what the optimal population size of the nation would be ? Shouldn't Americans be free to debate the question of what population their country should have? Should the population be the 350,000,000 it currently is now, or should we aim, say, to increase it to 1/2 Billion ? Would this be a good thing, or a bad thing? Well, you would think such questions ought be openly discussed, and that is important there is a healthy public debate on these kind of questions, but the fact is that there is no such debate; these questions are never discussed. They are never discussed because as soon as someone begins to talk about, say, what the optimal size of the US population ought be, they need to start thinking in terms of cutting back on immigration, and cut-backs on immigration will basically mean that all of the non-White foreign nationals who want to come and live in America will have to stay home; therefore, no one dares raise the question.
An even more difficult question to raise is , that assuming the United States really should should be allowing immigrants to enter, who should these immigrants be? What sort of person is likely to assimilate best into American society ? After all, the choice as to whom, is permitted to to enter the US is completely up to the American people. There is not one foreign national anywhere in the world who has the absolute right to come and live in the United States, anymore than there is a stranger walking in the street outside your house tight now, who has an absolute right to come and move into your guest bed room. The choice about who is allowed to immigrate to the US is entirely one for the American people. Yet when has there ever been - when have you ever heard - a serious, rational public debate on the question of who (what sort of people) should Americans admit into their country ? I can't recall one (?) And the reason for this, again, is race. If any spokesman should start talking reasonable and rationally about who is is good to allow into America, someone will inevitably raise the question as to whether it is a good thing that 30% of the population of Mexico has already moved into the United States. People will also ask why it is their are so many immigrants allowed to enter America who have no jobs skills, or, just what is it that Haitians or Somalis or Nigerians bring to the US that is so desirable? These questions are simply never discussed rationally, though if you look at an objective measure ( an official government profile) of the immigrants who are permitted to come to the US, what you will discover is quite shocking. The political leaders of the US always claim that they are actively working at fighting poverty, fighting school failure, fighting disease, fighting crime, but President Obama (and, in 2016, Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton) favoured liberal immigration policies, the kind that were imported millions of poor people, millions of people highly likely to drop out of school, millions of individuals with exotic diseases that most Americans have never ever heard of as well as re-introducing diseases like Tuberculosis which was believed to have successfully eradicated, millions of persons who had markedly high crime rates. Naturally, there are exceptions. Some immigrants are very productive, but when you examine the profile of the US immigrant stream in aggregate, you will find enormous numbers of people who could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as valuable or desirable additions to the American population.
The reason why none of this can be pointed out is because it would, as I say, evoke charges of racism given so many of those who are currently immigrating to the US are non-White. The outrageous fact is, that if a White American spokesman were to openly ask these kind of question or raise these kind of points in any kind of public forum, s/he would be viewed as fomenting racial discrimination and almost certainly be condemned and persecuted as a White"fascist, a White Supremacist" or some kind of immoral, neo-Nazi, political monster.
Consider, for example, in the 1960s, the US already had a Black underclass, now, 50 years later America has imported completely from outside its own borders, a brand new Hispanic underclass that shows exactly the same kinds of dysfunctionality wrt to crime, illegitimacy, chronic welfare dependency, educational failure and poverty that continue to reproduce themselves across generations. I cannot think of a self-inflicted wound that is so grievous and so utterly avoidable.
Up until 1965, the US had an immigration policy that was specifically designed to keep America a majority White nation, and it was, indeed, 90% White. It seems to me that this was a very wise and and also a very MORAL policy, for the fundamental reason that any healthy nation always wishes to preserve its it character and not abolish it. Any majority- White nation has the right, and indeed ,in my opinion, the DUTY to preserve it White-majority status because that is the only way that it will be able to preserve its national and cultural character. However, given the kind of immigration policy America currently has, by 2042, Whites are predicted to be a minority; this, just 70 odd years after the changes to US immigration law that were passed in the mid-1960s.
So, is it a shocking idea that Whites in America should want to remain a majority in their own country ? Does this sound outrageous? Well, it does, but only when White American folks say it. Every other nation in the world - every non-White nation, simply takes it for granted that they will stay the majority in their own house.
Imagine for a moment, if the immigration shoes were to be placed on the other foot. Imagine hundreds of thousands of White Americans pouring across the border in Mexico, and imagine that they are poorer than Mexicans, that they have higher crime rates, higher illegitimacy rates. Imagine also, that they are demanding instruction in the English language,( rather than Spanish), in schools, that they want ballot papers printed in English, so they can vote for the candidates of their choice; also, that they are buying up radio stations and newspapers apace so that they can broadcast and publish in English, and that in just a few decades all of the White, English-speaking Americans who celebrate 4th of July ( but not Cinco de Mayo) are going to be the majority in Mexico. Do you honestly think that it would be possible to trick the Mexicans into believing that this was all some sort of happy crappy "cultural enrichment" exercise? I DON'T THINK SO. They would, rather, immediately recognise an invasion, they would immediately recognise colonisation when they saw it, and they would absolutely not permit it. And this would be the same with any other non-White country anywhere in the world.
When I hear people attempting to defend what I regard as being America's utterly indefensible immigration policies, they invariably talk about "diversity". These people tell the public how It is the immigration of people from all around the world, who are as unlike each other and as unlike White Americans as possible, that makes the US diverse, and that diversity is, in fact, America's greatest strength . Very often the people singing this song are well-educated liberal -progressive intellectuals, and that makes perfect sense in an ironic kind of way, because the very idea that "diversity" of language, of culture, of race, is a strength for a country is so drastically mistaken, so profoundly stupid that only a very over-educated person, one who is, as the English say, far "too clever by half", could ever possibly persuade themselves that it is true ! Isn't that right, Dr Fool ?
The timeless truth is that"diversity" of this kind is always a source of tension, civil unrest and conflict. If you look around the world at places where populations that are diverse along these lines have tried to share the same territory, you will find it is always the case that there has been conflict and not uncommonly large-scale killing. Why ? The reason is that people prefer to be with people who are like themselves, and this is a fundamental fact of human nature/human society.
For decades, Americans have been exhorted by their ruling political class to "celebrate diversity", and, it's true that there are people in the US for whom diversity is well worthy of celebration. This is because in the United States diversity only means one thing, It means fewer Whites and more of everyone else. So, if you're a "more of everyone else", you may not practice diversity in your own life, you may stick with your own kind when you have that chance, but you will most certainly want more diversity for the nation, because diversity for America means more of your kind and more of your ideas. It means that the country will reflect more of your history, your culture and your aspirations; at the same time it will reflect less and less of the history, culture, traditional values, social manners/mores and aspirations of the the founding White, European ( Anglo-Saxon, Protestant/Christian) stock who originally settled the country. So, for America's growing population of non - White immigrants, of course "diversity" makes good sense, of course it is something to celebrate. Why wouldn't they celebrate their growing numbers and their growing influence in an increasingly "diverse" United States ? Of course they do !
Now let's consider the celebration of diversity in America from the perspective of Whites. It seems to me that if you're asking White Americans to celebrate diversity, you're asking them to be happy, to rejoice at their dwindling numbers, at their declining influence. Whites in the United States are expected to believe that dispossession is an exciting, wonderful prospect. YIPPEE - we're going to become a minority ! YIPPEE - someone else is going to make the rules ! YIPPEE - if this goes on long enough there might not be any of us left at all before long !
To put it bluntly, in my view, the fundamental expression of White Identity is nothing more than the fundamental desire to survive. It is nothing more than the wish to continue as a distinct people with a distinct destiny. Survival is the most basic, the most legitimate and the most justified of all human desires, and to somehow to brow-beaten and bamboozled Whites into thinking that taking the simplest measures to preserve their own Identity, their own cultural continuity is immoral is utterly to stand morality on its head. Survival of one's culture, survival of one's people and the wish for them to endure down the generations, this, in the US, is a fundamental human desire that is denied only to Whites.
Having defined what White Identity is, let me now be clear about what it is not. White Identity does not mean disliking people of other races. Take, for example, the Japanese. Japan has a ZERO immigration policy. You cannot go and live in Japan just because you might want to; and there are many, many people around the world today who do want to go and live in the successful country that is Japan. The Japanese simply do do permit the millions of Filipinos, Iraqis and Arabs who would love to live there, because they know that large number of non-Japanese immigrants would permanently change the character of Japan. They love their country as it is, and they are under no obligation to change it, in fact it would be immoral for them to change their country and pass it on to their children. The same is true for Israel; the Israelis love their country because it is a Jewish State, and they have every right to preserve a State that reflects their culture and their history. They know that if millions of Gentiles from around the world were to immigrate into Israel, its essential character would change. It would no longer be the country they love. America and other White nations in Europe, and the Anglosphere like as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they too should have the same right to preserve the character of their people and their traditional cultural values and achievements, institutions, social manners and mores.
Let me now touch briefly on the vexed question of racial differences in intelligence. The genes that account for individual differences in intelligence are now in the process of being found and the chances that they are going to be found to be distributed equally among all populations all around the world are ZERO - repeat, ZERO. The scientists involves in line of research are all in quiet agreement, the chances are zero and we must begin to accustomise ourselves to this fact. Some groups of people are on average simply more intelligent than others. As it turns out the Ashkenazi Jews got dealt the best genetic hand. On average they are smarter than anyone else on Earth. After the Ashkenazi Jews, come the North Asians ( the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans), and after them come caucasian Whites; while Arabs, Hispanics, Blacks and Africans have the lowest average IQ scores.
I accept that this is a difficult and unpleasant subject for many. It is harsh to talk about differences in capability, to talk in terms of one group never as a group being able to achieve the same level of ability and achievement as another group. With individuals you never know, but when it comes to groups, some groups are simply not going to achieve at the same level. So, why must Americans talk about this unpleasant subject? The reason is because in the US, when Blacks and Hispanics fail to achieve at the same level as Whites and North Asians, it is invariably Whites who are blamed for this. Whites---racist Whites, past or present; the evil of Whites; that is the only official explanation that is given for differences of achievement of this kind. If the real reason in innate (biogenetic) differences in ability and not White wickedness, then White are not to blame for it. and it is vitally important that Whites be prepared to speak the truth on this subject because otherwise they will forever be blamed for the failure of other groups.
So, what then, does the increase in the Black and Hispanic population of the US mean ? According to current predictions, by the mid-century America is going to be almost half either Black or Hispanic. Given this, I ask you to consider just one index - one indicator - of what this will mean for the US. The average Black or Hispanic high school Senior in America reads and performs Mathematics at the average level of the White or Asian 8th grader - they are 4 (four) years behind. And this is not going to change, moreover it is not just a question of academic performance, these population groups in the US differ also differ from Whites and Asians in terms of crime rates, poverty, illegitimacy, domestic dysfunction, welfare dependency and school failure. So as the US becomes more Black and Hispanic the nation will change; literacy rates will decline, the workforce will become less productive and America per capita income will stop growing as it always has, and begin to decline. The upshot is that the White Americans will, in short, be forced to deal with the consequences of having a Third World population in their country, and the fact is that you cannot have a Third World population without becoming a Third World nation ( consider Mexico, Haiti, Brazil, Cuba, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Nigeria, Ethiopia or South Africa).
I think this is without doubt the most serious crisis, the most serious threat that America has ever faced. Yet with the exception of the 45th President, Donald Trump, elected to office in 2016, no American politician has ever had the back-bone and determination to address it head-on in a fully forthright, honest and decisive manner. It was Trump's bold commitment to a radical reform of immigration policy that put him in the White House . And thank God for that, because the alternative, i.e. Hillary Clinton's, immigration proposals were sheer madness, and he she been elected, it would have been a disaster for the US. (And) I am happy, BTW, to debate this matter in detail with any forum member who disagrees.
In conclusion, let me summarise the notion of White Identity. A correct understanding of White Identity really boils down to an understanding of three basic notions:
(1) The fact that it is perfectly natural, normal and healthy for Whites to prefer the society and culture of of people like themselves, just as all groups prefer the the culture and society of groups of people like themselves.
(2) We must understand that human population groups are not interchangeable. If you swap out the White population of the US and replace it with Hispanic, Black, African or Latin American people, everything about the country will change. America will cease to be a European style nation and become more like the Third World countries from which today's immigrant come.
(3) For these very reasons, Whites have every reason the STRONGLY resist any policy that that will reduce them to a minority.
Are you shocked at this idea of Whites wanting to maintain majority status. If so, I ask you at what point precisely will Whites in the US have the rights, just like everyone else to have common interests and defend them ? Will it be only after they have become a minority in 2042 (as it's predicted), only after they become 35%, 15% of the population, or should they wait until there are no Whites left at all ?
WHEN will Whites have the right to defend their interests ? Because if American Whites do not rekindle a sense of group Identity, they will be shoved aside by other groups that have a sharp racial Identity one that is just as sharp as their elbows. If US Whites do not rekindle a robust sense of racial solidarity, they will leave to their children and to their grandchildren, a country that is darker. poorer, more chaotic and more and more like the Third World countries. Whites will, if they do not act, turn their descendents into a despised and dispossessed remnant of a once great people. Without a sense of racial Identity what the Whites of America face in the the long run, is , in short nothing less than oblivion.
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
- Location: UK
viewtopic.php?p=323307#p323307Steve3007 wrote:Obviously Dachshund's Nazi-like views on the purging of people not deemed to be "Anglo Saxon" enough from various societies, and/or the removal of those peoples' rights as human beings, are similarly controversial. But they are (rightly) not removed simply because of that.
viewtopic.php?p=323257#p323257LuckyR wrote:Even a simpleton is entitled to an opinion.
viewtopic.php?p=323895#p323895Burning ghost wrote:If someone speaks openly they can be challenged openly.
If offense is a problem then avoidance works well enough. I don’t see a direct problem with someone being racist unless they are walking up to people on the street telling them they are sub-human. If someone is asked about what they think and they respond honestly it should be respected (“respect” doesn’t mean “unchallenged”
viewtopic.php?p=324220#p324220Steve3007 wrote:Carry on.
etc.Steve3007 wrote:He [Dachshund] has, rightly, not been stopped from posting on this website.
State who has clamped down on your freedom of speech.Dachshund wrote:Why. ? Well, it is all because I have had the temerity to openly breach the politically correct clampdown on freedom of speech imposed by their beloved prevailing liberal orthodoxy, in particular, I have dared to speak the truth about that which America's elitist Liberal establishment has effectively rendered unspeakable, and placed beyond the pale of any civilized, rational debate in polite society, namely, the taboo subject of race.
Why? It is because you (not anyone else) have said:Dachshund wrote:Why. ?
- Women should be stripped of the right to vote (the right to express an opinion via the ballot box) because, in your view, they do not, in general, vote in the way that you deem to be correct.
- Fat women with died hair are, in your view, feminist bitches.
- Anybody who self-identifies as Muslim in the UK should be labelled with armbands, in the manor of Jews in 1930s Germany, as a prelude to forcibly removing them from the country if they refuse to renounce their faith.
- Based on your experiences with some aboriginal Australians with poor sanitation, all black people are, in your explicitly stated view, stinking sub-human apes.
- The intellectual inferiority of non white people means that they are lucky to be allowed, by white people, to live in their native countries and, if you had your way, they would not be.
- The Japanese, as an entire group, are a bunch of savages who deserved what they got at Hiroshima.
- All people who you personally regard as not "Anglo Saxon" should not be allowed to live in the UK.
- All human races that you regard as non-white and/or non Anglo Saxon should be treated in the way that humans generally tend to treat non-human animals.
- Anybody who dares to challenge your views on these matters is simply insulted, abused and labelled a "race traitor" a "neo-Marxist" a "pinko" etc.
I extend an invitation to you yet again:
Meet me and my black partner and her daughter and exercise your right to freedom of speech in their presence by explaining to them the reasons why, in your clearly unambiguously stated view, they are stinking sub-human negro apes who should not be allowed to express an opinion at the ballot box and should be thrown out of the country in which they (unlike you) were both born, in order to ensure that it is composed entirely of Anglo Saxons like yourself.
You have my word that you will be allowed to express this opinion freely without coming to any physical harm, although, free speech being what it is, you should be prepared to be mocked for the cowardly hypocrite that you are.
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
- Location: UK
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
You’re fanning the flames.
Sausage Dog -
The thing is “identity politics” is used by minorities not majorities. At the moment around 70% of US citizens are “white.” The US has always suffered with identity issues and many people refer to their heritage as if it defines them the most popular being Irish and Scottish for some reason? Let us look at why ... the Scots and Irish have pretty much always been at loggerheads with the English as Americans were persuaded to be during the fight for independence (although the fight against the English was only by a very small minority with most Americans not wanting to leave The British Empire.)
White identity - or western identity, as I’d prefer to term in more sensible terms - is to not have a real coherent group identity. The western mindset is not a “racial” mindset in any use of the term “race.” It is a hard fought for, hodgepodge history of internal conflicts, hostilities and revolutions. It has been messy and from it sprang a reasonably stable category of systems in Europe that then went global - even during the conflicts.
I’m European. I’m English. I don’t even think of myself along these terms though in a genetic sense because it is NOT a genetic identity.
The biggest issue I have with all this nonsensical talk of “race” is that no one presses hard enough to establish the differing terminology due to the context. In the sense of what you are talking about it is “race” as culture only. So when you hear about Asian, Hispanic and Black, what you seem almost willfully blind to is that these are cultural categories (albeit roughshod.) So when you talk of “white identity” you really should say European/Western identity.
I don’t think the label “black” does anyone who is black much good tbh. The point was to protect minorites, but I don’t see this as being helpful because “black” in Amerocentric terms refers to the history of the US and does not represent the vast majority of “black peoples” (Africans and Afro-Caribbean.)
Culturally there is a false distinction Asia too. China Mongolia and Vietnam don’t really have a similar culture to other neighbouring regions such as Thailand, Indonesia or Laos. Western culture has remained extremely compact over the bast majority of its history so the distinction of Slavic or Latin culture are part and parcel of the whole Western identity not separate estranged points - the geography matters in historical terms.
Now “western culture” is pretty much the predominant global culture. The reason westerners (some at least) are floundering is in part due to their lack of grounding. They cannot see their “cultural identity” because it has engulfed the world. To not have a sense of defined identity is likelythe best identity to have.
Personally I so still vaguely identify as English, I don’t much care for the European label tbh, not that I find it bad it is just that I am not part of that generation and prefr to skip the whole deal and just say I’m from Earth. I don’t think by the end of theis century there will be any meaningful “nation” left. I think it may be very difficult for people to adjust generation to generation as national identity becomes an alien artifact of the past.
To your conclusions:
(1) Yes, they do. What people look like has little to no bearing on their culture though (because culture - in a visual sense - is more about attire than skintone.)
(2) In terms of Culture humans have distinctions. I’m English and European because I was brought up there, I speak the language, was educated and exposed to the cultue. It is part of me, but it doesn’t define me.
(3) No. You’re conflating arbitrary skintone with culture - not entirely your fault though because of the tangled mess of assuming “race” in the sociopolitical sense (culture) means “race” in the scientific sense (which it clearly doesn’t.) This is an unfortunate hangover from a bygone era of ethnology when people used to think there were different classes of human “race.” The same sort of problem has stemmed from that era with the differing use of the terms “masculine” and “feminine” which are taken by too many people to mean “male” and “female.”
- Posts: 3479
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Any new topics covering the same issues will be deleted as a violation of forum rules.
No, not at all. It is all too common. We have heard it from you and from many others.Now, does this all sound scandalous to you?
By your own words it is a reactionary position.Do you think what I have said rightly marks me as some kind of extreme political reactionary : a neo-Nazi, a White Supremacist, an Alt-Right "fascist" ?
Perhaps in the virtual world in which you live, but it is actually the minority of real living people who agree with you,If so, Just think for a moment how, virtually all white people agree with me …
That is a politically reactionary position.... and part of the problem is that they are afraid of actually becoming a racial minority.
In typical form you make claims without any credible evidence.The only difference is that America's White "silent majority" don't openly talk about it, or, if they do talk about it, the chances are, they lie about it.
Another claim without any credible evidence. There are plenty of integrated neighborhoods in the US. I have lived in several of them.White Americans say they're all in favour of integration and yet there is a profoundly important act of integration that they could undertake but that they never actually do. A white person could buy a house in a black neighborhood; nowadays, there are plenty of middle - class Black neighborhoods in the US where a White person would be perfectly safe.
A fact? Where is the evidence?But the fact is, not even the most Liberal whites will take that basic integrationist step.
Evidence?Interestingly, the statistics for residential segregation in the US today are almost exactly identical to what they were 50 or 60 years ago.
Could I advise as well, that if you're a White American and you cannot think of a single majority non-White school that you'd be happy to send your children to, then, you have a White Identity, even if you didn't think that you did.
The majority of well educated people value education. Most are far more concerned with the school’s ranking and reputation and programs than with whether it happens to be majority non-White. We chose to live in a town that was racially and economically diverse and to send our children to the public schools which were racially and economically diverse. Their friends and neighbors were racially and economically diverse.
It may come as a shock to you, but such a question would never even occur to many of us. Our interests are not framed in terms of racial identity.So, what would be the interests of Whites ?
The government does not "import" people.… the government imports another 2,000,000 every year.
D:Forty-six percent of immigrants in 2016 reported their race as White, 27 percent as Asian, 9 percent as Black, and 15 percent as some other race; slightly more than 2 percent reported having two or more races.
More than 43.7 million immigrants resided in the United States in 2016, accounting for 13.5 percent of the total U.S. population of 323.1 million, according to American Community Survey (ACS) data. Between 2015 and 2016, the foreign-born population increased by about 449,000, or 1 percent, a rate slower than the 2.1 percent growth experienced between 2014 and 2015.
Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 86.4 million people, or 27 percent of the overall U.S. population, according to the 2017 Current Population Survey (CPS).
In 2016, 1.49 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 7 percent increase from the 1.38 million coming in 2015. India was the leading country of origin, with 175,100 arriving in 2016, followed by 160,200 from China/Hong Kong, 150,400 from Mexico, 54,700 from Cuba, and 46,600 from the Philippines. India and China surpassed Mexico in 2013 as the top origin countries for recent arrivals. Among the top countries of recent immigrants, many more Cuban born arrived in 2016 (54,700) compared to 2015 (31,500)—an increase of 74 percent. In contrast, Canadian arrivals dropped 19 percent: 38,400 in 2016, versus 47,300 in 2015.
Data on the nativity of the U.S. population were first collected in 1850. That year, there were 2.2 million immigrants, representing nearly 10 percent of the U.S. population.
Between 1860 and 1920, the immigrant share of the overall population fluctuated between 13 percent and almost 15 percent, peaking at 14.8 percent in 1890, mainly due to high levels of immigration from Europe.
Restrictive immigration laws in 1921 and 1924, coupled with the Great Depression and World War II, led to a sharp drop in new arrivals. As a result, the foreign-born share steadily declined, hitting a record low of approximately 5 percent in 1970 (9.6 million; see Table 1). Since then, the share and number of immigrants have increased rapidly, mainly because of large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia made possible by the Immigration Act of 1965, which abolished national-origin admission quotas. The immigrant population more than quadrupled in the decades since, reaching 43.7 million in 2016.
(https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article ... ted-states)
That is a major problem right now, but one caused by an aging infrastructure and an unwillingness to do something about it. It has been a problem for a long time and is getting worse. Neither a limit nor a reduction in the population will change that.At this rate, would America need to be building a tremendous amount new infra-structure …
The larger problem is an independence from fossil fuels, and this is a global problem. Independence from fossil fuels will bring energy independence.There is much, in addition, much talk of the US achieving energy independence, and yet the idea of adding millions and millions more people to the population from outside foreign countries, surely makes a complete mockery of this worthy goal.
Population growth has been a topic of discussion since the sixties, except that then many conservatives labelled such discussion as the dangerous ideas of liberals, Marxists, and socialists. The discussion today takes place on two fronts - internal growth and immigration. The fact that you are not aware of it does not mean that it is not being talked about.Shouldn't Americans be free to debate the question of what population their country should have?
"We"? You said that you are not an American. The fact of the matter is that there are vast areas of the country that are largely undeveloped. What an optimal population amount should be is not an easy question to answer. There are a lot of variables.Should the population be the 350,000,000 it currently is now, or should we aim, say, to increase it to 1/2 Billion ?
The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. The only MORAL policy is to treat human beings with respect and dignity without regard to race or culture.It seems to me that this was a very wise and and also a very MORAL policy, for the fundamental reason that any healthy nation always wishes to preserve its it character and not abolish it.
It is not shocking just misguided. It is the country of every citizen without regard to color or place of origin. As I pointed out in another topic that you ignored, the Irish and Italian immigrants faced discrimination. The same kind of rhetoric of not belonging, of not being like "us", were used against them.So, is it a shocking idea that Whites in America should want to remain a majority in their own country ?
Being White does not entitle a White person to ownership of the “house”.Every other nation in the world - every non-White nation, simply takes it for granted that they will stay the majority in their own house.
European culture was vastly improved by the cultural influence from China, Persia, India, and elsewhere. There would be no Christianity without the people of the Middle-East. The written languages of Europe also originated in the Middle-East.Very often the people singing this song are well-educated liberal -progressive intellectuals, and that makes perfect sense in an ironic kind of way, because the very idea that "diversity" of language, of culture, of race, is a strength for a country is so drastically mistaken, so profoundly stupid that only a very over-educated person, one who is, as the English say, far "too clever by half", could ever possibly persuade themselves that it is true ! Isn't that right, Dr Fool ?
The historical situation in the United States is unlike that of other countries where the indigenous people have lived for thousands of years. The indigenous people of what White Europeans called “America” were decimated and deprived of the lands of their ancestors. Based on your notion of MORAL policy, White Europeans acted IMMORALLY.
It is not a timeless truth. Like it or not, it is a problem and challenge that we will have to deal with.The timeless truth is that"diversity" of this kind is always a source of tension, civil unrest and conflict.
If you look at the United States that is not the case. That is not to say there are not problems, but anyone who is able to see past their racial biases and does not believe we can reverse the course of history knows that we must figure out how to get along.If you look around the world at places where populations that are diverse along these lines have tried to share the same territory, you will find it is always the case that there has been conflict and not uncommonly large-scale killing.
There is some truth to this, but unlike you not everyone’s self identity is based on race.The reason is that people prefer to be with people who are like themselves, and this is a fundamental fact of human nature/human society.
This is not the perspective of Whites, it is your perspective that you are trying to justify and lend weight to by claiming that others are as racially biased and obsessed as you.Now let's consider the celebration of diversity in America from the perspective of Whites.
The are some White Americans who see things as you do, but many see race as completely irrelevant to what is important to them, to what will better their lives and the lives of those they love. It is only those who cannot take responsibility and need to scapegoat someone who blames others for their inadequacies.It seems to me that if you're asking White Americans to celebrate diversity, you're asking them to be happy, to rejoice at their dwindling numbers, at their declining influence.
You deny white privilege and yet you talk about dispossession as if by being white you are entitled to things others have no right to.Whites in the United States are expected to believe that dispossession …
Again, and yet you talk about making the rules as is that should be your prerogative because you are white. That is the attitude of white privilege.… someone else is going to make the rules …
I have provided environment causes for this but you ignored it.Let me now touch briefly on the vexed question of racial differences in intelligence.
This is nonsense. Jews value intelligence, education, and hard work. Unlike you, they do not think they are entitled to anything because of genetics. An Ashkenazi Jew who does not value those things is no more likely to succeed than you are.As it turns out the Ashkenazi Jews got dealt the best genetic hand.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
I’ve not read it myself, but I’ve seen a few talks with the author and see a common thread of concern expressed that I’ve heard from both Musk and Gates. That is the coming technological change that may render “manual labour” economically (or rather “financially”) unviable. This, if a serious future concern - immanent even? - is going to cause havoc.
The means to stem the flow of furture problems will be to keel developing countries and the working class in touch with education. There is no current economic model in place to deal with this potential problem. No one knows what will happen if such a thing comes about. If it does then the “lower classes” will not be able to find readily available work.
The question then becomes IF all base labour is dissolved by robitcs and computering then a huge swathe of humanity will be freed up to pursue other tasks (and let us assume for simplicity that due to this technological revolution basic food, clothing, shelter, education and leisure is universally available to all for free.) What would people do? Would those in “employment” feel slighted or would they effectively become a group who willingly and joyfully particpated in societal development? Who would be able to vote in this situation? Would society split in two?
I am curious what Hereandnow would say regarding her take on how people don’t “deserve” being born where and when they are born and with the genes they possess. The whole deabte about “fariness” is what underlies this problem.
Sausage Dog, knowingly or not, is presenting the symptoms of something not the cause. He may think the problem is the far-leftist agendas and other may think the problem lies with the far-right agendas. Personally I think they’re both symptoms of something else I’ve yetto put my finger on. All I know is that the technological shift has a part to play in this, yet I am not quite willing to say how significant it is just yet (if forced right now I’d say “significant.”)
It also helps to understand that stereotyping someone because of what they look like is perfectly reasonable and it is something all of us do everyday. We assess peope by how they appear to us prior to getting to know them; even if it’s against our ow better judgement. The best we can do is try our best to remain as “impartial” as possible and take pleasure in being surprised/wrong about someone rather than trying to enforce our predispositions.
Where you grow up, the law and order you’re used to, the education you receive, and the general cultural envirnment defines a part of who you are and who you may become. If you’re born and raised in the US then that plays a major part in how you view the world compared to someone from the UK, China, Spain or Ghana. The term “race” in social sciences is about these differences. We’re both - so I believe - “western” and so there is quite a bit we share in common yet the US is quite distinct from European countries in many ways. The same can be said for Africans. In Africa there are numerous cultures that are quite, quite different, yet many do share certain cultural habits and traditions due to geography and a common history of colonnial rule/misrule.
I think cultural diversity is a good thing. I also think cultural isolation is a good thing too. Both to too far a degree is damaging.
I hope that in the US something is learnt. I hope that things shift and thatthe world power leads the way by showing how a progressive country can break away from the idea of “nation” and show more direct concern for “people” and “humanity.” We’ll have to wait and see. The dynamic of war has alredy changed next in line are politics and economics. If anything it is going to be interesting to live my life in awe and wonder and the strange mahcinations of humanity!
- Posts: 3133
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7425
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
While basking in privilege that they take for granted from cradle to grave, these emasculated loveless white men in caps are claiming to be the persecuted minority. Why? Because they get in trouble for treating others like garbage as they'd always done with impunity.
The weakness of character behind such people is clear. I prefer my own culture too but we have to accept that there's give and take involved in a changing world. I am far more concerned about numbers of migrants than the types, as the latter tends to be thoroughly screened by immigration departments. I'm also concerned with corruption in high places through inordinate influence by fossil fuel, arms, pharmaceutical and meat industries.
- Posts: 3479
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
In 2016, as President Barack Obama left office, the number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States was at its lowest level in a decade.
As of 2016, the most recent data available, the number of people living in the United States without documents decreased to 10.7 million from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. The sharp decline came largely during the Obama administration and in the wake of the Great Recession. Deportations also sharply rose during that time.
And there has also been a sharp decrease in the number of “recent arrivals” — immigrants who entered the country within the last five years. “There was an average of 386,000 annual unauthorized arrivals for the 2011-16 period, compared with 715,000 for the 2002-07 period. That amounts to a 46 percent decline,” according to the report. During that time, entering the country grew more difficult and, throughout the recession, jobs in construction and other fields grew more scarce.
The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants have lived in the country for a decade or longer.
“We don’t have exact numbers,” Ms. Cohn said, “but, from what we know, it appears that a majority of recent arrivals in 2016 are not unauthorized immigrants who crossed without documents, but people who arrived on legal visas and overstayed their deadlines to leave.”
Such immigrants, who typically have the means to enter the country legally but have not been granted permission to stay beyond a certain period, “probably constituted most of the recent unauthorized immigrant arrivals in 2016,” according to the report.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/i ... section=US)
- Posts: 113
- Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
- Favorite Philosopher: right now it is Tim Wu
Though I hardly think it's worth addressing this OP, whose diatribes generally read more like evidence of future shooting sprees in the name of eugenics than ideas any of us should be devoting attentional resources towards, I indulged in a morbid curiosity to confirm or deny the bit about Ashkenazi Jews having the highest IQ -- though of course there's a certain irony in that particular race being upheld as the pinnacle of right-wing race science when so many of them have supported calls for their extermination -- so I went and took a look to see if I could find the evidence and whether or not the conclusions have been upheld by the academic community. Vox's Ezra Klein seems to be a reasonable starting point on the recent revivals of race science, the response, and the response to the response with his article titled Sam Harris, Charles Murray, and the Allure of Race Science: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... bell-curve
Looks like the specific claim being referenced by the OP, and/or whichever right-wing nutjobs I assume he sources his information from, comes from a 2005 paper titled a Natural History of Intelligence by three authors with links to race science, popularized by writers like Pinker and Gladwell but subsequently rejected by Jewish geneticist Harry Ostrer as bad science in his book "Legacy - A Genetic History of the Jewish People", which attributes indications of Ashkenazi intelligence to factors like their fortuitous socioeconomic status in the Hungarian empire and the Flynn effect, which is the effect of the raising of IQ scores across generations with access to resources and stability.
In stark contrast to the OP's certainty that future studies on the genetic nature of intelligence will necessarily reveal racial superiority, Ostrer's analysis of available genetic data in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) seems to conclude that genetics is a relatively small factor in determining -- none of the millions of markers analyzed across GWAS accounted for more than than 0.4% of the effect, and of those markers none were in a gene previously hypothesized to be involved with intelligence. Intelligence, like height and weight, has many different genes that contribute to the effect, and the heritability of intelligence is hypothesized to be as much determined by factors of shared circumstance as genetics. So I'd like to see the names of the scientists involved in the "quiet agreement" of the conclusions of race science and their response to Ostrer's analysis of GWAS and SNP markers, as well as the developing conversation of the academic psychologists Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett referenced in the Vox article.
One thing that I never see race science proponents address, when trying to make the case for their personal variant of eugenics, is the fact that with respect to intelligence, variations within racial populations far exceed the variations between populations, and those variations are in turn dwarfed by other factors like the impacts of socioeconomic status, early education and access to affordable healthcare, nutrition, and cortisol levels during childhood. Not to mention the fact that intelligence is just one small component of the ability to succeed in the modern world.
I'll look forward to reading the OP's next forum topics -- "Hitler had the right idea, just shoulda been the blacks and other populations I dislike instead of Jews who are OK because they are white" and "Brave New World: Why We Should Implement Aldous Huxley's Compelling Blueprint for a Perfect Utopia"
- Posts: 270
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
The obvious implication is that differences in IQ between 'races' are largely or wholly attributable to past racism and discrimination. Wiener Dog wants to justify future discrimination based on the results of past discrimination.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
If you’re interested take a look at prenatal conditions and the possible knock-on effect across generations due to cortisol levels (see Sapolsky for more on that.)
It may well be that some ethnicities have differing IQ, but it may simply be due to stress levels and nutrition levels of previous generations.
“Vox” is not exactly impartial - no idea about the person you mention though, but being associated with Vox rings alarm bells for me.
- Posts: 113
- Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
- Favorite Philosopher: right now it is Tim Wu
Thanks for the recommendation. I think I've seen some of Sapolsky's lectures in the past -- his work and other modern developments in behavioral biology like epigenetics I find utterly fascinating to learn about.
In this specific instance the Vox article covers a very public feud between race science proponent Charles Murray/Sam Harris who featured Murray on his podcast with ex-Washington Post Vox editor Ezra Klein, and it lists an interesting chain of responses that cover the perspective from both sides. I'm aware that Vox leans left, so to speak, but they are committed to factual reporting as indicated on MBFC (mediabiasfactcheck.com) and generally adjust their bias to fit the facts, rather than the other way around. A commitment to impartiality at any cost leads to "the view from nowhere": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere“Vox” is not exactly impartial - no idea about the person you mention though, but being associated with Vox rings alarm bells for me.
This conversation probably belongs in another forum, but years ago I used to watch Bill O'Reilly and support mostly conservative viewpoints on economic issues, mostly identifying as libertarian. But time and time again, an evaluation of the facts led me to believe the modern right has almost nothing to do with traditional conservative small government ideas, starting with a hard look at the handling of Katrina and then the Iraq War. As my understanding of the history of American politics has developed, I now tend to feel that the modern right has basically decided reality matters less than political initiatives, beginning with their adoption of the Southern Strategy many years ago.
I have points of contention with the left on certain economic positions, like their love of NAFTA and the IMF, but generally speaking I don't have a problem being associated with progressive ideas as I mostly feel that the poor and middle class are more vulnerable to exploitation by corporations seeking concentrated benefits with diffuse costs, than the other way around, and policy ought to create incentives with these sorts of protections in mind, to create a society that behaves in sustainable ways. As I get older I tend more and more to be a Chomskian crazy person than anything else.
- Posts: 510
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
KTZ,ktz wrote: ↑November 28th, 2018, 9:55 amn stark contrast to the OP's certainty that future studies on the genetic nature of intelligence will necessarily reveal racial superiority, Ostrer's analysis of available genetic data in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) seems to conclude that genetics is a relatively small factor in determining -- none of the millions of markers analyzed across GWAS accounted for more than than 0.4% of the effect, and of those markers none were in a gene previously hypothesized to be involved with intelligence. Intelligence, like height and weight, has many different genes that contribute to the effect, and the heritability of intelligence is hypothesized to be as much determined by factors of shared circumstance as genetics. So I'd like to see the names of the scientists involved in the "quiet agreement" of the conclusions of race science and their response to Ostrer's analysis of GWAS and SNP markers, as well as the developing conversation of the academic psychologists Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett referenced in the Vox article.
The scientific nonsense promulgated by Nisbett and co -including that lying ,leftist, Identity Politics nutcase Ezra Klein - in "Vox" (which, I might add, is hardly what what any critically -thinking individual would call a respectable, academic publication) is exposed below (unfortunately I could not cut and paste the relevant graphs, though if you are interested in enlightening yourself you can google up the original article for yourself quite easily)...
The cherry picked science in Vox’s Charles Murray article
After widespread complaints about the quality of its unscientific critique of The Bell Curve, Vox has now published a takedown of “race science” with a provocative title: “Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ.” The authors are Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett (hereafter: THN), and the first two are widely respected researchers in behavioral genetics, so I suspect this article will be the go-to reference on this subject for many readers, replacing James Heckman’s widely cited review. [Update: Richard Nisbett responds to this piece here. I have responded to a few of his points in this piece, so keep reading if you’re coming here from Vox.]
As Timothy B. Lee writes, “This debunking of Charles Murray doesn’t appear to include a single quote of Murray’s arguments in his own words.” (Lee is a reporter at Vox, but presumably he was not involved in editing the article.) Even though much of the article is fairly measured, Vox’s editors couldn’t help but take the title more seriously than the substance:
Matthews was part of the effort to destroy Jason Richwine’s career over this very issue, and so his reaction is not too surprising. Others on social media have noted that the authors explicitly replace Murray’s argument with a weaker one:
At this point it is important to emphasize just how mainstream Murray’s views are in the field of intelligence research. The most controversial sentence in The Bell Curve attributed about half of the black-white IQ gap to genetics, the rest to environment. In 2013, a survey of 228 intelligence researchers found that the typical scientist in this field agrees:
Source: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests, summarized on James Thompson’s blog.
[Update: Nisbett makes a basic comprehension error in his response, writing,
Still, in both the Snyderman and Rothman book and in the more recent survey, more than half of respondents selected one of two response categories that included zero (one option was “0 percent of [black-white] differences due to genes” and the other was “0–40 percent of differences due to genes”).
The mistake is assuming the “0–40 percent” category reported above excluded the respondents who marked 0%; clearly, the middle three responses are exclusive, since 42%+18%+39% = 99%, while the first (0%) and last (100%) are part of the 2nd and 4th fractions.]
The facts known to most experts in the field of intelligence
The authors present a series of five facts which are “known to most experts in the field of intelligence” which weaken the case for genetic group differences in IQ. While the studies they cite are indeed known to experts, most would probably disagree with the weight the authors give them. Let’s go through them one by one:
The gap has not narrowed in the last 25 years
The authors write that the gap has substantially narrowed over the last few decades:
The black-white IQ gap is decreasing, and is now closer to 10 points than the widely cited one standard deviation (15 points), which is the erroneous value Murray cites in the interview. Academic achievement of blacks has also improved by about one-third standard deviation in recent decades.
In the first sentence, the authors are presumably citing the Dickens and Flynn (2006) article that discusses a narrowing of the black-white IQ gap between the years of 1972 and 2002. Interestingly, they fail to mention that Murray himself wrote an article in response which demonstrated no narrowing over several decades:
As the article mentions, even when we look at school achievement tests like NAEP (which are highly correlated with IQ) with massive sample sizes, as opposed to one of several hundred subjects in 2002, we see no narrowing since the late 80’s, years before The Bell Curve was published.
Source: Rindermann and Thompson (2013).
While it is true that the gap has narrowed a bit more for younger students, it is important to understand the Wilson effect: test scores are much more influenced by genetics at age 17, when shared environment only explains about 15% of the variance in cognitive ability, than at age 10, where shared environmental influences explain about double that.
The Wilson effect: genetic influences overwhelm environmental influences on IQ.
The stagnation of the ethnic score gap in NAEP scores is not a feature of the NAEP test; it is true in PISA scores and SAT scores as well. The gap between white and black SAT scores remains roughly one standard deviation with little change in the last twenty years.
If one actually believes that the gap has narrowed at all in the last 25–30 years just because of one sample from 2002, one has to square that with the stagnation in every other psychometric test. That is a big challenge indeed, but the authors don’t even bother addressing it.
[Update: Nisbett adds more data to the discussion, which you can read in his response. He again cites Dickens-Flynn to argue the black-white IQ gap is at 9.5 points. However, as can be seen in this graph from the paper:
Source: Dickens and Flynn 2006
As can be seen from the above, looking only at adults (remember the Wilson effect) there was a narrowing of the black-white IQ gap from about 1.3 standard deviations to about 1 standard deviations (15 points) — not a 9.5 point gap as he says. But this narrowing happened in the 70s, not in the last 25 years. This is all in the paper.
Nisbett also argues that because there are more African Americans taking the SAT, the stagnation is expected and could mask a roughly 0.3 standard deviation gain relative to whites. For this story to make sense, Nisbett must assume the new black SAT score roughly 0.6 standard deviations below the already low average; since he has provided no evidence in support of this and there is no data available, I will let the reader decide its plausibility.]
2. The Flynn effect has little relevance to racial IQ differences:
The Flynn effect, named for the political scientist and IQ researcher James Flynn, is the term many scholars use to describe the remarkable rise in IQ found in many countries over time. There has been an 18-point gain in average IQ in the US from 1948 to 2002. One way to put that into perspective is to note that the IQ gap between black and white people today is only about half the gap between America as a whole now and America as a whole in 1948. Murray’s hand-waving about g does not make that extraordinary fact go away.
Since the authors are reacting to Murray’s podcast appearance with Sam Harris, they should have noted for readers who didn’t listen to the two hour interview that Murray does not “hand wave” about the Flynn effect: he specifically cites the work of Dutch researcher Jelte Wicherts, whose use of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) Murray admits is beyond his level of understanding:
As can be seen in the 2nd highlighted sentence, Wicherts is not a “race scientist” by Turkheimer et al.’s standards.
As Dutch researcher Jan te Nijenhuis writes, it is striking how secular gains in IQ subtests (the Flynn effect) correlate negatively with their “g-loadedness” (roughly how strong a proxy they are for the latent variable that explains most of the variance in IQ), while racial differences in IQ subtest show precisely the opposite trend:
Source: Is the Flynn effect on g?: A meta-analysis
Wicherts is a critic of using this “method of correlated vectors” as a demonstration that the ethnic IQ gap is a difference in the latent g factor, and argued in a 2004 paper that the gap/g-loading correlation masks a bias that significantly underestimates the latent ability of its Dutch ethnically minority testers, many of whom came from non-Dutch speaking families. But a 2015 paper by Craig Frisby and Alexander Beaujean found much less dramatic results on the US black-white IQ gap:
Source: Frisby and Beaujean 2015
So while we may need to be cautious about interpreting the meaning of group differences in cross country or cross population IQ comparisons, there are signs that differences in black and white IQ are in fact differences on the all important g factor. But the science of what we might learn from MGCFA in resolving the nature of group IQ differences is still in dispute.
Perhaps the most authoritative voice on the relevance of the Flynn effect to this debate is James Flynn himself, after whom the effect is named, who says:
“The magnitude of white/ black IQ differences on Wechsler subtests at any given time is correlated with the g loadings of the subtests; the magnitude of IQ gains over time on subtests is not usually so correlated; the causes of the two phenomena are not the same.”
His explanation for race and IQ gaps is this:
Go to the American suburbs one evening and find three professors. The Chinese professor’s kids immediately do their homework. The Jewish professor’s kids have to be yelled at. The black professor says: ‘Why don’t we go out and shoot a few baskets?’ The parenting is worse in black homes, even when you equate them for socio-economic status.
Scandalous. But if Murray can cite the research of those who disagree with him, surely the Vox writers could too.
3. The cited adoption studies overstate the positive influence of an upper middle class environment
Murray’s assertion that it is hard to raise the IQs of disadvantaged children leaves out the most important data point. Adoption from a poor family into a better-off one is associated with IQ gains of 12 to 18 points.
Here the authors seem to be citing a meta-study of adopted and non-adopted siblings: in particular referencing the six studies with a total of 253 subjects where such a difference was analyzed. For example, there is one of French half-siblings, one raised in a working class environment and the other in an upper-middle class environment. They have significant limitations, as discussed in James J. Lee’s review of Vox author Richard E. Nisbett’s book on intelligence:
Source: Lee reviews Nisbett
Even ignoring these confounds, as we have seen above the positive (and negative) effects of environment fade well into young adulthood, so IQ gains at 14 should not be taken for granted. Studies with larger samples and tested at later ages show much smaller effects, such as this one from Turkheimer himself on adopted Swedish children, or this study showing about a 7 IQ point boost going from low SES to a high SES environment.
Interestingly, like the Flynn effect — and unlike racial group differences in IQ — adoptees show gains in IQ on the subtests least associated with the g factor”:
Source: Are adoption gains on the g factor? A meta-analysis
4. Head Start does not raise IQ much, if at all
THN explain the benefits of environmental interventions such as Head Start:
It is true (and unsurprising) that poor children exposed to special educational programs such as Head Start tend to regress once the program ends and environmental disadvantages reassert themselves. But the gain in social and intellectual capital from the best available early childhood education can result in an increase of one-third in the likelihood of graduating from high school, can triple the rate of college attendance, can produce a two-year advantage in reading ability of young adults, and can result in a two-thirds increase in the likelihood that they will be either gainfully employed or enrolled in higher education. The best available K-12 programs also result in substantial gains in intellectual and social capital.
This is a strange straw man. I doubt Murray disagrees that the best K-12 programs could raise “social capital.” He doubts it raises adult IQ, which is quite evident from this meta-analysis:
Source: Duncan 2013
The conditions of African-Americans in the 1960s South were truly appalling, and its possible some of the larger effect sizes were real in those conditions, simply from things like better nutrition during formative years.
The claims that it provides a permanent two year reading advantage should be treated highly skeptically, since they are not even cited, and as we have seen there are almost no IQ gains. And like adoption gains, IQ gains from Head Start are disproportionately on subtests that have lower correlations with the g factor.
Vox’s claim that the fadeout is “unsurprising” is revealing. As blogger Spotted Toad notes, the fadeout effect is common to almost all educational interventions and is obviously consistent with the model that genetic effects overwhelm the positive effects from an educationally enriched environment by adulthood. What model from Turkheimer et al. predicts the fadeout in environmental interventions? Why is there no “dosage effect” of environmental disadvantage?
One last thing to note about this subject is that the highly cited critique of The Bell Curve from James Heckman suggests educational interventions might be a way of closing racial IQ gaps, though he already admits Head Start tends to fail at that.
Today, Heckman invites speakers such as Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending to speak at the University of Chicago. Does that second name sound familiar? If you read the SPLC’s list of “pseudoscientific racists” you might remember him.
5. Heritability of IQ is more or less the same across social class
The heritability of intelligence, although never zero, is markedly lower among American children raised in poverty. Several interpretations of this fact are possible. The one we find most persuasive is that children raised in those circumstances are unable to take full advantage of their genetic potential because they do not have access to the high-quality environments that could support it.
This is yet another overstated “fact” where Turkheimer’s research is an outlier. It would have been more charitable to cite the research of Elliot Tucker-Drob and Timothy Bates who found much smaller gene-by-socioeconomic-status interactions in the direction Turkheimer et al. found.
Here we see that even in the United States, poor individuals have roughly the same heritability for IQ as those who come from middle class families.
Even if we assume Turkheimer’s study is representative of these small Gene by SES interaction effects, what might that tell us about race? Nothing, at least in his sample:
The data is from Beaver et. al which uses the same sample as Turkheimer 2003, and finds no racial differences in heritability. So to the best of our knowledge, Gene x SES interactions are a dead end for this purpose.
[Update: Nisbett cites the meta-analysis and writes:
So despite the misleading impression given by the critics, the meta-analysis was a confirmation of the reduction in heritability among poor Americans. This is important, because it undermines the hereditarian argument that twin studies show family environment doesn’t matter for IQ: For poor children in the US, in particular, the family environment seems to matter quite a bit.
On twitter, Emil Kirkegaard pointed out a more comprehensive analysis of heritability by race:
My question to Nisbett is therefore this: if poverty substantially lowers the heritability of intelligence and black Americans (who are on average poorer than whites) show no signs of this, what are we to make of this result? And what is its relevance to the debate? Emil also sends further evidence of publication bias driving these gene x SES effects in the United States:
Researchers now understand that gene-by-environment interactions are tough to detect and require large samples to estimate.]
The science on this subject is hardly settled, and I agree with the authors in the Vox article that the kind of demagoguery on it commonly found on the Internet is both toxic and has the potential to harm real people. Unfortunately, Murray is a poor target for their rage: he is a careful, gracious and intellectually honest scholar.
I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this topic read University of Minnesota James J. Lee’s summary of the state of knowledge. He is highly critical of the kinds of arguments leveled at Murray among others.
I leave with a question for the authors of this piece. This July, behavioral geneticists will announce over 600 SNPs statistically associated with educational attainment — and IQ by proxy. Are you ready to come back to this topic with that data in hand?
- Posts: 3479
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
And yet you persist in spreading misinformation as if it were fact. Are you that incapable of self-awareness?The science on this subject is hardly settled, and I agree with the authors in the Vox article that the kind of demagoguery on it commonly found on the Internet is both toxic and has the potential to harm real people.
You should take your own advice:I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this topic read University of Minnesota James J. Lee’s summary of the state of knowledge. He is highly critical of the kinds of arguments leveled at Murray among others.
Note the emphasis. Lee agrees with those who point to the importance of environment, something you ignore because it undermines your claims.Plomin, DeFries, Knopik, and Neiderhiser (PDKN) organize their review around 10 robustly replicated “big” findings. Those whose view of behavioral genetics is anchored in the nature–nurture debates of the 20th Century will be surprised by the broad scope of the topics
covered. PDKN describe how behavioral-genetic research has enriched our understanding of psychological development and even the nosology of mental illness. Significantly, four of their findings have very little to do with genetics at all, being specifically concerned with the nature of environmental influence. Elsewhere, these authors have made the point that some of the strongest evidence for the existence of environmental influences derives from behavioral-genetic research, and for good reason. Furthermore, they justly emphasize that strong causal interpretations of behavioral-genetic findings are indeed warranted. Because drawing causal inferences from observational data can be so often fraught with difficulty, one of the attractions of behavioral genetics for the larger field of psychology is that it offers a set of complementary research designs justifying strong inference in observational settings (Lee,
2012; McGue, Osler, & Christensen, 2010). (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f340/f ... caa3d6.pdf)
I have posted about half a dozen responses to you across various threads you have started, addressing issues point by point. You have not responded to them. Why is that? It is that time after time, point by point, I have shown that your claims are wrong and without factual support? Is it that you have accomplished your goal and that goal has nothing to do with truth and facts and that confronting the truth and facts endangers your program of misrepresentation?