Lets have an honest thread on the topic of race. Just share honest thoughts. Don't overly censor yourself, but don't make a joke of this either. I want us to have a serious and honest conversation on the subject.
I do accept that race is a biological reality, not just a cultural construct. I do not posit the idea of one master race, as there have been worthy societies produced by multiple races, such as the civilizations of Europe and of Asia, when considered together. I however, view with immense doubt and skepticism the claim that all races, on average, have the same level of intellect. But, I don't support any nature of social system based on de jure racial stratification, because there are always outliers in any population, and its hard to measure these things in a manner that would enable simple categorization. I'm not about sterilizing someone over an IQ test.
I want thoughts.
"Case in point ebonics. "Axe her do she want mo?""
A lot of linguists argue that Ebonics, or African American Vernacular English as they call it, is not simply bad English but is rather an actual dialect of English; as worthy as any other dialect of English.
It's a dialect, no doubt.
That doesn't validate it as proper english any more than a hillbilly mountain dialect, or an urban bronx "youse guys" type dialect.
Languages have rules for conjugating verbs, etc. for the sake of clarity and effective communication.
Would you prefer to be treated by a doctor that spoke correct - even if accented english, or by the practitioner of some illiterate dialect?
I don't really give a shit about his dialect as long as he's legitimately qualified to do the work.
And yeah, languages have rules. So do dialects. American English is a dialect of Standard English. It has its own rules that vary from the standard. African American Vernacular English is another dialect that also has has its own rules that vary from the standard.The difference is that some people make value judgements about the people who use different dialects.
Whether or not it's effective to use one dialect or another in any given context is a different question altogether.
difference is that some people make value judgements about the people who use different dialects.
I know I do. If someone sounds uneducated, I assume they are uneducated.
Fair enough but if the guy has his doctorate on the wall and a license to practice, I'm not too worried about the fact that he uses a different dialect.
No, this is pretty much debunked. Despite the genetics, intelligence needs space to grow. Imagine you have twins. One you cage in a cellar with some toys, a tv and just basic stuff, the other one you place in a environment where his brain can develop, playing outside, challenging games and tasks, a loving family. Do you think both would score the same on a IQ test?
Teachers thought i was dumber then my peers just because i had poor linguistic skills as a child + poor peoples cloths. I had to fight a uphill battle against prejudices till i was around 25 (and as you can see iam white). Being born in a poor family is a huge disadvantage that is hard to overcome, but being born into a poor black family in the USA builds a wall between you and social mobility. There is structural racism in the USA, huge prejudices and poor people are fucked in general anyway. Not intelligence gets you in a higher socio.economic group, education does. And education in the US is hidden behind a pay wall.
I don't think differences in intelligence across groups have to be genetic, and I think I can show a strong argument.
Suppose we have two populations with differing avg IQs, Group 1 lower than Group 2.
Scenario 1: Group 1 has pregnant women snorting coke and going on boozy benders. Surviving children have severe cognitive delays. Naturally we'd blame the prenatal environment, not genetics.
Scenario 2: Group 1 has inferior childrearing practices, fewer books in the home, less stimulating early childhood environment, etc. etc. We might blame part of an IQ difference on genetics, but environment seems a more natural culprit.
Scenario 3: Group 1 and Group 2 have essentially identical environments. We'll blame genetics for the variation here, as environment can't be to blame.
It seems clear we are in Scenario 2. There are genetic differences, which may or may not be relevant, and environmental differences which seem strongly relevant. So I pick environment as the most likely culprit, while not being able to disprove the existence of a genetic component. But if you can't measure it and something else works as an explanation, Occam's Razor and all that.
re: Scenario 1
That is most definitely a factor, but I'd argue that any woman who abuses drugs and alcohol while pregnant is ignorantly irresponsible at best (addiction or not, I can't imagine not getting relatively accessible help when a life is tangibly at stake) and selfishly stupid at worst. In other words, the mother isn't the cream of the crop to begin with.
But my question to you is, what created the environment of unintelligence? The intelligentsia would only create it to make a buck off the unintelligent who are attracted to it. I am not saying that environment hasn't caused it. I am saying that environment is causing it, by influencing genetics.
"But my question to you is, what created the environment of unintelligence?"
Unintelligence or ignorance?
Cause most of our moms probably smoked and drank when they were pregnant with us. Probably not because they were dumb but because they were ignorant to the actual dangers (and also because doctors and the media told them otherwise).
It's the same for someone, today, who grows up in a different type of environment. If you're a kid an Indian slum, you might actually be the reincarnation of Albert Einstein but the odds are strong that you'll stay in the gutter your whole life because there's nothing or no one there to enable you and everything to hold you back.
I'm am referring specifically to unintelligence, not ignorance. The Indian kid you used as an example would be highly intelligent, and that would register in an IQ test.
There is pretty good evidence that many IQ tests (and other standardized tests) actually skew in a way that favors experiences and situations more likely to happen in higher socio-economic brackets.