|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gregory999
Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 372
Location: 999
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| steki47 wrote: |
There have been numerous incidents in which people claimed they were attacked for their race or sexual orientation and later it was revealed that the individuals faked the attacks/lied. Looking for attention and sympathy? Creepy stuff, to be sure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fake-hate-crime/ |
America Is Perpetually at War with Its Own People
The fact that a black person is killed by a police officer, security guard, or vigilante every 28 hours (or less) is no random act of nature. It is the inevitable result of institutional racism and militaristic tactics and thinking within America's domestic security apparatus.
These killings come on top of other forms of oppression black people face. Mass incarceration ofnonwhites is one of them. While African-Americans constitute 13.1% of the nation's population, they make up nearly 40% of the prison population. Even though African-Americans use or sell drugs about the same rate as whites, they are 2.8 to 5.5 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than whites. Black offenders also receive longer sentences compared to whites. Most offenders are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.
"Operation Ghetto Storm" explains why such killings occur so often. Current practices of institutional racism have roots in the enslavement of black Africans, whose labor was exploited to build the American capitalist economy, and the genocide of Native Americans. The report points out that in order to maintain the systems of racism, colonialism, and capitalist exploitation, the United States maintains a network of "repressive enforcement structures". These structures include the police, FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, Secret Service, prisons, and private security companies, along with mass surveillance and mass incarceration.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-black-man-killed-every-28-hours-police-or-vigilantes-america-perpetually-war-its
In his interview, Obama said:
Racism, we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘ni**er’ in public … It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t overnight completely erase everything that happened 200-300 years prior.
"As the US hopefully begins to work to realize what the president points to, and Confederate flags begin to come down in Columbia, South Carolina, and maybe Mississippi, many of us will all begin to realize, like I did in 2008, that no matter where you live in the US, racism remains – even if the flags come down."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/24/racism-us-north-south-confederate-flag |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow! Nazis and Slate? I can't, I just can't. Lol
The Nazis viewed Jews as a threat partially due their very high intelligence. Sure enough, Ashkenazi have a mean IQ of 110 and are overrepresented in many elite positions.
Slate? Yes, I can see a liberal/secular creationism atvwork sometimes. Gould and Lewontin were early proponents of that belief in a rather utopian Blank Slatism.
I'm hoping self-correcting science will bring some balance to this. On wait, it is. Now, let's see if everyone else will accept new research.
Had fun. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This may be a little hard to explain then:
"Among the strongest evidence that IQ tests are testing not just innate ability, but the extent to which that innate ability has been put to work developing specific skills, is the remarkable "Flynn effect": In the United States and many other countries, raw IQ scores have been rising about three points a decade. This rise is far too rapid to have a genetic cause. The best explanation for what's going on is that increasing social complexity is expanding the use of the cognitive skills in question - and thus improving the opportunities for honing those skills. The Flynn effect is acutely embarrassing to those who leap from IQ score differences to claims of genetic differences in intelligence.
Jason Richwine is the latest exemplar of the so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong. Specifically, it is based on the ahistorical and ethnocentric assumption of a fixed relationship between the development of certain cognitive skills and raw mental ability. In truth, the skills associated with intelligence have changed over time--and unevenly through social space--as society evolves.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnslat wrote: |
This may be a little hard to explain then:
"Among the strongest evidence that IQ tests are testing not just innate ability, but the extent to which that innate ability has been put to work developing specific skills, is the remarkable "Flynn effect": In the United States and many other countries, raw IQ scores have been rising about three points a decade. This rise is far too rapid to have a genetic cause. The best explanation for what's going on is that increasing social complexity is expanding the use of the cognitive skills in question - and thus improving the opportunities for honing those skills. The Flynn effect is acutely embarrassing to those who leap from IQ score differences to claims of genetic differences in intelligence.
Jason Richwine is the latest exemplar of the so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong. Specifically, it is based on the ahistorical and ethnocentric assumption of a fixed relationship between the development of certain cognitive skills and raw mental ability. In truth, the skills associated with intelligence have changed over time--and unevenly through social space--as society evolves.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/ |
Yes, I am familar with Flynn's work. The term Flynn Effect was coined by Murray and Hernstein, authors of The Bell Curve. The data indicates that intelligence is increasing in developed (and developing) nations. There seems to a disparity in the rate of increase with people and societies modernizing displaying greater gains in mean intelligence (as measured by the IQ test).
None of this invalidates data on the (partial) heritability of cognitve ability. Essentially, I find this argument to be reduced to an all-or-nothing approach that misses the point. Dual inheritance theory is a more plausible explanation and has become my rule of thumb theory. Nature AND nurture work in tandem. We are biological preprogrammed to respond to our environment (including culture). Yes, environment plays a role in our development. But so does our biology.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory
PS-I followed the Richwine incident. The poor guy was fired from his job, due to the Heritage Foundation's spinelessness. There was a petition among students at Harvard to revoke Richwine's PhD. Don't think it succeeded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steki47 wrote: |
| Yes, environment plays a role in our development. But so does our biology. |
And what differences of biology might you cite between people of European, African, and Asian descent? Traits relating to pigmentation and facial features, no? What physiological difference can you cite? Can you accede to a construct that humans are of a common species, and that race is a construct derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations now abandoned? Or that there are no specific genes that can be used to determine an individual's race?
I hope so, but hope implies doubt.
The distinctions you're attempting are not without precedent and are whittled away by empirical study. Such as blood types. IQ tests, please...the subjectivity involved is laughable. The Bell Curve, again. You're an educator and find it compelling? It is compelling to politics and policy, which is a kind of reality. The art of the possible, as Bismarck wrote. But has no place among, say, geneticists, or disciplines engaged in the "hard" versus "soft" sciences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
| steki47 wrote: |
| Yes, environment plays a role in our development. But so does our biology. |
And what differences of biology might you cite between people of European, African, and Asian descent? Traits relating to pigmentation and facial features, no? What physiological difference can you cite? Can you accede to a construct that humans are of a common species, and that race is a construct derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations now abandoned? Or that there are no specific genes that can be used to determine an individual's race?
I hope so, but hope implies doubt.
The distinctions you're attempting are not without precedent and are whittled away by empirical study. Such as blood types. IQ tests, please...the subjectivity involved is laughable. The Bell Curve, again. You're an educator and find it compelling? It is compelling to politics and policy, which is a kind of reality. The art of the possible, as Bismarck wrote. But has no place among, say, geneticists, or disciplines engaged in the "hard" versus "soft" sciences. |
The subdivisions of homo sap are not merely "skin deep" but also found in the DNA. Yet certain is generally exclusive to any one group but rather it is a matter of variation in frequency.
Examples:
1. East Asians have very low rates of ADHD. This appears to be a combination of culture and DNA interaction. Low rates of DRD4 is the end result.
2. The sickle cell is mostly found among those of African ancestry. African-Americans have decreasing rates of carrying the sickel cell (The US is a non-malarial environment.)
3. Jamaicans have much higher frequencies of ACTN3 protein which aids in running.
Other examples abound. There is genetic variation among humans.
I don't have to accede that humans belong to the same species because that is the zoological reality. No argument here. Yes, the categories of White/Negro/Oriental [sic] were created in the 19th century but they also match the groupings the Persians, Egyptians and modern geneticists have noticed and documented. We are of the same race/species but there are subdivisions (I'll leave the labelling of those groups to better minds.). The words mammal and reptile were created by humans but those categories do represent biological differences among the animals we observe. Likewise units of measurement and weight. That's part of what science does.
Your other points (in no particular order):
"No specific genes to determine race." Yup. The genetic populations are determined by an aggregate of traits/genes. There is no single marker for White/Black/Asian.
I referenced TBC as it was the most widely known work on the topic. Lots of the source material for the book was great work. And researchers are still looking at genetic variation among humans.
The so-called races are similar to extended families that will extend into other families. Humans have been moving around and mixing for millenia yet there has also been enough isolation to see the formations of large genetic families (for lack of better term).
Fun stuff, thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm happy my hopes weren't misplaced.
So variations of traits is the more precise way to address any "biology" to be inherited. Check.
"No specific genes to determine race." Yup. Check.
I've had to ask because elsewhere in the thread, you've posited arguments by various interests unwilling to concede zoological realities, yes? In fact, the despicable thrust of many arguments (out there) is "some more animal than human".
Reported rates of ADHD in east Asians...now, cites such as this are why I have to doubt with what consideration and earnestness you make a citation. The diagnosis, alone, isn't without controversy. Its observational criteria are not without bias and subject to interpretation, but you're willing to quote, "Low rates of DRD4 is the end result." Do you mean a plausible explanation? How is it a result?
And do you not see the difficulty in citing biological inheritance as a component to "intelligence" when what variations exist are predominantly related to immunity and environmental adaptation?
The last, failed effort in the direction you might be headed is "forest" versus "desert" people, and various hypotheses trying to pin down continental drift and migration. The last, more successful cross-discplinary perspective to address cultural development and the ascendency of any one culture is Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel.
So, my question is, of what significance and relationship are "biological" differences to the extreme differences of wealth and socioeconomic participation to matters of race relation? Why isn't the debate centered around perceptions, prejudices, and cohering classes of people prone to self-identify and repel "others" both consciously and unconsciously? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
| And do you not see the difficulty in citing biological inheritance as a component to "intelligence" when what variations exist are predominantly related to immunity and environmental adaptation? |
I don't see a difficulty here. Cavalli-Sfozra (1998) and Cochran&Harpending (2009) argued that a group's gene pool can be shaped and modified by their environments. The low frequency of the ADHD gene among East Asians appears to be related to their environment (and culture). Offhand, I would argue that rice harvesting, Buddhist meditation and such may have selected for people who could focus on one thing for long periods of time. People with short attention spans would be selected against by the environment (no food and you die) and the culture (unattractive as a mate). Over several thousand years, the East Asian gene pool would be shaped and frequencies of genes would change until we reach today. (And things may change in the sure.)
*I keep referring to Asians as I happen to live in Japan and have read much on Asian societies. Other examples abound.
| buravirgil wrote: |
| The last, more successful cross-discplinary perspective to address cultural development and the ascendency of any one culture is Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel. |
Although he denies it, GGS was arguing environmental determinism (perhaps in opposition to what he perceives as biological determinism). He also engages in some very contradictory logic and even obscurantist arguments. (I liked Collapse, BTW.)
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-germs-and-steel/
| buravirgil wrote: |
| So, my question is, of what significance and relationship are "biological" differences to the extreme differences of wealth and socioeconomic participation to matters of race relation? Why isn't the debate centered around perceptions, prejudices, and cohering classes of people prone to self-identify and repel "others" both consciously and unconsciously? |
To be frank, I am not sure how much is biology and how much is environment. I recognize the input from both and so just say 50/50 for now. Better minds than mine have argued that intelligence may be 70-80% genetic, certain psych disorders are highly correlated (0.8+) with genetic variations. I am still trying to make heads and tails of it all. So I say 50/50 to be nice.
Differences in wealth and socioeconomic status? I would say that a Matthew Effect (Accumulated Advantage) is definitely in play in 1st world societies. Trump may have made very intelligent decisions in his professional life but he also inherited 200MUSD from his dad. Fair? Not all. If everyone received that amount of money, would they all become billionaires? Doubt it.
Your last question is a great one and I apologize for my weak response. Our behavior and attitudes are the result of millions of variables (DNA, culture, geography, intelligence, dumb luck, etc). Your debate brings up certain traits of human nature (which do appear to partially genetic): people have strong tendencies towards tribalism (in-group hence out-groups) and competition over resources. In fact, I am not sure quite sure what you are getting at? Perceptions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate coming to some shared terms and frames. By perceptions, what I was thinking about was how statistics are used to support conclusions. Such as your fatigue with Victim Culture "rhetoric" and mine with excuses that the continuous crises that disenfranchise Black culture aren't systemically imposed. Specifically, the cite of 3 and 50 percent: I view it symptomatic of great injustices and its comparison to other groups as apples and oranges. While you cite it as evidence of...well, I'm more comfortable framing my own conjecture than yours.
I think it's a duck to assert a concept, or principle, or conjecture is practical or factual because "better minds" have posited this or that. Especially given the conjecture relates to the construct of intelligence and how it's tested and what policies should be reappraised. Any idiot can cause controversy. For a moment, I suspected the statement an ironic artiface.
What, if any, "biological" inheritance relates to cognitive "ability" hasn't been answered for me, let alone the subjective metric of intelligence. Only citing the neuro-related domain of ADHD (or combinations of genetic markers across 5 diagnoses) is tenuous support. The assertions of pharmaceutical science crossed the Rubicon since Prozac. It's a hard science that I distinguished before, but profit seeking mars it. You don't see a difficulty, I do.
And I've read the criticisms of Diamond and GGS as well. He can be kooky. Took up residence in Silver Lake, CA-- the local library has a dedicated shelf-- but his disputation, as I read it, involves what limits there are to framing his hypotheses as determinism. His observations about how agrarian technology migrated along lattitudes and not longitude, for instance, are not a determinism as he'd argue it. But his hypotheses were framed as an alternative to long traditions of praising ascendent cultures as "deserving" or innately advantaged. Given any competitive, probabilistic outcome, someone "wins" and others "don't".
Thank you for genuinely engaging.
How do we end this derail  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
I appreciate coming to some shared terms and frames. By perceptions, what I was thinking about was how statistics are used to support conclusions. Such as your fatigue with Victim Culture "rhetoric" and mine with excuses that the continuous crises that disenfranchise Black culture aren't systemically imposed. Specifically, the cite of 3 and 50 percent: I view it symptomatic of great injustices and its comparison to other groups as apples and oranges. While you cite it as evidence of...well, I'm more comfortable framing my own conjecture than yours.
I think it's a duck to assert a concept, or principle, or conjecture is practical or factual because "better minds" have posited this or that. Especially given the conjecture relates to the construct of intelligence and how it's tested and what policies should be reappraised. Any idiot can cause controversy. For a moment, I suspected the statement an ironic artiface.
What, if any, "biological" inheritance relates to cognitive "ability" hasn't been answered for me, let alone the subjective metric of intelligence. Only citing the neuro-related domain of ADHD (or combinations of genetic markers across 5 diagnoses) is tenuous support. The assertions of pharmaceutical science crossed the Rubicon since Prozac. It's a hard science that I distinguished before, but profit seeking mars it. You don't see a difficulty, I do.
And I've read the criticisms of Diamond and GGS as well. He can be kooky. Took up residence in Silver Lake, CA-- the local library has a dedicated shelf-- but his disputation, as I read it, involves what limits there are to framing his hypotheses as determinism. His observations about how agrarian technology migrated along lattitudes and not longitude, for instance, are not a determinism as he'd argue it. But his hypotheses were framed as an alternative to long traditions of praising ascendent cultures as "deserving" or innately advantaged. Given any competitive, probabilistic outcome, someone "wins" and others "don't".
Thank you for genuinely engaging.
How do we end this derail |
My bad. I didn't answer the original question. Plomin (2012) in Behavorial Genetics put the heritability of intelligence at 0.5. Minor variation in other studies (I've seen 0.47 to 0.65). Environmental differences making up the rest.
Definition of intelligence? Pattern recogonition, problem solving, understanding unknown words in context-usually measured in aggregate of skills. Would some forms of intelligence be culturally specfic? Yes, I imagine so. One could argue that our current IQ tests have a First World bias and I may agree. There is no hunter/gatherer component to the IQ test.
I see you point on historical injustices (and contemporary) but wonder how we can rectify that as a society. Some attempts, such as affirmative action, often end up punishing worthy individuals and rewarding people who are not qualified or less qualified for a job or college. Seems bad on both ends.
"continuous crises that disenfranchise Black culture aren't systemically imposed" How then should (White) America change to make basic life goals more achievable for Blacks? What can Blacks do? Why are Asians doing so well in the US? We could expand on this issue but we may not want to at this point.
I mentioned ADHD more as an example of culture/gene co-evolution theory. Does not support my argument on IQ.
End? We can digitally shake hands and walk away all friendly. I had a slow day at work today and had time to post. I appreciate the civil dialogue.
PS Any more shootings in the US? Need to get this thread back on track.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steki47 wrote: |
| PS Any more shootings in the US? Need to get this thread back on track. |
We wouldn't have to wait long 
How intelligence is defined determines correlation, no? I'm contented by an admission of bias.
The very term "ability" unnerves me, as it connotes potential. Very closed and summative.
I don't view minorities (and the opportunites to assimilate) as qualitatively comparable and resist quantitative measures as relevant.
Asians aren't similarly regarded by a dominant culture. The nuances are insidious:They says, "if you was white, should be all right,
If you was brown, stick around,
But as you's black, hmm brother, get back, get back, get back"
--Big Bill Broonzy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: BFE Inaka
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
| steki47 wrote: |
| PS Any more shootings in the US? Need to get this thread back on track. |
We wouldn't have to wait long
How intelligence is defined determines correlation, no? I'm contented by an admission of bias.
The very term "ability" unnerves me, as it connotes potential. Very closed and summative.
I don't view minorities (and the opportunites to assimilate) as qualitatively comparable and resist quantitative measures as relevant.
Asians aren't similarly regarded by a dominant culture. The nuances are insidious:They says, "if you was white, should be all right,
If you was brown, stick around,
But as you's black, hmm brother, get back, get back, get back"
--Big Bill Broonzy |
Yes, instruments of measurement are usually subject to bias. (Your comment is accurate but suspicious. Do I smell some deconstructionism?hehe) Miles in the US, kilometers almost everywhere else. The APA has spent years searching for cultural bias in IQ and SAT tests, for exmaples. They found none in the SAT and have modified IQ tests specifcally to reduce cultural loading. Same racial hierarchy.
As for how the dominant culture views Blacks vs. Asians: chicken or egg? Both? White Americans did not have a high opinion of the Chinese railroad workers in the 19th century. Now we call them the Model Minority. (And some Asian-Americans complain about that!)
Also, we are only looking at how Whites (the dominant culture) view other races. These people can make their own decisions and are capable of creating and projecting an identity. They have agency, don't they?
Going back to perceptions of people, isn't racial profiling a decent use of applied statistics? For example, young, single men pay more in auto insurance. Not all YSM have car accidents, but stats show that that group are more likely to have accidents, hence higher insurance rates. Is that fair to the young men who are cautious drivers? Not at all.
Time for dinner and bed for this guy. Rock on! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steki47 wrote: |
| They have agency, don't they? |
Relatively, often. Certainly, disputed. Assuredly? Is agency binary?
When suspension rates in pre-school are an issue?
I'm intrigued you'll cast to the past in regard to Asians. Can you extend the same to African-Americans? Low "opinion" versus emancipation? Followed by Jim Crow? A qualitatively different base-line, no? Would you credit the assimilation of Asians to an agency and motivation, or a gradual acceptance by a dominant culture. And it's a combination of course.
While Blacks have struggled to find definition and identity, having survived being a subjugated class. Consider Native Americans. And what about that myth of their proclivity and susceptibility to alcohol, usually supported by conjecture about Asian ancestry? Kept up with that little debate of late?
Insurer's actuary tables. Oh dear, citing what private industry is allowed versus public policy (state) is a conundrum. Markets are providers of justice?
Do you identify as a neoconservative?
Why are you conflating instruments of measure and units? In regards to bias? Previously citing categories of intelligence is not meaningful detail as to an instrument's design, administration, metacommentary,...
'til another day |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2buckets
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Middle East
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess we can be grateful it wasn't a semi-automatic sword.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
