The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Leiter weighs in, calling SG a "neanderthal"
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:51 PM Author: Purple mediation The Racist E-Mail by the Harvard 3L
Stephanie Grace, a 3L at Harvard Law School, sent an e-mail to some 'friends' (one of whom subsequently leaked it), stating, among other things, the following:
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic.
Given the magnitude of Ms. Grace's ignorance, and the fact that ignorance was skewed in favor of racist stereotypes, it is unsurprising that she has been pilloried for her views. (To her credit, Ms. Grace did apologize for the offensive e-mail.) To be clear, as I understand it, all of the following is uncontroversial:
1. There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable (which does not mean, contrary to what many blogs, as well as the HLS student, seem to think, that it has a genetic basis).
2. IQ is, at best, a controversial measure of intelligence.
3. There is no evidence--literally, none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis.
Now the standard source in the know-nothing blogosphere for the contrary proposition to #3 is the 1994 book The Bell Curve by Hernnstein & Murray, which was published without peer review, for reasons made clear by Stephen Jay Gould, James Heckman, and the critical discussions collected in this book. At least as far as actual scientific research goes, the Hernnstein & Murray book has as much credibility as the putatively 'scientific' evidence for Intelligent Design or that global warming is a hoax (the irony, of course, in each case is that the politically motivated purveyors of the pseudo-science invariably accuse the scientific skeptics about their work of having political motivations!) (As a sidenote, though, social science enthusiasts would do well to look at the paper by Glymour in the aforementioned book, which makes the case that the pseudo-science of The Bell Curve is replicated throughout the social sciences.)
A very clear explanation of the main points is this essay by Ned Block (NYU). It is useful, in particular, in explaining why the heritability of IQ is not evidence of its having a genetic basis.
The brouhaha over Ms. Grace's e-mail has not been a shining moment for the right-wing Volokh blog, though perhaps that is not surprising. At one extreme, there is David Bernstein (George Mason) falling through the looking-glass as usual and deciding that universities are less tolerant of racism than they are of left-wing professors like Finkelstein and Churchill--professors who, in a great display of tolerance, were fired from their jobs for their political views.
Less fully unhinged from reality is Eugene Volokh (UCLA), whose lengthy discourse on the case might have misled a casual reader into thinking that the e-mail in question had been sent by a social science researcher to a colleague doing research about IQ and heritability, as opposed to what it actually was: an e-mail sent by a third-year law student at Harvard who was obviously in the dark about the evidence, but all-too-willing, despite that, to entertain the most vicious racist stereotypes as possibilities. Since Professor Volokh appears to be as confused about heritability and genetics as the Harvard student, it is perhaps not wholly surprising that he should rise to her defense.
At the other end of the spectrum, not surprisingly, was Orin Kerr (George Washington) who notes fairly that one e-mail, even one reflecting sympathy with racist stereotypes like this one, is not a sound basis on which to assess someone's intelligence and character. That, I think, is the most charitable thing to be said about this whole affair. Or to paraphrase Ms. Grace: "we should absolutely not rule out the possibility that Ms. Grace is not really a right-wing racist and neanderthal." http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2010/05/the-racist-email-by-the-harvard-3l.html |
 |
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:07 PM Author: maroon french rehab "as opposed to what it actually was: an e-mail sent by a third-year law student at Harvard who was obviously in the dark about the evidence, but all-too-willing, despite that, to entertain the most vicious racist stereotypes as possibilities"
lol, because the worst thing that somebody in the dark about the evidence could do is entertain all of the different possibilities rather than foreclose one completely.
"Or to paraphrase Ms. Grace"
TOO SLOW MANTITS!!!
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1299389&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:51 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo The irony is that Herrnstein was a Harvard professor when the book was writen -- an academic pedigree that the striverish Leiter will never attain! Way to omit that fact! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879923) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:49 PM Author: snowy provocative blood rage 1. Substantial evidence that heritable =/= genetic basis See wiki for heritable: Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals. Phenotypic variation among individuals may be due to genetic and/or environmental factors. So, I'll be damned, heritable can mean all genetic or some portion of genetic and environmental factors or all environmental factors. So, to be clear, when it comes to IQ let's presume that heritable means only the latter intrepretation. Nice. 2. Controversial in what sense? That it doesn't measure something quantifiable, useful, indicative of anything? Elaborate, please, fuckwad. [oh, i've slipped into an ad hominem stance. You got me now] 3. Correlation =/= causation, but it is evidence. It creates a presumption. It's the basis of the scientific method. Its first step. Let's just say that the LSAT doesn't measure intelligence. Fine. Remember how learnable it is as some propose? Well, whatever intelligence is, it should be able to be harnessed in an effort to improve performance on an intellectual endeavor such as the LSAT, should it not? At least in some way? At least is some manner? Maybe it's just me, but LSAT does appear to correlate quite well with (what I consider to be) intelligence in my observations. So there isn't proof of a genetic basis? Then what the fuck is the point of AA? It is a clear surrender that blacks and some other minorities cannot obtain sufficiently high scores to compete in the admission process with others. Are we seriously supposed to believe that AA wouldn't have excluded privileged minorities who have no (repeat NO) discernable justification for their inability to get a high enough score on the LSAT to compete on equal terms with others? I'm sure almost everybody with a brain would prefer that differences in intelligence were not based, at least in part, on race. Then we could address the cause and fairly account for it and perhaps 'fix' the problem. It's not like there isn't incentive for the head-in-the-sands to prove some other cause for the discrepancy. Well, prove it instead of attacking the messengers. "right-wing racist and neanderthal" What a classless piece of shit you are, Leiter, to use that slur with such limited knowledge of the target considering that the knowledge you do have surely doesn't justify it. Until you fucking losers are ready to objectively discuss the topic and try to prove or disprove the assertion rather than resort to attacking anyone who brings up the topic in a manner you dislike, you can all suck my dick. The fact is, even if it is proven 100% that whites are, in general, more intelligent than blacks, it won't change my life one fucking bit because I don't give a fuck. I'll still be less intelligent than a large % of blacks, as I am now, and I'll still know that "intelligence of my race" doesn't really mean anything that makes a difference in my life. Neither does "ability of my race to run fast" or "ability of my race to be musical", for that matter, because there is so much overlap that exceptions swallow the rule. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:51 PM Author: Purple mediation TYFT (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879919) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:54 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo "In 2000, only 26 [African-Americans] in the entire nation had a 3.5 GPA and 165 LSAT score"
Fact is, there is a test score gap. It really doesn't matter if it's genetic or cultural. In fact, if it's cultural that is probably a bigger issue, since it's something that should be considered and addressed, despite (unfortunately) it's potential to offend.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:57 PM Author: red comical pisswyrm "The fact is, even if it is proven 100% that whites are, in general, more intelligent than blacks, it won't change my life one fucking bit because I don't give a fuck. I'll still be less intelligent than a large % of blacks, as I am now, and I'll still know that "intelligence of my race" doesn't really mean anything that makes a difference in my life. Neither does "ability of my race to run fast" or "ability of my race to be musical", for that matter, because there is so much overlap that exceptions swallow the rule."
This is actually the most crucial point people need to understand to stop being threatened by any questions into this area. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:06 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Agreed that group =/= person. It's a crucial point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880068) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:09 PM Author: Vivacious menage Crucial but unrealistic as I made crystal clear in one of the "what if" threads today. I was given decent support too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880087) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:12 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo You've been consistently wrong so far, why stop now? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880102) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:14 PM Author: Vivacious menage What have I been wrong about?
Please link.
|
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 1:28 AM Author: Mauve sickened psychic whorehouse Good luck making that point to the lynch mobs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883677) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:34 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid Why is there AA? Because blacks have been held back socially and economically for a few centuries. Mostly that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880266) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:35 PM Author: Vivacious menage I didn't bother reading his post. It just looked sloppily done. Anyway, this is closer to the truth, if not the truth, then what was otherwise proposed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880279) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:09 PM Author: Vivacious menage 1. "So, I'll be damned, heritable can mean all genetic or some portion of genetic and environmental factors or all environmental factors. So, to be clear, when it comes to IQ let's presume that heritable means only the latter intrepretation. Nice. "
He actually said that IQ was heritable, but said that does not mean it has a genetic basis. He is right. People think heritable =/= genetic, and as you have just proven, that is not always the case.
1. Controversial in what sense? That it doesn't measure something quantifiable, useful, indicative of anything? Elaborate, please, fuckwad. [oh, i've slipped into an ad hominem stance. You got me now]
All Leiter said was that IQ was a controversial measure of intelligence. It is a controversial measure of intelligence because intelligence usually does not involve traits such as creativity, imagination, etc.
3. Correlation =/= causation, but it is evidence. It creates a presumption. It's the basis of the scientific method. Its first step.
Yes, but it does NOT prove anything. Whenever there is a genetic hypothesis, there is equally so an environmental hypothesis. Blacks make up the greatest proportion of the best basketball shooters in America, does that mean that they are genetically predisposed to being great at shooting basketballs than the average white man? |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 4:22 PM Author: insanely creepy lodge "So there isn't proof of a genetic basis? Then what the fuck is the point of AA? It is a clear surrender that blacks and some other minorities cannot obtain sufficiently high scores to compete in the admission process with others."
this is where your post loses its way. |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 5:23 PM Author: snowy provocative blood rage yeah it does (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14906920) |
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:52 PM Author: Vivacious menage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879338) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:54 PM Author: Vivacious menage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879351) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:55 PM Author: Out-of-control Ocher Depressive Leiter sounds like someone you could cut in line without any consequences whatsoever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879366) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:55 PM Author: Adventurous spot goal in life Two subpoenas. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879361) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:55 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Principal's Office Jap so Leiter has done graduate work in anthropology, sociology, and genetics?
intriguing. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:56 PM Author: Vivacious menage Neither have you.
What's your point?
The evidence is there. Obviously an expert would give a better perspective, but it seems like you only need an expert when convenient and contrary to your own assertions. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:55 PM Author: Floppy sandwich ratface Aside from the snipe at the end, pretty charitable for Leiter. I like that he can't resist turning everything into a petty spat with someone else. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:56 PM Author: Purple mediation "Aside from the snipe at the end, pretty charitable for Leiter."
Sadly, cr. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 5:56 PM Author: beta dilemma i would pay so much money to see Leiter debate Volokh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879376) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:00 PM Author: Aphrodisiac point brethren 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879410) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:00 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor "[Eugene Volokh's] lengthy discourse on the case might have misled a casual reader into thinking that the e-mail in question had been sent by a social science researcher to a colleague doing research about IQ and heritability, as opposed to what it actually was: an e-mail sent by a third-year law student at Harvard..."
Wait, so only experts in the field have any freedom to discuss the evidence in support of two sides of a current debate? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:01 PM Author: beta dilemma also, she was a research assistant or something like for some prof who focuses on this shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879422) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:02 PM Author: Vivacious menage Which really doesn't prove anything after all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879430) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:03 PM Author: beta dilemma i'm just saying she probably knows quite a bit about the research on this subject (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879440) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:03 PM Author: Vivacious menage The "research" done on this subject is widely available for anyone interested (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879447) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:05 PM Author: beta dilemma i know, but most people have not studied it. i was just making it clear that she almost certainly has. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879460) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:07 PM Author: Vivacious menage I suppose then she is objectively a expert on the subject of race and intelligence? Or, at the very least, more likely to come to a better conclusion than someone like Leiter with the same give materials?
I came to her written conclusion after about an hour. Sociology majors are shit. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:09 PM Author: beta dilemma i think leiter is an idiot and an ideologue so i would trust her more than i would trust him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879506) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:11 PM Author: Vivacious menage I wouldn't trust her. It could have been the reason why she studied with her prof. was because she supported his views, whatever they were, on race and intelligence.
Leiter, objectively, isn't an idiot. Philosophy PhD isn't easy. No philosopher is dumb. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:12 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant lol hi leiter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879542) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:13 PM Author: beta dilemma according to you maybe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879545) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:22 PM Author: odious stag film On the other hand, Leiter didn't make law review or coif/magna at michigan, which suggests that there's a good chance he's dumber than Ann Coulter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879641) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:36 PM Author: 180 double fault abode Law review is a social construct (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879770) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:42 PM Author: Vivacious menage True, but I would imagine his attainment of the PhD proves his ability. I would say the PhD is probably harder to get than the JD. There really isn't an identifiable reason why Leiter didn't make law review. Most law profs easily law review. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879826) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:43 PM Author: 180 double fault abode I explained why above, hth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879840) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:02 PM Author: odious stag film Actually there's an easily identifiable reason: Leiter lacked the mental agility required to make it to the top of the class. I suppose we could charitably attribute this failing instead to a lack of motivation, but given his history of striving, that seems most improbable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880043) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:07 PM Author: Vivacious menage Perhaps. But given his ability as a law prof, and as a scholar in general, it seem an oddity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880074) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:09 PM Author: violet meetinghouse lol shutup brian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880091) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:10 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo No it doesn't. Occam's razor, retard. He excels at being an ivory towered, PC douchebag.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:15 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend respected philosophy professors are without exception smart, and probably also without exception smarter than the median lrev'er at a good school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880123) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:20 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Your assumption probably holds in general, though I can think of one exception (hint: It's LEITER!)
Wow, that was bad. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:21 PM Author: odious stag film It would ordinarily be very difficult to test this proposition. Fortunately, in this case, Leiter attended law school. And there he was trounced by median and even sub-median members of law review. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880160) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:25 PM Author: gold giraffe newt LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880190) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:27 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend on a measure that doesn't precisely track candlepower. you're an absolute moron if you think most of your l rev buddies are brighter than leiter. he would destroy most in extemporaneous debate, and they'd be hardpressed to ever write anything as insightful as his average article (blog posts are another matter) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880208) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 2:55 PM Author: drab theater filthpig extemp and/or debate are really poor measurements also (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14905850) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:13 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend ability to win typing races doesn't always track ability to make substantive scholarly contributions, although there is certainly some non-zero correlation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880114) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:17 PM Author: odious stag film Absolutely true. On the other hand, only a fool would imagine that the difference between top 1/3 and top 10% is an ability to "win typing races." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880139) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:20 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant i never got the typing race meme, the one time i tried it i got a b+ (torts)
all my a exams have been ~4k words |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:24 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend five pages per hour is rather quick, though obviously only puts you at say the 60th percentile or so amongst law students. and obviously no scholar writes at that pace. as a scholar, the ability to think deep and order one's thoughts with ample time pwns the ability to jot down everything that comes to mind very quickly. but as i said before, there is some correlation between the former and the latter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880179) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:21 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend sometimes it certainly is. you don't think how quickly one writes can make a huge difference on a tight curve? it can, and frequently does (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880155) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:27 PM Author: odious stag film It frequently does? How many times have you taken torts? Generally the bottleneck in law school exams is analytical speed--catching issues and making inferences--rather than the typing speed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880199) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:28 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend you think speed of composition is always immaterial? lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880224) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:32 PM Author: odious stag film Yes. That's exactly what I said. Hello Brian. I see your analytical skills are still not quite up to snuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880242) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:39 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend one "bottleneck" is catching issues and making inferences quickly. why we should think this is anywhere near a precise proxy for the ability to make as many warranted inferences as possible with ample time is beyond me, and it's the latter task that more closely mirrors what scholars actually do.
and another "bottleneck" is memorializing issues and inferences in writing. some people do this much more quickly than others, and though we should again expect some correlation between the skills relevant to this task and analytical smarts broadly understood, the correlation will be even weaker than with respect to inferential speed under tight time contraints and enormous pressure |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:22 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Law students are graded on their ability to recognize (where students are largely differentiated) and expand upon (less important, but still important) issues.
Typing additional material hurts students as much as it helps them.
The most gifted student in my top law school, whose exams were often used as model answers, usually wrote less than half the amount of most students. She made every word count. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:53 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend i don't see how this detracts from the point that speed of composition matters. seeing what matters is one thing. presenting it is another. obviously characterizing law school exams as "typing races" is a crude and somewhat inapt inapt way of getting at this point, but it's good enough for government work. btw although i don't have citations, i think i have seen some evidence indicating that even the crude characterization fits reality to some degree: there is a correlation between number of words written and grades received. this shouldn't be all that surprising; if you need to shortchange analysis of subissues to ensure that you at least touch on all the main issues, your grades will suffer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880978) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:21 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Leiter's clearly bright; bottom line, though, he's a PC douche.
You can't take Leiter seriously, particularly not on this blog. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:29 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend i don't take (many of) his blog posts seriously (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880228) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:32 PM Author: Vivacious menage this was a credible post (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880245) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2010 5:46 AM Author: Fragrant National (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16699784) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 3:56 PM Author: Plum lascivious stain lol at law students like yourself (I know you're not alone) who think graduating near the top of your class at Michigan is a better signal of intelligence than becoming a respected professor and leading expert in your field in philosophy.
Say what you will about the guy, he's clearly not dumb, and he's clearly more intelligent than a very (VERY) high percentage of lawyers in the world. He's a controversial figure, but he's an acknowledged and well-respected authority in his field.
Signed, NOT Leiter |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 4:26 PM Author: Slimy Property Community Account i can think of several identifiable reasons, most of which involve leiter being a fucking moron (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14906560) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:18 PM Author: maroon french rehab cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879587) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:09 PM Author: Purple mediation "Or, at the very least, more likely to come to a better conclusion than someone like Leiter with the same give materials?"
Are you Leiter? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:02 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor Not good enough! The discussion is only okay if both are colleagues actively engaged in this exact research. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879431) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:02 PM Author: Purple mediation PUG sociology major with highest honors -> HLS -> HLR -> Kozinski.
Not enough.
If she went to USD, she might be aight. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:03 PM Author: 180 double fault abode some idiot was making the same argument in the Volokh comments, got thoroughly pwned (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879445) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:05 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor I'm dumbfounded by the idea. I've always thought that discussions where both people are intelligent but not experts lead to them raising questions, discovering gaps in their knowledge, and learning more about the issues.
In the future, I'll know not to engage until I finish my dissertation. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:17 PM Author: 180 double fault abode This particular faggot's view was that for most subjects it is ok, but SCIENCE is special and can only be discussed by SCIENTISTS. of course, he felt comfortable giving his approval of a study arguing against a genetic basis for race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879580) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:38 PM Author: supple angry range "so only experts in the field have any freedom to discuss the evidence in support of two sides of a current debate?"
Yes.
Experts like Brian Mantits Leiter. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:05 PM Author: violet meetinghouse
"2. IQ is, at best, a controversial measure of intelligence.
3. There is no evidence--literally, none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis. "
both of these claims are nonsense. the third one, in particular, is just dishonest. There is evidence -- Leiter and the PC establishment instead choose to ignore it. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:08 PM Author: Vivacious menage None of the studies you can link give a solely genetic hypothesis without a sister environmental one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879500) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:10 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant so that means that it's a thoughtcrime to speculate about genetic hypotheses, got it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879516) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:19 PM Author: Vivacious menage I never said or implied that. You can speculate but be aware that speculation of these matters, as opposed to rumination of something more objective like physics, is more humanly susceptible to bias. To overstate the genetic hypotheses when there is little logical reason to do so over its counterpart, especially when under another' tutelage, is dangerously unscientific and liable to error. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879598) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:23 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant so what's your point? she didn't 'overstate the genetic hypothesis,' she refused to rule it out, and since scientists are continuing to study the question it appears she wasn't obviously wrong to do so (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879648) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:25 PM Author: Vivacious menage I wasn't talking about her; I was referring to you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879666) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:27 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant i haven't taken a position on any of this
good god, you really are a captious little shit, you really must be leiter |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:29 PM Author: Vivacious menage To be honest, I'm having trouble with all these moniker changes. There are a few Malcolms around here: all of you seem to hold the same biases, as well as similar typing styles. Anyway, a good portion of XOXO is of this opinion, and I've just elucidated about the error in it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879710) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:30 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant and yet you wildly roar around all over this thread screaming 'racist racist racist' (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879718) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:31 PM Author: Vivacious menage Yes, most of you were racist well before any of this came out. This only came out a few days ago. I've been calling all of you racist for months for a host of good reasons and threads. To call you racist again is redundant, but I do it anyway for effect. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879729) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:32 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant 'all of you'
again, hi brian
if you don't know someone and can't associate them with a particular statement, it's wildly irresponsible to call them racist just on some sort of general principles. it's like calling people nazis or saying they beat their wives. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:00 PM Author: Vivacious menage It is absolutely creditable to judge people, and the tone of this place as a whole, by the sheer overwhelming number of posts I've observed. Knowing you is a non-issue. I know what you think. If you all hated Jews, and said it a billion times like you do to blacks in this place, then I would say you're anti-Semites, and the fact is that I wouldn't be far from the mark. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880024) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:31 PM Author: Milky excitant school Leiter, you picked 'mydickinyourbrain' as a moniker? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880239) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:39 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor Despite her lack of background in genetics, she's clearly qualified to rule out a hypothesis scientists are investigating in their serious, important research. That she doesn't choose to do so is racist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879791) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:36 PM Author: gold giraffe newt Read what she said. Your post doesn't make sense. She didn't rule out [a particular conclusion]. Neither are the scientists you reference. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880289) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:55 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo "In 2000, only 26 [African Americans] in the entire nation had a 3.5 GPA and 165 LSAT score."
A test score gap exists. Is it genetic? Cultural? What? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:19 PM Author: 180 double fault abode mostly because it is impossible to control for "social environment." like with the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, PCers will argue the black kids only turned out dumber b/c their teachers expected them to do worse, their peers treated them worse, etc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879604) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:22 PM Author: Vivacious menage Didn't control for prenatal factors and the sample size wasn't big enough. <-- All of what you stated and this too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879635) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:25 PM Author: 180 double fault abode So it's not perfect, and not dispositive on the subject. But it's not meaningless either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879667) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:30 PM Author: Vivacious menage When you have a bunch of unknown factors like that, I'd say it's not great evidence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879720) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:32 PM Author: 180 double fault abode Maybe not, but anyone claiming there is "absolutely" no evidence to support a genetic hypothesis (as Leiter did) is lying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879738) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:37 PM Author: Vivacious menage That evidence is no more evident of a genetic hypothesis than an environmental one. None of the studies you can link absolutely discredits the environmental hypothesis and only leaves the genetic hypothesis as the answer. There is no credible evidence that a genetic hypothesis exists without an environmental one in play. To say credible evidence exists for a genetic hypothesis is being dishonest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879782) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:39 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler As I mention below, I consider the results on regression to the mean to be credible evidence for a genetic hypothesis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879797) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:52 PM Author: Vivacious menage The mean black IQ is no longer 85. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879926) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:09 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Read the Bell Curve. That is far from the only study on this point. I'm pretty sure there were tens of thousands of people that were required to take certain tests prior to World War 2, for example. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880089) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:13 PM Author: Vivacious menage The most recent study I've read on this subject presents the finding that Average Black American G and IQ has increased. Aside, there are a couple other studies that prove this is possible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880116) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:22 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Did you see that statistic about law applicants in 1994? Or in 2000?
I happen to not really care about IQ. I do care about results. In fact, it would be much more helpful if IQ weren't the problem, since AA programs really might be doing good. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:27 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid I fail to see how the LSAT really means shit. It's not even particularly predictive of law-school performance for blacks. When you do the analysis against grades for blacks, the regression lines are different than they are for whites, unlike the regression lines in IQ. That leads me (and probably a guy like Arthur Jensen) to believe that those test actually are biased.
LSAT means shit. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:35 PM Author: gold giraffe newt Sorry about your 158, dude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880278) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:47 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid I'm in medical school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880354) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:07 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I assume you're referring to the secular trend in IQ scores. This doesn't detract from the strength of the regression-to-the-mean results. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880515) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:39 PM Author: 180 double fault abode That evidence is no more evident of a environmental hypothesis than an genetic one. None of the studies you can link absolutely discredits the genetic hypothesis and only leaves the environmental hypothesis as the answer. There is no credible evidence that an environmental hypothesis exists without a genetic one in play. To say credible evidence exists for an environmental hypothesis is being dishonest.
So in other words, we can't rule out either possibility, and nothing SG said should be controversial. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:43 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid You don't start out with a genetic hypotheses. That's putting the cart before the horse. You start with genetics and you're confounded by one of the few dozen things that affect intellectual development. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879838) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:45 PM Author: 180 double fault abode lolwut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879855) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:52 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor So we need to thoroughly reject every possible environmental hypothesis before allowing a genetic one?
I mean, social scientists are trying, but while they're doing that I don't see why biological scientists can't explore things from their end. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:57 PM Author: Vivacious menage Of course. When you creditably eliminate everything else, whatever is left must be the answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879988) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:00 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor So biologists should be doing research on whether or not there's a genetic factor involved in the black-white achievement gap, right? Since social scientists can only disprove that by exhaustion, it just seems easier to address the hypothesis directly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880025) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:04 PM Author: Vivacious menage There are people already doing that: Rushton and Jensen. They've been doing it for years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880057) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:07 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor So are they racist for not ruling out the possibility of a genetic basis for the achievement gap? Is SG supposedly qualified to tell them their research is a waste of time, since we can all agree that it's not genetic? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880076) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:17 PM Author: Vivacious menage They're racists for being racist. Rushton has spoken at white supremacist functions and, I believe, given interviews to prominent white supremacist websites. He has also wrote scathing anti-multiculturalism articles pertaining to his Canadian homeland. SG was presumptively racist for trying to hide her obvious bias, not necessarily for the overriding point she gave. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880132) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:19 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor oic, racist scientists = racist science. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880146) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:22 PM Author: Vivacious menage I never said or implied that. They are racists that do science. They do this particular science because they are racist. That does not mean the science itself is racist or that their findings should or can be discredited. I have never stated that and will never state that. No one is racist for not ruling out the genetic hypothesis, but one can racist outside of that, and SG is probably such a racist.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:25 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor re: your edit,
Have you read her e-mail? She wishes to clarify that, contrary to her argument at dinner, she's NOT 100% close-minded to the idea that scientists might find genetic contributions. She will wait to see the scientific results before ruling it out completely. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:18 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid Yes, they should be doing research that is confounded by environmental factors so that their results are moot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880141) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:18 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor Identifying genes that are responsible for different traits is confounded by environmental factors? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880144) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:23 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid They've identified specific genes? To my knowledge we've only discovered that there are average differences between races. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880174) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:28 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor People are doing research to identify specific genes, yes, entirely separate from the race/intelligence debate. They might very well find that manipulating a certain combination of genes makes for rats or monkeys that perform much better on tests of cognitive function. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880220) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:44 PM Author: slap-happy gaped toaster piazza yes. it's a fundamental issue which plagues association studies:
http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2010/03/on_plausible_alternative_hypot.php |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:31 PM Author: Vivacious menage Such is the prevalence of environmental factors. That is the undertaking of science. If you don't like it, then don't take up the task. You cannot be scientifically literate and point to a genetic hypothesis without equally considering an environmental one. That is the ultimate fact. So hold off on trashing the resumes of those black associates and sneering at those black children as they walk by. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880236) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:44 PM Author: gold giraffe newt Why don't we simply judge people (not groups) on results rather than race?
This would require the abandonment of systemized inequality, like AA. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:47 PM Author: Vivacious menage The base assumption is that the environmental hypothesis is the answer pertaining to social policy. Doing nothing about the condition of black and Hispanic (I would say Native American as well but they're doomed) communities in the United States will not solve anything. The scientists can study. In the meantime, society will try to bring about change. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880356) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:18 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo What is a "black" or "hispanic" community? Are you referring specifically to areas wherein a certain threshold percentage of the residence are of a particular race?
Strangely, Native Americans in the United States would seem to have the most fully developed "communities," as you use the term.
Or should you replace "cultures" for "communities" in your post?
|
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 4:12 AM Author: Stubborn Crimson Faggotry Locale It's impossible to run a controlled study on the earth's climate. But doing nothing about global warming will not solve anything. The scientists can study. In the meantime, we should all open our refrigerators at the same time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14884415) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:46 PM Author: Citrine fortuitous meteor Edit: eh, I'm going out, don't feel like checking this thread tomorrow to follow up (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880350) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:10 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I disagree: you can, when you refer to the observation that iq scores of different races regress towards different means, and that the genetic hypothesis fits the data in a particularly striking fashion. On the other hand, no straightforward environmental hypothesis explains this fact. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880539) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:13 PM Author: slap-happy gaped toaster piazza What the fuck is this talk of "racial regression" without actually linking to any legitimate studies on the subject. Are you fucking 12? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:15 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Who mentioned "racial regression"? If you didn't know what I was talking about, why did you attempt to comment as if you did? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880581) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:15 PM Author: violet meetinghouse http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880585) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:17 PM Author: slap-happy gaped toaster piazza lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880605) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:24 PM Author: violet meetinghouse go on (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880672) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:16 PM Author: Vivacious menage The problem with regression analysis was already explained by another poster.
A straightforward hypothesis doesn't matter doesn't mean anything because there are a host of environmental factors that could be at play, or a combination, whatever.
I also already explained that the average black IQ is not 85:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:21 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Please link me to the post regarding the problem about regression analysis. By the way, regression analysis as a statistical technique is not necessary when testing the regression-to-the-mean hypothesis, so you may be misunderstanding. As I mentioned below, the genetic hypothesis (regarding regression-to-the-mean) here is a strong test because it makes striking quantitative predictions that are confirmed, with remarkable fit, in the data. You objection would hold only in the case where the hypothesis made only qualitative predictions. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:41 PM Author: Vivacious menage The crux of the matter is that black IQ didn't test out to be 85. Either it is or it is not genetically 85, and if it is, then it should always be within that range with any robust study. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880831) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:44 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I think you misunderstand what regression-to-the-mean studies are. Please take a look at Section 9 of this paper: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:24 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler The data in the paper you link doesn't seem to refute the Jensen result in any way. Perhaps you could explain the reasoning you have in mind to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880676) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:42 PM Author: Vivacious menage Black average IQ has risen by 5-7 points. It should not be above 85. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880840) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:45 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Please see above. Either I am completely misunderstanding your point, or you are confusing regression analysis with regression-to-the-mean. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880869) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:56 PM Author: Vivacious menage I just looked at it.
The mean is not 85.
Jensen published his regression to the mean study in 1973. Flynn says that black IQ rose between the years of between 1972 and 2002. If Jensen completed his study in 1972 and published in 1973, then it makes sense he would get a regression to the mean number of 85. There is no contention there.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:02 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I suspect you still don't get the point; apologies if you did. The striking result was not simply that the study inferred an average iq for each race, but also that the quantitative predictions of a regression-to-the-mean hypothesis were cleanly observed in the data: that is, for a white subject with IQ x, his sibling had, in expectation, an IQ of 100 + 1/2 * (x-100) (where 100 is the population mean for whites). This quantitative prediction was verified for virtually all values of x, and cannot be explained otherwise without torturing an environmental hypothesis. Whether there is a secular trend in IQ after 1973 does not detract from the implication of this study. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:10 PM Author: Vivacious menage 1. Jensen calculated that through regression analysis blacks might have 85 in 1972.
2. Blacks have 85 in 1972, provable through regression analysis, so IQ probably is heritable to a certain point.
How does this prove that black IQ would regress to 85 today? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:19 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler You continue to misunderstand. Let me try to put it another way. We observe the following empirical fact: for a given race i, there exists a number a_i such that sibling 1's iq = a_i + 1/2 * (sibling 2's iq - a_i) + (unbiased error term). In other words, for a given pair of same-race siblings, the conditional expectation of a given sibling's iq is exactly halfway between his other sibling's iq and the race mean. This is predicted exactly by a genetic hypothesis, and confirmed cleanly. Also: the results are consistent with a difference in average IQ between races in the 1973 sample that has a genetic basis; they are not consistent with a hypothesis that, absent environmental factors, there is no difference in average IQ across races. No environmental hypothesis that doesn't resort to statistical improbabilities predicts it, as far as I know. Again, as I said, I regard this as strong evidence that much of the race-IQ gap in 1973 was genetic. This is independent of whether the average black IQ is currently 85. Perhaps you could argue that there was a genetic gap in 1973 but not now, if you have an explanation for the change in "genetic IQ" gap in mind.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 10:05 PM Author: Vivacious menage The crux of the issue, again, is that the IQ is no longer 85, which likely means that some portion of IQ isn't genetic else the value today would still likely be 85. A 85-low 90+ increase is a good gain.
If Black average IQ gets to 100, what relevancy will this carry? Will the genetic hypothesis not be marginalized? Has it not been already? If environment increases average IQ, which it likely does, and we get to our goals, then the genetic hypothesis is for naught relative to Black Americans. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 10:08 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Before moving on, do you agree that the Jensen study shows that the racial IQ gap at the time of the study was in large part genetic in origin? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881868) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 10:27 PM Author: Vivacious menage There is a genetically heritable part. Which, might I add, I never ruled out as implausible. We are humans and part of our intelligence is tied to our genetics. The question still remains as to why black IQ has risen over 85, controlling for white admixture, while white IQ has remained at 100. If it is "largely genetic", the next natural question is why this is the case.
On top of that, why is it the case that G can rise as well if it is mostly genetic. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 10:39 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler My opinion regarding the nature of the Flynn effect and whether there has really narrowing of the Black-White gap in recent decades isn't particularly strong. I do think that an acknowledgement that there has been, at some point in the recent past, a significant genetic component to the racial IQ gap, throws the debate open and makes many questions legitimate - which, as you can see, is not currently the case for most people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14882104) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:11 PM Author: Vivacious menage Well, there are several studies on the subject of G increase as a whole (I'll link some abstracts and papers below). It kinda makes the genetic part of IQ seem not so weighty and only indicative of basic human intelligence when you consider that average Black IQ raised from 85->low to mid 90s after the civil rights era. It supports the notion that things like AA should probably continue, from a much younger age, and ending in adulthood.
Here are the G studies:
SECULAR GAINS IN FLUID INTELLIGENCE: EVIDENCE FROM THE CULTURE-FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST ROBERTO COLOM a1 and OSCAR GARCÍA-LÓPEZ a2 a1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain a2 Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain 2003 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=135589
Generational changes on the draw-a-man test: a comparison of Brazilian urban and rural children tested in 1930, 2002 and 2004. Colom R, Flores-Mendoza CE, Abad FJ. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. 2006. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16441963?dopt=Citation
Are cognitive differences between immigrant and majority groups diminishing? TE NIJENHUIS Jan ; DE JONG Mart-Jan ; EVERS Arne ; VAN DER FLIER Henk ; 2004 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16026650
IQ on the rise: the Flynn effect in rural Kenyan children. Daley TC, Whaley SE, Sigman MD, Espinosa MP, Neumann C. Department of Psychology, University of California, 2003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741743
Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples illiam T. Dickens and James R. Flynn. Oct. 2006 http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf
There are also a few that say certain activities increase IQ permanent by as much as 7 points. Drugs and strategy games as well. I'll look those below.
The practical applicability for this is the same as the status quo, I think. I think we can say that G is greatly affected by environment, no?
add my gmail; I'd like to gchat: dailynaruto@gmail.com |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:41 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Thank you for the links. I can stand to be convinced that there have truly been differential secular gains in g, but currently I still need to be convinced. I should point out that although you have linked to peer-reviewed work that supports your claim, there is (IMO) even more work that points in the opposite direction, and a great deal of it. In particular, meta-studies do not seem to support a secular gain in g, nor a closing of the racial gap. Here is a Jensen review (not peer-reviewed) that contains useful links. http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:45 PM Author: Vivacious menage "I can stand to be convinced that there have truly been differential secular gains in g, but currently I still need to be convinced. "
I don't really know what to say. Those are the studies. It's clear that G increased.
"I should point out that although you have linked to peer-reviewed work that supports your claim, there is (IMO) even more work that points in the opposite direction, and a great deal of it. In particular, meta-studies do not seem to support a secular gain in g, nor a closing of the racial gap. "
That G doesn't always increase with IQ? Sure. But I didn't link you to IQ studies. I gave you all (maybe minus 1) studies that concluded with definitive increases in G. Either G did or didn't increase. It's clear, that at least in some peer reviewed cases, that it did.
Can you link me to rebuttals to these studies? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:52 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I'm not sure I understand what your point is. I guess I mean that although there have been results going both ways - there has been an increase in g versus no increase - the preponderance of the evidence (very much IMO) seems to be that the Flynn effect has not been on g. You've showed some studies indicating that g increased. There are more studies indicating otherwise. By the way, it is clear that you are more familiar with the literature than I am - so take my meta-claims with a grain of salt. |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:05 AM Author: Vivacious menage No, Vinny. The criticism that existed before these studies were published, and that exist now, largely say not all IQ gains in the Flynn effect amounted to an increase of G. Researchers acknowledged and corrected for it--using and comparing the scores of high g-loaded tests like the Culture Fair intelligence tst where possible and using the highest g-loadage parts of other tests like the Raven Matrices everywhere else.
The evidence is clear that fluid. For example, the Spanish study: "There is no doubt about the reality of the secular increase in cognitive test scores. However, there is disagreement about a key issue: does the observed increase reflect a genuine upward trend in intelligence? Evidence from the Raven test is clear, although there are some doubts about its adequacy as a fine-grained measure of fluid intelligence. Evidence from the so-called ‘method of correlated vectors’ is much less clear. When a crystallized battery is considered, the results leave little doubt: the increase does not reflect gains in general intelligence. However, when a fluid battery is analysed, the increase does reflect gains in general intelligence. The present study uses one of the best available measures of fluid intelligence (the Culture-Fair intelligence test) to provide new evidence for the secular increase in fluid intelligence, beyond the findings from the Raven test and the method of correlated vectors. A total of 4498 Spanish high school students and high school graduates were tested within a time interval of 20 and 23 years, respectively. The results show that there is a clear upward trend in intelligence. Moreover, students show an average increase equivalent to 6 IQ points, while graduates show an average increase of 4 IQ points. Therefore, more selected people (graduates) show a smaller increase than less selected people (students). Some implications are discussed." |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:27 AM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler If I understand the literature sufficiently, the various studies find conflicting results based on distinct samples - so that no one article should be regarded as being "refuted" by another. We thus rely on meta-studies such as [51] from Jensen's 2010 survey, which do not support your claim that the secular trends persist in highly g-loaded tests. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883103) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:38 AM Author: Vivacious menage He didn't include all the studies available. He included the Dutch researchers' study and that's it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883242) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:40 AM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler So, is your contention that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of a secular increase in g? Does this imply that the Dutch meta-analysis was flawed, or incomplete? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883272) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:46 AM Author: Vivacious menage I think he cherry picked his studies. He could have included all of them. There doesn't seem to be a reason as to why he didn't. The fact that he didn't include as many as possible, but just a few here and there, makes me think this is a agenda driven result. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883335) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:50 AM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I agree, if you're referring to Jensen (I can't judge the Dutch study). But - It does seem to me that people like Nisbett are far more egregious in their "selective intervention" than Jensen, which is part of the reason I take his claims with more than a claim of salt. - Even the most pessimistic reading of the "no secular increase in g" position would be that, at worst, it hasn't been refuted convincingly at all. Would you agree?
|
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 1:11 AM Author: Vivacious menage "- It does seem to me that people like Nisbett are far more egregious in their "selective intervention" than Jensen, which is part of the reason I take his claims with more than a claim of salt. "
Well, I never did put much trust in Jensen's findings. He was always prone to agenda driven bias and this is proof that he's dishonest. His paper is still fairly new so it's likely to get a stern rebuttal. I know he's getting ready old (86) and wants to stamp his memory on academia, but that doesn't mean you fudge findings and ignore peer-reviewed studies in meta analysis. I didn't read the whole of the paper. I don't know too much about Nesbitt either.
"- Even the most pessimistic reading of the "no secular increase in g" position would be that, at worst, it hasn't been refuted convincingly at all. Would you agree? "
I'd say it's been convincingly refuted. There are several peer-reviewed studies that show sweet and clean G increase over a period of time. Three--the Brazilian, Spanish, and Kenyan study, just to start the list--weren't included in Jensen's meta analysis. His clear academic dishonesty here is a little disturbing.
Plus, I don't think not finding G increases in population means that G increases don't happen at all when they conclusively do in other populations. It seems to me that you're more likely to find G increases in some places than others and that not finding it in some places only reinforces the notion that some places and populations experience genuine Flynn effect and others don't. |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 1:21 AM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I can certainly live with the stylized fact that g has been increasing in certain regions of the world. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883605) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 1:24 AM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Thanks for the comments. They have been helpful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883634) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:59 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I'm too lazy to dig up links, so please just look at refs 43-54 in the Jensen review I linked above for a sense of where I am coming from. I think he also includes papers that support the "secular increase in g" hypothesis amongst those refs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14882765) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:13 AM Author: Vivacious menage "However, one statistical analysis shows that the Flynn effect is not on the g factor, the principal source of the mean Black–White group difference. Jensen, pg.269"
I was already aware of this. This has been demonstrated as wrong in all of the studies I linked above. Researchers based results largely on the increase of G. Jensen is wrong. See above:
SECULAR GAINS IN FLUID INTELLIGENCE: EVIDENCE FROM THE CULTURE-FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST
|
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:23 AM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Not sure what you're quoting here. Jensen doesn't cite just one study in support of his hypothesis - he cites many, including more than one that indicates that secular increase is negatively correlated with g-loading. Are you arguing that these studies are methodologically flawed? Otherwise, the existence of the articles you link does not constitute a refutation (other than in a statistical sense) of the alternative hypothesis.
|
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:41 AM Author: Vivacious menage But how many and whose studies? It says he included the Dutch researchers and not the Spanish or Brazilian.
I don't even think the meta study proves an increase of G hasn't happened. He took studies that didn't show an increase of G over time, but that doesn't prove that G hasn't increased in specific studies. For instance, you survey a population here, find no G increase, but then you find an increase in a different population? Does the former make the latter finding erroneous or invalid? |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:44 AM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I agree that he "doesn't prove that G hasn't increased in specific studies", which of course he cannot without an critique of methodology. But I think the point is that the statistical power (in a real rather than technical sense) of any given study is limited, and so we do meta-analyses to aggregate statistical power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883319) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 10:42 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler To be clear, the Flynn effect documents a rise in test scores, not necessarily in g. My interpretation of the evidence is that this rise in test scores is in factors orthogonal to g, but my opinion either way is nowhere near as strong as it is regarding the regression-to-the-mean result. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14882124) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:12 PM Author: Vivacious menage No, the most recent Flynn study documents an increase in African-American G.
Did you read it? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:37 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I assume you are referring to the PsySci 2006 article. I find the Rushton and Jensen reply (that immediately follows the Flynn study, in the same issue) to be a reasonable rebuttal (as much as someone who doesn't have access to the data can be convinced either way). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14882510) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:42 PM Author: Vivacious menage I don't know what you mean by "reasonable" as Flynn had good reasons for excluding some the studies, but what about the other studies? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14882559) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:19 PM Author: violet meetinghouse lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881311) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:23 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Put it maybe three other ways and call it a day. I'm falling out of my chair. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881375) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:27 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler I'm genuinely interested in any refutation of this result, since much of my opinion on the topic rests on it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881420) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:25 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Also, he did not rely on "regression analysis" to obtain this result. And there is no suggestion on his part or mine that the results imply that "black IQ would regress to 85 today": the implication was merely that at the time of the study, the racial IQ gap was in large part due to genetic differences. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:33 PM Author: violet meetinghouse *is a PC liberal*
*grasps at straws* |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:25 PM Author: violet meetinghouse ok, nobody argues otherwise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879672) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:26 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler The results on regression to the mean admit a simple genetic hypothesis but only tortured environmental hypotheses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879677) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:34 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid It's always easier to make dispositional attributions than environmental ones. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879749) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:37 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Not in this case, since a remarkable fit to a quantitative prediction is observed. Alternative environmental explanations make quite distinct predictions, not just quantitatively but qualitatively. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879783) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:41 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid African-Americans and Indians have similar IQs. Want to guess whether or not that fact predicts similar outcomes, violent crime rates, etc., even when accounting for differences in location/culture? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879819) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:42 PM Author: violet meetinghouse subtle topic shift bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879828) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:43 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler Please explain what this post has to do with my point above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879836) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:52 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid You have no point. Environmental explanations are more nuanced and exact. IQ is not. It's a shitty measure. It predicts nothing. Studies have shown that an X IQ for Asians doesn't necessarily lead to similar accomplishments for whites. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879929) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:55 PM Author: Motley indian lodge deer antler It sounds like you have no idea what the regression to the mean hypothesis I'm referring to is. It makes no predictions about outcomes other than the distribution of IQ scores across generations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879972) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:57 PM Author: violet meetinghouse *loses argument*
*shifts topic*
also, "iq predicts nothing" is just an idiotic thing to say. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:01 PM Author: Low-t hyperactive hominid correlates =/= predicts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880027) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:09 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant he's just butthurt that her credentials are better than his
also, eugene volokh would eat leiter without salt, i would love to see that |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:14 PM Author: magical theatre eugene volokh, the genius who is best known for his tireless efforts to allow guns in dorm rooms. lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879555) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:19 PM Author: magical theatre eugene volokh, the GENIUS who has dedicated years of his life to writing about slippery slope arguments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879593) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:42 PM Author: supple angry range No one knows or cares about what Leiter writes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880325) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 4:29 PM Author: cerise frozen church building digit ratio Leiter, the GENIUS who has dedicated years of his life to studying how law schools should be ranked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14906578) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:09 PM Author: big scourge upon the earth set Surprisingly pretty credited. First time Leiter has written something I agree with.
As somebody with a background in genetics I get frustrated when clueless students at law schools think that because they're good at debating things means they actually know wtf they're talking about. Grace was obviously clueless about the science behind the race/IQ/genetics discussion, and not in any position to add anything of substance to the debate.
Because of that, we are correct to infer from the mere fact she felt compelled to bullshit on this topic that she is a racist.
I'm particularly glad he took on Volokh, who while a pretty pretty bright guy, is not a polymath and knows jack shit about most scientific matters. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:11 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant your second-last sentence is quite the leap of logic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879527) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:14 PM Author: big scourge upon the earth set True, but most things involve some leaps and inferences.
Let's get real dude. Fellow jew/white to jew/white. You know just as well as I do what little secret crypto-racists a lot of whites and jews are, especially in elite law schools. Grace probably had some preconception that blacks are just stupider than jews and whites, and - knowing absolutely nothing about the science behind it and therefore not being qualified to pontificate on the matter - felt compelled to share her views on the topic. She made some rhetorical argument based around her shoddy pop-science understanding of race and IQ to support her preconceptions. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:17 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant her statement was necessary but not sufficient for racism, and if we prevented lawyers and law students from talking about stuff they didn't understand or only understood in a 'poppy' fashion, there'd be very little for them to talk about (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879583) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:20 PM Author: big scourge upon the earth set What you say is true descriptively but I would much rather lawyers stick to, you know, the law. Call me old-fashioned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879612) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:21 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant so if a lawyer speculates that marxism might be true, we should destroy her career also? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879632) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:23 PM Author: big scourge upon the earth set I don't think Grace should be destroyed.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:24 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant then why are you bashing her instead of sticking up for her? you said upthread that she was presumptively racist, which is a potential career-ending accusation.
specifically, you said "Because of that, we are correct to infer from the mere fact she felt compelled to bullshit on this topic that she is a racist." |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:26 PM Author: big scourge upon the earth set To be honest I don't really believe anything I've written here. I just like trying to play devil's advocate when I feel a thread is too one-sided.
In my heart of hearts I think Grace is being treated way unfairly and agree mostly with Volokh's take on the matter. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:29 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant got it, ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879705) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:27 PM Author: Vivacious menage But it is true. She was presumptively racist. Who cares if it's career-ending if it's accurate? You're letting the fact you're also a racist who believes in speaking your mind cloud judgment here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879696) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:29 PM Author: saffron slippery ladyboy legal warrant stfu you asshole and gtfo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879711) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:37 PM Author: Milky excitant school Simple question for you: Am I racist for thinking blacks are genetically predisposed to being better at basketball? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880292) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:55 PM Author: Vivacious menage You didn't write an entire page on the topic betraying your inner feelings. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880410) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:59 PM Author: Milky excitant school I don't understand your point. There's no need to find out whether I'm betraying my inner feelings, as I'm telling you what my feelings are: I think blacks are genetically predisposed to be better at basketball. Am I racist? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880445) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:13 PM Author: Vivacious menage This is not the same analogy as SG because she wrote an entire page about the topic with flourishes that betrayed her intent. I wouldn't say you're racist based on what you say, but this is a good example of correlation =/= causation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880563) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:50 PM Author: Milky excitant school Oh, so you have no problem with the basic assertion that whites may very well be genetically predisposed to be more intelligent than blacks, just as you have no problem with the assertion that blacks may be genetically predisposed to be better at basketball. You just have a problem with the rest of her post.
What are you talking about when you say "this" is a good example of correlation =/= causation? |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 4:34 PM Author: insanely creepy lodge You seem wrong about most things (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14906600) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:31 PM Author: magical theatre Intelligent people don't say stuff like "I'm totally open to the possibility that the Holocaust didn't happen" unless they are anti-semites. SG is certainly intelligent. Hence, she is racist.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:43 PM Author: red comical pisswyrm so you think the evidence of genetic equality (i don't think there actually is any?) is as sound as the evidence of the holocaust (millions of bodies?). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879834) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:01 PM Author: magical theatre that wasn't my point at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880032) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 4:33 PM Author: insanely creepy lodge "True, but most things involve some leaps and inferences."
This from the SCIENTIST upset that law students are talking about SCIENCE. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:45 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Perhaps she was "compelled" to respond to someone else? You (and we) don't know a lot of the circumstances surrounding this incident, and the above poster is correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881643) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:14 PM Author: maroon french rehab "Because of that, we are correct to infer from the mere fact she felt compelled to bullshit on this topic that she is a racist."
This is the most concise relation of the argument of the anti-S.G. crowd. But it's shitty argument. Law students bullshit about everything, all the time. 90% of studying law these days is about bullshitting about other fields.
The very fact that you and so many others are falling over each other to call her racist (despite the obvious, neutral explanation for her email) leaves all reasonable parties to infer that you are self-righteous retards. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:18 PM Author: big scourge upon the earth set Nah, I acknowledge my own racism. I'm not claiming to be better than Grace in the sense she is racist and I'm not. It's just that I don't pretend like Grace to be some paragon of rationality, merely applying cold logic and reason to the world and reporting back what I see. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879588) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:21 PM Author: maroon french rehab Everything you just said is irrelevant to what I said (except as to whether you are self-righteous). I gave an obvious, neutral explanation for S.G.'s e-mail. There is absolutely no need to invoke racism to explain what she wrote. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879630) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:22 PM Author: 180 double fault abode There is a difference between labeling someone racist in the "we're all a little racist" sense, and the way that most people are actually applying the label to SG.
Most are categorizing her as a malicious, virulent, capital-R, Racist. There is no legitimate ground on which to do so. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:24 PM Author: big scourge upon the earth set In that sense I think what's happening to her is unfair. I think what she said is probably what MOST whites at elite schools think about minorities. I don't think she should be destroyed or that she's an evil person. But it definitely illustrates that racism is alive and well at all levels of society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879659) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:36 PM Author: Blathering Location "what she said is probably what MOST whites at elite schools think about minorities"
No, but it's probably what most people who self-identify as "conservative" at elite schools think about minorities |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:37 PM Author: Sable kitchen idiot Of course it's alive and well. Inquisitive people grow up wondering why Africa is so backward; why blacks have accomplished so little in the history of mankind; and why blacks in America have been so slow to even approach equal achievement. The most intuitive, straightforward answer to all these questions is most certainly genetics, not environment.
Then, we learn about numerous studies that suggest, if not prove, that iq is primarily genetic and that blacks have lower iqs than whites. Rebuttals of these studies often seem non-sensical or specious --e.g., iq may not be the sole measure of intelligence (so?), race is a social construct (beside the point and based on semantics), intelligence is a social construct (really now?), etc. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:24 PM Author: Chestnut Electric Love Of Her Life Tattoo Excellent post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881384) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:16 PM Author: wonderful bistre corner my dog is pretty pretty bright too--plus he's not a shallow legal popularizer like Kozinski or his most famous law clerk (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879569) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:35 PM Author: Rambunctious turdskin What's your background in genetics? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879759) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:31 PM Author: Floppy sandwich ratface As a douchebag law student who thinks he's good at debating, I get frustrated when scientists make leaps in logic to label people racists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880238) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:03 PM Author: slap-happy gaped toaster piazza Credited.
I'm incredibly frustrated with the shit arguments on xoxo (and elsewhere) about "genetics". |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:25 AM Author: arousing idiotic ticket booth nibblets sorry, dipshit. i didn't know that you needed to have a college degree in a field to discuss that subject matter with your friends.
1) SG didn't attempt to set off a widespread debate or contribute to it; someone else circulated her private email.
2) SG writing about race or genetics when she doesn't have a background in the field of genetics isn't the correct basis infer she's a racist. you're logically retarded. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:12 PM Author: Blathering Location The Finkelstein point Leiter raises is fair. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879541) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:21 PM Author: sick jewess dysfunction The point was irrelevant to this issue, public outrage and pressure from outside groups along with legitimate issues about the quality of their scholarship caused Finkelstein and Churchill's firings.
Their political viewpoints were not out of the norm for academia. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:25 PM Author: pale famous landscape painting knife Leiter is a beta male drama queen. All I took away from that story was Leiter's very thinly veiled jealousy of the Volokh Conspiracy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879670) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:27 PM Author: pea-brained balding senate becky "Neanderthals' IQs are lower than Homo Erectus' because of the social features of their respective societies, not relative brain size." -Science (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879695) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:30 PM Author: Blathering Location I think archeologists think Neanderthals had brains as big or bigger than homo sapiens brains. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879716) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 5:12 PM Author: arrogant chartreuse parlor quadroon it's kind of ironic that he called her a neanderthal because that's one of the things that distinguishes blacks from other races genetically. blacks are te only race without neanderthal dna. neanderthals had bigger brains and were physically superior to homo sapiens. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16600458) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:40 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park Leiter’s all over the map, as usual. He suggests that SG is disqualified from commenting because she’s not a practicing expert in the field. Well, she’s studied the issue at Princeton, and so she’s not doing anything more than Leiter himself is doing. In fact, her casual email is more precise and careful than Leiter's publicly published blog entry.
Second—and this is the hard part for all of SG’s critics—Leiter has to mischaracterize that first part of SG's email. Minow had to. Feministe had to. All of SG's critics have to. Leiter does too. His argument resorts to simple name-calling (the "magnitude" of her "ignorance") and then he pulls a "Minow move" by attacking the motives and knowledge of *other* people as a surrogate for SG. (For example, Minow at first falsely characterized the SG email and then pulled the surrogate move by saying that SG's comment "resonates" with other, strawman views that Minow condemns.) This, by the way, is the poker tell of all of the SG critics: just wait and watch patiently, as they have to tip their hand by the way they recast SG's email.
Then Leiter pulls a second bait and switch. Note how carefully he says that the standard source in the blogsophere for race-based explanations is "The Bell Curve," which is not peer reviewed, etc. “In the blogosphere.” Very telling. Leiter knows that Jensen is in fact the standard reference and that Jensen is real science, peer-reviewed, etc., and so by Leiter's own rules he must shut his mouth about the topic. Jensen, needless to say, is vastly more knowledgeable than Leiter on all these issues.
Then Leiter fudges -- deliberately, or because he’s ignorant? -- the relationship between heritable and genetic. He says, “There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable (which does not mean, contrary to what many blogs, as well as the HLS student, seem to think, that it has a genetic basis).” OK, Brian, whatever.
For something to be substantially heritable, it means that a substantial part of the phenotypic variation is due to variations in the genes. One can (1) construct odd fact patterns where cultural traits of high heritability are not directly driven by genetics, and (2) show that environmental factors affect IQ in strong ways -- both of which are conceded even by the most ardent Jensenists. But none of those illustrations entail that there are no genetic bases for IQ, which is the point Leiter wishes he could make. Once again, he offers attacks a straw man attributed to unquoted and uncited people -- note how he says that others "seem to think" because he can't point to any of them actually saying that -- and he hopes that we will make the logical fallacy of concluding that Leiter's refutation of a straw man entails a conclusion that IQ has no genetic bases.
Leiter is also simply wrong. For example, he writes, “the heritability of IQ is not evidence of its having a genetic basis.” Actually, it is. It’s powerful evidence, and every competent person in the field would agree. Even James Flynn, the arch-nemesis of the IQ-race crowd, says that high heritability is relevant not only to a genetic basis but also to between group heritability. If Leiter meant “conclusive proof,” then he’s a sloppy writer. If he really meant “evidence” then he’s simply wrong.
Classic Leiter. By the way, Leiter himself has written about evolutionary biology. He favors it as an explanation when it makes Nietzsche look good. Otherwise, he’s doubtful about it, but he is careful not to say that evolutionary biology will never prove useful. He just says that he’s not yet convinced by the current evidence. If that doesn’t sound familiar, re-read SG’s email. She takes the same position Leiter does.
To sum it up, in the course of just a few short paragraphs, Leiter makes arguments he himself wouldn’t pass, uses multiple bait and switch arguments, attacks a straw man, invites us to partake in a logical fallacy, and makes plainly false claims. At some point you must ask yourself how a tenured professor, one working in philosophy no less, could possibly offer us an argument like that? Easy, Leiter himself told us how:
“I am sometimes presented with the following criticism: “Your rhetorical style won’t persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.” That is no doubt true, but, as we’ve just remarked, it is quite rare to persuade anyone by a careful, reasoned argument–indeed, so rare, that I don’t see it as worth the effort to try to do so on a blog....”
“In any case, my goal in posting on various political topics is simply to alert like-minded readers to ideas and evidence and arguments which help strengthen their convictions regarding the truths they’ve already understood or glimpsed, as well as to give some expression to our collective outrage and dismay. I really wish that the unlike-minded folks would simply “go away” and read something else.”
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:47 PM Author: red comical pisswyrm ya the heritability/genetic deal made me scratch my head too. i realize that heredity doesn't equate to genetics, but that doesn't mean there is no link that can be extrapolated, either.... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879884) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:55 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park i take it that the common error leiter is attributing to SG -- even though she doesn't make it -- is to say that "50% heritable means 50% of the trait is caused by genetics." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879966) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:49 PM Author: razzle-dazzle glassy station legend jensen, and he isn't dead. otherwise, more or less credited (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879891) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:53 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park edited. i can't believe Jensen's still alive. getting way up there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879945) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:49 PM Author: Purple mediation I <3 XO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14879892) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:08 PM Author: odious stag film excellent analysis. ty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880084) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:10 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park yw. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880096) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:59 PM Author: Insane buck-toothed gas station well played. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880448) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:59 PM Author: fluffy dun masturbator house please post this on his blog as a comment. please. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880451) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:54 PM Author: supple angry range Leiter doesn't allow comments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880984) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:48 PM Author: fluffy dun masturbator house lol no way. what kind of blog doesn't allow comments? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881676) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:06 PM Author: slap-happy gaped toaster piazza "For something to be substantially heritable, it means that a substantial part of the phenotypic variation is due to variations in the genes."
lol, no. Sorry. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:17 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park i will go slowly for you . . .
heritability: the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors in contrast to environmental ones.
http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/2007/04/what_does_herit.html
Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals. Phenotypic variation among individuals may be due to genetic and/or environmental factors. Heritability analyses estimate the relative contributions of differences in genetic and non-genetic factors to the total phenotypic variance in a population. The phrase "phenotypic variation" must be emphasised. For example, if a trait has a heritability of 0.5, it means that the phenotypic variation is 50% due to genetic variation. It does not imply that the trait is 50% caused by genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:24 PM Author: slap-happy gaped toaster piazza I'll go slowly for you too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-environment_correlation |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:27 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park i can see why you decided to change the topic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880699) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:16 AM Author: wine massive circlehead Winner. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14882965) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 10:00 AM Author: Hairraiser indecent orchestra pit cp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14884691) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 4:34 PM Author: cerise frozen church building digit ratio M-m-m-monsterrrr killllllll (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14906604) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 5:01 PM Author: insanely creepy lodge pwnt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14906741) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 6:41 PM Author: red comical pisswyrm it's so funny that Leiter finds it necessary to point out what school everyone is affiliated with.
I picture Leiter when he's 90 as a dood still striving to transfer up to Yale |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:51 PM Author: Vivacious menage Oh please, don't be in a rush to actually consider the points he makes. Instead, ridicule his eminence as more prestigious than you ever will be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880376) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:54 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park we've thoroughly discussed Leiter's reasoning. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880404) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:41 PM Author: red comical pisswyrm jesus you really are Leiter aren't you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880835) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 10:02 PM Author: maroon french rehab Date: May 1st, 2010 7:51 PM Author: mydickinyourbrain
Oh please, don't be in a rush to actually consider the points he makes. Instead, ridicule his eminence as more prestigious than you ever will be.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880376) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:01 PM Author: Purple mediation Two questions from a dumb.
First, is there any discussion of measures of "intelligence" that don't use IQ as a proxy? Any serious competitors to IQ?
Second, are there any other studies apart from this Bell Curve book everyone demonizes? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:02 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park start with these two:
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Race-Genetics-Conversations-Arthur/dp/0813342740/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272754941&sr=1-3 |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:43 PM Author: Vivacious menage Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:33 PM Author: gold giraffe newt The author of the Bell Curve was the chair of the Psychology department at Harvard. And he was obviously writing an extremely controversial book. I don't think you can just cast aside a book and a man like that so easy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880264) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:52 PM Author: Vivacious menage Start here for studies:
Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:59 PM Author: Vivacious menage http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/dp/0521880076
What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect [Hardcover] Flynn James R. (Author) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:33 PM Author: supple angry range Pick one: Greater law professor --
(1) Eugene Volokh
(2) Brian Leiter |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:39 PM Author: Marvelous feces Volokh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880307) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:44 PM Author: supple angry range Final answer? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880339) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:00 PM Author: fluffy dun masturbator house this really isn't even debatable. dare i say it's beyond the pale? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880459) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:35 PM Author: wonderful bistre corner hmmm, a popularizer vs. a self-aggrandizer? i'd say it's a wash (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880781) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:45 PM Author: maroon french rehab reminder: if you pick Volokh you are presumptively prejudiced against Leiter's tranny-esque man boobs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880870) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:18 PM Author: wine massive circlehead Volokh and it isn't even close. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881294) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 7:55 PM Author: glittery iridescent wrinkle toilet seat posters ITT are dumber than rocks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880413) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:08 PM Author: slap-happy gaped toaster piazza cr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880527) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:16 PM Author: Frisky associate ofs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880592) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 8:22 PM Author: violet meetinghouse you're an idiot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14880651) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 9:17 PM Author: Concupiscible Twinkling Uncleanness Clever attempt to get someone to think you are the man you look up to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14881279) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2010 11:42 PM Author: wine massive circlehead He weighed in? Did he finally find a scale that could hold his weight? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14882563) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 12:59 AM Author: Sable kitchen idiot For a smart guy, he's really quite dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14883456) |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2010 3:56 AM Author: Stubborn Crimson Faggotry Locale "3. There is no evidence--literally, none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis."
So does this mean that Brian Leiter thinks there are IQ differences between racial groups, i.e. that blacks tend to be dumber than whites?
Assuming that's what he wrote (and I'm not clicking through to his little faceblog), it sure sounds like Brian Leiter thinks black people are generally dumber than whites. |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 2:06 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14905384) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 1:27 PM Author: Purple mediation The Racist E-Mail by the Harvard 3L Redux: On Fallibilism, Possibilities, and Evidence
Let us say that the scandal du jour is no longer about Stephanie Grace, the Harvard 3L in question: she has apologized categorically [scroll down], and without any offensive hedges, for the ignorant e-mail. The real interest of this matter now lies in what it reveals about the right-wing mindset and its capacity to rationalize, well, just about anything. (Talk about "epistemic closure"!)
There is an important position in epistemology that travels under the heading of "fallibilism," which is common to all radical empiricists from Mill to Quine, according to which we have to allow the possibility that anything we presently take ourselves to be justified in believing may turn out to be false (or, more precisely, may turn out not to satifsy present or future standards of evidence). There is no epistemic certainty to be had with regard to anything. So, e.g., a fallibilist can happily admit that, "It is possible we may have to abandon modus ponens" and "It is possible that we will have to give up the theory of gravity." No fallibilist would follow this, however, with a statement like, "Of course, I'm ready to hang on to modus ponens if we could just find more evidence for it," or, "I am willing to accept the theory of gravity if we can just explain how that squares with the expansion of the universe." That's not an expression of fallibilism, because it implies not that a contrary position is possible, but that there is some evidence for the contrary proposition, which now mandates countervailing evidence for belief still to be warranted. (This recent review essay actually has lots of interesting, albeit mildly technical, philosophical discussion of the whole topic which is not irrelevant to the current discussion.)
A lot of the blogospheric blather about the racist e-mail makes Ms. Grace out to be an honorable fallibilist by laying all the emphasis on just one sentence from her e-mail: "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent." Considered in isolation, that sounds like sensible fallibilism, compatible with believing that there is no evidence for this proposition, but it is a possibility that any fallibilist must acknowledge. But read in context, her statement was quite obviously nothing of the kind. So let's add some of the context:
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria.
Here is the natural interpretation of this paragraph: she is not ruling out the possibility that African-Americans are "genetically predisposed to be less intlligent" because she thinks there is some evidence for that proposition, evidence which would have to be defeated or explained away. That is why the third of my three "uncontroversial" propositions was:
3. There is no evidence--literally, none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis.
And that is why I criticized her for her "ignorance...skewed in favor of racist stereotypes." In the absence of any actual evidence supporting her suspicions about the genetic inferiority of African-Americans, she was clearly prepared to assume there was such evidence--which, of course, is just what a racist would do.
In response to the earlier post, various e-mailers and bloggers proceeded to cite the heritability studies (apparently not noticing my first "uncontroversial" proposition, namely, that "There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable"), without bothering, it appears, to read the essay by Ned Block I referenced, which makes clear why the heritability studies are evidence for the heritability of IQ but not evidence that African-Americans are "genetically predisposed to be less intelligent" (to quote Ms. Grace). They can't be evidence for that since they are equally compatible with the the contrary hypothesis, namely, that "environmental factors fully explain the differences in IQ." Here is a simple example from Block that makes the point:
Consider a culture in which red-haired children are beaten over the head regularly, but all other children are treated well. This effect will increase the measured heritability of IQ because red-haired identical twins will tend to resemble one another in IQ (because they will both have low IQs) no matter what the social class of the family in which they are raised. The effect of a red-hair gene on red hair is a "direct" genetic effect because the gene affects the color via an internal biochemical process. By contrast, a gene affects a characteristic indirectly by producing a direct effect which interacts with the environment so as to affect the characteristic. In the hypothetical example, the red hair genes affect IQ indirectly. In the case of IQ, no one has any idea how to separate out direct from indirect genetic effects because no one has much of an idea how genes and environment affect IQ. For that reason, we don't know whether or to what extent the roughly 60 percent heritability of IQ found in White populations is indirect heritability as opposed to direct heritability.
Now it would be mad in this scenario to say that the lower IQ of red-haired children is a matter of a "genetic predisposition," since it is due entirely to an environmental factor, i.e., the mistreatment of a group with a phenotypic trait that is genetically based but which is otherwise unrelated to IQ. But what the evidence for the heritability of IQ across racial groups shows is compatible with both the "IQ is genetically determined" hypothesis and the "differences in IQ is environmentally determined" hypothesis. (Indeed, as Block suggests, the evidence we have about the effect of environmental variables on IQ might even slightly favor the latter, but let's bracket that since the point stands without deciding that isue.) If a purported piece of evidence is logically compatible with P and ~P, then it can't actually be evidence for either. But Ms. Grace argues as if there were evidence for one of the propositions in question, and that she makes that inferential leap, unsupported by evidence, in favor of a vicious racist stereotype is precisely what opens her up to criticism.
I am sorry to have to spell this out in such tedious detail, since I'm sure it was obvious to many readers the first time around. But perhaps it will do some good, maybe even with the proverbial know-nothings of the blogosphere, who, alas, did not disappoint. This one, for example, despite actually making an effort, it appears, to read Ned Block's essay, announces with a sense of triumph that Block's essay does not support "Leiter's assertion that there is no genetic contribution." But, of course, I nowhere asserted any such thing: this right-wing blogger just made it up. "There is no evidence--literally none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis" means what it says. The criticism of Ms. Grace was for drawing racist inferences without evidence and for being ignorant about the evidence and what conclusions it actually warrants. But this was, to repeat a point made by Orin Kerr, only one e-mail, for which the author apologized, and it hardly deserves this level of scrutiny considered on its own. The more interesting phenomenon now is the effort on the right to rationalize away the racist assumptions in the e-mail, and turn this into an issue of "academic freedom" or "political correctness."
UPDATE: The hapless Mr. Maguire, our random right-wing blogger of the day, updates his post and almost admits that he misrepresented what I said. But he can't quite do it, alas. He now adduces as proof that I asserted what I did not assert my first uncontroversial proposition about IQ and heredity, to wit: "There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable (which does not mean, contrary to what many blogs, as well as the HLS student, seem to think, that it has a genetic basis)." He thinks the parenthetical is an assertion that IQ has no genetic basis, even though it refers, explicitly, to the confusion of the HLS student (and various bloggers) about heritability and genes. And what is that confusion? Thinking that the heritability of IQ is evidence that it is genetically determined. So the fact that IQ is heritable (uncontroversial fact #1 on my list) does not provide evidence ("does not mean") it has a genetic basis. That's why it is on a list with #3, "There is no evidence--literally, none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis." How else could #1 and #3 go together? Vide Block, the post above, etc. This isn't hard. I have no doubt Mr. Maguire will surprise me, and cause me to rethink my unfair assumptions about the know-nothing blogosphere, by now retracting his mistake in toto.
http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2010/05/the-racist-email-by-the-harvard-3l-redux.html |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 2:06 PM Author: Razzle transparent trailer park I'll fisk Leiter later, but if you re-read my earlier post, you'll see that I was dead on accurate and that Leiter's in retreat.
Notice that he now has to concede that the critical passage in SG's email can be read as "sensible." So he parses the email uncharitably to provide what he calls the "natural interpretation." But Leiter's interpretation is anything but that.
In his first post he was in plain error about wether there is any evidence for the notion that IQ has a genetic component, and he got hammered for it by me and by others. So now he abandons that claim and pretends as if the only claim he made all along was the one about whether there is any evidence at all of IQ differences between racial groups having a genetic basis.
|
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 5:55 PM Author: chocolate startled university headpube Leiter's appearances as cjtad and kingofaspies make this thread a 180. I especially like when he responds to himself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#14907120) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2010 6:18 PM Author: Aromatic blue stage just for this, we will never let Leiter be an xoape. he is not worthy to be an ape. he's made Chalmers Ape Detective very sad.
XOAPES: NEVER FORGET |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 1:10 PM Author: Aqua nighttime french chef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16598602) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 1:50 PM Author: mind-boggling emerald marketing idea without weighing in on the specific controversy....leiter is likely the most childish pseudo-scholar ever unleashed on the blogosphere.
how embarrassing for uchicago. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 2:04 PM Author: Aqua nighttime french chef Truth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16599063) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 5:17 PM Author: swashbuckling hairless coldplay fan Seems right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16600493) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 5:33 PM Author: misunderstood smoky parlour no disagreement here, sir (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16600701) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 5:36 PM Author: Cordovan exciting fanboi titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16600736) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2010 5:37 PM Author: 180 double fault abode (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1300089&forum_id=2#16600745) |