Current Affairs - The Bear and Badger

hunk

Except IQ isn't eye colour, bone length, skin tone and blood type. Those are properties governed by genes with minimal environmental input. Iq is a complex higher order brain function and is the result of brain development being stimulated by its environment. This process is ongoing wel into your twenties, that'how big the environment component is.
Like comparing apples with pears?

Kow

Black people like chicken and watermelons. It's statistically proven, genetic, irrefutable a not at all racist.

JRPC

It's totally not apples and pears at all.

Like Harris points out in the podcast, pretty much everything we care about has both a heritable and environmental component to its expression.

Height, in particular, is a great comparison to use here because it's got a strong genetic basis which can be easily influenced by environmental factors like malnutrition. Growth also goes on until your 20s. But so what?

But your point seemed to be that all science is inherently biased or something? Are you changing that now to only "IQ/race science"?

[Deleted User]

Fucking hell this is dull.
Call me when this thread is about stuff whats in the news again.

RedDave2

My taking of is this and I don't know if I have it right but here goes.

Harris is saying that it's possible the scientific data shows that genetics plays a part in determining someone's iq.

However he doesn't seem to understand/ acknowledge that the iq metric he is using is based on success in a western mostly white society.

It's kinda like taking a person who is great at fighting games and putting them in a first person shooter and when they get beaten tell them they are shit at videogames.

That's how i see it anyway. Feel free to correct.

JRPC

That's not quite it, no.

RedDave2

JRPC wrote:

That's not quite it, no.

Ok then, where am I wrong?

hunk

JRPC wrote:

It's totally not apples and pears at all. Like Harris points out in the podcast, pretty much everything we care about has both a heritable and environmental component to its expression. Height, in particular, is a great comparison to use here because it's got a strong genetic basis which can be easily influenced by environmental factors like malnutrition. Growth also goes on until your 20s. But so what? But your point seemed to be that all science is inherently biased or something? Are you changing that now to only "IQ/race science"?

Did you flunk biology class or what?
Structual Racism as an environmental factor is far more widespread than malnutrition in todays society.

Yossarian

Height is a terrible comparison because we fully understand height and can measure it objectively. We do not fully understand the human mind so any attempts to measure it are necessarily going to be imperfect and therefore at high risk of being based on incorrect assumptions, assumptions which are more likely to favour those groups who are making these assumptions.

MattyJ

Can a separate thread be set up for all this chat? I keep thinking some big event has happened.

GooberTheHat

Is there are reason why the hereditary geneticics that dictate racial traits are tied to the same hereditary genetics that dictate IQ?

hunk

Sorry for derailing the thread guys.
I really shoudn't be egging jrpc on.

JRPC

hunk wrote:

JRPC wrote:

It's totally not apples and pears at all. Like Harris points out in the podcast, pretty much everything we care about has both a heritable and environmental component to its expression. Height, in particular, is a great comparison to use here because it's got a strong genetic basis which can be easily influenced by environmental factors like malnutrition. Growth also goes on until your 20s. But so what? But your point seemed to be that all science is inherently biased or something? Are you changing that now to only "IQ/race science"?

Did you flunk biology class or what? Structual Racism as an environmental factor is far more widespread than malnutrition in todays society.

I have a strong C in A-level biology thank you very much.

Nearly a B in fact.

[Deleted User]

@hunk
Its alright, its just that (as I suggested last time) this might be better in a generic genetics thread with Harris being the opening discussion. It is a deep topic of discussion, enough to warrant a general thread of it's own.

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

Height is a terrible comparison because we fully understand height and can measure it objectively. We do not fully understand the human mind so any attempts to measure it are necessarily going to be imperfect and therefore at high risk of being based on incorrect assumptions, assumptions which are more likely to favour those groups who are making these assumptions.

I understand this part. The scientific data for height had a clear metric where something is taller or not. But I feel Harris is on wobbly ground when it comes to what really justifies the genetic aspect in relation to the intelligence metric. We Can say it's genetic but does that mean a measurable bigger brain? His argument seems to be that when there is clear scientific data we should only analyse that but I'm not sure the intelligence data is that clear to allow this.

hunk

@jrpc
Congratulations, your IQ is inferior to mine.

JRPC

Yeah maybe a new thread.

Perhaps based around ethics and morality maybe?

I'm reading this as an issue of ethics more than science.

JRPC

The fact that this is being thought about as a debate about genetics or science is preciecely the problem.

Facewon

MattyJ wrote:

Can a separate thread be set up for all this chat? I keep thinking some big event has happened.

If someone else doesn't I'll do it tomorrow. J can continue to quote Harris without citation then.

Facewon

Facewon wrote:

Anyone got some links to Israel/pal stuff over the last year or so. I'm out of the loop. Not reportage, overviews.

Anyone? Good time to get this back on the rails.

monkey

MattyJ wrote:

Can a separate thread be set up for all this chat? I keep thinking some big event has happened.

Done. Don’t think we need another round of this in here.

Stopharage

Liveinadive wrote:

@hunk
Its alright, its just that (as I suggested last time) this might be better in a generic genetics thread with Harris being the opening discussion. It is a deep topic of discussion, enough to warrant a general thread of it's own.

You’re giving Harris’ ‘thinking’ a lot more credit than it is due. That podcast was 64% him whining, 27% him missing the point and 9% Klein exercising professional patience.

My A-level kids have the nous to rip his witterings apart; he really doesn’t come out well against those who are abundantly ‘cleverer’ than him.

hunk

Agreed, I don't get why Harris is so revered.
Any first year bio med student could rip holes in his arguments; it's embaressing.
Klein went easy on him and showed enormous restraint too.

[Deleted User]

I'm not giving Harris any thought. I couldn't give two fucks about the guy.
I wouldn't even know he existed if people would stop banging on about him in this thread.

Tempy

There is a thread now: http://thebearandbadger.co.uk/discussion/2154/ethics-and-science-quarantine-zone#Item_10

Brooks

Kow wrote:

Black people like chicken and watermelons. It's statistically proven, genetic, irrefutable a not at all racist.

I fucking love chicken and watermelon ergoplato

Brooks

I do wonder what happened to Plato every so often, he was a proper nimrod.

[Deleted User]

Stopharage wrote:

Liveinadive wrote:

@hunk
Its alright, its just that (as I suggested last time) this might be better in a generic genetics thread with Harris being the opening discussion. It is a deep topic of discussion, enough to warrant a general thread of it's own.

You’re giving Harris’ ‘thinking’ a lot more credit than it is due. That podcast was 64% him whining, 27% him missing the point and 9% Klein exercising professional patience.

My A-level kids have the nous to rip his witterings apart; he really doesn’t come out well against those who are abundantly ‘cleverer’ than him.

He is painfully transparent. The bit at the end where he tries to beg for favourable views of the exchange was particularly painful to watch.

Dinostar77

US, UK and FRANCE launched air strikes on Syria chemical weapons sites.

Russia not happy at all.

JRPC

I'm finding the most disturbing part of this news to be the fact that Trump seems to be spearheading it.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories