This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
HBD has been done to death in this forum. It's kinda like going on to an atheist sub and asking for a proof of evolution when everyone knows that God created the world in 6 days. They're probably not going to answer this question for the millionth time.
Start from here. Do you believe that genetics play a role in sprinting speed? Why wouldn't they also play a role in intelligence?
HBD can never be proven correct, nor can blank slate theory. But the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is on the side of HBD, as is basic common sense.
Yes, absolutely - a range of physical talents have genetic basis. And why shouldn't different kinds of intelligence have genetic elements. Fine, it is the coarse theory I'm critiquing which ends up with some people in a Victorian hierarchy of being argument l. Human intelligence is multifaceted and overlaps with culture. Why has IQ gone up over time, why is it I can increase my IQ from practice? What is the genetics of a mixed race person in HBD, what level of mixing do different groups have, how much is adaptation to environment over shorter timescales, how well does the tail reflect mean behaviour.
Do you really believe common sense is a reliable scientific guide. Phrenology was once accepted. I'm open to inquiry in this space but I've noticed people prefer the axiomatic assumptions than thinking about it.
In reference to a previous conversation Im not race blind but I don't get the hate boner people carry, sometimes over their lifetimes, around race. If you're going to make a strong claim, you need strong evidence.
I'm not going to give the case for HBD because it's been done to death here and I'm not the best person to do.
So let's talk about phrenology instead!
Phrenology, of course, is mostly wrong. But is it common sense? Not in the slightest. In fact, it's the furthest thing from common sense. Why would the bumps on someone's head make them evil. That's not common sense.
Phrenology is instead a pseudoscience, meaning that it uses the trappings of science without the actual scientific method. It's worth pointing out that a lot of modern research, especially in psychology, is so poor as to fall under the realm of pseudoscience as well. Remember "stereotype threat"?
But here's something a phrenologist might say which is common sense: "People with bigger brains are smarter". As it turns, out this is actually true. Brain volume has about a 0.3 correlation with intelligence, explaining about 10% of variance in intelligence. Note how bad the media reporting was on this topic as well.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/brain-size-and-intelligence-2022
Incidentally, just in: Century-Old Paradigm Overturned – Brain Shape Matters More Than Neural Connectivity
Huh! The more you know! I guess phrenologists just had to sound it a little with some sticks or something, to tell the shape of the drum under the skull. Or maybe make some sacrifices… for science! They were so close…
Oh, those functional connectomics researchers with their contrived mathematical mumbo-jumbo must be getting real uncomfortable now, the silly geese!
Check this out @ShariaHeap @orca-covenant
(I haven't actually verified if the paper makes sense, but the writing is just hilarious with all those repeated metaphors, it reads like a GPT-generated shitpost for Sneerclub)
That's a wild concept, phrenology indeed, perhaps skull transplants or 'brain moulding' could be the way to go... The link up to phrenology is indeed quite hilarious given the recent discussions..! Everything in circles perhaps
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's a nice philosophic distinction and I actually think there is a common sense we can moor to. I don't know how people, scientists actually thought of phrenology, perhaps it was more in the not-obvious science can tell us realm. What tends to happen I would guess is that established ideas can become 'common sense' over time, even if wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not common sense now, because everyone now knows that phrenology is balderdash. But once you know that intelligence and personality reside in the brain, but don't know exactly what the anatomy and function of each part of the brain is, it seems quite natural to believe different personalities are due to different brains → differences in the physical shape of the brain correspond to differences in personality → differences in a particular area of the brain correspond to differences in a particular aspect of personality, e.g. time preference or empathy → differences in the shape of the brain correspond to visible differences in the shape of the braincase → observing the shape of the skull allows one to make specific inferences about its owner's personality.
Thinking you can predict someone's propensity to, say, alcoholism, by the shape of their skull is not inherently less commonsensical than thinking you can predict it from their genes. A priori, there's a perfectly plausible causal path either way. That's why you need to proceed with actual scientific research instead of stopping at common sense.
It sounds like we agree for the most part. Knowing that thought originates in the brain, common sense would indicate that statistical analysis of human brains would yield insights. And indeed it has! Larger brains are correlated with higher IQ.
But phrenology was not that! There was no rigor. There was no analysis. It was just making shit up, similar to astrology. It's not common sense to make wild conclusions based on tiny shreds of evidence.
Perhaps we do -- I'm starting to think we agree on the facts of the matter and were just using different definitions of "common sense".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The scores on some tests have increased, but the major figures seem to believe that this is due to cultural change, and that in other tests, scores have not increased. The scores with less cultural influence have seen no increase, for example.
Supposedly, practice can increase the IQ score on one test but will not have an effect on a test that you have not studied for. For example, reaction time is a measure of IQ and learning more vocabulary does not increase your reaction time (citation needed).
HBDers spend a lot of time showing that mixed-race people have the IQs that are the weighted sum of their constituent races. The more white admixture, the high the IQ, etc. They look at this at the gene level rather than relying on physical features. I have no idea how valid this work is.
African Americans are about 15% white admixture, for example. This is fairly easy to measure.
Given the population size, the distribution is fairly normal. The standard deviations may vary, of course.
These seem all a bit rote, and again don't really address much complexity. If I can practice and improve on a test then there is a cultural element. You mention speed reaction can't be trained for, but I'm assuming elite black athletes have superior scores on these, does this imply that blacks have superior native intelligence on aspects of intelligence?
Populations at the level of black v white v mixed are mixed of genetic lineages. This means tail genetics doesn't have to relate to median genetics.
Your genetic pot analogy seems a bit naive scientifically. To infer a causal relationship I'm going to need a bit more in terms of genetics.
My beef isn't that there's 'nothing there', just that the complexity is not engaged with, which implies a dunning-kruger potential. I am a scientist so I'm actually interested in the complexity and science. Others aren't interested in this but in making blanket statements about groups of people (with immense intragroup genetic variation), which overindexes on skin attributes.
Why do you assume this? I will look up the results. Lynn claims that black children have slower choice time but faster movement times. IQ is related to choice time (I am told, but I have not seen anyone doubt this.).
Lynn concludes:
I don't understand what you mean. Sorry.
The idea that there would be a linear relationship comes from the assumption (or observation?) that intelligence is influenced by many genes. This is fairly well accepted in other areas. I don't know any arguments why it would not apply to intelligence, but that might be my failure.
If you were around a few years ago, there was a lot of complexity, but I did not pay that much attention, and the major proponents don't post anymore.
For an example of engaging with the question, have a look at this paper. I have not checked the data, the analysis, or even if the study they are using ever happened, but it shows the kind of reasoning that HBDers do. They take seriously the kind of questions you ask.
Thanks for the clarification on 'reaction time' v 'choice time', and link to information processing capacity claim and reference. This enables me to explore and talk about something meaningful.
Black and white are broad groupings of different peoples and histories. The causal path of HBD presumably involves homogeneous lineages that develop distinctions as adaptive advantages. If you go to the top level, partly socially constructed level of race, we lose the causal lineage pathway and smear out across more diverse groups and genetics.
The point by point call and response block comment is not my thing - each individual point immediately becomes deep and layered so trying to address multiple in parallel is futile. But the choice reaction time is a good start to dig into. Thanks for an interesting HBD engagement and links.
In general, this is the case, and Black people, encompassing San, Pygmies, Bushmen, Ethiopians and West Africans are extremely genetically diverse. Two bushmen are further apart genetically than the average Asian is from a European. That said, when people talk about Black people in this context they generally mean the descendants of West African slaves which are a fairly homogenous group.
White people generally mean Anglo Germans, which again are a fairly tight group. When people point to a difference, they mean the difference between these two groups.
There is very little discussion of HBD here anymore, and I paid little attention when there was discussion. What I did take away from it was that the people involved had extensive theories, and had put in a lot of work.
I do not particularly believe in HBD, mostly because I live in an environment that is very selected so every one of every race seems very similar.
Thanks, good to have testable propositions that can be interrogated.
The other link you sent, the bottom one, is quite interesting. I'm only early in it, but the admixture technique contrasting Pygmy genetics against relative admixtures of an out group is a great idea for an experiment. I think it relies though on the contrast with a homogeneous population so you can distinguish the genes related to an attribute, eg height. Its a technique for identifying genes rather than an empirical rule that would necessarily apply if both groups were genetically more diverse, I imagine information-theoretically or statistically speaking that's a higher bar. But as I say early in the article.
I am somewhat interested in the actual science but I think HBD has a big job to demonstrate itself because of the complexity involved. I prefer to meet humans on an individual basis...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link