Thinking About Race and IQ (Murray book, "Facing Reality")

[sneakypete]

What? What kind of gibberish is that? If IQ tests didn't prove anything, then there would be pockets of black America that achieve and exceed over other demographics. But there aren't any.
The only black Americans who achieve and succeed at or near the level of whites and east Asians are the black immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa. But they're a very small part of the total American black population.
You can shout about changing the culture all you want. The problem is IQ also affects/predicts culture. People with IQs in the 70s and low 80s aren't going to change what they're doing except at gunpoint.
Sterilize and neuter.

@goatprairie

That's true,but in MY opinion,those genuine cases are a minority of the minority. Most are just taking advantage of the best deal they have ever been offered.

[Kamaji]

Denial is not just a river in Africa.

And you've floated quite far downriver.

[roamer_1]

Good luck with that. Ever think that maybe one of the problems with getting black males to stay home is low IQ?

No, because once, not long ago they did stay home... Less so than whites, but significantly more than now.

[roamer_1]

Black males in big cities don't "Stay home" because for the most part,they don't HAVE homes. What they have is a few black women they got pregnant who are living in goobermint housing because they gave birth to children and claim to not know who the father is. They not only live rent-free,but they even get a check for each child they have.

But, there is a demarcation there... Black Males in Big Cities...

@sneakypete

My experience in big cities is limited to my youth and to minor instances since, with one major instance revolving around KC/StLouis. But with the exception of those big cities, my encounter with black folks (namely rural) has been excellent. Worked construction and loading docks with black men just as redneck with every bit of work ethic and family orientation as I have... A little different. They tended to listen to Memphis, and I tended to listen to Nashville, But finer and more honorable people cannot be found.

And a further distinction: I have no direct recent knowledge of the hood. But I DO know the rez. And I hold a similar view of rez injuns as y''all do of the hood. But even with that sensible discrimination, that does not mean there are not damn good folks, proud and true, living on that rez. one of my favorite people is a rez injun that spent his entire life there, who is as honest and true as the day is long, even in the midst of his life long poverty.

I know many Salish, Blackfeet, and Cheyenne warriors as honorable as any, living off-rez. I also know some from the rez. And I would expect the same is true of the hood and the barrio. And more power to those good folks living hard like that.

[roamer_1]

You have a point. While some of that is a lack of economic skill, some of that isn't so much a lack of skill but a different set of rules, expectations, and resources. Those resources can't be given, because the emphasis of the culture will see them gone quickly, given the expectations and skills for working within a greater context. The rules are intended to stand in for better ones, but fall short of that mark, sometimes considerably. And the crab-basket mentality is alive and well, preventing escape. In virtually any context where people are subsidized, that holds true, regardless of other factors, be it the Rez, the ghetto, the bario, or the trailer park

That's right.But even so, even living in the midst of those cultures, you will STILL find good and honorable people. Those that live in it every day and still manage to raise their kids right. I see that on the rez. It is a crucible of a different kind, and one that burns most to cinders... But even there you can find silver and gold.

[Sighlass]

IQ is not a matter of deterministic genetics.  What Murray is measuring is predominantly a matter of testing bias and a toxic subculture that intentionally devalues precisely those skills that would allow one to succeed on an IQ test.

2 + 2 = 4 is not bias... Agreed some are unprepared to succeed taking the tests but it is not "bias". Just as boys are different from girls, perhaps the physical genetics of black males (and active whites) is not suited to sitting in class for hours on end without a physical "break" (even if just running around the field/house/building a few times helps refocus). You use terms "intentionally devalues precisely" and I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with those terms... even if the results are just that.

[Kamaji]

2 + 2 = 4 is not bias... Agreed some are unprepared to succeed taking the tests but it is not "bias". Just as boys are different from girls, perhaps the physical genetics of black males (and active whites) is not suited to sitting in class for hours on end without a physical "break" (even if just running around the field/house/building a few times helps refocus). You use terms "intentionally devalues precisely" and I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with those terms... even if the results are just that.

Except that, other than genes that code for melanin content in skin, there is no genetic basis for "race" so unless one can demonstrate that too much melanin in one's skin reduces one's IQ, or makes one unfit for a classroom - maybe they'd be better off doing hard labor in the fields, eh? - then there is no basis for the argument other than the socio-cultural one.  Namely, that is it predominantly a toxic culture - a culture carefully tended and nurtured by liberals, BTW - that results in the apparent discrepancies in the statistics.

[roamer_1]

-----------------------
@ Roamer, your distinctions are on the mark.
As Plato wisely asserted, our Psyche (Soul), affirms Man's individualism, allowing him
to rise above class, group or tribe. All he needs is courage and resolve. So a tale.
More than a century past, an impoverished young Black female from our South,
then virulently racist, had a dream to become a singer.
So she pursued her vision, being self taught/trained over time.
Years later she appeared on the Stage of the Metropolitan Opera in NYC as the lead
Soprano in Mozart's "Cosi Fan Tutte", being acclaimed a ranking voice in the world.
Marian Anderson was a tribute to her perseverance, talent and the wisdom of Plato.

That's right... And a tale told more often than some would consider... I studied it a touch a while back, sometime in the early 00s... And at the time, one of the biggest ways out of the hood was the military... Many of the inner city lads that joined the military wound up not going home. wound up in suburbia with everything that supposes...

Now, as it touches the OP, I wonder what was poured into those men that made them change. That thing they gained in service defies the OP.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe


I KNOW I am going to get flamed for this,but watch me pretend to care.

IMNSHO,one of the biggest things holding his and her Panics back is Catholicism. They just flat have too many children. Children they can't afford to have and care for,and then have enough left over to keep the children out of the job market so they can go to schools and learn trades that will raise their economic status.

Not what we are seeing here.

Yes, some of the families are large, but family is a core value in that culture, just as it was in the more agrarian South of my youth, where farms grew labor intensive cash crops.

Some things are just more important than a Park Avenue Penthouse.
As for learning trades, we've been surrounded by roofing crews because of a hailstorm in June that dumped 3" hail on town. The nail guns sound like a firefight.
Very few on those crews speak English as a first language. I heard one guy say he was reluctant to hire whites (who can readily get an oilfield job if they can pee clean) because all he had seen were meth heads who might show up for work, and the Mexicans were far more reliable. If I could have had a do-over on who did my sheetrocking after the fire years ago, I'd have hired the Mexican guys, not because his bid was lower, but because his work was better.
At least in this area they have made serious inroads into the trades, and it is only a matter of time in this Right to Work State, before they are in the unions as well. As far as moving into individually licensed trades, like plumber and electrician, that's coming too. With a large family backing you, you can get that schooling done. They key is working together.

But here is the thing: If you want people who show up on time, work hard all day, do it how you want it done, and can pass a drug test, those are the crews. Why? Because the family keeps the pressure on to perform. Don't make Papi look bad. The Church backs up that family tradition. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to be successful, and not everyone has the same idea what constitutes success.

In the end, that large family works for them, not against, if they work together, and while the first generation may not have a new Caddy in the driveway and kids in IV League schools, t will happen if they want it to, in a generation or two, if they stick to their cultural mores. At least here, these are hard working folks. It is why they are more likely to vote for the most conservative candidate here, because they aren't welfare bums. If they want fewer children, even in Roman Catholicism there are approved methods of preventing conception. If there weren't, then all Roman Catholic families would be huge, and that just isn't happening.

What is holding people back is that they have gone cartwheeling off into the weeds chasing trinkets, gotten selfish, and forgotten the importance of family. Not the kids, so much as the parents, and when the parents forget, that culture gets broken. How can kids learn the importance of family from parents who don't teach it? A culture of 'every man for himself' isn't a culture, it's a free-for-all.
 The Church can be a stabilizing factor in that culture. Which is not to say there aren't bad clerics out there, so, for an individual parish, YMMV, especially now, with this Communist Pope, infiltration by pedophiles, and other subversions. The Church is in its own cultural war. 

[cato potatoe]

Except that, other than genes that code for melanin content in skin, there is no genetic basis for "race" so unless one can demonstrate that too much melanin in one's skin reduces one's IQ, or makes one unfit for a classroom - maybe they'd be better off doing hard labor in the fields, eh? - then there is no basis for the argument other than the socio-cultural one.  Namely, that is it predominantly a toxic culture - a culture carefully tended and nurtured by liberals, BTW - that results in the apparent discrepancies in the statistics.

The differences are more than skin deep.  Albino blacks do not resemble caucasians.  These tribes evolved separately for millennia, and the group-level differences are profound.  Blanket discrimination most certainly is immoral ... but genetics plays a much larger role in social stratification than we have been led (forced) to believe since the 1950s.

[Kamaji]

The differences are more than skin deep.  Albino blacks do not resemble caucasians.  These tribes evolved separately for millennia, and the group-level differences are profound.  Blanket discrimination most certainly is immoral ... but genetics plays a much larger role in social stratification than we have been led (forced) to believe since the 1950s.

There is still no coherent set of genes that corresponds to a "race" - race is a social construct based on very surface attributes.  It is a cultural thing, not a genetic thing.

[sneakypete]

But, there is a demarcation there... Black Males in Big Cities...

@sneakypete

My experience in big cities is limited to my youth and to minor instances since, with one major instance revolving around KC/StLouis. But with the exception of those big cities, my encounter with black folks (namely rural) has been excellent. Worked construction and loading docks with black men just as redneck with every bit of work ethic and family orientation as I have...

@roamer_1

My experience,also. Got LOTS of racist feedback from most of the city blacks I ran into,but never had any trouble at all with rural blacks.

 I had never really thought about it,but the hood and the rez are the same thing,but with different furniture. Everybody living off the white man's dime while whining about how life ain't fair.

 

[cato potatoe]

There is still no coherent set of genes that corresponds to a "race" - race is a social construct based on very surface attributes.  It is a cultural thing, not a genetic thing.

If you are being picky, then yes, our racial classifications are overbroad.  What we are expected to believe is there is no genetic variation among tribes of homo sapiens.  It's hippie nonsense, most often used to slander white Americans and treat everyone else like children. 

[sneakypete]

Except that, other than genes that code for melanin content in skin, there is no genetic basis for "race"

@Kamaji

Wrong. Even the bone structures are different.

Not to mention that there is one disease that only blacks get. Can't remember the name of it now.

It is MY belief that different groups of people MUST be different because if they weren't,a single disease could wipe out all of humanity. Mother Nature may be a cruel old bitch,but she generally makes sure that some species can survive diseases that wipe out other species.

 

[Kamaji]

If you are being picky, then yes, our racial classifications are overbroad.  What we are expected to believe is there is no genetic variation among tribes of homo sapiens.  It's hippie nonsense, most often used to slander white Americans and treat everyone else like children. 

The genetic variation between "tribes" is thoroughly muddled by the greater variation between individuals.

There is no coherent mapping of race to genes, other than a set of superficial characteristics that can as easily be ascribed to convergent evolution amongst different genetic trees.

There is no coherent "black" gene set, or coherent "white" gene set, or any other gene set, other than superficial appearances.  There is certainly no evident mapping between these superficial "racial" gene structures and more fundamental attributes such as intelligence.

[sneakypete]

Not what we are seeing here.

Yes, some of the families are large, but family is a core value in that culture, just as it was in the more agrarian South of my youth, where farms grew labor intensive cash crops.

Some things are just more important than a Park Avenue Penthouse.
As for learning trades, we've been surrounded by roofing crews because of a hailstorm in June that dumped 3" hail on town. The nail guns sound like a firefight.
Very few on those crews speak English as a first language. I heard one guy say he was reluctant to hire whites (who can readily get an oilfield job if they can pee clean) because all he had seen were meth heads who might show up for work, and the Mexicans were far more reliable. If I could have had a do-over on who did my sheetrocking after the fire years ago, I'd have hired the Mexican guys, not because his bid was lower, but because his work was better.
At least in this area they have made serious inroads into the trades, and it is only a matter of time in this Right to Work State, before they are in the unions as well. As far as moving into individually licensed trades, like plumber and electrician, that's coming too. With a large family backing you, you can get that schooling done. They key is working together.

But here is the thing: If you want people who show up on time, work hard all day, do it how you want it done, and can pass a drug test, those are the crews. Why? Because the family keeps the pressure on to perform. Don't make Papi look bad. The Church backs up that family tradition. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to be successful, and not everyone has the same idea what constitutes success.

In the end, that large family works for them, not against, if they work together, and while the first generation may not have a new Caddy in the driveway and kids in IV League schools, t will happen if they want it to, in a generation or two, if they stick to their cultural mores. At least here, these are hard working folks. It is why they are more likely to vote for the most conservative candidate here, because they aren't welfare bums. If they want fewer children, even in Roman Catholicism there are approved methods of preventing conception. If there weren't, then all Roman Catholic families would be huge, and that just isn't happening.

What is holding people back is that they have gone cartwheeling off into the weeds chasing trinkets, gotten selfish, and forgotten the importance of family. Not the kids, so much as the parents, and when the parents forget, that culture gets broken. How can kids learn the importance of family from parents who don't teach it? A culture of 'every man for himself' isn't a culture, it's a free-for-all.
 The Church can be a stabilizing factor in that culture. Which is not to say there aren't bad clerics out there, so, for an individual parish, YMMV, especially now, with this Communist Pope, infiltration by pedophiles, and other subversions. The Church is in its own cultural war.

@Smokin Joe

I disagree. That was not the case in the Mexican neighborhood I lived in when in Denver,and is not true of my own family. My sister married a Mexican,and he was (he's dead now) a hard worker and a smart man. Started with nothing and ended up owing his own body and paint shop in San Francisco. Even had enough money to put one of his sons through medical school,and the kid became a brain surgeon in a big hospital. The other kid,not so much. Never known to have a steady job,and was proud of being a Cholo. Had babies with 3 or 4 different women that he lived with off and on when he wasn't in jail,and usually started drinking before noon,while whining about how "the white man just won't give us a chance". Gang tats all over his body,too.

[sneakypete]

There is still no coherent set of genes that corresponds to a "race" - race is a social construct based on very surface attributes.  It is a cultural thing, not a genetic thing.

@Kamaji

Then how to forensic scientists determine the race of a corpse?

[Fishrrman]

Kamaji claims:
"There is still no coherent set of genes that corresponds to a "race" - race is a social construct based on very surface attributes.  It is a cultural thing, not a genetic thing."

This is one of the most nonsensical posts I've yet seen in this forum.

Provide a DNA sample, test it properly, and it can discern the "race" of the donor.

Making a claim like this impugns anything else you post on the subject.

[Smokin Joe]

The genetic variation between "tribes" is thoroughly muddled by the greater variation between individuals.

There is no coherent mapping of race to genes, other than a set of superficial characteristics that can as easily be ascribed to convergent evolution amongst different genetic trees.

There is no coherent "black" gene set, or coherent "white" gene set, or any other gene set, other than superficial appearances.  There is certainly no evident mapping between these superficial "racial" gene structures and more fundamental attributes such as intelligence.

If that was true, how would those genetic ancestor companies know you're ancestors were from Northern Europe vs the Belgian Congo?

I find this as amusing as interesting, because the "Nature vs Nurture" argument has been going on since people noticed differences between each other. I have to think some of that discussion goes back to Neanderthals, who were more markedly different.

So as a spinoff, we get the question of how much difference is necessary to spin off a subspecies?

Where do we draw the line?

Consider a species is a group whose members are capable of mating and producing viable (also capable of reproduction) offspring. Within humans, that is possible regardless of race, but there are distinctive physical characteristics which denote race. Do those more superficial attributes actually include the equipment for raw cognitive ability, or even just the way that ability is utilized, and have cultural aspects led to selective breeding (for want of a better, less offensive term) for those attributes, be they social or physical.

Within any culture, certain traits are prized, be those blonde hair, a willowy figure, brute strength, wide hips (the classic Venus, thought to be a fertility symbol and capable of bearing many children without ill effect), height, strength, or ability to reason. In different contexts, the same attributes can be seen in either a positive or negative light.

What is prized in one culture may not be in another, so the cultural influence on both genetics and the traits expressed therein will reinforce the genetics of those who are seen as desirable and those traits which are less desirable will be less likely to survive.

It is our own, wholly unnatural selection. From a genetic standpoint, we've messed with that somewhat, because variations, both physiological and cognitive, which might not otherwise survive in a less civilized setting, have offspring of their own who continue the line.

I do not believe that selection for physical attributes necessarily precludes selecting for both physical attributes and cognitive ability, just that those who develop both tend to be fewer in number. By the same token, a culture in which mates are selected based on physical attributes (often necessary to survival) may not prize cognitive ability as much as raw physicality, although, again, both would be a plus as outsmarting prey or predators (or enemies) has proven to be as effective as overpowering them.

In a culture where brute strength is not necessary, cognitive ability becomes more important. Hours spent playing midnight Basketball might be better spent cracking the books, as the odds of success from learning are greater than the odds of being the next NBA superstar, scouted from some lot in the 'hood. 

[Kamaji]

Kamaji claims:
"There is still no coherent set of genes that corresponds to a "race" - race is a social construct based on very surface attributes.  It is a cultural thing, not a genetic thing."

This is one of the most nonsensical posts I've yet seen in this forum.

Provide a DNA sample, test it properly, and it can discern the "race" of the donor.

Making a claim like this impugns anything else you post on the subject.

Yeah, it can discern a superficial characteristic, like how much melanin will appear in the individual's skin.  But the existence or nonexistence of a melanin gene has no bearing on the genes that affect intelligence of that same individual.

Now, if you have genetic proof - a reproducible, double-blind study with a sufficient number of participants, that can conclusively demonstrate an irrefutable link between having a lot of melanin in your skin, or kinky hair, and intelligence, please come forward.

Otherwise, please stop the nonsense.

[Kamaji]

If that was true, how would those genetic ancestor companies know you're ancestors were from Northern Europe vs the Belgian Congo?

I find this as amusing as interesting, because the "Nature vs Nurture" argument has been going on since people noticed differences between each other. I have to think some of that discussion goes back to Neanderthals, who were more markedly different.

So as a spinoff, we get the question of how much difference is necessary to spin off a subspecies?

Where do we draw the line?

Consider a species is a group whose members are capable of mating and producing viable (also capable of reproduction) offspring. Within humans, that is possible regardless of race, but there are distinctive physical characteristics which denote race. Do those more superficial attributes actually include the equipment for raw cognitive ability, or even just the way that ability is utilized, and have cultural aspects led to selective breeding (for want of a better, less offensive term) for those attributes, be they social or physical.

Within any culture, certain traits are prized, be those blonde hair, a willowy figure, brute strength, wide hips (the classic Venus, thought to be a fertility symbol and capable of bearing many children without ill effect), height, strength, or ability to reason. In different contexts, the same attributes can be seen in either a positive or negative light.

What is prized in one culture may not be in another, so the cultural influence on both genetics and the traits expressed therein will reinforce the genetics of those who are seen as desirable and those traits which are less desirable will be less likely to survive.

It is our own, wholly unnatural selection. From a genetic standpoint, we've messed with that somewhat, because variations, both physiological and cognitive, which might not otherwise survive in a less civilized setting, have offspring of their own who continue the line.

I do not believe that selection for physical attributes necessarily precludes selecting for both physical attributes and cognitive ability, just that those who develop both tend to be fewer in number. By the same token, a culture in which mates are selected based on physical attributes (often necessary to survival) may not prize cognitive ability as much as raw physicality, although, again, both would be a plus as outsmarting prey or predators (or enemies) has proven to be as effective as overpowering them.

In a culture where brute strength is not necessary, cognitive ability becomes more important. Hours spent playing midnight Basketball might be better spent cracking the books, as the odds of success from learning are greater than the odds of being the next NBA superstar, scouted from some lot in the 'hood. 

It is so fascinating how many are so willing to, as the saying goes, judge a book by the color of its cover, without regard to whether there is any basis whatsoever for assuming that the color of the color bears any necessary relationship to the content contained within the book's pages.

And that is why the so-called conservatives will continue to wonder why blacks refuse to join them politically.  Why join a bunch of people who are convinced that your skin genes indelibly mark you as being a subhuman, with subpar intelligence, and subpar moral agency?

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

I disagree. That was not the case in the Mexican neighborhood I lived in when in Denver,and is not true of my own family. My sister married a Mexican,and he was (he's dead now) a hard worker and a smart man. Started with nothing and ended up owing his own body and paint shop in San Francisco. Even had enough money to put one of his sons through medical school,and the kid became a brain surgeon in a big hospital. The other kid,not so much. Never known to have a steady job,and was proud of being a Cholo. Had babies with 3 or 4 different women that he lived with off and on when he wasn't in jail,and usually started drinking before noon,while whining about how "the white man just won't give us a chance". Gang tats all over his body,too.

Your reference is an urban one, though. In a state where the three largest towns barely top 100K, and the other 400K are spread out considerably more, the whole place is pretty rural in its outlook, and those are the mores, the culture which defines success. The ones who want to be Cholos can go elsewhere, because that won't get them far here. Yes, some of that goes on, but it is discouraged, not something to be proud of.

[roamer_1]

And that is why the so-called conservatives will continue to wonder why blacks refuse to join them politically.  Why join a bunch of people who are convinced that your skin genes indelibly mark you as being a subhuman, with subpar intelligence, and subpar moral agency?

As a  point of order, that is most certainly NOT a Conservative construct.

[Bigun]

@goatprairie @HoustonSam

I can't speak for HoustonSam,but I can speak for me,and I am calling HorseHillary on that one.

Black males in big cities don't "Stay home" because for the most part,they don't HAVE homes. What they have is a few black women they got pregnant who are living in goobermint housing because they gave birth to children and claim to not know who the father is. They not only live rent-free,but they even get a check for each child they have.

Meanwhile the baby daddy will come by occasionally to spend a few nights there for sex,and then move on to the next baby mama before the welfare agents come by and catch a man living in the house and cause they to either be evicted or to lose money.

The welfare system not only knows this,they ENCOURAGE it because it is populated by air-head leftists who think having a father come around occcainally to get laid and snooze is a good thing for the little chillruns.

I have had black males I worked with at a shipyard tell me that I should do this too,and would actually bragg about how much extra money they were pulling in from the baby mamas and from not having to pay rent or buy groceries. A few even told me it gave them enough money to buy rental property to rent out and pull in even more money.

The left CREATED this system purposely and it is nothing less than a new form of slavery.

Spot on target @sneakypete

Government welfare checks are heavily weighted to single mothers. And THAT fact is at the root of the problem being discussed on this thread. It's that way on purpose. Not an accident by any means! 

[Smokin Joe]

It is so fascinating how many are so willing to, as the saying goes, judge a book by the color of its cover, without regard to whether there is any basis whatsoever for assuming that the color of the color bears any necessary relationship to the content contained within the book's pages.

And that is why the so-called conservatives will continue to wonder why blacks refuse to join them politically.  Why join a bunch of people who are convinced that your skin genes indelibly mark you as being a subhuman, with subpar intelligence, and subpar moral agency?

You didn't read the whole thing, or didn't comprehend the question I was asking. It was really a question, not a statement. Nature or Nurture?

I honestly think both are involved. Even on a superficial level, what are blacks who study and work hard decried for?

Acting too white.

Note the blacks who tend to be conservative are successful.
The cultural reward? "Larry Elder is the new face of White supremacy." (Who knew?)
Note that Whites who tend to be Conservative, also tend to be successful.
Ditto Asians, Hispanics, American Indians, whatever group you want to pick our, they are all defined by not being afraid to work for what they want.

And all groups have their scam artists and snake oil salesmen, too, but I don't count cheating as success, although they get to enjoy the trimmings for a while.

My point is that what a culture prizes will be replicated, and what it does not will languish.

Beyond that, the question exists of whether people selecting mates on the basis of specific cultural attributes has affected the raw abilities of that entire gene pool. The metric used is IQ in the OP, but pick a metric, any metric, and tell me the collective abilities of a population will not be affected, for better or worse, by its culture over generations.

If raw cognitive ability (the developmental starting point, the ability of the brain to see patterns, recognize symbols, synthesize solutions to problems, to invent) is genetically controlled at all, are those of rare ability suffused throughout the entire human population, or have cultural (and mating) biases altered that distribution (the unnatural selection I referred to) and left it more common in certain groups?

I don't know. I'm just asking a question people have been asking for centuries.