1.- Among social scientists...
When studying man scientifically, where else do you go? Physicists?
The only two physicists I know who study these questions about race (Steve Hsu and Greg Cochran) agree with me.
Steve Hsu is a very interesting case. He identifies as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and has moderate social views. But he obviously agrees in the concept of race and is sympathetic to the notion that they are inherent in some group differences. He claims he's waiting for harder data, but it's clear he expects it to come in. He's now somewhat evasive on these matters because he has taken a beating from social justice warriors eager to take his scalp.
He's also discussed sharing his ideas with other physicists. What he has to say about his discussions is illuminating. He claims that once he explains the core concepts behind his views, his colleagues immediately get it and largely agree with him.
The problem is that most physicists don't study these questions about man - it's not in their field - and so as a group they instead tend to reflect widely-held social views about these matters rather than scientifically rigorous ones. Until someone like Hsu sets them straight.
(Another interesting fact about Steve Hsu is that he was a serious jujitsu practitioner when he was younger, studying under Enson Inoue back in the nineteen-nineties.)
2.- Absolutely not, you are claiming genetic cause as the main independent factor that's well beyond the scope of social sciences.
Complete balderdash. These questions are right at the heart of the social sciences. If nothing in the environment makes sense as an explanation, then the default assumption ought to be genetic.
3.- That discussion is easy to have, absolutely nobody cried racism when it was found that the "warrior gene" was overrepresented in black people, because you cant argue against hard science.
But the more interesting social scientific question that you mentioned did set off alarm bells. Does the Warrior Gene cause blacks to be more prone to violence? Believe me, you won't bring that topic up at casual parties with mixed groups anytime soon.
4.- See thats the difference between real scientists and social scientist, real scientist dont really need to discuss said things since they can actually prove them.
Rod, you have no idea what you're talking about. The implications for the Warrior gene are hugely controversial - and the moment you try to ferret out those results you run into the same social science questions you face anywhere else.
For example, the Warrior gene is found in disproportionately high numbers among Chinese populations, yet they don't seem particularly prone to violence. There have also been studies which haven't found a correlation between the gene and anti-social behavior.
So there is nothing special about the Warrior Gene.
5.- The conclusion is that real people who are identified as black have lower IQ than those who identify as white and thats it.
No, that's not it.
Lower black IQ (than the white mean) is found everywhere in the world.
- Among former slave populations and among black populations that were never enslaved.
- Among Anglo blacks, Francophone blacks, and Hispanic blacks.
- In dozens of countries with all their various histories, cultures, and public institutions.
- In Africa and out of Africa.
- Even among wealthy black families in the United States, in which their kids score only as well on standardized tests as lower-income white kids.
- In schools run by whites and in schools run by blacks.
- In integrated schools and in segregated schools.
When you look at the consistency among all those variables, what jumps out at you? What's the simplest explanation?
It's staring right at you, Rod, but you don't have the moral and intellectual courage to accept it.
Everything else is stretching the conclusion to fit things that are not proven by said claim, you cant prove that its all because of race genetics because you cant control for independent variables. As opposed to animals which we can breed with the specific purpose of testing them.
If only you were this rigorous with your own thinking, then perhaps you wouldn't be susceptible to blaming the United States for every damn thing that goes wrong in your region.
The truth is that you are perfectly happy to come to some social science conclusion you find congenial to your prejudices - such as, that the US interventions in Central America have lowered the wealth in those targetted countries - despite the fact that you have less evidence for your thesis than I do for mine.
6.- People you find acceptable of course, whites and asians, since they have achieved the most potential clearly the existence of an asian or white culture that doesnt fits the success measure you give to their genetic qualities disproves your genetics makes culture argument.
You're confusing two questions. What I find acceptable and what actually happens.
Those are two questions, and they aren't the same at all.
Your description also doesn't credit me for understanding that not all differences favor those races you think I find acceptable. If I picking sports teams, for example, I would not stick to whites and Asians. And if I did, I would clearly pay for it.
A little over 100 years ago it was only whites, specifically northern europeans who loved to tout their supremacy until the Japanese rose to a world power status.
That's not true. EVERY group touted its superiority.
You think the Han Chinese, Koreans and Japanese learned racial superiority from whites? You think the Jews did?
But even so, more than a hundred years ago, you could still find scientists who understood the Chinese were smart - despite the fact that China was failing at every modern measure they had at the time.
In other words, China's failure did not lead scientists to believe that the Chinese were not smart.
7.- Funny you mention height, because height is highly dependant on nutrition, so much that North Koreans are on average 10 cm shorter than South Koreans, someone like you would claim that North Koreans are genetically shorter isnt?
How could I make such a claim? There is no discernible genetic difference between the Koreas, but there is an obvious environmental difference between the two sides.
IQ can also be affected by the environment. Iodine deficiencies, for example, clearly lead to lower IQ. Some countries in Africa obviously have lower IQ than their genetic potential because of these environmental deficiencies.
So a scientist could look at that and correctly predict that some places in Africa will demonstrate higher IQs in the future than they do now.
But ... and here's the rub ... those IQs will still be significantly lower than what is found in Europe. They just won't be as low as they are today.