If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Howdy stranger.

What is a redeeming sentiment? Does that have something to do with the truth-value of the quote? If not, then who cares?

And you can't find any evidentiary support for it? Where did you look? Your sentiments?

I mean that the statement merely reintroduces old and hackneyed attitudes toward black behavior (the same attitudes that Baldwin was attacking in the '60s).

As far as the "truth-value" of the quote goes, I don't think there is any, nor can there be. More specifically, it's unverifiable and unfalsifiable. He's suggesting that the plight of blacks in America today extends back to their primitive, natural behaviors in Africa (he didn't use these words, of course; but this is what he's suggesting). You can't substantiate that claim. Blacks in America have suffered under an oppressive regime (poetic license) for the majority of time they've been on this continent. It makes sense that this is just as much of a reason for their situation today.

Blacks were economically disenfranchised for centuries. This drove them into pockets of poverty and destitution, and forced them into specific lines of work and criminal activities. It's unreasonable and irrational to expect them to have gotten their act together over the last fifty years.

Cornell West is basically a pseudointellectual.

I don't pay much attention to West. I was just pointing out that Coates doesn't express the sentiment of all blacks.

I agree that Coates is sensationalist and empathetic. I don't think his arguments are always solid. He's a social critic op-ed kind of writer, not a real cultural theorist.

So what?

So white people have made the same excuse for so long that it's actually now beginning to look legitimate and appropriate. Most of us living today have generations separating us from slaveholders and other racist elements in our family histories, so we really can't bring ourselves to feel guilty.

Baldwin accused whites in the '60s of being dissociated from reality, of being willingly ignorant of their role in very recent policies of segregation and other forms of material racism. Today, that dynamic has reversed: whites are claiming that the "white guilt" notion is dissociated from reality because of the very intuitive fact that no whites today were alive during slavery, and many were not alive during the first half of the twentieth century.

I think part of the reaction against the notion of white guilt falls on the problem of blame - whites feel as though they're being blamed, which carries significant individualist connotations: "If I wasn't alive during slavery, then how can I be blamed for it???" The argument always falls back on blame.

But guilt isn't blame. Baldwin wasn't asking whites to atone, or to pay up. He was asking them to acknowledge a historical fact that many were unwilling (and are still unwilling) to acknowledge: that they have benefited from the exploitation of blacks.

I'll be controversial and say that I think white guilt will be an important and necessary component of American existence for quite some time, and I don't think it can be argued away. I think it will dissipate over time, provided nothing drastically reactionary or caustic settles in our political processes. Eventually white guilt will become untenable, but for now it constitutes an important part of the cultural consciousness.

 

[Dak]

Two points: Culture reversion and "white guilt" or "white fear":

Culture reversion refers to the bright/"spangled" dressing preferences, petty and disorganized violent crime tendencies, pseudomatriarchy, and a disinterest in maintaining things - use it up, move on to the next thing. Exception being to "spangle" the thing even as it deteriorates. Probably some other stuff I am forgetting. Obviously these things are not all found in every single individual, but they aren't "baseless stereotypes", and they cannot be blamed on some sort of poor southern inheritance either (maybe the "use it up" tendency can).

White fear: It's a pretty legitimate thing, both in that there is reason for it and that it exists. I'll go further and assert it would probably exist, at least to some point in time, with or without the racebaiters. But carrying any kind of guilt requires application of that butterknife. My mom is big into her family's genealogy, and so far the only connection to any kind of "slavery" I know of within the last 4 generations is her moms moms moms parents having a voluntary "house servant" for a ten year period or something. Don't see where my grand benefit is there. This "Well, you're white so you benefited in a general way from the institution" stuff really ranks right up there with "Well, you're Jewish so you must be making a fortune from Wall street".

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see how what you're describing as consumptive, destructive, "pseudomatriarchal" tendencies have somehow been either inherited (genetically?) from the rituals and practices of African communities, or been handed down. It makes no sense, in my opinion, to associate black criminal activity here with their distant ancestors' behavior in Africa, where the notion of "crime" as it exists in this country would not have been anywhere near as prevalent or even possible.

Criminal activity in this country is constituted by the conditions of this country, not by some atavistic tendency in black people.

As far as your final point goes, you insinuate that a family had to actually own slaves in order to benefit from their exploitation.

 

[Dak]

I don't see how what you're describing as consumptive, destructive, "pseudomatriarchal" tendencies have somehow been either inherited (genetically?) from the rituals and practices of African communities, or been handed down. It makes no sense, in my opinion, to associate black criminal activity here with their distant ancestors' behavior in Africa, where the notion of "crime" as it exists in this country would not have been anywhere near as prevalent or even possible.

It doesn't matter about a notion of what constitutes crimes. We are talking about behaviors. In fact it would make sense under this theory that ancestral treatment of such behavior wouldn't be to consider them crimes, which is why such behavior is/was more prevalent. It's regularly glossed over that the Atlantic slave trade originated in the long standing tradition of Africans enslaving each other - until they found a higher bidder, and they founded African empires in supplying their neighbors to the Europeans. Why can't these tendencies have been both handed down and have a genetic base?

Criminal activity in this country is constituted by the conditions of this country, not by some atavistic tendency in black people.

That's a blank slate statement.

As far as your final point goes, you insinuate that a family had to actually own slaves in order to benefit from their exploitation.

I'm saying no one's pointed out these wonderful and exclusively white racewide trickledown benefits yet. These benefits are as vague and elusive as "They". That's entirely different from the easily pointed to "white privilege" in the sense that white people (and in many cases minorities also) are more likely to trust white people than blacks. This is accrued trust and social capital, which can be quickly squandered and lost.

 

[Einherjar86]

It doesn't matter about a notion of what constitutes crimes. We are talking about behaviors. In fact it would make sense under this theory that ancestral treatment of such behavior wouldn't be to consider them crimes, which is why such behavior is/was more prevalent. It's regularly glossed over that the Atlantic slave trade originated in the long standing tradition of Africans enslaving each other - until they found a higher bidder, and they founded African empires in supplying their neighbors to the Europeans. Why can't these tendencies have been both handed down and have a genetic base?

Exactly, they wouldn't be considered crimes; but the other half of your equation doesn't make sense because these behaviors weren't more prevalent! Pre-colonial societies weren't violence-ridden cesspools of infighting, killing, raping, or gang warfare. It also speaks to this point that there was not a high number of instances of slave violence against their owners, or against each other during Western slavery. If they were really so prone to violence, then we would probably have seen more rebellions.

Yes, Africans did enslave each other; but the only evidence we have of this comes from coastal societies, and there is next to nothing that suggests it was widespread throughout the continent or prevalent among smaller tribal and stateless communities. You're extending a single observation to all of African society pre-European colonialism, and taking no account of the fact that African societies are disparate, diverse, and partake of various forms of economic and social order. It's highly unlikely, in fact, that chattel slavery was widespread in central African and other small communities, which probably had no market for such trade.

That's a blank slate statement.

So quick to assume.

It's not a blank slate statement. I'm not saying violent behavior doesn't exist until society. I'm saying that social laws and norms constitute crime, as do material conditions. A crime is only a crime in light of a social value positioned in opposition to it, and in the presence of material conditions that allow for crime. Gun crime among blacks is rampant in this country, but it wasn't in Africa; lo and behold, they had no guns.

Furthermore, violence in general, while absolutely present in Africa, was no more prevalent than violence in any other developed society. In fact, I would venture to say that there were higher rates of violent activity in developed European nations than there were in African communities prior to European arrival. But alas, we don't have many stats for this.

We do know that slavery existed prior to European arrival, since slaves were sold to the Romans. This observation is limited, again, to northern coastal communities.

I'm saying no one's pointed out these wonderful and exclusively white racewide trickledown benefits yet. These benefits are as vague and elusive as "They". That's entirely different from the easily pointed to "white privilege" in the sense that white people (and in many cases minorities also) are more likely to trust white people than blacks. This is accrued trust and social capital, which can be quickly squandered and lost.

The benefits are disparate and variable, and not necessarily economic (in fact, probably not economic). The benefits derive from the range of possibilities available to whites as opposed to blacks, and what they taught their children was available to them, and what treatment they experienced at the hands of whites or within white communities after the abolition of slavery.

You want to say that black mentality, or whatever we should call it, is highly attributable to a genetic and ancestral disposition. I disagree and think that there is minimal basis for such a claim, that the evidence simply is not there. The evidence that is there, however, is that of slavery and the detrimental after-effects of slavery.

 

[Dak]

Exactly, they wouldn't be considered crimes; but the other half of your equation doesn't make sense because these behaviors weren't more prevalent! Pre-colonial societies weren't violence-ridden cesspools of infighting, killing, raping, or gang warfare. It also speaks to this point that there was not a high number of instances of slave violence against their owners, or against each other during Western slavery. If they were really so prone to violence, then we would probably have seen more rebellions.

Yes, Africans did enslave each other; but the only evidence we have of this comes from coastal societies, and there is next to nothing that suggests it was widespread throughout the continent or prevalent among smaller tribal and stateless communities. You're extending a single observation to all of African society pre-European colonialism, and taking no account of the fact that African societies are disparate, diverse, and partake of various forms of economic and social order. It's highly unlikely, in fact, that chattel slavery was widespread in central African and other small communities, which probably had no market for such trade.

Africans may not be a "homogeneous suite", but we can talk about West African history, and ancestry. Gang warfare- tribal warfare. Not a ton of difference. The qualifications for "tribe" have just shifted in relation to who is providing structure. Otherwise, sounds like noble savage redux: "Pre-colonial societes weren't violence ridden cesspools". They weren't just happily tilling the earth and eating the fruit of their own trees and singing kumbaya - Hence, the pre-colonial slave trade.

So quick to assume.

It's not a blank slate statement. I'm not saying violent behavior doesn't exist until society. I'm saying that social laws and norms constitute crime, as do material conditions. A crime is only a crime in light of a social value positioned in opposition to it, and in the presence of material conditions that allow for crime. Gun crime among blacks is rampant in this country, but it wasn't in Africa; lo and behold, they had no guns.

You use the tools you have. In the absence of guns, bladed weapons are the "gun".

Furthermore, violence in general, while absolutely present in Africa, was no more prevalent than violence in any other developed society. In fact, I would venture to say that there were higher rates of violent activity in developed European nations than there were in African communities prior to European arrival. But alas, we don't have many stats for this.

I'm not suggesting the Europeans spent all their time at Mass. But when we look at the technological, cultural, and philosophical advancements of Europe compared with Africa in general (obviously some exceptions exist), there's a glaring difference. Am I "privileging" the European way of doing things? Sure, and so does everyone who comes back with that sort of attack - they never arge we should be keeping people in their grass huts and Africanizing the world.

The benefits are disparate and variable, and not necessarily economic (in fact, probably not economic). The benefits derive from the range of possibilities available to whites as opposed to blacks, and what they taught their children was available to them, and what treatment they experienced at the hands of whites or within white communities after the abolition of slavery.

Please explain how these possibilities, teachings, and treatment that whites provide to whites are due to having enslaved blacks. It appears to me that you are suggesting that things like taking care of your property (maintaining/adding value) and respecting the property of others (increasing trust) are cultural tendencies that whites manufactured via the sweat of African slaves.

You want to say that black mentality, or whatever we should call it, is highly attributable to a genetic and ancestral disposition. I disagree and think that there is minimal basis for such a claim, that the evidence simply is not there. The evidence that is there, however, is that of slavery and the detrimental after-effects of slavery.

Twin studies are the best we have currently for determining the heritability of traits. Intelligence and violence are the most heritable, and intelligence correlates inversely to violent/petty crime antisocial behavior. The draw towards African dress, spangled decoration, tribalism, are further examples. With the possible exception of intelligence, none of these things can be blamed on particulars of slavery (breeding for "big, strong, and dumb" isn't out of the question).

Any disputes here have to be a question of source, because the statistics, as it relates to violence, economic and academic achievement, and fashion trends, are indisputable. Further, there nearly always emerges immediately the assumption that "noticing" involves some sort of underlying racist hate/fear of the group in question. I write this stuff probably 10 feet away from a nice elderly black couple that I share a wall with. Nearly all my neighbors are black, and I don't go to bed clutching the proverbial gun with white knuckle grip for fear of my neighbors. But go about 2 miles down the road and I wouldn't walk down a side street in the midday sun with or without a gun and and neither probably would at least half of my black neighbors. This sort of area exists in practically (if not actually) every eastern US town, and it's never because of a dense population of poor whites.

 

[Einherjar86]

Africans may not be a "homogeneous suite", but we can talk about West African history, and ancestry. Gang warfare- tribal warfare. Not a ton of difference. The qualifications for "tribe" have just shifted in relation to who is providing structure. Otherwise, sounds like noble savage redux: "Pre-colonial societes weren't violence ridden cesspools". They weren't just happily tilling the earth and eating the fruit of their own trees and singing kumbaya - Hence, the pre-colonial slave trade.

Sure - but it doesn't make sense to point to Africans as somehow more prone to violence when European societies were just as, if not more, violent.

You use the tools you have. In the absence of guns, bladed weapons are the "gun".

Of course. As I already said, material/cultural conditions determine crime. Not just what objects you have access to, but around what values your way of life is organized.

There's no evidence to suggest that Africans privileged random violence and warfare over discourse and diplomacy.

I'm not suggesting the Europeans spent all their time at Mass. But when we look at the technological, cultural, and philosophical advancements of Europe compared with Africa in general (obviously some exceptions exist), there's a glaring difference. Am I "privileging" the European way of doing things? Sure, and so does everyone who comes back with that sort of attack - they never arge we should be keeping people in their grass huts and Africanizing the world.

How does this become about elevating European values and achievements? I agree, I want to live in a Western city; but I don't believe this translates into an apology for forced removal of peoples into more technologically developed societies. You can acknowledge the ills of one institution without proclaiming that they outweigh its usefulness for certain people.

Please explain how these possibilities, teachings, and treatment that whites provide to whites are due to having enslaved blacks. It appears to me that you are suggesting that things like taking care of your property (maintaining/adding value) and respecting the property of others (increasing trust) are cultural tendencies that whites manufactured via the sweat of African slaves.

The very notion of freedom was manufactured via the conception of the possibility of un-freedom. Some historians suggest that freedom came into (conceptual) being with slavery, which makes sense (in my opinion). Notions of property and ownership likewise make sense in contrast to those who are denied such privileges.

I'm not trying to forge a vast theory here (it's already been done); but the consciousness that breeds out of being an enslaved people is tremendous, and I don't think you can write it off so easily.

Twin studies are the best we have currently for determining the heritability of traits. Intelligence and violence are the most heritable, and intelligence correlates inversely to violent/petty crime antisocial behavior. The draw towards African dress, spangled decoration, tribalism, are further examples. With the possible exception of intelligence, none of these things can be blamed on particulars of slavery (breeding for "big, strong, and dumb" isn't out of the question).

Any disputes here have to be a question of source, because the statistics, as it relates to violence, economic and academic achievement, and fashion trends, are indisputable. Further, there nearly always emerges immediately the assumption that "noticing" involves some sort of underlying racist hate/fear of the group in question. I write this stuff probably 10 feet away from a nice elderly black couple that I share a wall with. Nearly all my neighbors are black, and I don't go to bed clutching the proverbial gun with white knuckle grip for fear of my neighbors. But go about 2 miles down the road and I wouldn't walk down a side street in the midday sun with or without a gun and and neither probably would at least half of my black neighbors. This sort of area exists in practically (if not actually) every eastern US town, and it's never because of a dense population of poor whites.

Noticing itself isn't racist. What is is trying to tie it back to some predisposed genetic variation when there is no evidence for such a claim. The evidence for heredity of violence and intelligence make little difference if you can't prove that the ancestors of these violent and less intelligent people were themselves less intelligent and prone to violence.

I agree that political correctness gets in the way of making intellectual strides in diagnosing the issue. I just don't see the need to make it a claim of biology.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Has anyone seen the latest South Park?

Caught the re-run last night. I haven't kept up on South Park like I used to but that was one of their most spot on shows since the Facebook one. Naturally it flew over some peoples heads: http://nypost.com/2015/09/18/social-justice-warriors-cant-take-the-south-park-heat/

 

[arg]

blacks have been free for a long time. they need to get the fuck over it.

black athletes and rappers can make tons of money. blacks can be doctors, lawyers and businessmen.

it's the poor blacks that perpetuate the slave mentality, call each other the n word, teach their children to blame whites, commit crimes, etc. and it's not because they were enslaved 100 years ago, it's their own damn fault for being stupid fucking thugs. and as long as we keep feeling sorry for them, giving them and their babies welfare, that shitty aspect of black culture will never go away.

that's why poor blacks need to be wiped out, then blacks will be a respectable race. btw i already respect successful blacks and hardworking ones

 

[CiG]

Actually, the welfare state has a lot more to answer for than slavery does in that instance.

 

[Dak]

Sure - but it doesn't make sense to point to Africans as somehow more prone to violence when European societies were just as, if not more, violent.

Of course. As I already said, material/cultural conditions determine crime. Not just what objects you have access to, but around what values your way of life is organized.

There's no evidence to suggest that Africans privileged random violence and warfare over discourse and diplomacy.

Noticing itself isn't racist. What is is trying to tie it back to some predisposed genetic variation when there is no evidence for such a claim. The evidence for heredity of violence and intelligence make little difference if you can't prove that the ancestors of these violent and less intelligent people were themselves less intelligent and prone to violence.

I agree that political correctness gets in the way of making intellectual strides in diagnosing the issue. I just don't see the need to make it a claim of biology.

Well one of the problems here is definitely lack of evidence - forcing both sides to "argue from silence" regarding the history of (at least) non-Northern Africa, to a significant degree. I believe in this case, the lack of written/maintained records functions as some measure of proof towards cultural problems (even proto Europeans weren't against torching vast collections of written knowledge and history).

I agree that political correctness gets in the way of making intellectual strides in diagnosing the issue. I just don't see the need to make it a claim of biology.

It's obvious genetics doesn't account for the entire variance, but it has to account for some. Given that our best research indicates genetics accounts for more than half the variance in IQ and violence (especially for violence), to ignore biology due to a fear of misuse/misinterpretation is still to err. PCness in this probably partially arises for the tendency in those who point to a biological basis to just write off a group, promote "hate" and/or hate, etc. These tendencies won't change until the discourse becomes less nature v nurture and recognizes the limits of each and interplay between both.

If we want to talk about the nurture/environment aspect, I'll hold to the contention that it is social democrat domestic policy and US liberal education that has been most responsible (when compared to other environmental/historical pressures) for the socioeconomic problems of US blacks.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well one of the problems here is definitely lack of evidence - forcing both sides to "argue from silence" regarding the history of (at least) non-Northern Africa, to a significant degree. I believe in this case, the lack of written/maintained records functions as some measure of proof towards cultural problems (even proto Europeans weren't against torching vast collections of written knowledge and history).

But first you need archives to torch.

In the West, the "torching" or destruction of archives and records is considered deplorable - we still bemoan the loss of the library at Alexandria. But the notion of collection itself must be a value first.

In Africa, cultural values and narratives were passed on primarily orally, and this simply had to do with the dispersion and disparity of tribal communities. As some mixed and mingled, occasionally violently, their oral tales became mixed. They didn't practice the collection of vast archival knowledge.

What we might consider to be textual or cultural artifacts - for instance, art objects - were widely used for ritual purposes and often discarded after the completion of the ritual. The Igbo people have a practice known as mbari, which necessitates the building of intricate and decorative houses; these houses are then left to disintegrate and decay as part of the tradition itself. They never undergo repair.

The point being that many African communities simply don't practice the accumulation of knowledge in the Western archival sense because they pass traditions on via oral traditions and consider their various forms of art/object-production to be closely tied to the rituals they perform, meaning they do not care to preserve them. This doesn't reflect lower intelligence, merely a different attachment of values.

It's obvious genetics doesn't account for the entire variance, but it has to account for some. Given that our best research indicates genetics accounts for more than half the variance in IQ and violence (especially for violence), to ignore biology due to a fear of misuse/misinterpretation is still to err. PCness in this probably partially arises for the tendency in those who point to a biological basis to just write off a group, promote "hate" and/or hate, etc. These tendencies won't change until the discourse becomes less nature v nurture and recognizes the limits of each and interplay between both.

To be sure, genetics is an important factor for human behavior; but intelligence isn't behavior, and different forms of behavior can exhibit intelligence (violent criminals can be intelligent). Intelligence is about efficiency, not about what kinds of behaviors an organisms chooses to do. An ant colony exhibit patterns that would register as intelligent in a conscious human.

Ultimately, I find the concept of intelligence to be too unwieldy to be productive in this matter; and I think that attributing intelligence to genetic differences in race misapplies the concept of intelligence.

Finally, the difference in genetics between Africans and Caucasians seem to be associated more with physical differences than with cognitive ones. Any association with the latter is speculative and based purely on coincidences. There is no convincing test that has established a biological link between genes and intelligence in humans. While skin color and other physical attributes are biological, the notion of "race" in its applied sense does not correspond to skin color (e.g. even white-looking Americans were still defined as "black" in the early twentieth century if they were found to have even "one drop" of blood from an African ancestor). Race developed as a social institution, even if it had basis in biology. The same goes for intelligence; it has developed as a social institution, even if it has bases in complexity and pattern-behavior.

 

[Dak]

But first you need archives to torch.

In the West, the "torching" or destruction of archives and records is considered deplorable - we still bemoan the loss of the library at Alexandria. But the notion of collection itself must be a value first.

In Africa, cultural values and narratives were passed on primarily orally, and this simply had to do with the dispersion and disparity of tribal communities. As some mixed and mingled, occasionally violently, their oral tales became mixed. They didn't practice the collection of vast archival knowledge.

What we might consider to be textual or cultural artifacts - for instance, art objects - were widely used for ritual purposes and often discarded after the completion of the ritual. The Igbo people have a practice known as mbari, which necessitates the building of intricate and decorative houses; these houses are then left to disintegrate and decay as part of the tradition itself. They never undergo repair.

The point being that many African communities simply don't practice the accumulation of knowledge in the Western archival sense because they pass traditions on via oral traditions and consider their various forms of art/object-production to be closely tied to the rituals they perform, meaning they do not care to preserve them. This doesn't reflect lower intelligence, merely a different attachment of values.

Yes, inherently limiting values. It is a widely spread theory (although one I am not sure of) that it was the clash/exposure to Islam that re-invigorated Western scholarly and cultural achievement. Why didn't the exposure during the same time frame in Africa have the same effect?

To be sure, genetics is an important factor for human behavior; but intelligence isn't behavior, and different forms of behavior can exhibit intelligence (criminals can be intelligent). Intelligence is about efficiency, not about what kinds of behaviors an organisms chooses to do. An ant colony exhibit patterns that would register as intelligent in a conscious human. A violent person can be intelligent.

Ultimately, I find the concept of intelligence to be too unwieldy to be productive in this matter; and I think that attributing intelligence to genetic differences in race misapplies the concept of intelligence.

Finally, the difference in genetics between Africans and Caucasians seem to be associated more with physical differences than with cognitive ones. Any association with the latter is speculative and based purely on coincidences. There is no convincing test that has established a biological link between genes and intelligence in humans.

Because it becomes very inconvenient, which relates to Cyth's "did you check your sentiment?". Intelligence isn't behavior, and IQ doesn't capture everything, but it does a good enough job that to ignore it isn't based on lack of evidence. It is scientifically baseless to believe genetics has an effect on everything except the brain.

The point that should be taken is that you cannot merely throw someone that is at a disadvantage - especially relative to an advanced technological culture - into an environment built for someone with greater aptitude and propensity for pro-social behavior (regardless of race), and expect a magical turnaround in behavior. This is the wishful blank slate thinking that western policy has repeatedly pursued in the post war years, with pretty consistent failure.

Unfortunately, domestic policy - especially education and housing initiatives - would need such a radical overhaul for correction at this point that collapse is more likely first.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, inherently limiting values. It is a widely spread theory (although one I am not sure of) that it was the clash/exposure to Islam that re-invigorated Western scholarly and cultural achievement. Why didn't the exposure during the same time frame in Africa have the same effect?

The exposure to Islam in the West re-invigorated the love of ancient Western philosophy, especially Aristotle. Africans didn't have this history, and so the exposure to Islam wasn't epistemologically complementary in the way it was for Europeans.

Because it becomes very inconvenient, which relates to Cyth's "did you check your sentiment?". Intelligence isn't behavior, and IQ doesn't capture everything, but it does a good enough job that to ignore it isn't based on lack of evidence. It is scientifically baseless to believe genetics has an effect on everything except the brain.

I guess this is still the sticking point for me, mainly because I don't know what "doing a good enough job" means, or how genetics affecting the brain translates into genetics affecting intelligence. I'm skeptical of the overlap here. Ants can be intelligent, viruses can be intelligent, systems can be intelligent.

 

[Dak]

I guess this is still the sticking point for me, mainly because I don't know what "doing a good enough job" means, or how genetics affecting the brain translates into genetics affecting intelligence. I'm skeptical of the overlap here. Ants can be intelligent, viruses can be intelligent, systems can be intelligent.

Of course it's relative amongst humans.

As far as how good of a job:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/how-does-iq-relate-to-personality/

Correlates to half of personality traits, which is interesting in light of twin studies suggesting genetics is ~50% responsible for variance in IQ. IQ is inversely correlated with crime, and I like some of the possible reasons why offered in the latter portion of this:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1365/Intelligence-Crime-Explaining-IQ-crime-correlation.html

A more recent, and more compelling, causal explanation emphasizes the importance of intelligence—especially verbal intelligence—during childhood socialization. The socialization of children involves constant verbal communication and comprehension of abstract symbols; therefore, children with poor verbal and cognitive skills have greater difficulty completing the socialization process, which puts them at risk of undercontrolled, antisocial behavior. Empirical studies overall have supported this developmental hypothesis (Moffitt, p. 116), and it fits with the especially strong correlation between verbal IQ and crime.

A final causal explanation links IQ to crime through school performance. Less intelligent students do less well in school, which results in academic frustration. This frustration, in turn, weakens their attachment and commitment to schooling, and a weakened bond to school, as per social control theory, allows for more criminal behavior (Hirschi and Hindelang). This school-performance hypothesis has received strong support from empirical studies, and it is probably the most widely accepted explanation of the IQ-crime correlation (Moffitt).

The skills/traits that IQ correlates to are definitely required in learning in industrial and post industrial societies. Education initiatives and social policies which try to ignore the impact of IQ lead to frustration and a "dropping out" - in more ways than one. This creates a bad feedback loop as those who start behind in ability put themselves further behind.

Edit: I want to be clear that I think IQ matters more, or rather than race - but if there's consistent overlap, it's especially stupid to be like "race doesn't matter - btw here's a bunch of race based initiatives", "iq doesn't matter - btw it's important to get smarter".

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks for the links.

I'm not sure that we can definitively say that IQ correlates to skills necessary for learning. Or rather, I'm not certain that we can connect IQ to the actual content being learned. As far as we can tell, all IQ correlates to is the ability to do well in school, which basically translates into being able to perform in a specific and convincing manner. But doing well in school (public, private, or homeschooling) doesn't mean one will perform well in the event of a natural disaster or other catastrophic event; or that one will perform well in any other variety of situations. Or that one would perform well if he or she were air-lifted and tossed into the middle of the African Sahara.

IQ skills correlate to the ability to perform convincingly within a set of parameters, but these parameters don't extend to the majority of potential situations nor do they guarantee that content is actually being absorbed - only that a subject is successfully appearing to absorb them. In other words, IQ tests can only reflect how well you can pass an IQ test.

 

[Dak]

But doing well in school (public, private, or homeschooling) doesn't mean one will perform well in the event of a natural disaster or other catastrophic event; or that one will perform well in any other variety of situations. Or that one would perform well if he or she were air-lifted and tossed into the middle of the African Sahara.

Modern societies/economies aren't based on being airdropped into the Apocalypse, Pat.

IQ tests can only reflect how well you can pass an IQ test.

By themselves, correct. But that's why we do other testing to test relationships with other abilities and outcomes, and then based on that try to tease out some causation. It's not perfect, but it's better than pretending everyone is equal.

Edit:

I want to reiterate the closing paragraph of the SA blog link:

where does IQ fit into the personality puzzle? While this is just a single dataset, it is consistent with other studies suggesting that the most relevant personality domain is openness to experience, particularly the dimensions that reflect the ability and drive for conscious exploration of inner mental experience.

Exploration of inner mental experience takes a backseat to avoiding lions when alone on the Savannah. Unfortunately, taking that backseat can mean one is permanently trying to avoid lions.

Editx2:

http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.
And:
All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.
And:
1
All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)
The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

There was a caveat: All of the females came straight from initial training schools, while some of the males had already been "in the Fleet" as the Marines call it. However, that doesn't really explain differences in tossing strength, carrying strength, or accuracy. It makes sense that the M2 accuracy didn't suffer because you don't have to muscle the gun like you do with the other crew served machine guns. Grenade launchers (M203 and Mk19) are a further exception, and those require spatial skills that women generally possess to a lesser degree(and apparently women did worse).

 

[Einherjar86]

Modern societies/economies aren't based on being airdropped into the Apocalypse, Pat.

It's a thought experiment, David. What's realistic about the Chinese Room scenario?

By themselves, correct. But that's why we do other testing to test relationships with other abilities and outcomes, and then based on that try to tease out some causation. It's not perfect, but it's better than pretending everyone is equal.

Better for the people who happen to enjoy particular educational privileges.

I realize that turning these tricks is annoying, but this line of argument opens itself up to criticism. The entire cultural scenario is too complex to give genetics/intelligence that much weight. In my opinion.

Exploration of inner mental experience takes a backseat to avoiding lions when alone on the Savannah. Unfortunately, taking that backseat can mean one is permanently trying to avoid lions.

It can also take a backseat when one is trying to do well in a job interview.

 

[CiG]

Somewhat related.

 

[Dak]

It's a thought experiment, David. What's realistic about the Chinese Room scenario?

You know what else doesn't do well in apocalypse experiments? Feminism. Boom.

Better for the people who happen to enjoy particular educational privileges.

Like homeschooling with handmedown creationism books and 100 year old primers?

It can also take a backseat when one is trying to do well in a job interview.

That's an excellent point. But that also has a lot to do with who is doing the interview.

Edit: @CIG: tl;dl lol. Doing some listening. Edit again: Man, Saad is basically saying what I've been saying haha.