Support NeoGAF

[TCKaos]

You need to log off this site and spend the next week library researching the social construct of race.

Okay, so I realize I'm jumping in at a bad spot, but... did you read what he said?

Race effects environmental factors, which results in developmental differences. He's implying that being something other than white will result in racial discrimination playing a role in your environmental development, which accounts for 20%-50% of the end result of your personhood.

What he's saying is that being discriminated against creates a hostile environment that effects your development resulting in worse test scores.

Or are you going to tell me that super rich school districts having higher test scores than somewhere in Alabama's black belt is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with systemic discrimination based on race?

 

[AJLma]

Do you understand that the US worldview about race is not the objective truth ?

These categories the West created are very limited and don't reflect the inherent diversity of the wide ethnical spectrum of the human race.

I know that, the US racial system is only here to serve white supremacy through division of everyone who isn't white... but come on with those examples.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Those examples prove that the people you are calling black are not objectively black.

 

[Brakke]

Those examples prove that the people you are calling black are not objectively black.

But why is that relevant here? Were the participants in the research behind the Bell Curve sorted into race categories by the researchers or did they self-report?

 

[Cipherr]

Edit: Mainly annoyed people cape for this bullshit, then squirm when asked to defend the nonsense.

 

[Lois_Lane]

Someone please post photos of race ambiguous please. Neogaf has abandoned me.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

none of your links work

 

[l2ounD]

Let's use this example.

A white person and a black person have a child. What race is that child?

A lot of people will say "black". In fact, that used to be law.

Now, let's go further: that child grows up and marries a white person. What race are their children? The law used to be that those children were still considered "black". To be precise, the law in the US used to be that someone was considered "black" if even 1/32 of their heritage was African (if I remember correctly).

That sort of definition is common in discussions of race, but clearly has no basis at all in genetics. That second generation child of mixed heritage already mostly has "white" genetics. But definitions of race are not made based on genetic testing. They are based on superficial features such as shades of skin color.

Complicating attempts to link race and genetics is the fact that categorizations of race often clump together people of widely varying ethnicity and background. For example, the category of "Asian" is problematic, since it links together some wildly different ethnicities into a category that implies a common ancestry that doesn't really exist. These places are lumped together in a way that completely ignores the realities of how these groups of people actually relate to each other.

Thanks for trying to clear this up, I think Im beginning to understand it better.
But lets say if you wanted to prove you're native american to get the us subsidies, dont you have to prove through genetic tests? Or is that a weird US law thing

 

[Shai-Tan]

so then if a social construct has real world effects couldnt it affect intelligence? seems like people want to have it both ways with this concept

Differences in treatment, culture, whatever would still mostly fall under environmental effects. It's possible there are population level differences on average in genes that affect IQ but the genes that correlate with the social construction of race will change over time if attitudes change. As late as the 90s it was fairly common in North America to have parents tell their children not to date or marry outside of race/culture.

It's possible Murray's worry about the "cognitive elite" (self selecting into a pattern of assortative mating) would have some kind of genetic component but it's not specifically racial and inequality in that scenario also leads to large differences in means to perpetuate inequality (money, social capital) which probably weaken the effect he's worried about if the pattern doesn't hold. People think he's obsessed with racial differences but that's what his book and Coming Apart are about.

 

[Lois_Lane]

none of your links work

I know, it's pissing me off since I managed to get a good album made already.

Someone post the blonde Solomon kids for me.

 

[The Technomancer]

"what seems to be unique is the level of demoralization featured among the white community" motherfucker black people were slaves

 

[willy_2]

Thanks for trying to clear this up, I think Im beginning to understand it better.
But lets say if you wanted to prove you're native american to get the us subsidies, dont you have to prove through genetic tests? Or is that a weird US law thing

i think you would need a certificate of indian blood.

 

[AJLma]

What makes him black? Literally just skin tone?

Those examples prove that the people you are calling black are not objectively black.

Some weird mental gymnastics going on here. Those are clearly 2 people who are part of the race that is most widely discriminated against on this planet under this worldwide white supremacist system. The ones that Sam Harris is claiming would most likely have a "lower IQ" if they took an IQ test. How they might self-identify is irrelevant, because how they self-identify is not the source of the problem.

 

[Lois_Lane]

i think you would need a certificate of indian blood.

Correct. http://www.gocollege.com/financial-aid/scholarships/minority/native-american-scholarships.html

 

[Mesousa]

Some weird mental gymnastics going on here. Those are clearly 2 people who are part of the race that is most widely discriminated against on this planet under this worldwide white supremacist system. The ones that Sam Harris is claiming would most likely have a "lower IQ" if they took an IQ test. How they might self-identify is irrelevant, because how they self-identify is not the source of the problem.

Yep.

You can call yourself whatever you want. The world views you as black.

 

[The Technomancer]

Some weird mental gymnastics going on here. Those are clearly 2 people who are part of the race that is most widely discriminated against on this planet under this worldwide white supremacist system. The ones that Sam Harris is claiming would most likely have a "lower IQ" if they took an IQ test. How they might self-identify is irrelevant, because how they self-identify is not the source of the problem.

The assertion by Murray is that the reason for this is genetic

 

[AJLma]

The assertion by Murray is that the reason for this is genetic

And those 2 have some damn strong "black" genes.

 

[Brakke]

Thanks for trying to clear this up, I think Im beginning to understand it better.
But lets say if you wanted to prove you're native american to get the us subsidies, dont you have to prove through genetic tests? Or is that a weird US law thing

i think you would need a certificate of indian blood.

https://www.doi.gov/tribes/enrollment

Enrollment criteria vary by tribe. System is far from perfect tho, some tribes gatekeep enrollment and lineage is often very difficult to prove.

 

[The Technomancer]

aaaand now Harris is all in on defending freeze peach

 

[FyreWulff]

Thanks for trying to clear this up, I think Im beginning to understand it better.
But lets say if you wanted to prove you're native american to get the us subsidies, dont you have to prove through genetic tests? Or is that a weird US law thing

That's done via paperwork tracked by tribes and the government. That whole ball of wax is a whole thread unto itself that the majority of the internet possess about 2% of the community maturity required to even have the beginning of the introduction of the discussion about native sovereignty and relations in the US.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Easy to spot the people who didn't bother listening to the podcast. Anyone who did come away from that discussion viewing either of them as racist is beyond help at this point.

Charles Murray has been a prominent figure for decades. I am well aware of his views and have been since long before he appeared on this podcast. He is a racist. Period. A racist who likes to dress up his views in pseudoscience to sound respectable, maybe, but a racist nonetheless. I guess that makes me "beyond help."

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I listened to this and Murray's answer to the WHY question didn't really satisfy. There's a conservative bent to this man that really doesn't sit well with me in the context of what he's writing about.

I'm not sure if Harris found it satisfactory either, since he brought up a few times, but he just kind of let Murray give his reasons without much feedback.

(Of course Murray gets a Christina Hoff Sommers mention in there as well. I can't stand her ass, so I took note. I guess these controversial "intellectuals" love to stick together, huh?)

But why is that relevant here? Were the participants in the research behind the Bell Curve sorted into race categories by the researchers or did they self-report?

I believe he alluded to it being a self-reporting process, not anything more specific than that.

 

[Foffy]

Sam should really, really stick to just talking about how a self and free will are illusions.

These are the only times I find him speaking from a position of genuine, truthful authority.

I also didn't like how on this podcast episode the topic of UBI came up, and Sam didn't challenge Murray at all with the "people will be lazy" which I saw to have a racial bend to it.

 

[The Technomancer]

I listened to two hours and eighteen minutes of this and I am actively angry that I did. No it didn't "provide further context", it only made it worse. This was a load of bullshit and no-one else needs to listen to it

 

[sphagnum]

Other examples of race not really being genetic is how Persians can vary between looking pure "white" and "Middle Eastern", or how the Irish and Italians were once not white and now are (or how Greeks were then weren't and now sometimes are and sometimes arent white), or the entire invention of the Hispanic race, or how a guy from Nigeria will look nothing like a guy from Somalia will look nothing like a guy from the Congo will look nothing like a light skinned black guy in America and yet they're all "black".

 

[Angelus Errare]

That dude is black too.

The white/latino picture isn't working.

Only further proves race is a social construct that doesn't provide nearly enough nuance to be used in a scientific argument, which is why most of us are dismissing this for the racist bullshit it is.

 

[Sadsic]

... you think The Bell Curve is arguing that these social constructs and society are what is affecting intelligence scores?

I have no opinion on this book or this person, but I'm getting mixed messages on whether or not I as a white person am allowed to use this phrase ("race is a social construct") - is it offensive to use this phrase when discussing race, or is it a legitimized idea? If I am to discuss race with a minority, is it offensive to tell them your race is imaginary? I am to assume yes this is, because of real world anecdotal experiences, as well as the very real culture of being a racial minority (black culture, hispanic culture, etc). I find that calling race a fictional concept in one way while calling it quite real in another way is quite confusing for most people - what would be the purpose of calling it imaginary to begin with if you are destroying a person's identity, especially if they are someone more prone to suffering?

I am a socially liberal white male in a committed relationship with a black female - I would like to think I am not racist / a good ally to minorities, but I find critical race theory to be an endless hall of mirrors as to what it wants with white people. Am I to be ashamed of my race, endlessly trying to search for all the ways the white race has poisoned reality? I believe white privilege, institutionalized racism, scientific racism etc are all real and terrible concepts which harm minorities; but I do not believe you can spend your entire academic body focusing on how the majority is the reason for all problems in society - people only have so much tolerance for being told they are wrong or incorrect.

How can a majority race even exist in the concept of critical race theory? How can a "white" race even acknowledge itself if it is the "guilty" party in the social racial construct? Would it be better to have a "post-racial" society, in which no one has a race? Would it be better to not to acknowledge a white race, but to allow the other races to foster? There does not seem to be any easy answers to any of these questions - but I do not believe the ideas of critical race theory bring any sort of "solution" to any of these questions.

One thing I have realized in life is that reality is much more subjective than they seem - there is no true right or wrong answer when it comes to perception. If people want to say race exists, then it will exist. If people want to say it doesn't exist, it won't exist. No amount of data will change this in the human mind. The real question in my mind is, what causes the least amount of human suffering - the existence and divisions of race, or the absence and removal of racial hierarchy? I believe you could make a case for both sides ultimately - for it to be better to have a racial identity, or never have one to begin with.

I do not believe many racial minorities would want their racial identity erased - in many ways, much of the culture of humanity comes from racial/tribal concepts. On the flipside, I think the white identity is in a state of limbo right now, in which there is no cherishing of a white identity, and it's generally unheard for any sort of white culture to exist, that is not itself shared with the rest of culture, unless you are talking about abject racist culture which is what much of this thread is against. What is to be done about all this? I'm really not sure myself, but it's quite interesting to think about.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

There's a fairly obvious difference between the idea that cultural differences and differences in economic mobility that blacks and other minorities are more likely to be subject to influences their academic performance, and the idea that minorities are inherently, biologically less intelligent then whites.

Come on son

 

[Sunster]

I listened to two hours and eighteen minutes of this and I am actively angry that I did. No it didn't "provide further context", it only made it worse. This was a load of bullshit and no-one else needs to listen to it

But if you just listen to every podcast Sam has ever done you'll see that really he's a cool, smart, down to earth guy and NOT a racist at all! He's never said he hates black people so I'm pretty sure he can't be racist. /s

 

[Kelsdesu]

I am good.

Pro tip people, you don't need a sliderule or a formula to say you hate Niggers. Just say it, be honest with yourself and everyone

These motherfuckers, Slay... These motherfuckers serious.

 

[darkistheway]

There's a fairly obvious difference between the idea that cultural differences and differences in economic mobility that blacks and other minorities are more likely to be subject to influences their academic performance, and the idea that minorities are inherently, biologically less intelligent then whites.

Come on son

Honestly, first time I heard of the Bell Curve book, I assumed it was from the fifties.

Because that seems to be the scientific era it uses.

 

[Dude Abides]

Not surprising. Sam Harris is a pretend scientist who dislikes when black people get too uppity.

 

[unpopularblargh]

But if you just listen to every podcast Sam has ever done you'll see that really he's a cool, smart, down to earth guy and NOT a racist at all! He's never said he hates black people so I'm pretty sure he can't be racist. /s

It changed from "you're misrepresenting him" to "you're missing the nuance" (that's usually added after he puts his foot in mouth) to "just listen to the podcast"... I wonder what's next.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Still waiting for those magical context quotes from the whole podcast that make Sam Harris saying he believes in the Bell Curve mean that he somehow doesn't despite saying he explicitly does.

So far the only person to provide context of the whole podcast has only provided more examples for why this is fucked up....


Anytime now I'm sure one of y'all will come in with quotes right?

 

[The Technomancer]

Still waiting for those magical context quotes from the whole podcast that make Sam Harris saying he believes in the Bell Curve mean that he somehow doesn't despite saying he explicitly does.

So far the only person to provide context of the whole podcast has only made it sound worse not better.

The first half of the podcast you really could sort of read charitably if you weren't that familiar with The Bell Curve and all the discussion around it. Like, these guys don't have any clue what they're talking about with regards to race but they don't seem malicious, just ignorant

Then Murray starts talking about affirmative action and MIT and it just goes to complete shit

EDIT: And by "charitably" I just mean that the whole "gee willikers we're just trying to follow where the data leads and its in service of actual progressive ideals honest guys" could almost work

 

[AJLma]

But if you just listen to every podcast Sam has ever done you'll see that really he's a cool, smart, down to earth guy and NOT a racist at all! He's never said he hates black people so I'm pretty sure he can't be racist. /s

Before there was Nazism there was Rationalism. The segregation and separation of every idea and element in an effort to squeeze out every tiny bit of difference(profit) and find out where each piece "fits" in the puzzle(of an ordered society). Sam Harris' philosophical approach represents a throwback to pure, unapologetic, discriminatory rationalism in the name of the so-called "greater good" of society(ex. "people just don't want to hear the truth!"). Unfortunately how pure rationalism manifests when applied on a government level scale is always destructive to both overall humanity(including the typically racist rationalists) and the planet itself(by way of giving birth to atheism). Sam Harris is trying to breath some new life into a dying way of thinking, and he's also trying to expand his audience base into these newly awakened Trump supporters who could probably use a healthy dose of rationale for their racist arguments. It'll work.

 

[Slayven]

How do black folks in GAF feel about being told their race is dumber than whites?

It's a day that ends in Y ain't it?

These motherfuckers, Slay... These motherfuckers serious.

Ain't nothing new but the rent, if you dehumanize something you don't have to feel guilty about treating it bad

 

[SwolBro]

I wonder....

1. how many people here actually read the bell curve vs the people that just read a critique of it from what they perceive to be ultimate authority

2. how many people here actually listened to this interview


Me, personally, i listened to the interview. I did not find anything remotely "racist" about the interview, at all. I have not read the bell curve but from everything i heard in this interview and what i read about the book i can't see how people conclude that this guy is some type of mad racist.

From wiki,

"Part III. The National Context"[edit]
This part of the book discusses ethnic differences in cognitive ability and social behavior. Herrnstein and Murray report that Asian Americans have a higher mean IQ than white Americans, who in turn outscore black Americans. The book argues that the black-white gap is not due to test bias, noting that IQ tests do not tend to underpredict the school or job performance of black individuals and that the gap is larger on apparently culturally neutral test items than on more culturally loaded items. The authors also note that adjusting for socioeconomic status does not eliminate the black-white IQ gap. However, they argue that the gap is narrowing.[1]

According to Herrnstein and Murray, the high heritability of IQ within races does not necessarily mean that the cause of differences between races is genetic. On the other hand, they discuss lines of evidence that have been used to support the thesis that the black-white gap is at least partly genetic, such as Spearman's hypothesis. They also discuss possible environmental explanations of the gap, such as the observed generational increases in IQ, for which they coin the term Flynn effect. At the close of this discussion, they write:[1]

"If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate."

The authors also stress that regardless of the causes of differences, people should be treated no differently

How is any of this racist? It could be uncomfortable, but racist? I don't see it. I also don't see any type of blow up over them saying Asians scored higher. No one seemed to blink an eye over that.

Maybe i'm confused though, maybe i don't know what being "racist" actually encompasses anymore. I'm legitimately confused now because i used to think "racist" meant someone that passes judgement on someone else solely based on skin color/racial background.

And if i recall correctly from the interview Murray wanted to investigate what was going on with the elite structures of america, especially amongst the growing "cognitive elite". This was in the late 80s, early 90s, and now we're seeing this more than ever aren't we? We're seeing certain zip codes leaving everyone in the dust in the STEM fields.

 

[Cyframe]

Okay, so I realize I'm jumping in at a bad spot, but... did you read what he said?

Race effects environmental factors, which results in developmental differences. He's implying that being something other than white will result in racial discrimination playing a role in your environmental development, which accounts for 20%-50% of the end result of your personhood.

What he's saying is that being discriminated against creates a hostile environment that effects your development resulting in worse test scores.

Or are you going to tell me that super rich school districts having higher test scores than somewhere in Alabama's black belt is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with systemic discrimination based on race?

Again, no disrespect, but I would advise you to visit the library or at least browse through this thread, where people have posted links.

I'm African American. My ancestors were stolen and forced into slavery. I could go into a spiel about economics, equity, and opportunity but I will just say that Ruby Bridges, the first Black person to ever enter a desegregated school is 62 years old.

It's one thing to recognize racial discrimination. It's another thing to say, intelligence is innate and unchangeable. Murray's main sources, that are linked in OP are from a white supremacist who praised Apartheid.

Sam Harris, mostly agreed with Murray. In this interview, Sam is no different than an Obama Birther, he's on that level of intellect if he's going to humor Murray and not really challenge him. Sam could have invited on any Black historian, scientist, or even a Black HS teenager to tell him about the bell curve and why it's baseless.

So, I will give you one chance to explain to me, how my intellect and overall growth potential is limited, not by environmental factors and systematic racism, but because I'm Black. You are telling me, that I'm subscribing to outrage porn when I know who Sam is interviewing, I know the history of my ancestors, I listened to a bit of a podcast, and I'm not happy.

I'm not happy when fake progressive thinkers that continue to give a platform supporting racism. I'm sick of Sam's Islamaphobia, which is well documented. I'm sick of talking about IQ's and how I don't have the capacity for intelligence that white people. I'm sick of Sam and Bill Maher and Dawkins and the like, that normalize racism, and think they know better than people who live it every day.

From what I listened to, Harris was comparable to Wendy Williams, except Wendy digs for answers and knows about her guests. Harris had so many opportunities to confront Murray and he didn't. Either because know (which is unacceptable, considering this is not a new topic) or he agrees with him (and he did agree, on many points).

 

[The Technomancer]

Me, personally, i listened to the interview. I did not find anything remotely "racist" about the interview, at all. I have not read the bell curve but from everything i heard in this interview and what i read about the book i can't see how people conclude that this guy is some type of mad racist.

How about the entire part about black students dropping out of MIT because apparently the black students who get into MIT are in the top 4% of intelligence while the whites and others selected for MIT are in the top 1%?

 

[Azzanadra]

Man I like Harris so this is disappointing... I haven't given it a listen yet so I won't jump to conclusions, but that book is straight garbo.

 

[L Thammy]

angrywhitemen.org...?

 

[sphagnum]

I have no opinion on this book or this person, but I'm getting mixed messages on whether or not I as a white person am allowed to use this phrase ("race is a social construct") - is it offensive to use this phrase when discussing race, or is it a legitimized idea? If I am to discuss race with a minority, is it offensive to tell them your race is imaginary? I am to assume yes this is, because of real world anecdotal experiences, as well as the very real culture of being a racial minority (black culture, hispanic culture, etc). I find that calling race a fictional concept in one way while calling it quite real in another way is quite confusing for most people - what would be the purpose of calling it imaginary to begin with if you are destroying a person's identity, especially if they are someone more prone to suffering?

It's not wrong to say that race is a social construct, because it is. What's wrong is when people use that to handwave away talking about racism ("I'm colorblind, I don't even see it! It's all a social construct so what does it matter! Can't we talk about the REAL issues???")

Race isn't real biologically. It is real socially.

I am a socially liberal white male in a committed relationship with a black female - I would like to think I am not racist / a good ally to minorities, but I find critical race theory to be an endless hall of mirrors as to what it wants with white people. Am I to be ashamed of my race, endlessly trying to search for all the ways the white race has poisoned reality? I believe white privilege, institutionalized racism, scientific racism etc are all real and terrible concepts which harm minorities; but I do not believe you can spend your entire academic body focusing on how the majority is the reason for all problems in society - people only have so much tolerance for being told they are wrong or incorrect.

No, white guilt is stupid and counterproductive and largely just virtue signalling. Just be a good person and own up to it when you botch something.

How can a majority race even exist in the concept of critical race theory? How can a "white" race even acknowledge itself if it is the "guilty" party in the social racial construct? Would it be better to have a "post-racial" society, in which no one has a race? Would it be better to not to acknowledge a white race, but to allow the other races to foster? There does not seem to be any easy answers to any of these questions - but I do not believe the ideas of critical race theory bring any sort of "solution" to any of these questions.

Whiteness is defined by it's opposition to everything else so yeah, it would be nice if we could stop considering ourselves white. However, that's not going to happen without some sort of massive, world-historic cultural change. So we just have to use our privilege to try to undermine racism.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I wonder....

1. how many people here actually read the bell curve vs the people that just read a critique of it from what they perceive to be ultimate authority

2. how many people here actually listened to this interview


Me, personally, i listened to the interview. I did not find anything remotely "racist" about the interview, at all. I have not read the bell curve but from everything i heard in this interview and what i read about the book i can't see how people conclude that this guy is some type of mad racist.

From wiki,



How is any of this racist? It could be uncomfortable, but racist? I don't see it. I also don't see any type of blow up over them saying Asians scored higher. No one seemed to blink an eye over that.

Maybe i'm confused though, maybe i don't know what being "racist" actually encompasses anymore. I'm legitimately confused now because i used to think "racist" meant someone that passes judgement on someone else solely based on skin color/racial background.

And if i recall correctly from the interview Murray wanted to investigate what was going on with the elite structures of america, especially amongst the growing "cognitive elite". This was in the late 80s, early 90s, and now we're seeing this more than ever aren't we? We're seeing certain zip codes leaving everyone in the dust in the STEM fields.

Do you believe that as a white man, you are biologically inferior to Asian people with regard to intelligence

 

[Slayven]

I have no opinion on this book or this person, but I'm getting mixed messages on whether or not I as a white person am allowed to use this phrase ("race is a social construct") - is it offensive to use this phrase when discussing race, or is it a legitimized idea? If I am to discuss race with a minority, is it offensive to tell them your race is imaginary? I am to assume yes this is, because of real world anecdotal experiences, as well as the very real culture of being a racial minority (black culture, hispanic culture, etc). I find that calling race a fictional concept in one way while calling it quite real in another way is quite confusing for most people - what would be the purpose of calling it imaginary to begin with if you are destroying a person's identity, especially if they are someone more prone to suffering?

I am a socially liberal white male in a committed relationship with a black female - I would like to think I am not racist / a good ally to minorities, but I find critical race theory to be an endless hall of mirrors as to what it wants with white people. Am I to be ashamed of my race, endlessly trying to search for all the ways the white race has poisoned reality? I believe white privilege, institutionalized racism, scientific racism etc are all real and terrible concepts which harm minorities; but I do not believe you can spend your entire academic body focusing on how the majority is the reason for all problems in society - people only have so much tolerance for being told they are wrong or incorrect.

How can a majority race even exist in the concept of critical race theory? How can a "white" race even acknowledge itself if it is the "guilty" party in the social racial construct? Would it be better to have a "post-racial" society, in which no one has a race? Would it be better to not to acknowledge a white race, but to allow the other races to foster? There does not seem to be any easy answers to any of these questions - but I do not believe the ideas of critical race theory bring any sort of "solution" to any of these questions.

One thing I have realized in life is that reality is much more subjective than they seem - there is no true right or wrong answer when it comes to perception. If people want to say race exists, then it will exist. If people want to say it doesn't exist, it won't exist. No amount of data will change this in the human mind. The real question in my mind is, what causes the least amount of human suffering - the existence and divisions of race, or the absence and removal of racial hierarchy? I believe you could make a case for both sides ultimately - for it to be better to have a racial identity, or never have one to begin with.

I do not believe many racial minorities would want their racial identity erased - in many ways, much of the culture of humanity comes from racial/tribal concepts. On the flipside, I think the white identity is in a state of limbo right now, in which there is no cherishing of a white identity, and it's generally unheard for any sort of white culture to exist, that is not itself shared with the rest of culture, unless you are talking about abject racist culture which is what much of this thread is against. What is to be done about all this? I'm really not sure myself, but it's quite interesting to think about.

Read Tim Wise

Do you believe that as a white man, you are biologically inferior to Asian people with regard to intelligence

No one ever takes that far

 

[The Technomancer]

White culture is not shared with the rest of culture. It is forced upon it. It is inescapable.

EDIT: I'm a white dude and I gotta own that shit

 

[Sadsic]

Read Tim Wise

any particular recommendation?

 

[SwolBro]

How about the entire part about black students dropping out of MIT because apparently the black students who get into MIT are in the top 4% of intelligence while the whites and others selected for MIT are in the top 1%?

Can you time stamp for me so i can go back and listen to it in it's entirety.

Do you believe that as a white man, you are biologically inferior to Asian people with regard to intelligence

I'm from South America, am i white male? Yeah i guess. My grandparents on one side were German, and on the other side spread all over the SA continent.

If someone told me that my IQ has genetic underpinnings and the evidence is there to prove this then????? What am i supposed to do? Call them a racist? I don't see how that does any good. If Asians on average score much higher in spatial complexity and whatever else then i'd like to know why, we should all want to know why and proceed from there.

 

[The Technomancer]

Can you time stamp for me so i can go back and listen to it in it's entirety.

I think its between 1:00 and 1:20, somewhere around there

 

[MattKeil]

I'm from South America, am i white male? Yeah i guess. My grandparents on one side were German, and on the other side spread all over the SA continent.

If someone told me that my IQ has genetic underpinnings and the evidence is there to prove this then????? What am i supposed to do? Call them a racist? If Asians on average score much higher in spatial complexity and whatever else then i'd like to know why, we should all want to know why and proceed from there. I don't see how that does any good.

The greatest predictor of intelligence is, by most accounts, genetic. There is no genetic component to race, therefore race cannot be a direct predictive influence on innate intelligence. Race would only be correlated with intelligence differences due to societal structures and pressures, not causally related. Therefore the notion The Bell Curve presents, which is that race has a direct relation to one's intelligence, is inherently flawed given our scientific understanding of how intelligence works and our sociological understanding of what race is. The only possible way to look at the data and leap to "Asians are inherently smarter and black people are inherently dumber" is to have a pre-existing racial bias one wishes to have confirmed. The science simply doesn't support that interpretation.