Graduashun bee raycist

submitted by weiB from files.catbox.moe

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Zahn 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

Yes. Usually the simplest answer is the more correct answer. Or you can go through elaborate mental gymnastics, cherry picking information to arrive at your own predetermined conclusion.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/is-success-in-our-genes.html

And so much more. Regardless of race, you already are cognitive of the fact there are actual "dumb" people. Genetics is most everything. This is like an intelligence litmus test for you, can you figure it out?

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Usually the simplest answer is the more correct answer

So your response here is that because socioeconomics is complicated and multi-dimensional, it must be racial differences that explain everything? Because race is easier for you to understand?

Now you reply with an article, that isn't about race, as evidence that racial differences are the only real factor in differences in life outcomes, when all the article talks about is the fact that genetics in general do play a factor, something which is actually well-established, and not what I was arguing against.

We are now deep into Dunning-Kruger territory here. Why don't we take a look at an actual paper that actually explores the question of how your socioeconomic realities growing up play into life outcomes, shall we?

This is "Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective". Using a huge dataset, they examine the question of how a large variety of socioeconomic factors from one's childhood affect their life outcomes as adults. This includes things like the household income of the parents, whether the father was present at the home, whether the family ever had to move and at what age, etc.

Now I first stumbled across this paper about a year ago, and I found it quite interesting. But what I find interesting now is that I definitely remembered correctly when I came away with the impression that with just one factor, the income of your parents, you can observe a disparity which far exceeds the racial gap. Except now I've got you telling me not only that socioeconomics doesn't matter, but that your claim is supported by science and anyone who claims otherwise is...what was it again..."promoting a non-scientific faith-based belief system".

Now looking at this paper, and contrasting that your claims, I have to come to one of two conclusions:

1) This paper is fake, written by liberal professors who generated phony data so they could make an argument not supported by science

2) Socioeconomic factors do indeed play a significant role in shaping a child's development, and you are just a racist who has deluded yourself into believing that your position is supported by science.

Which conclusion do you think I came to, Zahn?

[–]Zahn 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not talking about race, I am talking about the strong genetic factor linking to education and life outcomes. Since you're a bigot who is race obsessed, I presumed you would quickly resort to an ad hominem to shore up your weak argument. You provided two left leaning pro-big spending Economics authors....Not actual Scientists, who came to the surprising conclusion that we need to spend even more money.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180905-how-genes-influence-achievement-and-success-in-school

Are you going to believe economists or scientists?

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Correlation and causation. Interesting concepts, which you ought to look up.

Hint: Do smart people earn more money?

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Still waiting for the paper that explains your very-science-based view that race is the only thing that really matters, which you won't produce, because it doesn't exist, because the claim that socioeconomics doesn't matter is just wrong.

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Its 4 am here. If you actually want to change your mind you should just post your claim in s/debatealtright and they will post hundreds of studies. Its well documented.

The average is 49% genetics, the range is around 40-80% for most.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I am aware that genetics plays a factor in life outcomes, and I am also aware that there are genetic disparities between races that will lead to some disparity in life outcomes on average. But his claim was that socioeconomics doesn't matter, and that anyone that believed differently was living in some leftist faith-based fantasy land. That claim was absurd, and what I was trying to disprove.

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

I said mostly, not 100%. You are giving your faith to a concept that has not been concisely proven, was only an hypothesis to begin with and now is clear it has, for the most part, failed.

The main factor in academic success is genetics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6194053/

Imagine a world where education, instead of treating everyone as if a one size shoe fits all, is tailored toward people's genetic proclivities instead.

I'm not a geneticist per se, but I do have a background in genetics. I was always amazed, in my niche, at how genetic potential was still often expressed despite a substandard environment. This is true for all living things.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

From the beginning, what I said is that racial differences only account for a minority of difference in life outcomes. The guy I was replying to said "races do exist, and there is an intelligence gap between the races".

I replied to that saying that those differences only account for a minority of the disparity in outcomes.

You replied to that saying that genetics is everything. You did switch from "race" to "genetics" here, but if genetics is everything, then by extension, disparities in life outcomes among races are explained almost entirely by genetics, as that is what determines the differences between races.

I even asked for clarification, citing a number of socioeconomic factors, asking if instead what you were saying was "whether you were black or not" was what really mattered. You replied simply, "yes".

I will throw you a bone here and say you didn't actually read it that closely, so you didn't realize that I asked specifically if you believed the science said this was a racial issue. Honestly, I have no problems doing this, because it's clear you don't read anything that closely. Every link you've posted only establishes that genetics matter. Neither of them claim that genetics are even "mostly" what matter.

You never had any basis to claim that anyone who disagreed with you was living in a faith-based fantasy land. When you affirmed that you believed that socioeconomics didn't matter, you really just affirmed that you're the one living in a fantasy land, because the circumstances of your upbringing do in fact matter.

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

At least two of the three links clearly stated that genes mattered more than environment, but you are not reading them thoroughly. The circumstances of your upbringing certainly do matter, just not as much. This figure is believed to be anywhere from 65%- 80+% for the gene's influence.

It is faith based to believe that similar input = similar outcome despite the wide genetic variation of the organism in question that qualifies that outcome.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You're just doing the same revisionism shit here. I asked if you were saying that genetics was the only major factor, you confirmed that was what you were saying. Now you concede that

The circumstances of your upbringing certainly do matter, just not as much.

Glad you've finally found your way out of fantasy land. Before you were claiming that these things didn't matter in any real way, now you acknowledge that they do. I don't feel like arguing percentages with you, because the primary objective - which was to get you to realize your head was stuffed up your ass - has been accomplished.

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I replied to that saying that those differences only account for a minority of the disparity in outcomes.

This is wrong if by outcomes you mean intelligence

[–]BigFatRetard 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Intelligence isn't necessarily success.

If you have a few kids from the same parent, you can have much different outcomes for each child despite ostensibly having a relatively similar genetic makeup.

Just look at the Trumps. Donald Trump became President and bangs supermodels, Fred Trump drank himself to death.

[–]Zahn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Having similar genes doesn't mean that they express in the same way. So even two siblings will have variations because they have genes that are differently expressed and some that are recessive.

[–]BigFatRetard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that's true, but given the heritability of intelligence from generation to generation, I'd argue that the genetics of a brother and a sister or two brothers or two sisters is going to be much more similar than that of a white person and a completely unrelated black person, so assuming all success is genetic determinism doesn't seem to bear out. Even among people who are based on the same two parents you have huge differences.

The other thing is that I do believe that choice strongly factors into success, going back to the part I said where intelligence isn't the only factor in success. I look at my own reasonably successful life, and 2-3 choices would have a substantial impact on my level of success. Knock up a girl at 13, it all goes away. Give up on school and become a WoW addict, it all goes away. Get deep into cocaine, it all goes away. Those are choices we each need to make and while genetics may help, I don't think it's fully deterministic.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What a misleading characterization. Fred built the foundation that Trump stands on and taught him the real estate game.

[–]BigFatRetard 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not the elder Fred Trump, Fred Trump Fred and Mary Trump's son and Donald's brother.

[–]Trajan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Genetics isn’t almost everything. For big five traits overall it looks to be around 40-60%, with significant variance for some of the traits. Although there is good evidence of IQ being heritable at up to 80% (adults, not children), upbringing and social factors significantly mediate this effect. In ideal circumstances (e.g. good nutrition, stable household and social setting) heritability is in the higher end. In more challenged circumstances heritability drops.

I included personality along with IQ as both are strongly evidenced to affect outcomes.