Tweet
I mean, it's just too easy to call someone a racist and hide behind the PC shield, thereby forcing them to frantically disprove these allegations instead of discussing the point in question. No matter how moderate the view presented might be, anything but "the blank slate" can safely by labelled racist to stop the debate in this way.
I mean, it's obvious people are different, both physically and mentally, and it's obvious that these differences correlate with sociocultural groups which, in their own turn, often correlate with ethnic backgrounds. It's not a bloody functional relationship, so would you please stop pretending Hera thinks it is?
Is it too hard to acknowledge that there's an interplay of culture and evolutionary selection that might cause different average IQ levels and other personality traits through a cycle of positive reinforcement?
Modern African immigrants in the US are one of the most successful sociocultural groups, a bloody model minority, while the descendants of African slaves are one of the least. Again I have to reiterate (because some of you really revel in constructing and then fighting this straw man) this doesn't mean every single one of them is a retarded lazy welfare-tit sucker.
Why is that? First of all, the slaves that were sold to the traders weren't chosen for their quick wit and academic achievements. The most prized were strong and complacent. The slave owners of the American South didn't value their slaves' intelligence. Sure, they might've needed a few smart slaves for household duties, but their most numerous slaves were picked for their endurance. By controlling the marriages they were able to exert huge pressure on the gene pool. On the other hand, certain other traits were also favoured in the slave population. For a disenfranchised person who cannot hope to amass a personal fortune the most pressing needs are avoiding harsh work and punishment, that is, sticking it to the man. This culture, along with another 100 years of segregation has created a culture of mistrust towards the white population of the US.
Yes, these 100 years of segregation didn't help either. When any but the most brilliant achievement is repressed, this doesn't help the culture at all. And these outliers that manage to achieve success and evade the condemnation tend to lose touch with their culture. They're no longer role models and they're no longer affected by the general trends in their parent population.
And the last 50 years didn't help either. Welfare-doused inner cities have created a new potent culture (which of course is rooted in the previous one) that doesn't reward academic excellence. Any success not aligned with the cultural life goals is generally dismissed and might be met with a shower of Oreos. Of course the average IQ is lower than the countrywide average. Yes, there are some simplifications in this explanations, but I can't be bothered to put warning clauses and confidence intervals everywhere.
It's equally simple to observe and explain how the Chinese diaspora came to dominate the economy of the SE Asia or how come there are so many Ashkenazim in academia, but it's late here. And yet you prefer to shoot the messenger because the message is bitter.
Yes, it's the culture and the pressure it exerts on the heritable traits that makes some sociocultural groups better or worse at some things. And yes, this means some cultures are more equal than others. And yes, refusing to acknowledge this and calling anyone who thinks so racist is stupid.
/soapbox
Also, I don't advocate actively reforming a culture from the outside. This is pointless. It's useful to exert some mild general pressure, but to rewrite the cultural code you need people who are rightfully considered role models. And this process will take time. Obama's example won't make every black kid run to a law school. But it helps.
I mean, it's obvious people are different, both physically and mentally, and it's obvious that these differences correlate with sociocultural groups which, in their own turn, often correlate with ethnic backgrounds. It's not a bloody functional relationship, so would you please stop pretending Hera thinks it is?
Is it too hard to acknowledge that there's an interplay of culture and evolutionary selection that might cause different average IQ levels and other personality traits through a cycle of positive reinforcement?
Modern African immigrants in the US are one of the most successful sociocultural groups, a bloody model minority, while the descendants of African slaves are one of the least. Again I have to reiterate (because some of you really revel in constructing and then fighting this straw man) this doesn't mean every single one of them is a retarded lazy welfare-tit sucker.
Why is that? First of all, the slaves that were sold to the traders weren't chosen for their quick wit and academic achievements. The most prized were strong and complacent. The slave owners of the American South didn't value their slaves' intelligence. Sure, they might've needed a few smart slaves for household duties, but their most numerous slaves were picked for their endurance. By controlling the marriages they were able to exert huge pressure on the gene pool. On the other hand, certain other traits were also favoured in the slave population. For a disenfranchised person who cannot hope to amass a personal fortune the most pressing needs are avoiding harsh work and punishment, that is, sticking it to the man. This culture, along with another 100 years of segregation has created a culture of mistrust towards the white population of the US.
Yes, these 100 years of segregation didn't help either. When any but the most brilliant achievement is repressed, this doesn't help the culture at all. And these outliers that manage to achieve success and evade the condemnation tend to lose touch with their culture. They're no longer role models and they're no longer affected by the general trends in their parent population.
And the last 50 years didn't help either. Welfare-doused inner cities have created a new potent culture (which of course is rooted in the previous one) that doesn't reward academic excellence. Any success not aligned with the cultural life goals is generally dismissed and might be met with a shower of Oreos. Of course the average IQ is lower than the countrywide average. Yes, there are some simplifications in this explanations, but I can't be bothered to put warning clauses and confidence intervals everywhere.
It's equally simple to observe and explain how the Chinese diaspora came to dominate the economy of the SE Asia or how come there are so many Ashkenazim in academia, but it's late here. And yet you prefer to shoot the messenger because the message is bitter.
Yes, it's the culture and the pressure it exerts on the heritable traits that makes some sociocultural groups better or worse at some things. And yes, this means some cultures are more equal than others. And yes, refusing to acknowledge this and calling anyone who thinks so racist is stupid.
/soapbox
Also, I don't advocate actively reforming a culture from the outside. This is pointless. It's useful to exert some mild general pressure, but to rewrite the cultural code you need people who are rightfully considered role models. And this process will take time. Obama's example won't make every black kid run to a law school. But it helps.
Serb taught you well. This is a berserk button for Russians. 
Comment