Why People Feel Like Victims

I'm not sure why you're making sarcastic responses to things I didn't say in the first place.

If there is no disincentive for abuse, then abusive people will continue to inflict abuse on others for as long as they derive some emotional/social/financial gain from it. You are arguing that it is wholly up to those others (ie non-abusive people) to change themselves by making themselves less attractive targets in some fashion. But this has a cost and meantime the abusive person is gaining in strength and confidence. Also, new people are coming along all the time who are vulnerable to abusive behavior, so if previous targets become unattractive, abusers can rely on a relatively steady supply of new ones. I think you need to explain what the overall benefit of your approach is at the collective level.

It's also perplexing to me that you equate inflicting penalties upon abusers with 'becoming the abuser instead'. An abuser, by definition, is someone who inflicts pain or suffering on someone else who doesn't deserve it. Retaliation against abuse cannot be considered abuse, unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as a right to self-defense, only to self-protection. That seems similar to suggesting everyone become like turtles or snails, building shells which they can withdraw into when attacked but never developing any retaliatory capability.

I look forward to considering your alternative perspective.

> No. You're confusing group outcomes with individual ones.

This is a weird kind of selectivity. You weren't making this argument when OP claimed that teaching about systemic racism would be fatalistic. You were perfectly fine with the conflation between group outcomes and individual outcomes on that front.

So why the sudden change in heart?

Excuse the separate replies.

> nurture is as important as nature for IQ

Yes, I know that but how does it show that group IQ certainly isn't determined by genetics of race?

> You don't get to propose a ridiculous theory and then make it everyone else's job to disprove you. Secondly, there is plenty of evidence that this is not genetic, not the least being that genes for intelligence don't work that way and there is no single gene for intelligence, and also race doesn't work that way and there is no single genetic makeup of everyone who is Black. No one has ever found a set of genes solidly linked to intelligence that is shared across every Black community.

Why is the idea that the effect of genes on life outcomes is correlated with race ridiculous but the idea that effect of genes on life outcomes cannot be correlated with race is not? How are you making the decision for ridiculousness?

Why does the number of genes need to be 1 or a common genetic makeup for every member of a race need to exist? You should explain that to link those facts to your conclusion.

No one at all is claiming that there are no biological components to IQ. What we're claiming is that those effects are overstated, and that they aren't correlated with skin color, and that Black outcomes in the US can not be dismissed by saying they're a biological outcome.

(Some of) the reasons we're claiming that IQ is insufficient to explain racial disparities in the US are:

A) people have spent over 100 years trying to form this bullcrap correlation going back to the early days of slavery, and they've been disproved over and over again and we've started to notice a pattern here with how race scientists work.

B) the race/IQ link doesn't line up with our modern understanding of genetics.

C) the disparities we're studying show up in contexts that can't be explained by IQ.

D) the disparities we're seeing are larger than we would expect to see given IQ gaps.

E) the IQ gap itself has decreased over time in ways that are inconsistent with a view that is purely biological.

You say you understand that both nature and nurture are a part of IQ. Then surely, there are policies we can pass that will affect the nurture side of things. You're not denying that nurture exists, so even if you genuinely believed that 50% of these outcomes were from biology, I'd still expect you to at least support housing and education policies that can help with the other 50%. I expect that you'd still be on-board with scientifically-backed improvements that have been proven to affect IQ.

And yet you're on here claiming that measures to reduce poverty in Black communities can't possibly help. That's not a claim that's consistent with an acknowledgement that IQ has a behavioral component, the only way you'd assume that factors like poverty aren't at least part of the problem is if you believed the gap was 100% purely genetic. So do you?

> Why is the idea that the effect of genes on life outcomes is correlated with race ridiculous but the idea that effect of genes on life outcomes cannot be correlated with race is not?

First, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not intuitive or expected that a biological adaptation to sun level would affect the brain to the degree you're claiming. Linking skin pigmentation to the brain is an extraordinary (and silly) claim, and you need to show some evidence for that kind of claim.

Secondly, it's a ridiculous claim because it's not being made in a vacuum. It's being made as the next step in a long chain of claiming that Black people on average couldn't possibly be educated, and then that they could never read well, and then that they could never own their own businesses, and then that they could never self-govern or take care of their own communities. And after a while of watching the same claim get disproved over and over again, you start to realize these people don't know what they're talking about and they're just making stuff up out of thin air. In this comment section, we follow Bayes.

So in that context, when somebody comes up to me and says, "okay, I know the last 20 arguments people made about biological inferiority in Blacks were wrong, and fundamentally I'm about to make the same argument again, but this time is special and you have to take it seriously..." Just, no, you're wasting my time at that point unless you're bringing some kind of real compelling evidence to the table.

And I don't see any compelling evidence you're bringing to the table.

> Why does the number of genes need to be 1 or a common genetic makeup for every member of a race need to exist? You should explain that to link those facts to your conclusion.

If there is a shared set of genes linked to intelligence that show up the same in every Black person regardless of their country of origin, or regardless of their percentage African/European ancestry, then I would expect people to be able to point to those genes. But they can't.

You're claiming that there's a shared racial genetic outcome. So what are the shared genes for people with that race? Where are they?

You don't know what these genes are, or how they affect intelligence, and how they're linked to skin color, or even what percentage of the Black community shares them, but you're super-convinced that there's a strong link between our brains and our ability to get a sun tan. And yeah, that's kind of silly and ridiculous. A comparatively small number of genes control skin color, and it's not really consistent with our current understanding of genetics to think that intelligence is based off of something so specific.

Wow, that's a human with real force of character! Thank you for sharing that.