That's clearly not what we're talking about. Why would you mention that something obviously false has been disproven? It's a strawman. It's hard to read so much of your writing when you can make such extreme misinterpretations of what I'm saying.
> African American skin color exists for the same reason that Indian skin color exists, it's an adaptation to living close to the equator. This is a pretty weird objection.
That's quite simply not what black means in common language. It doesn't matter what the cause of the skin color is, the correlations with IQ and income are not the same.
> early African Americans also had Neanderthal DNA.
Yes. That's consistent with what I wrote. Again, you seem to be intentionally misunderstanding me. This is getting frustrating.
> So I'm still waiting for an explanation for why mixed-ancestor Blacks with European ancestors have the same outcomes as everyone else in Black communities.
Oh. didn't know that. Reference?
Anyway, still no clear evidence against "Blacks are genetically predisposed to being poor.". So I assume it doesn't exist.
> That's clearly not what we're talking about. Why would you mention that something obviously false has been disproven?
Look, it's not my fault you don't know the origins of race science or what the claims were that your predecessors were making. If the origins of your theory are embarrassing to you, then... I mean, I don't know what to tell you, maybe reflect on why those origins are embarassing.
More recently, the modern wave of race science has been largely driven by people like Murray, who posited in the Bell Curve that the 10-15 point IQ gap is primarily genetic and highly heritable. Murray suggests that social interventions are unlikely to significantly lower that gap, and that instead we should focus on eugenics (he uses nicer language of course).
You and I have already disproven Murray's theory in previous comments by noting that gaps decrease when race is hidden from hiring managers, and by noting that wage gaps persist in industries where success does not have a high correlation with intelligence. So we don't need to rehash that theory, you're already on board with me that Murray is wrong to say that the current IQ gap can be mostly explained by genetics. You've already softened that claim, and now you say that the current gap is partially explained by genetics.
The point is, the entire history of race science has been people like you making claims about Black inferiority, getting those claims debunked, and then shifting the goalposts a little and making the same exact claim just to a slightly lesser degree. There's a pattern here.
> That's quite simply not what black means in common language.
Yes, it really is; the person on the street is not using ancestry tests to determine what percentage "Black" people are, the common denominator is skin color. Black communities do not have the uniform genetic background you're assuming, and common metrics people on the street use to determine "Blackness" do not line up with ancestry.
This is broad scientific consensus, the position of the AAPA since the late 90s can be summed up as: "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. [...] Notably, variants are not distributed across our species in a manner that maps clearly onto socially-recognized racial groups."[0] This is the general consensus of people who are actually studying genetics and anthropology in the real world.
And in fact, when you actually go over the studies even from race scientists, what you find is that in the majority of cases the racial phenotype even they use to categorize their subjects also lines up with the AAPA's view. You know how the majority of these race science studies determine who is and isn't Black? Skin color and heckin self-reporting of racial identity. So it's just pure revisionism to claim that "actually, we meant something different by Black the entire time".
If you are trying to make a claim here based on purely percentage of African American heritage, then you need to throw a lot of existing race research out and start over, and that includes books like the Bell Curve which were almost entirely based on metrics like self reporting and not actual measurements of ancestry.
> That's consistent with what I wrote. Again, you seem to be intentionally misunderstanding me.
My deep apologies. Just to make sure I understand, when you said that "another possibility is their shared lack of recent Neanderthal DNA", what you actually meant was that African Americans do have recent Neanderthal DNA?
And not to keep harping on this, but "shared" is putting in a lot of work here, because as I keep mentioning, African American populations do not have the genetic uniformity you claim.
> Oh. didn't know that. Reference?
Take a look at stats released from companies like 23AndMe and Ancestry. Our best guess is that the average African-American genome is about 20-30% European (although we've only recently started really measuring this, so those numbers might change over time). That range can vary drastically as well, it's not that all Black people are uniformly 25% European, they might be close to 50%, or as low as 10%. I'm not sure what kind of reference you're looking for with that, but there have been a couple of press releases and cooperative studies using 23andme data that go into detail on their findings.[1]
It's pretty clear that the Black IQ gap is consistent across demographics and geographic regions in the US, which... like I said, leads us to question why we're not seeing more variation, even in studies from people who believe in scientific racism -- because the actual racial makeup of those groups is not consistent across geography.
----
> still no clear evidence against "Blacks are genetically predisposed to being poor.". So I assume it doesn't exist.
And still no clear evidence against "Conservatives are genetically predisposed to being lower education/poorer than the average population", so I also assume that evidence doesn't exist.
I will make you understand how burden of proof works. If you believe that it's my job to disprove that Black IQ gaps are genetic, then I want you to disprove to me that rural/urban Conservative/Liberal IQ and wage gaps are genetic -- or I want you to explain to me why you think that theory shouldn't be factored into every discussion about university bias, voting rights, and industry discrimination against Conservatives.
And of course, I'm still waiting for a response to the below quote:
> So what's your objection to the equality movement and racial activism? It sounds like you agree there are environmental and cultural factors that suppress Black outcomes, so it should be easy to get on board with eliminating those factors. We can have a debate about genetics after we've eliminated the external non-genetic factors that you agree exist.
You say that you agree with me that a purely biological difference, even if it does exist, is not enough on its own to explain the gap we see. So you should be fine with progressive policies that attempt to eliminate the non-heritable reasons for inequality.
That's clearly not what we're talking about. Why would you mention that something obviously false has been disproven? It's a strawman. It's hard to read so much of your writing when you can make such extreme misinterpretations of what I'm saying.
> African American skin color exists for the same reason that Indian skin color exists, it's an adaptation to living close to the equator. This is a pretty weird objection.
That's quite simply not what black means in common language. It doesn't matter what the cause of the skin color is, the correlations with IQ and income are not the same.
> early African Americans also had Neanderthal DNA.
Yes. That's consistent with what I wrote. Again, you seem to be intentionally misunderstanding me. This is getting frustrating.
> So I'm still waiting for an explanation for why mixed-ancestor Blacks with European ancestors have the same outcomes as everyone else in Black communities.
Oh. didn't know that. Reference?
Anyway, still no clear evidence against "Blacks are genetically predisposed to being poor.". So I assume it doesn't exist.