Every time you put something into an email, please remember that someone you send it to may hit Forward. If your email makes the case for a biological reason for racial disparities in intelligence, someone might hit Forward and send it to Black Law Student Associations across the nation.
That’s what happened to a Harvard 3L yesterday. We’ll call this 3L CRIMSON DNA. According to our sources, DNA made some controversial comments about race at a dinner held by the school’s Federalist Society.
CORRECTION: This dinner was not a Fed Soc dinner. [FN1]
After the dinner, DNA felt the need to send an email to a few friends clarifying those views. Here’s an excerpt:
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair.
One of the 3Ls to receive that email, available in full after the jump, was very upset by it. We’ll call this student CRIMSON OUTRAGE. OUTRAGE arranged for the email to be sent out to the Harvard Black Law Student Association list-serv, including DNA’s name and the fact that after graduation, the author will be doing a federal clerkship.
CORRECTION: It now appears that OUTRAGE disseminated the email, several months after the email was originally sent, because she got into a fight with DNA — not because she (OUTRAGE) was offended by the email.
After that, the email went viral, apparently circulating to BLSAs across the country. There are now plans to try to go after DNA’s clerkship….
We got the email multiple times last night, from lots of first-time tipsters horrified that a person at Harvard Law School with a federal clerkship offer in hand holds such views. The person sending out the email to the Harvard BLSA wrote:
I am saddened that a current HLS student holds such antagonistic and archaic views about our people and that the potential impact of her ignorance is only strengthened by her prestigious affiliations and credentials.
Here is the full email from CRIMSON DNA:
… I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.
In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.
Please don’t pull a Larry Summers on me,
CRIMSON DNA
We’re a legal blog, not a science blog. But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.
One tipster who passed it along said, “It’s unfortunate that this person appears to be on paper a highly educated individual, yet her viewpoints prove otherwise, and is likely to be put in positions of influence.”
(Is it so surprising? As the Broadway musical Avenue Q hilariously noted, everyone’s a little bit racist.)
Another tipster said there would be repercussions:
The firestorm that has resulted has been EPIC. [A member or members of] Harvard’s BLSA sent the email, along with CRIMSON DNA’s name and information, to the BLSAs at other Top 14 schools. The BLSAs are meeting to discuss what should be done about this and judging from the craziness on the listservs and at meetings, this is going to get ugly. They want to go after her clerkship offer, so this one might make the news.
UPDATE: The leaders of Harvard BLSA deny that BLSA is trying to have DNA’s clerkship offer rescinded, and they also emphasize that the email did not go out over an “official” BLSA list-serv. See here.
As troubling as DNA’s view may be, it’s troubling that OUTRAGE and the Harvard BLSA identified the person by name in the emails that went out. One tipster who knows those involved told us:
I think it’s kind of sad that OUTRAGE’s personal animus against DNA caused this whole debacle. I don’t think it’s ultimately about what DNA said, it’s about the fact that OUTRAGE’s still bitter. It’s pretty sad that a short and blunt conversation could have taught DNA about the false notion of biological race, but instead those involved decided to take off on the road of the destructive politics of personal destruction. As much as HARVARD BLSAer says she’s worried about DNA’s power and credibility in the future to exercise her purportedly dangerous views, I think it’s pretty sad that those involved used that same power and credibility to conduct a character assassination, rather than to expose the troubling views through honest debate. Right now I think the only thing anyone has learned is not to put anything in e-mail (which, come to think of it, is probably a useful lesson for lawyers).
Indeed. Instead of just running spell-checks, email programs need controversy-checks. Gmail should have an application that scans emails for “race,” “sex,” “gender,” and “birther” buzzwords, and then ask whether you’re sure you want to send.
We invite you to continue the conversation in the comments, but we ask that you not out any of those involved.
[FN1] Regarding whether or not this dinner was a Federalist Society dinner, a Fed Soc representative tells us:
Neither of these two individuals were present at the Harvard Federalist Society Banquet in April. It is not simply a “Federalist Society dinner” if members of the organization are present. The event has to be coordinated, planned, advertised, and funded by the organization itself.
If you know when the dinner in question took place, please email us.
UPDATE: Will Scharf, president of the Harvard Federalist Society, issued this statement to ATL:
I can categorically and unequivocally deny that the comments in question were uttered at any official Federalist Society dinner. The only dinner our chapter held this semester was our annual banquet on April 9th, at which the 3L in question was not present.
Moreover, the 3L responsible for the comments and e-mail at issue is not currently nor has ever been an active member of the Harvard Federalist Society. [This 3L] has never been eligible to vote in our elections, has never attended our national convention or student symposium, and has never applied for a board position. I do not know how our chapter ended up as part of this story, but we, to be blunt, have absolutely nothing to do with this.
Point taken. Federalist Society members, please stop emailing us. Thanks.
FURTHER UPDATES:
1. For statements from Harvard BLSA, see here and here.
2. For a statement from Dean Martha Minow, see here.
3. For more backstory on what led to the dissemination of DNA’s email, see here.
4. To vote in our reader polls about whether DNA’s email was (a) racist or (b) offensive, see here.
5. The story has evolved significantly since this post. For a more up-to-date write-up, see here.
first
In before 300 comment polemic food fight starts.
hey, is there anything wrong in what DNA said? Isn't that the whole reason why we need affirmative action?
Poor Estrada :(((((
Let me play devil's advocate for a second….
If we accept “race” as a biological concept — which I realize is questionable, becoming diluted through intermarriage, etc. — is it really so insane to suggest that some races might, ON AVERAGE, possess certain qualities to a greater or lesser degree than other races?
For example, would it be racist to say that, ON AVERAGE, African-Americans are taller than Asian-Americans? Or that Caucasians are more likely to have blond hair than Asian-Americans?
Or is the issue that we don't think intelligence is at all tied to genetics?
I am just asking questions here. I'm not taking a position. I'm just, as Elie likes to say, “exploring the studio space.”
Why is this genetic argument any worse and/or different than the supposedly more innocuous one put forth in the movie White Men Can't Jump?
Your mom loves a good polemic.
“Personally, when it comes to intelligence, we’re in the nurture rather than the nature camp.”
And you base this on the same science that he based his absurd comments on?
Achievement might come from nuture versus nature, but raw intelligence? Come on, explain the child geniuses that pick up calculus when I was still trying not pee my pants. My parents nurtured the hell out of me, but that doesn't mean I could do astro-physics at 3.
Go after her clerkship offer? What's wrong with these people? They sound just as sick and stupid and hateful as the girl who initiated this whole firestorm.
Most irish people do not have red hair. They have dark brown or black hair.
Gobshite.
This will not end well…
At Yale Law School, students engage in peaceful discourse, where contrary views are encouraged. In the annals of human achievement, it has long been recognized that diversity in discourse increases the probability of reaching the truth. At Yale Law School, student groups do not try to control a narrative, browbeating contrary perspectives into submission. Rather, we see ourselves as creating multiple narratives and molding them into a unified and coherent stream of thought. This is why Yale Law students are more intellectually mature than Harvard Law students. This is why Yale Law School will always be the world's preeminent law school, and Harvard #2.
And this is why I went to Yale.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J. et al. (1996). “Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns”. American Psychologist 51: 77–101. “African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.”
The biggest fallacy coming from Crimson DNA is the either/or notion that there are “black” people and “white” people. That notion is seriously racist and completely trivializes the fact that every human being on this planet has varied genetic, ethnic, geographic, and cultural backgrounds. But, what else do you expect in a society where the government forces you to check a box saying whether you are “black,” “white,” or “white/hispanic”, every ten years (what I'm saying is that our government is racist, as are most of you reading this). Stop being racist.
So it's problematic to have an open mind and critical reasoning skills at Harvard now? He didn't conclude anything definitive; he merely suggested that questions about poverty and criminal disparities haven't be fully answered or analyzed. Once we have those answers, perhaps society can be improved.
This is EXACTLY what I imagined the discussions at Federalist Society meetings to be like.
Lat, this is character suicide.
That said, “natural” intelligence is all about myelin sheaths and synapses.
One massive point. The bulk of people at places at Harvard or its ilk who are black are African or Caribbean immigrants (oddly the most highly educated subset of this country). What does that say?
One massive point. The bulk of people at places at Harvard or its ilk who are black are African or Caribbean immigrants (oddly the most highly educated subset of this country). What does that say?
Race is not a biological characteristic, but rather a socially constructed one. People who hang on to these ideas just have some sort of inferiority complex or something.
I think the brain/intelligence is more complicated than is the manifestation of physical characteristics.
Here's a little known fact. Countries in Europe, Asia, and South America apply a systematic and consistent effort to slow down their children when they run. They are carefully monitored during recess to maintain moderate speeds. Fast speeds are ridiculed and immediately discouraged. I am pretty sure that this form of nurture (i.e., the preference and conditioning for slower speed) explains the inability of these continents to produce world-class sprinters at the Olympics.
It is disgusting that students at the best law school in America are going after someone from expressing their opinion. The left does not truly believe in academic freedom, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Check out this site for a well researched argument for a position similar to the one DNA expressed.
http://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/...
For the record, Harvard BLSA is not in any way involved in this affair. The email has been forwarded to a million people, not just in BLSA, and to any extent that BLSA is maligned by this is unfair.
Some of these so-called tipsters are just gossip-grubbing fuels to the fire. If some people decide to “go after her clerkship” that is their individual choice.
DNA Might be wrong, but in all the uproar, nobody has pointed to ANYTHING that proves as such? Why do people think that there is “forbidden knowledge” like this? Are we afraid that if these theories are scientifically tested, they might tell us something that we would find uncomfortable? Can there be something morally wrong with scientific truth?
I would stand up and defend DNA even if only to protect the marketplace of ideas. And no, you liberal whacks, trying to go after his clerkship is not how the marketplace is supposed to operate. Someone is supposed to engage in academic debate and/or prove him wrong. Saying that he can't even broach the subject is an abject failure of the marketplace of ideas.
DNA Might be wrong, but in all the uproar, nobody has pointed to ANYTHING that proves as such? Why do people think that there is “forbidden knowledge” like this? Are we afraid that if these theories are scientifically tested, they might tell us something that we would find uncomfortable? Can there be something morally wrong with scientific truth?
I would stand up and defend DNA even if only to protect the marketplace of ideas. And no, you liberal whacks, trying to go after his clerkship is not how the marketplace is supposed to operate. Someone is supposed to engage in academic debate and/or prove him wrong. Saying that he can't even broach the subject is an abject failure of the marketplace of ideas.
Best. Comment. Ever.
Re: “the false notion of biological race”
Well the Harvard-trained scientist who actually discovered DNA would have to disagree: “[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.”
Also, how can you dislike a guy who suggested that beauty could be genetically engineered, saying “People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great!”
it's hilarious how the BLSA's scream racism here, but forwarded the email only to the BLSA's at other T14 schools. What about everyone else? Are they being elitist?
it's hilarious how the BLSA's scream racism here, but forwarded the email only to the BLSA's at other T14 schools. What about everyone else? Are they being elitist?
Note the start of my second paragraph: “IF we accept 'race' as a biological concept…..”
It seems like you don't. But, for better or worse, many people and institutions do.
E.g., any institution that has an affirmative action policy.
Note the start of my second paragraph: “IF we accept 'race' as a biological concept…..”
It seems like you don't. But, for better or worse, many people and institutions do.
E.g., any institution that has an affirmative action policy.
If OUTRAGE wants to out DNA, OUTRAGE should be outed themselves.
I don't see anything wrong with DNA's position. She made a cogent argument. Even if these are her beliefs, she is entitled to them, even if they are misguided. In the long run, her job and career prospects will be impacted by her beliefs, so there is no need to form a BLSA lynch mob and try to ruin her now.
Why is it that BLSA organizations, regardless of school, tend to be contentious? Is it nature or nurture?
And which race has more “myelin sheaths and synapses” or a great ability to “grow” them?
The author of this email went to Harvard? Poor grammar.
Her mistake was not inverting it. Had she said that maybe white people are less intelligent, but she could be convinced otherwise, she'd be fine. Or just used “Race X.” Her comments are innocuous; using specific races as an example is the problem.
Lat –
I think the issue you need to explore is the level of human diversity. There is more human biological diversity between two groups of Africans or two groups of Asians than there is between the “complete” group of Africans and the “complete” group of Asians.
Also, most people believe that humans have not been reproductively isolated long enough for true genetic diversity to evolve. This is probably especially accurate in the African-American community.
I'm outraged that this fallout occurred because some guy expressed his opinion. In a tactful way, not trying to convince anyone but intending to explain to people who disagree with him. Are people only allowed to have opinions that are politically correct?
“What's wrong with these people?”
No matter how you answer that question, it's going to sound racist.
Personally, I think you should out Crimson Outrage. She attempted to destroy the career of one of her classmates. It would be a public service to let her future co-workers and supervisors know what sort of person she is.
Right. That's why it's possible to tell what race somebody was solely from their skeleton. It's cool; differing arches of the maxillary bone is probably just a social construction that's taken on a life of its own.
Wouldn't that suggest race could impact intelligence in subtle ways? Isn't it rather improbable that there's so much physical difference between races, but no difference in the brain? That seems rather improbable.
You can't make a controversial comment and not expect repercussions. Sorry. He/she won't get fired from her job and this will blow over in a few months. This is the same shit people were fighting about when the book The Bell Curve came out about 15 years ago.
Sure vilify someone who's racist, who makes inaccurate comments without researching them….
BUT don't let delicate sensibilities get in the way of honest intellectual debate, even if the topic makes people uncomfortable. Some of what was written was blatantly wrong or misleading, and therefore should be an opportunity for education, not punishment. And (amazingly enough) he does bring up some genuine areas of scientific debate, so we can't let the fact that this is a difficult topic to discuss keep us from discussing it.
Well, any peron who takes public transportation in NYC can tell you that Chinese females are genetically driven to duck under your arm and run for the empty seat even before the doors have completely opened – all you see is a little blur go by you. If all the seats are taken, the female will get on and proceed to frantically scan for any sign that someone is going to get up and will dart part old people, handicapped and pregnant women if a seat becomes available.
I'm not arguing that there's a “stupid” gene and a “smart” gene, or that intelligence is determined entirely by genetics. But, personally speaking, I do think that IQ has SOME genetic component.
If I take a random person off the street, I suspect that this person's IQ would probably be closer to the IQs of his or her parents than it would be to, say, some random second person taken from off the street.
So much for free speech in America. A girl tentatively expresses a controversial opinion, mind you one that actually is scientifically arguable, and a mob forms to “go after” her and wreck her career.
Kyle Bristow fully supports Crimson DNA.
No one is going “after her clerkship” and there are no meetings… this story has been blown out of proportion. If ATL is so worried about this girl's reputation, why is it publishing the story?
“What's wrong with these people?”
ANSWER – Their DNA.
fuck that shit. it's one thing to try to end racist discourse (and ending that is a noble cause). it's another thing to shout “fire” every time someone even associates a minority with something remotely negative. this all reeks of self-serving bullshit on both ends.
Incorrect. It was sent to the BLSA listserv first, but quickly got around the school. As far as I know, BLSA (as an organization) has done nothing. Only individuals have.
Also, as an elitist myself, I will say that there should be no apostrophe in “BLSAs,” sweetie :)
“But, what else do you expect in a society where the government forces you to check a box saying whether you are “black,” “white,” or “white/hispanic”, every ten years (what I'm saying is that our government is racist, as are most of you reading this). Stop being racist.”
EXACTLY. If “race” has no meaning, then how can we have affirmative action programs based on race?
What a gaffe.
To answer Lat, there's something a bit more insulting about telling people that on average, they are less intelligent than another group of people. It's even more so in a country like ours where we have a service-based economy, which means that “smarter” people get more money, prestige, and power than people who aren't as intelligent.
That said, I think the affirmative action stuff is bad for African Americans in general, because it makes people question whether achievements come b/c of affirmative action, or real talent. That's bad for everyone, including minorities.
Anyway, so I can understand why black people would be more upset about this than white people when you tell them they can't jump, or that asians aren't as tall, or whatever.
But I can't wait to see what's going to happen to this girl's clerkship…
it's interesting to note that DNA only targeted blacks. why no comparison of whites to asians or hispanics or (insert other race here)?
also, there's more genetic variability WITHIN races than BETWEEN them.
I should know this, but is Harvard still accredited by the ABA? I know it was at one time, but I think it was put on probation. Are they sill on probation? If so, I doubt this will help.
Any current Harvard students know the status of its efforts to to get back in good standing with the ABA?
Billeeeee!! Come back to bed, Billeeee!
Probably b/c she's already been outed on Twitter
CHECK YOU USNWR RANKINGS
Even though I disagree with the 3L's conclusions, it seems that he's at least in good company by raising the question. James Watson, a nobel prize winner and the guy who discovered DNA's double helix similarly raised this issue a couple years ago http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566468/...
Even though I disagree with the 3L's conclusions, it seems that he's at least in good company by raising the question. James Watson, a nobel prize winner and the guy who discovered DNA's double helix similarly raised this issue a couple years ago http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566468/...
The people complaining about “character assassination” seem to be missing the point. This person genuinely believes that black people are an inferior race, and she's about to start a job where she will have a significant influence over how federal cases are decided. The various BLSAs are not trying to take her clerkship as revenge, they're trying to ensure that the future of the federal law is not influenced by someone who is an avowed and unapologetic racist.
Seriously? Who gives a shit about what you think of Yale? Your comment proves nothing about Yale except that the stereotype that all Yalies are a bunch of stuck up douches might be true.
This is, as DNA feared, Larry Summers all over again. Even asking questions — like true intellectuals should — regarding race has gotten her labeled, on this website and elsewhere, a “racist.” The questions she asks may be “discriminatory” in the sense that they ask if there are differentials across races that allow you to differentiate among them in terms of certain characteristics. But asking whether there are differentials based on empirical evidence is not “racist,” and anyone suggesting otherwise is cognitively bankrupt.
God I miss Lat's evenhanded treatment of nothing issues like this as opposed to Mystal and Hill's inflammatory hysterics.
“One tipster who forwarded it to us said, “It’s unfortunate that this person appears to be on paper a highly educated individual, yet her viewpoints prove otherwise, and is likely to be put in positions of influence.””
and yet this tipster probably knows nothing about the science concerning intelligence.
“One tipster who forwarded it to us said, “It’s unfortunate that this person appears to be on paper a highly educated individual, yet her viewpoints prove otherwise, and is likely to be put in positions of influence.””
and yet this tipster probably knows nothing about the science concerning intelligence.
Why does everyone assume this email was written by a man?
the author of the letter needs to read Omi & Winant's Racial Formation in the U.S. along with anythign by Malcolm Gladwell. Btw readers, race is a social construct that supports social realities. Race is not genetically determined. Like I said, Malcolm Gladwell and Omi & Winant – check em out.
I think the author of this should write a book about the troubles she's faced in life and her fight to make it up through the system. She could call it “My Struggle.”
The only positive thing about this ridiculousness is that the judge that has hired her saw the fed soc credential and was fine with it, meaning that he/she is a reasonable person that will see this manufactured crap for what it is.
For people actually interested, here is an interesting discussion on the subject, from two researchers.
http://www.aei.org/event/1425
What DNA said isn't really that shocking at all. He/She did not claim that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites; he/she merely said that it was possible that there is a genetic difference in intelligence. The real sign of intellectual immaturity would be to rule out that possibility. As already noted, nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting, and East African genes are best for distance running. Since intelligence is at least partly determined by genes, it would be odd to claim as an almost religious truth that every ethnic group is genetically equal. None of this changes the fact that to make assumptions about individuals or to treat groups of people differently is deeply immoral.
What would be racist would be to assume that such a genetic difference exists without real data, and then to alter one's behavior, judging individuals based on those assumptions.
A wise man wouldn't discuss the possibility of genetic differences in intelligence for two key reasons:
1) It opens him up to the possibility of character assassination. Case in point.
2) The possibility of genetic differences, although something that a tolerant and reasonable person can accept, can also provide fodder for people less tolerant. The reason this person was discussing it at a HLS FedSoc event was probably that she thought she was surrounded by intelligent, reasonable people.
Out this person. They may end up with a Biglaw job or worse, a federal clerkship.
This person should be deported, not rewarded.
Do you imagine them having a Ronald Reagan photo swap too? I do.
since when is being a grammarian being elitist? you not only exposed yourself as an elitist, but also a hypocrite. how can you care about grammar so much when you dont know how to use words?
also, thanks for calling me sweetie. can i have your number?
since when is being a grammarian being elitist? you not only exposed yourself as an elitist, but also a hypocrite. how can you care about grammar so much when you dont know how to use words?
also, thanks for calling me sweetie. can i have your number?
Yeah… and get rid of the “Black” Law Students Association while you're at it.
Potentially less intelligent on average (not accounting for the wide variability within races that could put any African American ahead of a white guy in terms of intelligence) is not calling African Americans inferior. There's a lot more to people than intelligence, and she is raising a possibility. The corollary would be that there may be a number of races that are likely more intelligent on average than caucasians – still not making those races superior.
What's really saddening is that students at one of America's best schools can't properly comprehend an email. DNA is simply stating that one explanation (genetic) has not been ruled out. And it hasn't. I don't know DNA, but if she's a decent person who has friends at HLS, I think those friends should get together and fight back big time. I'd put a few bricks through people's windows if one of my friends was getting skewered like this.
Asians are usually not as tall, who said it?
KIMMEL: Your high school team in Hawaii was won the state championship, which is pretty impressive. Can you dunk a basketball?
SENATOR OBAMA: You know, there's pretty good basketball in Hawaii but the only thing is since obviously there are a lot of folks from Asian ancestry in Hawaii, generally the teams aren't as tall.
“our people”
lulz.
Check your reading comprehension. “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that” is not equivalent to saying “I embrace that proposition that”.
Read the first two sentences of the email. Where does it suggest that she “genuinely believes that black people are an inferior race?” Please kill yourself. You're no better than the Muslim idiots who threatened to behead the South Park guys.
Read the first two sentences of the email. Where does it suggest that she “genuinely believes that black people are an inferior race?” Please kill yourself. You're no better than the Muslim idiots who threatened to behead the South Park guys.
Read the first two sentences of the email. Where does it suggest that she “genuinely believes that black people are an inferior race?” Please kill yourself. You're no better than the Muslim idiots who threatened to behead the South Park guys.
Read the first two sentences of the email. Where does it suggest that she “genuinely believes that black people are an inferior race?” Please kill yourself. You're no better than the Muslim idiots who threatened to behead the South Park guys.
Read the first two sentences of the email. Where does it suggest that she “genuinely believes that black people are an inferior race?” Please kill yourself. You're no better than the Muslim idiots who threatened to behead the South Park guys.
How the heck to people think we evolved to become intelligent if intelligence isn't a genetically inherited trait? Once we accept that intelligence is a genetically inherited trait (which is proved by studies of identical twins and other kinship studies), it's simply illogical to assume that different racial groups would have the exact same average intelligence.
The issue is not whether or not “Crimson DNA” is right (from what I've read elsewhere about intelligence, I think he's wrong). The issue is that he apparently honestly expressed a hypothesis (his view) that is unpopular and politically incorrect, and he expressed it about as non-offensively as one can express this particular idea (at least without adding all sorts of disclaimers…) and people want to punish him for it.
Free speech is a Constitutional value, but it is also a social value and should be defended, especially when it is the type of speech (questioning possibly incorrect politically correct views). My sympathy is thus almost entirely with “Crimson DNA”.
If I note that women tend to live longer than men and argue this may have a biological basis am I sexist? If I note that men tend to have more upper-body strength than women and this may have a biological basis am I sexist? If I note that black people are less likely to get a sunburn when exposed to an equal amount of ultraviolet light am I racist? Etc. I might be wrong about any of those or other things, but am not racist or sexist merely for having or expressing those views.
I do agree with the “everyone is a little bit racist” (or sexist, or whatever) notion, with very few exceptions.
Well, that's racist.
… assuming the person listed the fed soc credential on his or her resume.
SO. PLAYED.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
She's a Yolanda Young in the making.
Written by a Harvard psychologist, I might add.
I don't see anything wrong with Crimson Outrage forwarding the email. The responding tipster criticizes Outrage for 'character assassination' and for not promoting open debate. But how could Outrage start a open debate without forwarding the email? If DNA believes her opinion is justified what harm could there be sending it out? While I don't agree with trying to take away DNA's clerkship I do agree with Outrage's forwarding to the BLSA email listserv precisely so that open discussion can be had.
I don't see anything wrong with Crimson Outrage forwarding the email. The responding tipster criticizes Outrage for 'character assassination' and for not promoting open debate. But how could Outrage start a open debate without forwarding the email? If DNA believes her opinion is justified what harm could there be sending it out? While I don't agree with trying to take away DNA's clerkship I do agree with Outrage's forwarding to the BLSA email listserv precisely so that open discussion can be had.
I don't see anything wrong with Crimson Outrage forwarding the email. The responding tipster criticizes Outrage for 'character assassination' and for not promoting open debate. But how could Outrage start a open debate without forwarding the email? If DNA believes her opinion is justified what harm could there be sending it out? While I don't agree with trying to take away DNA's clerkship I do agree with Outrage's forwarding to the BLSA email listserv precisely so that open discussion can be had.
I don't see anything wrong with Crimson Outrage forwarding the email. The responding tipster criticizes Outrage for 'character assassination' and for not promoting open debate. But how could Outrage start a open debate without forwarding the email? If DNA believes her opinion is justified what harm could there be sending it out? While I don't agree with trying to take away DNA's clerkship I do agree with Outrage's forwarding to the BLSA email listserv precisely so that open discussion can be had.
Two things:
1. no need to worry about ruining OUTRAGE's career prospects… she did that by getting no offered
2. this email was sent months ago and OUTRAGE intentionally kept it, waiting for an opportunity to make a personal attack on DNA. think what you will about DNA's position, but this really says a lot more about the (lack of) class of OUTRAGE
could people please stop repeating the ignorant 'race is socially constructed and biologically meaningless' mantra. This simply isn't true: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-c...
A lot of T14 and big firm types comment on these pages, and judging by the level of racism in these anonymous posts, i'm sure these blatantly racist and ignorant sentiments are widely shared at the top of the legal field. i also think there are far more liberals at the top of the field, which is why these closet racists almost always keep their opinions to themselves when they're not on the internet.
I would agree that “there's more genetic variability WITHIN races.” Hell, there's all sorts of non-genetic variability within races. Amongst 10 random white dudes, there can be a ton of diversity.
But the liberal intelligentsia that runs affirmative action boards has dismissed all of it.
I think Crimson DNA's opinions are probably masked racism that comes from her wanting a logical explanation for something she believes to be true, but other than that I think what she said is fairly insubstantial. I am African-American, and I don't believe time should be wasted by African-American law students on going after someone like this especially since she was merely expressing her opinion. I see the problem with her being able to act on those beliefs someday, but that's fairly insubstantial because unless she's going to or going to be able to reinstitute some type of institutionalized racism based on her views, I don't think she, or her opinion matters at all. If I were these students, I would worry about doing well in school; graduating and being a good, honest, decent ethical lawyer and making changes in my community after all of that. I.Q. points don't equal success.
Ha! Thought it was her…
Define intelligence.
Once upon a time, less “intelligent” folk viewed those who could retain large amounts of useless information as “intelligent”. Google made that kind of “intelligence” obsolete, unless of course you are a contestant on Jeopardy.
Take for example a person who is commonly perceived as intelligent yet, despite said intelligence, sends an inflammatory, yet sincere, e-mail to a group of people who may not have the person's best interest in mind and who may use that e-mail to create national outrage and public demand for a beheading. Is that intelligent? Whatever you call it…I chalk it up to bad genes.
3L CRIMSON DNA:
That will teach you. NEVER discuss race in this country, because if you question the “established” orthodoxy in any way you will be branded a racist and your life, i.e. job, will be attacked and not your ideas. You cannot question the orthodoxy, you cannot even suggest that you are open to other ideas. The facts are that blacks are exactly genetically equivalent to whites in every way and have been kept down by “the man” for centuries and 30 years of preferential treatment in the way of racial set asides, quotas and affirmative action slots have gotten them nowhere. Please discount the fact that the President of the United States is half black, his genetic make up is pure Kenyan and has nothing to do with African Americans.
Most of what I wrote above is factitious to say the least, but I never speak about race in public because I do not want to be tarred and feathered like “3L CRIMSON DNA” will be for the rest of his/her life.
3L CRIMSON DNA:
That will teach you. NEVER discuss race in this country, because if you question the “established” orthodoxy in any way you will be branded a racist and your life, i.e. job, will be attacked and not your ideas. You cannot question the orthodoxy, you cannot even suggest that you are open to other ideas. The facts are that blacks are exactly genetically equivalent to whites in every way and have been kept down by “the man” for centuries and 30 years of preferential treatment in the way of racial set asides, quotas and affirmative action slots have gotten them nowhere. Please discount the fact that the President of the United States is half black, his genetic make up is pure Kenyan and has nothing to do with African Americans.
Most of what I wrote above is factitious to say the least, but I never speak about race in public because I do not want to be tarred and feathered like “3L CRIMSON DNA” will be for the rest of his/her life.
Obviously because when it comes to critical reasoning, men are genetically predisposed to a greater ability of…. Oh, never mind.
Its not genetics, thats how you have to be in China if you want to get anything done – otherwise you are just lost in the massive crowd. Its a learned behavior.
Its not genetics, thats how you have to be in China if you want to get anything done – otherwise you are just lost in the massive crowd. Its a learned behavior.
Its not genetics, thats how you have to be in China if you want to get anything done – otherwise you are just lost in the massive crowd. Its a learned behavior.
Its not genetics, thats how you have to be in China if you want to get anything done – otherwise you are just lost in the massive crowd. Its a learned behavior.
Its not genetics, thats how you have to be in China if you want to get anything done – otherwise you are just lost in the massive crowd. Its a learned behavior.
Its not genetics, thats how you have to be in China if you want to get anything done – otherwise you are just lost in the massive crowd. Its a learned behavior.
Can someone look at the broader picture here!
Who here knows a supposed “genius” who has accomplished NOTHING and is a lazy jerk? Who here knows a person of moderate intelligence who has a great work ethic, gets along well with people and is successful. Who the hell CARES what someones objective intelligence level is. IT IS WHAT YOU DO WITH IT!
These discussions about objective intelligence level are useless, “intellectual fodder” for supposedly intellectual attorneys to mash over. Really, it is not “intellectual fodder.” Rather, it is worthless delineations by “intellects” that cannot grasp the larger picture.
Hey, if DNA gets fired, tell him/her to go to Kenyon & Kenyon. That person would fit right in with the attitude towards minorities. If you aren't white and male, you are stupid, greedy, you got to where you are either by f*cking someone or by affirmative action. A lot of morons subscribe to these philosphies while pronouncing their own genius.
Can someone look at the broader picture here!
Who here knows a supposed “genius” who has accomplished NOTHING and is a lazy jerk? Who here knows a person of moderate intelligence who has a great work ethic, gets along well with people and is successful. Who the hell CARES what someones objective intelligence level is. IT IS WHAT YOU DO WITH IT!
These discussions about objective intelligence level are useless, “intellectual fodder” for supposedly intellectual attorneys to mash over. Really, it is not “intellectual fodder.” Rather, it is worthless delineations by “intellects” that cannot grasp the larger picture.
Hey, if DNA gets fired, tell him/her to go to Kenyon & Kenyon. That person would fit right in with the attitude towards minorities. If you aren't white and male, you are stupid, greedy, you got to where you are either by f*cking someone or by affirmative action. A lot of morons subscribe to these philosphies while pronouncing their own genius.
As the real Guesty McGuesterson I ask that you please cease using my name to make inane comments with which I emphatically disagree such as this.
Also, deported? THAT'S RACIST!!!!
As the real Guesty McGuesterson I ask that you please cease using my name to make inane comments with which I emphatically disagree such as this.
Also, deported? THAT'S RACIST!!!!
you obviously either didn't read the email or didn't understand it
STOP REFERRING TO DNA AS “HE”
IF YOU READ THE POST, IT'S CLEAR THAT DNA IS FEMALE!!
Well look, the only thing is, we already knew Obama was a racist, this is about smearing another Harvard Law student.
Does anybody realize that this student is going to have the power to influence her judge's decisions? What if it's an African American lawyer in the court? What if it's an African American defendant? Do people honestly think she's going to come at it with a neutral mind?
What's more troubling is that people keep saying that the BLSAs are “going after” her clerkship, and that there's “character assassination.” As far as I can tell, the “assassin” in this whole thing is the student who wrote the e-mail. How could one assassinate her reputation more than she's done herself? By putting her name on it? Really? That's what passes for character assassination?
With regards to “going after” the clerkship, it's fair to simply ask the judge if he still thinks she's qualified to be a clerk. If yes, and it's such a viable viewpoint, how bout we put it on the front page, and let her judge, the Fed. Soc., and any other organization say, “Yes. We stand by her, her opinion, and by our affiliation with her.” That's fine–truth in advertising and all that. Let's have a debate over whether we want JUDGES to hire people who think that intelligence is based on skin color.
Free debate in academia is not the same as anonymous debate in academia. When was the last time a tenured professor decided not to sign an article he or she wrote?
As already noted, nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting, and East African genes are best for distance running.
Actually, I think there is an argument that this not necessarily true at all. To look at distance running, you must factor in training and location. From a variety of reports, anecdotes, etc., most East African distance runners (the elite ones at least) all live and train in sandy locales at high elevations. Basically, the most optimum place to train for that type of running. Gladwell has a good New Yorker article on this phenomenon and the age at which most Kenyans, Ethiopians, etc. begin training. (Its in grade school and part of their daily commute, like 8-10 miles per day at a slow jog.)
Also, compare Carribean-American and African-American sprinters (throw in a couple of Canadian and English sprinters too) with West African sprinters. There really is no comparison. So, you may have to look at descendants of Atlantic Slave Route Africans to make that distinction.
As already noted, nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting, and East African genes are best for distance running.
Actually, I think there is an argument that this not necessarily true at all. To look at distance running, you must factor in training and location. From a variety of reports, anecdotes, etc., most East African distance runners (the elite ones at least) all live and train in sandy locales at high elevations. Basically, the most optimum place to train for that type of running. Gladwell has a good New Yorker article on this phenomenon and the age at which most Kenyans, Ethiopians, etc. begin training. (Its in grade school and part of their daily commute, like 8-10 miles per day at a slow jog.)
Also, compare Carribean-American and African-American sprinters (throw in a couple of Canadian and English sprinters too) with West African sprinters. There really is no comparison. So, you may have to look at descendants of Atlantic Slave Route Africans to make that distinction.
As already noted, nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting, and East African genes are best for distance running.
Actually, I think there is an argument that this not necessarily true at all. To look at distance running, you must factor in training and location. From a variety of reports, anecdotes, etc., most East African distance runners (the elite ones at least) all live and train in sandy locales at high elevations. Basically, the most optimum place to train for that type of running. Gladwell has a good New Yorker article on this phenomenon and the age at which most Kenyans, Ethiopians, etc. begin training. (Its in grade school and part of their daily commute, like 8-10 miles per day at a slow jog.)
Also, compare Carribean-American and African-American sprinters (throw in a couple of Canadian and English sprinters too) with West African sprinters. There really is no comparison. So, you may have to look at descendants of Atlantic Slave Route Africans to make that distinction.
As already noted, nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting, and East African genes are best for distance running.
Actually, I think there is an argument that this not necessarily true at all. To look at distance running, you must factor in training and location. From a variety of reports, anecdotes, etc., most East African distance runners (the elite ones at least) all live and train in sandy locales at high elevations. Basically, the most optimum place to train for that type of running. Gladwell has a good New Yorker article on this phenomenon and the age at which most Kenyans, Ethiopians, etc. begin training. (Its in grade school and part of their daily commute, like 8-10 miles per day at a slow jog.)
Also, compare Carribean-American and African-American sprinters (throw in a couple of Canadian and English sprinters too) with West African sprinters. There really is no comparison. So, you may have to look at descendants of Atlantic Slave Route Africans to make that distinction.
As already noted, nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting, and East African genes are best for distance running.
Actually, I think there is an argument that this not necessarily true at all. To look at distance running, you must factor in training and location. From a variety of reports, anecdotes, etc., most East African distance runners (the elite ones at least) all live and train in sandy locales at high elevations. Basically, the most optimum place to train for that type of running. Gladwell has a good New Yorker article on this phenomenon and the age at which most Kenyans, Ethiopians, etc. begin training. (Its in grade school and part of their daily commute, like 8-10 miles per day at a slow jog.)
Also, compare Carribean-American and African-American sprinters (throw in a couple of Canadian and English sprinters too) with West African sprinters. There really is no comparison. So, you may have to look at descendants of Atlantic Slave Route Africans to make that distinction.
why isn't anyone slamming her for what i read as the most offensive line in the article?
” I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria.”
holy shit, that woman is a douchebag.
“I.Q. points don't equal success.”
Not with affirmative action…
“I.Q. points don't equal success.”
Not with affirmative action…
I am OUTRAGED at OUTRAGE. This whole situation is an OUTRAGE and I can't believe that a Harvard student we behave in such an OUTRAGEous way.
Yes, it's good to know that so long as I say I'm “just raising a possibility” I can say whatever I want. This is a very common rhetorical tactic to try and excuse what is otherwise inexcusable, and fortunately it very rarely works. See the “Rivers of Blood” speech by Enoch Powell for a classic example.
To address the point about how you don't think she's saying black people are inferior: she believes that black test scores are lower because (when taken as a whole) black people have a lower average intelligence that white people. That means that if she's asked to help decide a civil case where, for example, a company is hiring disproportionately few black people, she's going to genuinely think that it might just be because the average white person is more likely to be smarter and hence better qualified. To my mind, that seems a lot like thinking white people are superior, and I do not want someone like that influencing the U.S. legal system.
I am OUTRAGED at OUTRAGE. This whole situation is an OUTRAGE and I can't believe that a Harvard student we behave in such an OUTRAGEous way.
Yes, it's good to know that so long as I say I'm “just raising a possibility” I can say whatever I want. This is a very common rhetorical tactic to try and excuse what is otherwise inexcusable, and fortunately it very rarely works. See the “Rivers of Blood” speech by Enoch Powell for a classic example.
To address the point about how you don't think she's saying black people are inferior: she believes that black test scores are lower because (when taken as a whole) black people have a lower average intelligence that white people. That means that if she's asked to help decide a civil case where, for example, a company is hiring disproportionately few black people, she's going to genuinely think that it might just be because the average white person is more likely to be smarter and hence better qualified. To my mind, that seems a lot like thinking white people are superior, and I do not want someone like that influencing the U.S. legal system.
Since when did it become a crucifiable offense to say that something, now hold on to your hats here, MIGHT be the case? Is that what we have come to? You can't talk about something because you don't want it to be true? Isn't that what they told Galileo?
Since when did it become a crucifiable offense to say that something, now hold on to your hats here, MIGHT be the case? Is that what we have come to? You can't talk about something because you don't want it to be true? Isn't that what they told Galileo?
Since when did it become a crucifiable offense to say that something, now hold on to your hats here, MIGHT be the case? Is that what we have come to? You can't talk about something because you don't want it to be true? Isn't that what they told Galileo?
Since when did it become a crucifiable offense to say that something, now hold on to your hats here, MIGHT be the case? Is that what we have come to? You can't talk about something because you don't want it to be true? Isn't that what they told Galileo?
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
do you disagree with DNA's viewpoint? If so, why? There is a lot of strong evidence indicating that the black-white iq difference has a large genetic componenet. This is something that I believe: I don't see how holding this viewpoint would lead me to unfairly treat african americans.
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
“nobody thinks it's racist to say that West African genes are best for sprinting”
Oh that's good, because for a second I thought that was a really racist thing to say. Have you also noticed how the coloreds are good at basketball?
I tend to doubt that a federal clerk will have that much influence on shaping the country's civil rights laws – I believe the judges will do that and if I had to guess, Ms. DNA here probably applied to work for a Reagan or Bush appointee whose views probably are not that far off from hers (the judge is probably just wiser about not spouting off). There is no question that the views she expressed are deeply offensive and at the very least reflect a stunning ignorance if not outright bigotry. Also, she showed a stunning lack of judgment in writing that e-mail – as the old proverb goes when you are digging a hole for yourself, the best thing to do is to stop digging. Don't leave a paper trail. That all said, one cannot escape the conclusion that the person who spread the rumor and the current effort to get Ms. DNA fired from her clerkship does smack a bit of revenge. I am sure if this effort succeeds they all will be gleeful about it – I don't blame them for being angry, but is it constructive to punish this woman like this? All it will do is destroy her career for making one major lapse in judgment in expressing a view. We all have said things in our lives we later regret – e-mail has a way of making it viral. Would it not be better to confront her in a public forum on her views and explain how destructive and offensive they are? She already has been publicly embarrassed and this will follow her around for years and has probably scuttled her chances of ever becoming a judge not to mention jeopardizes her from getting a firm job one day. It is better to debunk her viewpoint and expose it for what it is rather than to engage on this destructive crusade. While Ms. DNA is ignorant, she does not appear to be a David Duke either.
the stereotype isn't even correct. according the stereotype upon which “Guest” attempted to draw, East Africans are the sprinters. Fail.
Also, this has nothing to do with FedSoc. Shoddy journalism ATL. OUTRAGE lost the presidential elections last year and has disavowed the org and is tarring them.
The troubling thing is DNA's views, not that OUTRAGE sent this out. As an HLS student, I saw both emails, and I saw DNA's email before OUTRAGE even sent it out – it was fast on its way to making it all of our school before it even hit the BLSA list serve. I am also pretty certain that the email spread to other BLSA chapters (and other students outside of Harvard in general) through private forwards – there was no official sending of the email from the Harvard BLSA chapter to other chapters.
The issue here is that an HLS student expressed absolutely repugnant and offensive racist (and sexist) views in a carefully thought out, multi-paragraph email that, from what I've been able to gather, she sent to multiple people. These views are damaging to our community, and it is damaging to our society that someone can get to this phase of higher education and still espouse these views. The email warranted a discussion, which is why someone sent it out. The purpose of the email was not character assassination, and in fact HLS DNA's full name was not even listed. That our response is to feel sorry for HLS DNA and feel concern for her career is an indicator that we are not taking the content of her email or the influence of her position seriously enough.
So, DNA has a 9th Circuit Clerkship, she did a study on how the race of your roommate in college affects your performance while at Princeton undergrad and she has a note about AFFIRMATIVE ACTION coming out in the June issue of our Law Review. Just an FYI.
some more reading for the readers of this blog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/11/human-gene...
you don't think that believing that african americans are less intelligent will lead you to treat them differently…ie, as if they're less intelligent? really?
is it that you've never taken a psychology course, or that you're pretty stupid yourself?
you think black people are less intelligent than white people and you don't think that causes you to treat them any differently?? wtf is wrong with your brain? at least stand by your convictions and acknowledge the fact that the logical conclusion is that black people are an inferior race and/or white people are the master race.
believing that african americans as a group are less intelligent does not mean that you think all african americans are stupid. you seem pretty dumb.
Don't make me jump on Oprah's couch again. We all know that psychology is a load of bull.
Sorry, DNA, there are some things about which you cannot have a purely rational/scientific discussion. This is, as you are about to find out, one that is right at the top of the list. Not that there was much point in this case, since (as you admit) there is no way to prove or disprove the broad idea you were discussing.
Here, have some metaphorical K-Y. You are going to need it.
This is a good article somewhat tangential to the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/science/22wom...
“The university women’s report cited research showing that girls’ performance suffers from any suggestion that they do poorly at math. In one experiment, college students with strong math backgrounds and similar abilities were divided into two groups and tested on math. One group was told that men perform better on the test, the other that there was no difference in performance between the sexes. Their results were starkly different: in the group told that men do better, men indeed did much better, with an average score of 25 compared with the women’s 5. In the group told there was no difference, women scored 17 and men 19.”
why would that be a “logical conclusion”?
obviously it might change your beliefs about, for example, aggregate educational outcomes. There's no reason to believe that it would lead you to unfairly discriminate against individual african americans.
you are dumb as balls.
ass
ass
ass
ass
ass
I bet the people who are “outraged” by this incident, would never send their kids to a school that had a high percentage of Black or Hispanic kids. Or let their kids hang out with white wigger kids.
I bet the people who are “outraged” by this incident, would never send their kids to a school that had a high percentage of Black or Hispanic kids. Or let their kids hang out with white wigger kids.
I bet the people who are “outraged” by this incident, would never send their kids to a school that had a high percentage of Black or Hispanic kids. Or let their kids hang out with white wigger kids.
I bet the people who are “outraged” by this incident, would never send their kids to a school that had a high percentage of Black or Hispanic kids. Or let their kids hang out with white wigger kids.
I bet the people who are “outraged” by this incident, would never send their kids to a school that had a high percentage of Black or Hispanic kids. Or let their kids hang out with white wigger kids.
To all persons commenting that Crimson DNA is not intelligent for sending the email or has learned a very valuable lesson that every lawyer should know: What happens when every conversation you have with someone about a topic that could give rise to heated debate is subject to recordation? What happens when every word you write (on whatever medium) is subject to wide distribution? Should we all assume that only those individuals who hide their honest opinions and views are “intelligent” and “responsible”?
I think one of the lessons that everyone should take away from this issue is that at some point all of humanity will either have to accept the fact that a person's views may be challenged (even with regards to a topic that might stir heated debate among people of different cultures/races) or we should all agree to never speak to one another. One character trait Crimson Outrage (and all those like her/him) lack is integrity and ethics, which are actually more important traits for a lawyer than what was previously suggested (i.e., fearing email distributions with threat of life and liberty).
From a purely academic/scientific perspective (i.e. once you take out the politics), I don't understand what's wrong with his statement. Is the idea so meritless that an honest academic must unconditionally rule it out?
Why are you assuming that these views have no intellectual justification? Why are they damaging to the community?
I fail to see what is so shocking about someone believing that there may be a genetic basis to the large and indisputable black-white iq gap.
Mr. Chuck has issued a statement on the matter. I'm not going to post it here without his permission (because I'm not a douchebag), but it's awesome as always.
I love that guy.
Mr. Chuck has issued a statement on the matter. I'm not going to post it here without his permission (because I'm not a douchebag), but it's awesome as always.
I love that guy.
Mr. Chuck has issued a statement on the matter. I'm not going to post it here without his permission (because I'm not a douchebag), but it's awesome as always.
I love that guy.
Mr. Chuck has issued a statement on the matter. I'm not going to post it here without his permission (because I'm not a douchebag), but it's awesome as always.
I love that guy.
Mr. Chuck has issued a statement on the matter. I'm not going to post it here without his permission (because I'm not a douchebag), but it's awesome as always.
I love that guy.
Mr. Chuck has issued a statement on the matter. I'm not going to post it here without his permission (because I'm not a douchebag), but it's awesome as always.
I love that guy.
Mr. Chuck has issued a statement on the matter. I'm not going to post it here without his permission (because I'm not a douchebag), but it's awesome as always.
I love that guy.
cr
Person challenging PC notions about race and provoking discussion on potential reasons for black society's problem…oh lawds, call the fire department!
This mock outrage over what sounds like a smart guy just expounding on the same old nature/nurture argument, is what really pisses me off.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Really, the email is not that bad until we get to the line about her genius baby in a Nigerian oprhanage. That's were the email goes from questionable in motive and possibly racist to ignorant, idiotic, and definitely racist.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
Here's the better question: what if the reverse happened? What if an African American sent an email questioning the intellectual capacity of whites? Same outrage? Same repercussions? Chew on that one for a while.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
“white wigger” is redundant.
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
Love your brother
The fact that African Americans are less intelligent than other races is probably attributed to the artificial/natural selection for slavery. Since slaves are selected based on physical qualities and ability to survive hardship, instead of intelligence, it is logical for African American are bigger and stronger than their African counterparts. As DNA mentioned, testosterone may play a part in intelligence and violence. The fact African Americans are more violent and less intelligence is a consequence of slavery.
The society’s stubborn adherence of political correctness and denial of this fact does not make it less true.
The fact that African Americans are less intelligent than other races is probably attributed to the artificial/natural selection for slavery. Since slaves are selected based on physical qualities and ability to survive hardship, instead of intelligence, it is logical for African American are bigger and stronger than their African counterparts. As DNA mentioned, testosterone may play a part in intelligence and violence. The fact African Americans are more violent and less intelligence is a consequence of slavery.
The society’s stubborn adherence of political correctness and denial of this fact does not make it less true.
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
* rolling my eyes * at another character assassination by the PC police.
The 1st Amendment has no meaning if society agrees to quash any and all ideas related to eugenics and the relationship between race and IQ.
way to sacrifice the Constitution for your personal agenda BLSA
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
Man. Lawyers are dumb. I love this “Lawyer science”. None of you seem to know the first thing about genetics and / or intelligence. This is just a forum for your silly little grievances. Hilarious. I do agree that whomever outed this person was somewhat in the wrong though. People should be entitled to their hilariously misinformed views.
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
can we view either of these anywhere? I don't want her name, just curious about the arguments (which I assume are decent given that they got her good grades at Old Nassau and publication on the HLR)
What about Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple...
I am not sure if this helps or hurts the biological argument but if there are multiple forms of intelligence aren't we really just discussing the intelligences that society values for economic benefit, i.e. Gardner's Verbal-Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical?
The racist girl's name is Stephanie Grace.
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Mods…
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
Please inform us about intelligence and genetics, genetics master man.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
She was clearly joking with that line. Try unclenching your butt cheeks.
are you people even lawyers?? wtf does this have to do with 1A? nobody's saying this woman should be silenced, only that her views be publicized so that her employers know her stance on race. last time i checked, private employers are free to terminate or not hire racists.
I fail to see how the idea that her child will still be smart if raised in an orphanage in a country which pretty clearly has a lower standard of living and worse educational system than the US makes it racist. It seems to me to be entirely consistent with the nature side of nature/nurture that the author was endorsing throughout the email.
I fail to see how the idea that her child will still be smart if raised in an orphanage in a country which pretty clearly has a lower standard of living and worse educational system than the US makes it racist. It seems to me to be entirely consistent with the nature side of nature/nurture that the author was endorsing throughout the email.
whoa there
A federal judge is not a private employer dumbass.
This is going to get national attention and she will be career assassinated, even though I wish it wouldn't happen. If you believe in HBD (human biodiversity), you should know better than to discuss it with anyone you can't trust, or at least anonymously online. Read this by Half Sigma, who, ironically, has been featured a number of times in the New York Times (on other issues, of course):
http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/10/an-essay-on-ra...
Why does a 1 sigma difference in intelligence automatically make one race “inferior.” The individual variation still makes up about 80% of the variance (a member of a race's intelligence has about the same correlation to his race as a man's height has to his grandfather). What is so horrible about recognizing genetic differences? If one family is on average taller than another family does that make the first family “superior.”
Africans are very gifted at athletics, dance, music, rhythm and poetry. Europeans are on average more talented at technical skills and manipulating complex rules. This makes perfect sense, most of Africa was uncivilized until very recently. Thus the skills to survive and mate in a nomadic context will be selected for. In contrast most of Europe has been operating under reasonably complex civilization from the Ancient Greeks onwards. Thus the skills to survive and mate in a complex society with a division of labor will have tended to be selected for? Do you deny Darwin? Are you a creationist?
What is wrong with Africans being good at jazz and Jews (the most intelligent subset of Europeans) being good at physics. Is one intrinsically better than the other? Aren't we suppose to be celebrating diversity? I think you're the one that's diminishing African-Americans by downplaying the value of things that they naturally excel at and forcing your view about what skills are “good” and what are “worthless.” Personally I'd rather go to a jazz concert than a physics lecture. :-)
Is this email even actually “racist,” Kash?
The 1A is an embodiment of an American ideal, not just something to keep the government from suppressing your speech, etc.
What justification could you possibly have for outing this person to the federal judge he or she is going to work for other than to silence and oppress others who hold views similar to this person.
(1) The idea of “African Americans”, and what this entails genetically, requires a bit closer scrutiny. The genetic makeup of black Americans usually reveals some significant amount of white DNA markers.
(2) Its interesting to distinguish between American blacks and African-born blacks. African-born blacks residing in western countries, as a group, possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries. Look it up.
(3) The suggestion that you could “go after her clerkship” is absolutely ridiculous. She's probably clerking for a Federalist Society judge who either shares her views, or doesn't really give a shit about this little uproar.
Seems to be a good generator of comments . . .. about time
We will NEVER become a society that is totally racially “color blind” because if you even question in the slightest the orthodox views on race in this country you will personally be vilified and an attempt will be made to destroy your life and career.
I never discuss racial issues in public because I don't want anything I say to possibly be misconstrued in a way that can be used as a personal attack on me.
I believe that everyone should have equal access to education and vocation opportunities based on their drive and ability and that no preferences on any kind should be given based on anything other than economic hardship.
Uh though she is joking with the beautiful and genius stuff, she clearly has no idea about the huge influence of culture/nurture on IQ. She uses in a sentence along with the example of twins studies, which generally look at twins raised separately but in relatively similar contexts to show that there is an aspect of heritability to intelligence (which nobody denies). She doesn't realize that being raised as a malnourished Nigerian orphan (or as a poor African-American) is something that has an enormous effect on a person's “inherited” intelligence though. To think that a genius's child raised in a “Nigerian orphanage” has any significant chance of being a genius is idiotic and ignorant, plain and simple. The kid will be lucky to learn to read.
Haha, you liberals as so pathetic. Everyone intelligent knows that the 3L is absolutely right on this. But yup, keep deluding yourself with this nurture and culture nonsense.
Haha, you liberals as so pathetic. Everyone intelligent knows that the 3L is absolutely right on this. But yup, keep deluding yourself with this nurture and culture nonsense.
Hey 926, blackangrygenius– what’s with the rape fantasy? Really now? Um… yeah. Threatening to rape DNA is a great idea. Way to go.
Hold on, I agree that whites on average might be smarter. Their opportunity cost are too low to do anything else. You want them to spend their time trying to compete in sports? Music? loving one another? meditation? actually practicing the religion they claim?
Come onnn we all know raping every continent, bringing democracy to oil fields in the Middle East, and creating financial instruments that have no purpose is a lot more fun. —- can you say overcompensating for their lacks.
idiot
I bet her boyfriend is black
It's pretty remarkable that when UVa had an admitted student – who wasn't even enrolled yet – connected to some racist bullshit, ATL went wild with it, putting up his full name and picture and smearing UVa every which way.
But when HLS has an enrolled student – an active student, a student with tons of accomplishments AT Harvard – who says something astonishingly racist AT a Harvard event and TO other Harvard students, her name is withheld and there's no hint that Harvard has a history of this kind of bullshit. Between the incident earlier this year with Henry Louis Gates and Larry Summers impolitic comments a few years ago, there was certainly grounds for some larger questions about Harvard. But no. Of course not.
I would like to know Elie Mystal's view on this important subject.
1. I assume he/she only identifies mathematical or linguistic intelligence as dimensions of intelligence (not recognizing spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, naturalistic, etc)
2. So I suppose it would be outrageous for him/her to consider Blacks could be more intelligent (only as intelligent or less in his/her hypothesis)
Agreed. The irrational UVA hate from ATL is obvious and well-documented.
“African-born blacks residing in western countries, as a group, possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries. Look it up.”
Did you consider that this is because the smart ones leave?
Makes perfect sense to me. I would also suspect that Chinese born and Indian born individuals who reside in western countries, as a group, possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation, if not more.
Really, who are “African-born blacks (legally) residing in western countries”, doctors, engineers, doctoral candidates, bankers? They are for the most part not unskilled workers.
This chick obviously believes African-Americans are less intelligent than whites (“I think its bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart”) and that women are less intelligent than men at least with respect to math. But she (and her “babies”) are geniuses apparently. Except that she's apparently ignorant of the fact that the only reason she even has a federal clerkship today is because in the past women vehemently disagreed with and protested against her kind of ideas about women. She should be thanking women, not debasing them.
This person expressed a rational question regarding intelligence. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
CHECK YOU REACTIONARY LIBERAL WAYS.
This person expressed a rational question regarding intelligence. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
CHECK YOU REACTIONARY LIBERAL WAYS.
They have nothing left to fight for (except perhaps marriage for teh gays).
You're a moron. I would think that someone smart enough to get into law school could understand the difference between averages and individuals.
You're a moron. I would think that someone smart enough to get into law school could understand the difference between averages and individuals.
You're a moron. I would think that someone smart enough to get into law school could understand the difference between averages and individuals.
You're a moron. I would think that someone smart enough to get into law school could understand the difference between averages and individuals.
You're a moron. I would think that someone smart enough to get into law school could understand the difference between averages and individuals.
If you recall they did the same thing when it involved “eeek boy” from Quinn because he was from Yale. His identity was scrubbed from every post and he was not outed by ATL because he went to Yale. If he had been a TTT his identity would have been posted along with his photo on ATL and he would have been ridiculed as being TTT and working at Quinn.
What the hell is interpersonal intelligence? You can't just make things up to support your worldview. Is someone who's good at juggling a person with high juggling intelligence?
All you can do is post her name and ignorance on facebook. Hopefully she'll disappear…
He or she is free to say what whatever, but if you purport to use critical reasoning skills then do it right. He/she should first recognize that he/she is possibly starting from a position of white normativity (e.g. intelligence is only linguistic/mathematical as this is what is thought to be exhibited by Whites and is in turn what is valued)
Majority of law school students hold these beliefs. No surprise at all.
Elie is still sleeping and has to eat a dozen donuts before posting on this topic……..
My only comfort is that we will likely have real science on this (if it is not quashed) in about 10-20 years. Neuroscience is advancing quickly in finding out how the brain works in specific ways. An understanding of population genetics in terms of what genes tend to have originated together (say in China or in Scandinavia) is also advancing. So between them, this will be sorted out.
Of course, at some level just about everything is influenced by genetics. And others by environment that is not socially controllable. And not all influences can be overcome by after-the-fact interventions. The fact is that you don't get to turn in your body for another one because someone thinks it is discriminating against the “real” you.
So it is better to learn to deal with difference than pretend it is not there, or try to offset it out (e.g the world of Harrison Bergeron).
I'm a republican and I think Stephanie Grace is a racist. Don't think it is just liberals.
Your mother should have terminated her pregnancy with you.
I think DNA is probably full of shit. But I also think it's unfortunate she or he can't even raise the issue in an intelligent and open-minded way, as they did here, without being pilloried as Klansmen. Tolerance is an important value in our country but, like all other values, it's supposed to be outranked by our commitment to free speech.
The standard reply here is that the people who put DNA on blast are just exercising their own free speech. To a point that's true, but they're also attempting to intimidate people out of expressing DNA's view and suggesting public humiliation and career damage (once DNA's name becomes public, as I suspect will soon be the case) is the price you pay for an offensive viewpoint.
Typical liberal response. Instead of trying to engage in an argument to understand both sides, they attack the messenger and try to get them punished for having an opinion. Liberals are all for freedom of speech and opinion, but only for opinions they endorse. This is the same tactic they are using for that Arizonia state rep in law school.
Liberals realize race and ethnicity is a highly-sensitive issue and that employers and the rest of the public will overract to an opinion or argument that is not politically correct. Instead of trying to have a legitimate debate about race and genetics, liberals prefer to silence an opposing position by blowing things out of proportion and getting people fired or punished in some way.
” do agree that whomever”
wow, you're so smart yet you cant distinguish between whom and who.
my god you're dumb.
whats funny here is that an intelligent person wouldn't put this in an email to someone who obviously isn't a friend especially when they are going to work for a federal judge
Then you're just as useless as most of the GOP establishment. You do us no favors.
I don't feel bad for “Crimson DNA.” This is very simple. She can hold her views but when she shared those views in an email she opened herself up to criticism. She opened herself up to a lot more than she anticipated. If most disagree with her…if most find her opinion racist, then too bad for her. She took that risk when she decided to engage on the topic in this manner. You risk being misunderstood.. you risk people reading your opinion differently as evidenced by the discussion here. I don't think she is necessarily racist but I do think she is kind of an idiot. Now on to more important questions…. Are Latinos genetically predisposed to being better lovers?
The thing about character assassination is, it comes back to bite you. Karma is a bitch.
Yup, look what they did to Dr. James Watson.
LOL. What a surprise. A lawyers only intellectual recourse, grammar. HAHAHAHAH.
I think DNA is right. People are born to be different. Africans are more athletic are Jews are smarter.
I think DNA is right. People are born to be different. Africans are more athletic are Jews are smarter.
I bet she does like that African American males are genetically predisposed to have penises…
Sorry fella, but you're the moron here. And woefully ignorant of my point. Which is simply that if the whole “women (on average) are inferior to men” idea was allowed to stand, little miss racist wouldn't have her fancy job with a circuit court. Can you say TTT?
Gardner “made it up”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple...
I bet she does like that African American males are genetically predisposed to have larger penises…
I know as a fact that girls score better in Math in Koren and China, at least before puberty.
Saying that there are different “races” of humans and that these “races” have innate differences is, like, the fucking definition of racism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yfArN-e2OU
2:01 clearly presents rebuttal evidence of DNA's core hypothesis.
Crimson DNA clearly just said things that were a waste of breath and space, if not calculate to enrage. All she said is that there is a “possibility” race plays a role in x, y, and z. She then asked, without defining ANY of her terms (what's “race”? “intelligence”?), for proof that she is wrong. She wants others to prove a negative. The burden of proof for someone asserting a theory is on them to prove it, not for others to disprove it. Basic science. Otherwise, prove to me there's no flying spaghetti monster, or even that you are real. Or that Lat is not a child molester? Can't do it? Well then, he must be a pedophile!
The statement is completely and utterly pointless. At best, it's ignorant and a failure of logic. At worst, she's just trying to provoke shit. Anything's possible. It's possible that she is severely mentally handicapped and only at HLS because the admissions committee felt bad for her and her family. Hell, anything's possible, right? It adds nothing to knowledge and the conversation to say that “It's possible that…”
yes
Is her name really Stephanie Grace?
Yes. But shhhhhhhh
Yes. But shhhhhhhh
Yes. But shhhhhhhh
Yes. But shhhhhhhh
Yes. But shhhhhhhh
Karma is a bitch, guy.
Karma is a bitch, guy.
Karma is a bitch, guy.
Karma is a bitch, guy.
I don't see the problem with this person's point of view.
So, her name really is Stephanie Grace?
I don't know why this is so shocking. Just because you go to an Ivy league school, does not mean that you automatically forget all your beliefs and ideals. She's allowed to have an opinion, racist or not, and I'm sure she was not the only one to hold this view at her FedSoc dinner, just the only one dumb enough to write an email about it.
While the comments are controversial and upsetting, there is no need to crucify this girl more so than she will be by her peers. Leave her clerkship alone. There are people that hold radical anti-capitalist views that go on to clerkships which I would argue are more dangerous than these views. She does not seem to be a bigot..but more so just an idiot engaging in intellectual masturbation.
No need to kill her career.
My main problem with a racial theory of intelligence is that it doesn't work in practice.
Wouldn't it be safe to assume that most African-Americans (who tend to have mixed heritage of black and white) do worse on most metrics of intelligence than recent immigrants from Africa?
Maybe.
Should we also assume blacks are genetically predisposed to be better with music? You can trace most forms of modern music back to African-Americans, I guess that means we should assume that blacks have more developed right-brain functions?
Maybe.
The fact is, suggesting certain ideas in public in the wrong way about certain things IS taboo, and if you do you'll get shot down for the ideas. It's the reason we don't give any credence to holocaust deniers, and it's the same reason when people bring up racialized ideas of intelligence (since the factors are so many, and the idea purely ideological) people get shot down. You'd think that a few years at a top law school would make you realize that!
Thanks for giving the Federalist Society a good reputation amig@!
I only just noticed how funny this comment is.
I only just noticed how funny this comment is.
I only just noticed how funny this comment is.
WHY DO PEOPLE HERE KEEP OUTING HER?
Elie, CAN YOU STOP EATING DONUTS AND MODERATE YOUR FUCKING BLOG?
Kash, CAN YOU GETTHAT LOBSTER OUT OF YOUR ASS AND MODERATE YOUR FUCKING BLOG?
Lat,[insult here] AND MODERATE YOUR FUCKING BLOG.
1)This author is “just asking questions” in the same way the birther loons “just want to see the birth certificate”. In fact, every single person ever to use the “I am just asking questions” sentence has believed in the completely retarded opinion that they've put forth.
2)Even assuming that this author is not racist and is the first person ever to use “I am just asking questions” in its literal meaning, I think it's valid to bring up that she is still completely retarded for hitting 'send' on this email in the first place and deserves what she gets for that reason alone. I don't necessarily believe she is “genetically challenged” for thinking that writing it was a good idea, though – I am just asking the question.
hi steph
But isn't the judge for whom she'll be working entitled to know he's hired a closeted racist/misogynist?
Stephanie, please stand by your convictions.
Most males are genetically predisposed to have penises. It's that whole Y chromosome thing.
I'll just repeat the lovely comment from yesterday:
It reminds me of Auster's laws of race relations:
-”The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group's bad behavior.”
-”The more racial problems are created by liberal race policies, the more racist whites are.”
-”Given the inverted standards introduced into race relations by the belief in equality, the less deserving a nonwhite actually is, the more deserving he thinks he is.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009226.html
I'll just repeat the lovely comment from yesterday:
It reminds me of Auster's laws of race relations:
-”The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group's bad behavior.”
-”The more racial problems are created by liberal race policies, the more racist whites are.”
-”Given the inverted standards introduced into race relations by the belief in equality, the less deserving a nonwhite actually is, the more deserving he thinks he is.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009226.html
Look, all I'm saying is I don't rule out the possibility that Jews are genetically predisposed to be greedy and money-loving. I am more than happy to be proved otherwise, but just look at the statistical evidence that correlates wealth with Jews.
Nobody accuse me of being racist, I'm just trying to start an open-minded debate. Don't Larry Summers me.
Wow you people know next to nothing about IQ and the science behind it.
Technically that would be anti-semtic and not racist so no one would call you a racist.
They've read (a WSJ forum discussion on) The Bell Curve once. That counts, right?
Don't know, but there is a Stephanie Grace listed on Harvard Law Review
She said something bad about black people? First day, bro?
She said something bad about black people? First day, bro?
Hey man, I just want to know if her name is really Stephanie Grace. Kind of funny, you know, sort of like the female version of Ricky Bobby, the legendary man with two first names. Lol! More seriously, I simply want to make sure an innocent person is not falsely named on this forum. So if her name is Stephanie Grace, can someone with direct knowledge please confirm this?
Please don't criticize the things I say, it infringes my right to free speech.
Please don't criticize the things I say, it infringes my right to free speech.
is your employer entitled to know they've hired a half-wit?
Harvard Law Review in the house
In my admittedly anecdotal experience, Harvard law students tend to be douches. However, I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that Harvard law students are, on average, genetically predisposed to be only as douchy as other law students. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, significantly greater douchebages under the same circumstances as students at other law schools.
But Jews are a race
(I just want to get this thread another 300 posts)
But Jews are a race
(I just want to get this thread another 300 posts)
You're all missing the bigger picture. What this proves is that the aspies at HYS are genetically less socially intelligent than the average law student.
You're all missing the bigger picture. What this proves is that the aspies at HYS are genetically less socially intelligent than the average law student.
technically the group 'Semites' includes many other people besides Jews
technically the group 'Semites' includes many other people besides Jews
How can people on this list be so dense? Of course there is greater genetic variation within a group than between the mean of two groups (of the same species). YOU ARE COMPARING MEAN VARIATION WITH TOTAL VARIATION
Hilarious how the libs don't actually want to take about IQ, they just want to jump up and down and scream “RACIST.” Let me guess, these are the same people who call Christians dogmatic…
Hilarious how the libs don't actually want to take about IQ, they just want to jump up and down and scream “RACIST.” Let me guess, these are the same people who call Christians dogmatic…
1) Is everyone not aware that you can't be generally “ignorant,” and to claim so is to misuse the word? You have to be “ignorant of…” something, i.e., you have to ignore it.
2) To the person claiming the burden of proof rested with DNA, proof for what? For a question? If it had been a leading question, perhaps. But for this one, not so much.
Yes, her name is Stephanie Grace. It is funny to see people who do not know her defending her. Stephanie has a LONG history of saying even worse, more racially incendiary things. She is definitely a racist.
By the way, she is clerking on the Ninth Circuit.
Seems like a lady named Stephanie Grace wrote the e-mail. At least that is what the other comments say. Is this true? Is her name Stephanie Grace? Is she on Harvard Law Review? Does she have a clerkship lined up in the 9th Circuit? Can we please get some confirmation on this? Does anyone else plan on writing letters to her judge? Would writing letters to the Dean of Harvard Law School help? Is there anything else we can do? I am pissed and I want to take action!
The article explicitly says that people who reveal her name will be banned, so either you didn't read that part or you're trying to trick people into getting themselves banned. Either way cut it out.
Nice try . . . .Give you a point for creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
Nice try . . . .Give you a point for creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
Are you going to tattle to your classmates future employers about times they got drunk and said something slightly offensive? Or that they are very conservative when you know their employer is liberal? Or that they skipped class regularly?
Looks like she wrote this after she got home from dinner. Maybe she wasn't altogether sober? Because even if she does believe all that she wrote, what law student in her right mind would put it all in writing and hit “send”? Even a moron would know this is a bad idea.
Don't drink and email, kids.
I have always been very skeptical of Scientists, because most of them do not believe in a God. Although in all these years, no Scientist has come up with a Scientific reason for life. (Typical) There is no way on God's green earth that anyone can say that intelligence has anything to do with race. No one on earth can prove that. If that were the case, then why are there so many Black Scientists, Doctors and Lawyers. Not to mention politicians. If this person's name really is Stephanie Grace, someone better do soemthing really quick, before she gets into a position of power, and act out her racist views. I.E. hiring whites instead of blacks because she feels they are intellectually superior.
These racial solidarity groups, like BLSA, really do a lot to damage relations between the groups and smear people who don't agree with them.
The amazing double standard should be pointed out more often: it's ok for them to lobby for every type of racial privilege without repercussion, but when a student wants to talk science they drag her name though the mud. Disgusting. What benefit do these groups bring a school again?
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
I want to know who the sniveling little f*cker it was that passed the email along. Supposedly “friends” of DNA. The email had a particular audience, which was not the entire universe. Only a lawyer would blame the writer of the email instead of the receivers who passed it along, clearly to punish her for her views.
Yeah I hate bow the black law students association smears people just for suggesting (with no evidence) that its members might be genetically predisposed to low intelligence.
Also, by “talk science” you mean make an assertion which is unsupported by evidence and then say the burden of proof rests on the people who disagree with you? Ah yes, science.
The other comments say that a lady named Stephanie Grace wrote the e-mail. The other comments also say that she said some worse things in the past. What else did she say in the past? Does anyone else plan on writing letters to her judge? Would writing letters to the Dean of Harvard Law School help? Is there anything else we can do? I am pissed and I want to take action!
As was stated before, African American males are predisposed to have larger penises.This is an interesting proposition. Maybe there is a correlation between penis size and intelligence. If a man has a larger penis, he doesn't need intelligence because his penis does the thinking for him. If we extrapolate this to the entire African American male population, this supports DNA's conclusion.
This also works in reverse. Asian Americans tend to have smaller penises, and they are usually more intelligent than average.
White males tend to have penises of average length, and their intelligence level lies above that of African Americans and below that of Asian Americans.
Wow! I think I am on to something.
Well now I really want to have beautiful genius babies with her. Do you know if she attends Ivy Plus events?
“Everything is socially constructed.”
Good to know that the billions of medical research dollars we spend each year studying variations of drug/treatment efficiency along racial lines are wasted. Good to know that, despite all the physical evidence to the contrary, there are no differences in muscle mass, bone structure, and bone density, that differ according to self-reported and researcher guessed racial categories.
“Ok maybe there can be some physical difference, but there's 100% no way never a chance that this could be going on with regard to intelligence. It just can't”
Wishing doesn't make it so. Neither does throwing the messenger down the well.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
Why are black people still getting special treatment? It's 2010 for Christ's sake.
I emailed a couple friends of mine at Harvard law. Apparently a “friend” of DNA did not rat her out – the person forwarded it to a couple others, who forwarded it to others, etc, and the chain ended up in BLSA's hands.
I emailed a couple friends of mine at Harvard law. Apparently a “friend” of DNA did not rat her out – the person forwarded it to a couple others, who forwarded it to others, etc, and the chain ended up in BLSA's hands.
Yes, the people who emailed every single T14 BLSA were NOT black people and were NOT BLSA members. So, people who are blaming the BLSAs are fools.
This was passed along by her *friends* because Stephanie has said awful things about Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks for a very long time. This is not a one time thing. People at Harvard felt that she had finally done enough and decided to let everyone know who those at Harvard (and soon, those at the Ninth Circuit) are dealing with.
Because, as the e-mail demonstrates, they are still being discriminated against.
All reasonably well informed people know that there is plenty of evidence for that proposition.
So the fuck what? Lots of people are discriminated against. This is never going to stop. Ever. There's nothing you can do about it.
Okay cool stop the civil rights movement everyone it didn't work.
yet, here we are, in the beginning of the second great depression, wondering how we got here in hearing and bills and when we look over the roster of those that enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else, what color are they? think that matters? is greed color blind? did europeans get their stake by stealing it when our country was occupied and yes, and you believe it when i say We Want Our Country Back?
no evidence…just decades of research…emprical closure, meet university PC
Can Estrada have her job? He's been pretty annoying lately even after his offer. Thanks.
E's housemate
Can Estrada have her job? He's been pretty annoying lately even after his offer. Thanks.
E's housemate
This definitely was not passed along by “her *friends*”. I think it's implied in the definition of friend that it does not include people who try to instigate a smear campaign against someone with the purpose of costing them their employment and rendering a nearly $200,000 educational investment worthless simply because that person happens to consider a scientific view which, quite frankly makes a lot of sense, that society refuses to even consider because they are scared of the implications which would come from that view being correct.
This definitely was not passed along by “her *friends*”. I think it's implied in the definition of friend that it does not include people who try to instigate a smear campaign against someone with the purpose of costing them their employment and rendering a nearly $200,000 educational investment worthless simply because that person happens to consider a scientific view which, quite frankly makes a lot of sense, that society refuses to even consider because they are scared of the implications which would come from that view being correct.
WRONG. This came straight to Harvard's BLSA from someone known to hang out with her regularly. Her friends did this to her, because even though they hang out with her, they are not as racist as she is.
Her judge should absolutely know that he is dealing with someone who has boasted about how she will use her clerkship to decide things “properly.” She chose the Ninth Circuit for a reason, and it is not a good one. People here are so naive.
And no, I am not a minority. No, I am not a woman. I am a white male who is sincerely concerned about Stephanie Grace getting anywhere near a position of power. We are all racist in some way, but people like Stephanie take racism to a new level. She is open with it.
Ummm, what?
It does NOT demonstrate that.
A.) Affirmative Action
B.) The burden is on you (believers) to prove God's existence, not the other way around.
C.) Her racist views probably wouldn't manifest on picking white people over black people because they are white, but by hiring based solely on merit without taking race into account.
D.) The earth is 70% ocean, which isn't green.
E.) Grammar tips would be lost on you, it seems.
F.) Don't worry, scientists are very skeptical of you as well.
G.) According to the Big Bounce, we're probably living in any one of an infinite number of universes. Thus, since anything than can happen will happen (given infinite opportunity), it was only a matter of time (not in the physical-temporal sense, but in the colloquial usage) before life occurred.
These people used to be her friends before they got sick and tired of the racist who is Stephanie Grace. What she put in writing is just the tip of the iceberg as far as her real views.
Black people get more protection from the PC police than people who actually ARE disadvantaged (like the mentally challenged). It's time for American society to stop coddling and patronizing black people with affirmative action and knee-jerk, over-the-top reactions to potentially racist remarks.
You idiot. Can't you read? What Harvard BLSA was reacting to was not just this email. A lot of our classmates of all colors are pouring out on this thread to out Stephanie because SHE IS A KNOWN RACIST. Get it?
The email was not racist or unreasonable at all.
i suspect you are making shit up.
The email was not racist or unreasonable at all.
i suspect you are making shit up.
The email was not racist or unreasonable at all.
i suspect you are making shit up.
The email was not racist or unreasonable at all.
i suspect you are making shit up.
The email was not racist or unreasonable at all.
i suspect you are making shit up.
Political correctness nowadays has gotten so ridiculous that it'll be the death of itself. How's this for a definition of race: find me 50 people with at least one black grandparent, and 50 people whose grandparents are all white, and at least 98 times out of 100, I'll be able to tell you which is which. OTOH, find me 50 Englishmen (*real* Englishmen) and 50 Germans, and I doubt anyone can tell them apart more than 60% of the time. So what's race? It's the differences between people which are obvious to the eyes. So, given the fact that people look vastly different, how plausible is it that they behave exactly the same way, e.g. are equally intelligent? The inconvenient truth is, it's totally implausible. Trying to convince people all races are the same is like trying to convince people the earth is flat, or that there's a god. In the end, truth always wins out (and when it does, there'll be a price to pay).
Political correctness nowadays has gotten so ridiculous that it'll be the death of itself. How's this for a definition of race: find me 50 people with at least one black grandparent, and 50 people whose grandparents are all white, and at least 98 times out of 100, I'll be able to tell you which is which. OTOH, find me 50 Englishmen (*real* Englishmen) and 50 Germans, and I doubt anyone can tell them apart more than 60% of the time. So what's race? It's the differences between people which are obvious to the eyes. So, given the fact that people look vastly different, how plausible is it that they behave exactly the same way, e.g. are equally intelligent? The inconvenient truth is, it's totally implausible. Trying to convince people all races are the same is like trying to convince people the earth is flat, or that there's a god. In the end, truth always wins out (and when it does, there'll be a price to pay).
The science behind IQ is over 100 years old and has more statistical validity than say, global warming.
You can infer the distribution of the curve from the result, but you won't like the result you'll get.
It should also be noted that after over 100 years of IQ awareness, IQ is pretty much intractable. Surprising since the entire education industry seems to be based on the premise they can raise it.
Imagine all those billions of dollars poured into a pit and burned chasing the magical formula for intelligence gains – it simply doesn't exist. That is the science we're talking about. It's measurable, comparable, and fits with reality. Bleat all you want about multiple intelligences and testing discrimination (you know how those racist white guys manipulate the test to make jews and asians look good), but the reality is that groups with lower IQ are at a severe disadvantage in the modern world. If you don't confront that, how will you every help them?
Consider how the world will be different when it is accepted that lower IQ is not a sign of education failure, it is simple genetics and can't be changed. What happens to the less fortunate classes then? That is where the world is going even if the PC police prevent people from writing blunt emails about it.
Decades of research indicating that poor performance on tests and underrepresentation in well-paid jobs is due to genetics and not hundreds of years of institutionalized oppression? Link please, I'd like to read that.
Decades of research indicating that poor performance on tests and underrepresentation in well-paid jobs is due to genetics and not hundreds of years of institutionalized oppression? Link please, I'd like to read that.
I'll give you some huge hints to help you answer your insipid questions:
(1) the genetics that control appearance are not the same genes that affect intelligence
(2) is there any part of the world where you think there would be selective pressure to be stupid
(3) do you understand the fact that we all swap genes and that the human race functions as a single population unit?
Look into these three things, and you won't make the idiotic argument you just made above.
Black people are disadvantaged. Read the resume studies, the salary studies, and the interview studies. Even controlling for accomplishments, black people are severely discriminated against. Hell, even controlling for socioeconomics, black people are prescribed shorter courses of chemo for cancer. Go figure.
You're hurting black people by hunting and assassinating the character of racists, potentially destroying their lives forever. It's pretty much murder.
But you don't care. In your feeble mind, blacks are still “oppressed” and what does it matter if you kill one person for the “cause”? History will look back at people like you and see how misguided you are.
In other words, the white people running the financial markets effed things up pretty good.
Murderer.
Murderer.
Read the studies about resumes, interviewing, and salaries and black people. And then ask why we (we as a society) are still discriminating against black people. They are not getting special treatment.
Leave the poor girl alone. This is not racism. It's overreacting.
And what “Sigh” is reacting to is this fucking ABSURD reaction from every crybaby liberal PC policeman. OMG ONE SINGLE PERSON MAY BE A RACIST????? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. Let's all grab our pitchforks, write enough letters, cry on the news enough, and maybe the whites will grant us another ridiculous entitlement so we will finally shut up for another year.
Do you have no idea how many black racists I've come across? Do you think I write the “White Law Student Association” about it? No such thing even exists!
Do not ever let anyone in a society THAT IS ORGANIZED AROUND EXCLUDING OTHER RACES, e.g. the BLACK Law Society from calling you a racist. It is the height of irony.
Do you even know what discriminate means, you moron?
Do you even know what discriminate means, you moron?
So, genius, what genes control intelligence? And are there parts of the world where there would be a selective pressure against intelligence?
Other genetic differences, i.e., having to do with heart disease and certain genetic diseases have to do with either ancestral diet or heterozygote advantage. If you can explain to me how either of those principles, or any other principle of natural selection would select against intelligence, I'm all ears.
Idiot.
So, genius, what genes control intelligence? And are there parts of the world where there would be a selective pressure against intelligence?
Other genetic differences, i.e., having to do with heart disease and certain genetic diseases have to do with either ancestral diet or heterozygote advantage. If you can explain to me how either of those principles, or any other principle of natural selection would select against intelligence, I'm all ears.
Idiot.
Right, which is why the Flynn effect occurs.
IQ = genetics = my genes must be magically way the fuck better than my grandparents. Clearly, you know jack shit about IQ tests and rising IQ scores.
This thread shows the fundamental weakness of the Disqus comment system. It's impossible to follow a 400-post discussion. It was much easier to look for new posts when posts were sequential. The fact Disqus only allows a few levels of nested replies severely limits the usefulness of that functionality.
Site downgrade EPIC FAIL.
The left has its dogmas too. Instead of God, it's about race and intelligence, global warming, and fear of nuclear power.
Can we at least have a poll about going back to a sequential system?
“maybe the whites will grant us another ridiculous entitlement”
I like how you seem to implicitly accept the idea that white people have all the money, resources, in power in our society and still don't see the problem.
This dufus should read “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond.
The current thinking is that blacks are potentially more intelligent than the other 2 races due to the fact that blacks have had approximately 10,000 years of extra evolution time. It's also worth noting that 2 people living in an African village will have significantly more differences in their DNA than 2 whites living halfway around the world from each other.
This dufus should read “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond.
The current thinking is that blacks are potentially more intelligent than the other 2 races due to the fact that blacks have had approximately 10,000 years of extra evolution time. It's also worth noting that 2 people living in an African village will have significantly more differences in their DNA than 2 whites living halfway around the world from each other.
It is impossible to follow the comments. Because of the conversation feature there are new posts back on page 1!
It is impossible to follow the comments. Because of the conversation feature there are new posts back on page 1!
It is impossible to follow the comments. Because of the conversation feature there are new posts back on page 1!
I am suing da government in accordance with R2K section 90. I wuz promised a mule and 40 acres, so I went out a boughts a new big screen TV and Escalade in reliance on dat. I am motherf**king reasonable and duh goverment knew I would do dat!
If I don't have da standing, I guess I wont get mad and revolt if ya let me into Harvard.
Other comments have confirmed that Stephanie Grace wrote the e-mail. Who is she? Does she really have a clerkship lined up with the 9th Circuit? What else did she say about blacks, jews or other minorities?
Other comments have confirmed that Stephanie Grace wrote the e-mail. Who is she? Does she really have a clerkship lined up with the 9th Circuit? What else did she say about blacks, jews or other minorities?
1.) Of course there aren't areas where there are no pressures toward intelligence. I didn't say or imply there were, but why would there need to be? Wouldn't it be sufficient if there were RELATIVELY greater or lesser selection toward intelligence? Just as there might be greater or lesser pressure toward having more muscle mass from area to area? So some areas can select for muscle mass more, but some areas can't select for intelligence more? That's odd…
2.) An ancestral diet or heterozygote advantage couldn't slightly change brain chemistry at the margin of the margin?
WTF PWNED!
1.) Of course there aren't areas where there are no pressures toward intelligence. I didn't say or imply there were, but why would there need to be? Wouldn't it be sufficient if there were RELATIVELY greater or lesser selection toward intelligence? Just as there might be greater or lesser pressure toward having more muscle mass from area to area? So some areas can select for muscle mass more, but some areas can't select for intelligence more? That's odd…
2.) An ancestral diet or heterozygote advantage couldn't slightly change brain chemistry at the margin of the margin?
WTF PWNED!
1.) Of course there aren't areas where there are no pressures toward intelligence. I didn't say or imply there were, but why would there need to be? Wouldn't it be sufficient if there were RELATIVELY greater or lesser selection toward intelligence? Just as there might be greater or lesser pressure toward having more muscle mass from area to area? So some areas can select for muscle mass more, but some areas can't select for intelligence more? That's odd…
2.) An ancestral diet or heterozygote advantage couldn't slightly change brain chemistry at the margin of the margin?
WTF PWNED!
The most important issue here is the context. Which we don't have much of.
As has been pointed out, “I'm just raising some questions” is quite often a mask. If, as some people claim, she makes lots of racist statements, or if after a few drinks she “randomly” decided that the Federalist Society needed to consider whether black people are inherently dumber than white people on average, then panicked and wrote an email trying to make herself seem as reasonable and scientific as possible, then she deserves the scorn.
Its also possible that they were discussing affirmative action policy, and this was brought up by a non-scientist with pure thoughts as a possible explanation for why blacks tend to be economically worse off.
I certainly have my suspicions, but most of the arguments here are context free.
You know what, I'm just gonna take a look at your user name and guess that no possible discussion between us could be either productive or enjoyable.
Whites are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than East Asians. It's from the same study that claims that blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites.
Are white Americans proposing that only Asians be allowed into their universities?
No. They're only proposing that whites take over spots from blacks.
That's why this is racist.
Everyone deserves a shot at Harvard. And those who are in under-represented groups should get more consideration than others. Diversity makes our country stronger, not weaker.
“A perfectly stupid race can never rise to a very high plane; the Negro, for instance, has been kept down as much by lack of intellectual development as by anything else.”
- Teddy Roosevelt
Oh it's amazing that the liberals have done such a great job in only 100 years of making it a crime to talk about what was common knowledge.
“A perfectly stupid race can never rise to a very high plane; the Negro, for instance, has been kept down as much by lack of intellectual development as by anything else.”
- Teddy Roosevelt
Oh it's amazing that the liberals have done such a great job in only 100 years of making it a crime to talk about what was common knowledge.
Stop frowning on my shenanigans….
Stop frowning on my shenanigans….
First
“extra evolution time”? What?
“extra evolution time”? What?
(1) Who said they were the same? My point, before you distorted it, is that it only takes a few genes to change appearances (fact), and would only take a few genes changes to change behavior (distinct possibility; prove me wrong). It would be a miracle of the highest order (you know, the kind which never happens…) if races looked different on the outside, yet were exactly the same on in the inside.
(2) Actually you seem to be proof to the contrary… Anyhow, there's no selective pressure to be stupid, just like dogs, cats and other animals aren't selected to be stupid. But there's selective pressure to be smart, and dogs, cats (and maybe blacks?) who weren't subjected to that pressure aren't. Why weren't they selected for it? Maybe life in Africa was too easy compared to the glaciers in Europe and the tundra in Asia? I honestly don't know. That's a question for anthropologists and geologists.
(3) Until very recently in human history, different races did not “swap genes”. The various caucasoid races in Europe and the Mideast swapped genes, the mongoloid subraces swapped genes among themselves, and perhaps with caucasoids to a limited extent in Eurasia, but as black africans were confined by the Sahara desert, they had very limited genetic exchange with other races.
So it seems everything you said is both demonstrably untrue, and grossly stupid.
(1) Who said they were the same? My point, before you distorted it, is that it only takes a few genes to change appearances (fact), and would only take a few genes changes to change behavior (distinct possibility; prove me wrong). It would be a miracle of the highest order (you know, the kind which never happens…) if races looked different on the outside, yet were exactly the same on in the inside.
(2) Actually you seem to be proof to the contrary… Anyhow, there's no selective pressure to be stupid, just like dogs, cats and other animals aren't selected to be stupid. But there's selective pressure to be smart, and dogs, cats (and maybe blacks?) who weren't subjected to that pressure aren't. Why weren't they selected for it? Maybe life in Africa was too easy compared to the glaciers in Europe and the tundra in Asia? I honestly don't know. That's a question for anthropologists and geologists.
(3) Until very recently in human history, different races did not “swap genes”. The various caucasoid races in Europe and the Mideast swapped genes, the mongoloid subraces swapped genes among themselves, and perhaps with caucasoids to a limited extent in Eurasia, but as black africans were confined by the Sahara desert, they had very limited genetic exchange with other races.
So it seems everything you said is both demonstrably untrue, and grossly stupid.
(1) Who said they were the same? My point, before you distorted it, is that it only takes a few genes to change appearances (fact), and would only take a few genes changes to change behavior (distinct possibility; prove me wrong). It would be a miracle of the highest order (you know, the kind which never happens…) if races looked different on the outside, yet were exactly the same on in the inside.
(2) Actually you seem to be proof to the contrary… Anyhow, there's no selective pressure to be stupid, just like dogs, cats and other animals aren't selected to be stupid. But there's selective pressure to be smart, and dogs, cats (and maybe blacks?) who weren't subjected to that pressure aren't. Why weren't they selected for it? Maybe life in Africa was too easy compared to the glaciers in Europe and the tundra in Asia? I honestly don't know. That's a question for anthropologists and geologists.
(3) Until very recently in human history, different races did not “swap genes”. The various caucasoid races in Europe and the Mideast swapped genes, the mongoloid subraces swapped genes among themselves, and perhaps with caucasoids to a limited extent in Eurasia, but as black africans were confined by the Sahara desert, they had very limited genetic exchange with other races.
So it seems everything you said is both demonstrably untrue, and grossly stupid.
(1) Who said they were the same? My point, before you distorted it, is that it only takes a few genes to change appearances (fact), and would only take a few genes changes to change behavior (distinct possibility; prove me wrong). It would be a miracle of the highest order (you know, the kind which never happens…) if races looked different on the outside, yet were exactly the same on in the inside.
(2) Actually you seem to be proof to the contrary… Anyhow, there's no selective pressure to be stupid, just like dogs, cats and other animals aren't selected to be stupid. But there's selective pressure to be smart, and dogs, cats (and maybe blacks?) who weren't subjected to that pressure aren't. Why weren't they selected for it? Maybe life in Africa was too easy compared to the glaciers in Europe and the tundra in Asia? I honestly don't know. That's a question for anthropologists and geologists.
(3) Until very recently in human history, different races did not “swap genes”. The various caucasoid races in Europe and the Mideast swapped genes, the mongoloid subraces swapped genes among themselves, and perhaps with caucasoids to a limited extent in Eurasia, but as black africans were confined by the Sahara desert, they had very limited genetic exchange with other races.
So it seems everything you said is both demonstrably untrue, and grossly stupid.
That makes no sense dude. How would blacks have had 10,000 extra years of evolution time? It's not like black people evolved from the great apes and then 10,000 years later white people evolved out of a different group of monkeys somewhere else.
I generally agree, except for number 2. In lower-class neighborhoods (all races) there is a definite bias against intelligence and academic success and a pressure to fit in by dumbing yourself down.
There is a correlation between Crime and socio-economic status. Look at the Italians and Irish at the turn of the century. The impoverished and uneducated have always been at a major disadvantage. Educational opportunities from under funded and over crowded schools gives a strike. A ever crumbling family unit gives another strike. Most importantly the two parent worker system of America since the 70's has really had a detrimental effect on the black community. This is an old an worn out argument for those in power to keep feeling the need to feel superior and dominant. The social environment has a profound effect on ones intellectual make-up.
Was she proposing that no black people be allowed in Harvard?
Not that I can tell, that's why this comparison is stupid.
The most bizarre part to me is that she wrote this email apparently as an apology for “shy[ing] away from” a genetic theory of white supremacy at the dinner table, and wanted to ensure that ideas of equality were not wrongly imputed to her. That's pretty adamant.
This comment is so stupid it makes you LOL. You must be telling us that monkeys are smarter than people, because they've had 10 million years of “extra evolution time”.
I wish I was black so I could've gone to HLS.
I think it's ridiculous that this person is being crucified for saying “I'm not yet willing to rule out the possibility that genetic differences in intelligence are possible.”
He didn't say it was true, just that he's not 100% convinced that it couldn't possibly be true.
Are people really still falling for this? The oldest rhetorical trick in the book is to protect yourself from criticism by saying, “I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying it hasn't been disproved.”
It helps to think about why this person felt the need to discuss (at length) this one particular possibility.
Are people really still falling for this? The oldest rhetorical trick in the book is to protect yourself from criticism by saying, “I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying it hasn't been disproved.”
It helps to think about why this person felt the need to discuss (at length) this one particular possibility.
Are people really still falling for this? The oldest rhetorical trick in the book is to protect yourself from criticism by saying, “I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying it hasn't been disproved.”
It helps to think about why this person felt the need to discuss (at length) this one particular possibility.
But diversity and race are two different things. This is the problem with all arguments relating to diversity. The manner in which you speak of diversity (i.e., making our country strong) is only applicable if you actually rely on the life experiences and cultural experiences that a person brings into the situation. Being a black/brown/orange/blue/etc person does not make you diverse, it just makes you a different color. However, I understand why you are confused, because people have been presenting the two as the same for years now.
Maybe it's just the subject matter, but these avatars look like little clansmen.
Maybe it's just the subject matter, but these avatars look like little clansmen.
who gives a shit. mind your own business.
i'm sorry, i just watched the latest vote go down (killed again by r's) and i was incoherent.
i'm indigenous here (a troglodyte) and have watched my family suffer and thrive, each according to their ability to lie to themselves. Yet strangely, they do thrive while retaining the ability to laugh at all that has transpired since we were invaded but watching that vote by OUR representatives, i just rage. i want to find a way to bridge all this talk about races and find out what we ALL want for “our” country. I will agree, being greedy is not a “white” thing, but some of those in power, and most of those “in money”, are over represented by new americans,(white european types) and as a pre-american, an “out-insider”, i only notice this because it seems so obvious. there would not be “wealth” unless there was resources, and this countries “wealth” was based on stealing it and ignoring that fact. I don't presume to think that as a pre american, that the world would have been any different, but now, it's time to find out, this country is too amazing to let the few destroy it for the rest of us.
i'm sorry, i just watched the latest vote go down (killed again by r's) and i was incoherent.
i'm indigenous here (a troglodyte) and have watched my family suffer and thrive, each according to their ability to lie to themselves. Yet strangely, they do thrive while retaining the ability to laugh at all that has transpired since we were invaded but watching that vote by OUR representatives, i just rage. i want to find a way to bridge all this talk about races and find out what we ALL want for “our” country. I will agree, being greedy is not a “white” thing, but some of those in power, and most of those “in money”, are over represented by new americans,(white european types) and as a pre-american, an “out-insider”, i only notice this because it seems so obvious. there would not be “wealth” unless there was resources, and this countries “wealth” was based on stealing it and ignoring that fact. I don't presume to think that as a pre american, that the world would have been any different, but now, it's time to find out, this country is too amazing to let the few destroy it for the rest of us.
Why protect the identity of this racist?
As for his/her critical thinking skills…. she takes for granted that so-called “intelligence” is measured by cultural norms that were created predominantly by one race and imposed upon our society by the race that historically has wielded the most power and influence in the West. And what is that? The ability to memorize facts and figures? To recall information and associate it with other information? To pass a bar exam? This brat was probably raised with the finest education available, and she seems to be oblivious to the fact that her “intelligence” was cultivated by a lifetime of privilege. I'd like to see how intelligent she is if she's dropped in a remote area of Africa without food or water and see how useful her knowledge and intelligence is in enabling her to survive.
As I recall, Algebra and advanced mathematics were discovered and developed by ancients in India, Babylon, and areas of the Middle East… not by white people.
There are various kinds of intelligence – street smarts, survival skills, compassion… Some of the most intelligent people in the world solely possess the ability of knowing when to shut up… clearly she's not one of them. However, the “docile” African Americans she mentions who were enslaved, beaten, and killed (and whose legal status as slaves was inescapable by virtue of the color of their skin should they try to leave), clearly possessed this ability of knowing when to stay silent.
This person brings shame to Harvard Law School. They should withhold her degree simply because she has failed to learn basic critical thinking skills, much less the ability to construct a sound, persuasive argument. Make her start over as a 1L at Howard University Law School.
Why protect the identity of this racist?
As for his/her critical thinking skills…. she takes for granted that so-called “intelligence” is measured by cultural norms that were created predominantly by one race and imposed upon our society by the race that historically has wielded the most power and influence in the West. And what is that? The ability to memorize facts and figures? To recall information and associate it with other information? To pass a bar exam? This brat was probably raised with the finest education available, and she seems to be oblivious to the fact that her “intelligence” was cultivated by a lifetime of privilege. I'd like to see how intelligent she is if she's dropped in a remote area of Africa without food or water and see how useful her knowledge and intelligence is in enabling her to survive.
As I recall, Algebra and advanced mathematics were discovered and developed by ancients in India, Babylon, and areas of the Middle East… not by white people.
There are various kinds of intelligence – street smarts, survival skills, compassion… Some of the most intelligent people in the world solely possess the ability of knowing when to shut up… clearly she's not one of them. However, the “docile” African Americans she mentions who were enslaved, beaten, and killed (and whose legal status as slaves was inescapable by virtue of the color of their skin should they try to leave), clearly possessed this ability of knowing when to stay silent.
This person brings shame to Harvard Law School. They should withhold her degree simply because she has failed to learn basic critical thinking skills, much less the ability to construct a sound, persuasive argument. Make her start over as a 1L at Howard University Law School.
Almost as troubling: HLS student still uses “In conclusion” to end a piece of writing.
Well the Presidency is highest level to be achieved in this country, so I think you and Teddy were proven wrong in November 2008.
As has been mentioned, we don't have the context of the conversation this email was meant to follow up. Are you suggesting it's off limits to discuss such issues at all, or just assuming that anyone who discusses such issues and isn't willing to rule out genetic links to intelligence *must* be a flaming racist?
As has been mentioned, we don't have the context of the conversation this email was meant to follow up. Are you suggesting it's off limits to discuss such issues at all, or just assuming that anyone who discusses such issues and isn't willing to rule out genetic links to intelligence *must* be a flaming racist?
As has been mentioned, we don't have the context of the conversation this email was meant to follow up. Are you suggesting it's off limits to discuss such issues at all, or just assuming that anyone who discusses such issues and isn't willing to rule out genetic links to intelligence *must* be a flaming racist?
As has been mentioned, we don't have the context of the conversation this email was meant to follow up. Are you suggesting it's off limits to discuss such issues at all, or just assuming that anyone who discusses such issues and isn't willing to rule out genetic links to intelligence *must* be a flaming racist?
“They should withhold her degree simply because she has failed to learn basic critical thinking skills, much less the ability to construct a sound, persuasive argument.”
You, ma'am, are a barbarian. Please check yourself out of whatever fluff degree program in which you're currently enrolled, either via starting over in a comprehensive, fact-intensive world history course or a remedial math and science program. Hell, better yet, take advantage of the nearest bridge — I find your anti-intellectualism vile.
Though you'll note I'm not suggesting that everyone throw enough of a hissy-fit that the powers that be bitchslap you. Savages such as yourself are the reason the Bill of Rights was so important: tyrrany of the mindless majority indeed.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
That's not entirely true–anti intellectualism is common, but it is not universal. And even if “acting smart” may not be selected for in certain environments, that doesn't mean that “being smart” isn't being selected for.
In fact, it requires a great deal of intelligence of some sort to know how to behave around other people and get along with them.
The outrage over this email is complete and utter bullshit. While I'm not disputing that the person who in fact wrote it may have some unpopular and ill-founded views on race, and if such racist views have been advanced in other circumstances they should be punished for it, there is absolutely NOTHING in this email which suggests bigotry.
This is purely another example of ridiculous racial outrage being directed at someone who merely advanced the possibility of an unpopular and politically incorrect view having some legitimacy. Labeling this individual as a racist because of this email and attempting to block her federal clerkship because of this goes right to the core of what is wrong with this country and our completely ridiculous reliance on political correctness.
Where in the First Amendment does it say that someone should be scape-goated for merely advancing the “possibility” of genetics having some role in intelligence? So she advanced an unpopular view and said she would like to see more research to disprove it…so what? Why don't we just burn her at the stake. This makes me sick to my stomach and all of you trying to ruin this person's life really need to get some other hobbies.
what's the big deal? does anyone really know if black people and white people have the same intelligence? i know one thing for sure, the white person that wrote that email is an idiot and should have known that something like this can result. still, in the pc world we live in today it is really sad that we can't even discuss this. the harvard girl didn't even come to a conclusion! she just said she wouldn't be surprised if black people aren't as smart.
Follow-up question: where in the first amendment does it say I'm not allowed to tell someone I think her views are reprehensible, and where does it say I'm not allowed to tell her employer that I think those views make her unsuitable for public service?
Her name is Stephanie Grace
Her name is Stephanie Grace
Her name is Stephanie Grace
Her name is Stephanie Grace
word
BLSA members acting as tipsters does not mean there was or will be a unified response from BLSA as an organization. So until the HBLSA president or national BLSA president sends a response (like the Fed Society President), it's not fair to say BLSA is going after this person.
I agree. Her name is Stephanie Grace
I agree. Her name is Stephanie Grace
uh, why is this a surprise when we find out that intelligent people still have views that others are genetically inferior to them??!!
uh, why is this a surprise when we find out that intelligent people still have views that others are genetically inferior to them??!!
Maybe she should have to disprove what at idiot she is before she's allowed to accept her clerkship. Guilty until proven innocent huh? Glad she was paying attention in class.
Most of you should be ashamed of yourselves. First, a member of the HBLSA specifically stated that they are not going after DNA's clerkship. NOT GOING AFTER HER CLERKSHIP! Abovethelaw.com messed that up, so stop blaming those members and attacking them for a misprint. Second, why are people making arguments about genetics that they don't understand? People can give their two cents, but they probably don't know anything and making assumptions one way or the other is dumb. DNA was wrong for what she said, point blank. She clearly assumes that one group of people is less intelligent than another and that is wrong. People are basing the “intelligence” of blacks on a test created by whites and what they view to be signs/markers of intelligence. Really, all of these studies and comments are based on flawed logic and standards that one group believes is an accurate measure for all groups. Third, you cannot rule out environmental, social, and economic factors when comparing blacks “intelligence” to other racial groups and to other “African Americans” (e.g., Africans, Caribbeans). Fourth, why did this turn into an Affirmative Action debate? DNA did not mention it, so why are other people discussing it in the context of her email?
This “debate” degenerated into an uninformed attack on HBLSA and Affirmative Action, when that is not even the issue. EVERYONE should be offended that someone who will clerk in the federal government possesses such ignorant views. That is why the email has been circulated to other law schools. It was not to remove DNA from her clerkship. It is to show that blacks and other minorities still face adversity in obtaining social, economic, political, and education equality b/c of people who share similar views to DNA.
obviously this woman flunked out of science. guess because “women” without the genetic propensity for science. what a bunch of garbage. her “reasoning” smacks of entitlement reinforced by her perceived academic successes so far. she had advantages from day 1 due to her white skin and european heritage. to this day she can walk into a room and be automatically perceived as more intelligent and more acceptable than any brown or ethnic person. That garbage piles up on kids-from day one. It's amazing when minorities succeed DESPITE the daily garbage they have to slog through to achieve.
Harvard '87
obviously this woman flunked out of science. guess because “women” without the genetic propensity for science. what a bunch of garbage. her “reasoning” smacks of entitlement reinforced by her perceived academic successes so far. she had advantages from day 1 due to her white skin and european heritage. to this day she can walk into a room and be automatically perceived as more intelligent and more acceptable than any brown or ethnic person. That garbage piles up on kids-from day one. It's amazing when minorities succeed DESPITE the daily garbage they have to slog through to achieve.
Harvard '87
Actually, he was talking about the need for education — not innate ability. He was advocating providing blacks with the education they had been denied for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS!. Maybe you should look at context before you post.
Yes it does. ALl of us black law students, regardless of background, because of the unity of our experiences are reacting in a similar way to this. We all have to deal with this shit in class every. fucking. day. And if we weren't here to defend ourselves no one would. THATS why we need to be here. To keep racist assholes in check.
This letter writer, like many members of the federalist society (at least that I have met in constitutional law related courses) made an assertion then argued against it claiming there was no 'disproving' scientific evidence. Her flaw was that there was already scientific evidence showing the very claim she made was false. Income correlates more directly with crime propensity than race. This was shown back in the 70s, then again with the Rand study int he 80's, then again in the late 90s. She either was not aware of that fact or was ignoring it to 'beg her question'.
Where in the 14th Amendment does it say you have the right to an abortion or to gay sodomy?
Thought police alert.
No, it doesn't. Diversity makes societies and civilizations weaker. There are numerous studies showing that trust within a community goes down when there are more people from outside the community there. Your liberal bullshit has no basis in reality.
Also, the fact that IQ tests were created by Europeans makes no difference. Asians do better, so your theory falls apart.
It would be nice if people would think of America just as america. African Americans are not representative of ALL black folks in the world and that's even absurd to think about. Same way White Americans are not representative of all white folks in the world. For example Africans in America tend to outperform white and black americans on standardized tests there, what does this tell us about one race over the other? Nothing. Useless argument.
Your reasoning is so convenient!
This is exactly why, I not so secretly hate all white people… URM T-14 AA admit who definitely did better than 90% of all the other 1L's…
Try and punctuate. The mere fact that you allegedly came from Harvard and cannot even make your sentence look intelligent on the interweb undermines your tripe.
Yale '99
I find it amusing how the “politically correct” position in the “nature vs. nuture” argument reverses depending on whether one is discussing race or sexual orientation. The title of this post indicates that it is “racist” to suggest that genes play any significant role in intelligence and/or to consider it an open question whether people of one skin color tend to have more “smart” genes than people of another skin color. On the other hand, one is accused of homophobia if one suggests that sexual orientation is anything less than 100% genetically predetermined. With respect to behaviors for which the analysis is not so politically charged (e.g., alcoholism), most scientists agree that both nature and nuture play a significant role in determining outcomes. So why should it be unacceptable to at least consider the possibilty that both nature and nuture play a significant role in determining intelligence and sexual orientation, and that, to the extent that certain genes are associated with those outcomes, the genes are not 100% evenly distributed among those of every shade of skin?
I wonder why it's troubling to the poster that OUTRAGE named DNA. Dinesh D'Souza was an undergrad at my college, and we publicized his name after he engaged in myriad hateful acts targeted at Black and gay students on campus. I believe it's important for people who embrace and publish bigoted opinions to be held accountable. As long as OUTRAGE doesn't misquote or misrepresent DNA's words or actions, why shouldn't DNA be held publically accountable?
Methinks you are confusing 'unpopular' with 'socially dangerous and bad'.
Advocating sex with children is an unpopular view. That does not make it excusable to say, let alone vilify those who express outrage and disgust over it. Claiming the holocaust never happened is an 'unpopular view' that doesnt mean people who mock and deride those who make such a silly claim are wrong for doing so.
Likewise, claiming blacks are genetically inferior (while IGNORING scientific data over the last 40 years saying income and geographics have more to do with crime and intellect than natural traits…she expressedly claimed there was no data saying that… she must have never read a sociology first year undergrad book) is a stupid idea that deserves disgust and public ostracization.
Methinks you are confusing 'unpopular' with 'socially dangerous and bad'.
Advocating sex with children is an unpopular view. That does not make it excusable to say, let alone vilify those who express outrage and disgust over it. Claiming the holocaust never happened is an 'unpopular view' that doesnt mean people who mock and deride those who make such a silly claim are wrong for doing so.
Likewise, claiming blacks are genetically inferior (while IGNORING scientific data over the last 40 years saying income and geographics have more to do with crime and intellect than natural traits…she expressedly claimed there was no data saying that… she must have never read a sociology first year undergrad book) is a stupid idea that deserves disgust and public ostracization.
And a black guy born in 1986 that needed a 10 point lower LSAT score to get into Harvard didn't have advantages from day one due to black skin and African heritage?
And a black guy born in 1986 that needed a 10 point lower LSAT score to get into Harvard didn't have advantages from day one due to black skin and African heritage?
IQ tests are not racially biased. They are designed to test the cognitive powers of individuals, and they do this task quite well. Modern tests do not depend on culturally specific knowledge that a white person is more likely to posess. And, of course, nobody completely rules out environmental factors. Even the most hardcore hereditarians admit that certain environmental factors are important. Their argument is, however, that most of the difference is explained by genetic differences. It seems strange that you are so quick to condemn DNA's position yet are clearly quite ignorant about the topic under discussion.
My bad, I forgot to reference the legal basis for your question. There is absolutely no problem with telling someone their views are reprehensible…that's the beauty of living in a free society.
However, on the question of contacting her employer and trying to get her fired: It's an ambiguous and very obscure principle called “not being a douchebag.” I don't think there have been many legal opinions on it yet and it's quite hard to codify.
Perhaps it's one of those inborn basic human traits which many law students these days struggle with understanding since it's not written down; on par with “how not to be socially retarded” and “having a normal conversation”, you know…those things which separate the “superior blue-bookers” from those with lower gpas who actually are employable.
My bad, I forgot to reference the legal basis for your question. There is absolutely no problem with telling someone their views are reprehensible…that's the beauty of living in a free society.
However, on the question of contacting her employer and trying to get her fired: It's an ambiguous and very obscure principle called “not being a douchebag.” I don't think there have been many legal opinions on it yet and it's quite hard to codify.
Perhaps it's one of those inborn basic human traits which many law students these days struggle with understanding since it's not written down; on par with “how not to be socially retarded” and “having a normal conversation”, you know…those things which separate the “superior blue-bookers” from those with lower gpas who actually are employable.
Below is a message sent out to BLSA members from Visiting HLS Professor Ian Haney Lopez who teaches the course “Debating Race in American Law.”
Thank you for forwarding me the email on genetics, intelligence, and race. I must say, it's terribly worrisome, though not because of the content. I have a more pressing concern that I set out below, in the hope that you might find this helpful, and if you do, might consider forwarding these thoughts on to others.
As far as the email's content goes, this harks back to a long, and long-discredited, tradition of locating races in terms of a supposedly natural hierarchy. That said, the writer's demand for empirical data is especially rich. As you know, the genetic science regarding race reduces to the point that genetics has nothing to do with race: the major races, such as black and white, simply do not reflect genetic divisions among humans. Sure, small groups that live in relative reproductive isolation share genetic ties. But the claim that genes delimit the boundaries between the historically created meta-categories of white, black, yellow, red, and (here, the very disagreement on an appropriate taxonomy indicates race's irreducibly cultural origins) is simply another in a long line of fraudulent arguments locating racial differences in biology. If races find their origins and persistence in social practices rather than nature, how can nature possibly explain group characteristics, including intelligence? There is no data (dis)proving that blacks or any other race differ for genetic reasons in terms of intelligence for the awkwardly simple reason that such groups are not genetically distinct. For further on this, you can refer to my article “The Social Construction of Race” as well as to the works cited therein–among which, Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man is especially thoughtful.
So there exists out there yet another person still earnestly repeating worn stereotypes of minority intellectual inferiority, fatuously presented as an empirical conundrum. Tell me something new.
Though inured to the content of the email, I'm much more worried about its impact, or more precisely, its potential impact if black law students end up focusing on this during exam period. I'm sure you're familiar with Claude Steele's work on stereotype threat, though if you're not, you should track it down. At the risk of oversimplification, Steele shows that when groups are burdened with a negative stereotype, and either that stereotype or even just membership in the group is activated, group members perform less well than they otherwise would. One of his most striking examples involved a math test given to Asian American women. Relative to a control group not given any prompt regarding identity, the group primed to think about themselves as women performed less well–while the group for whom Asian American identity was stressed performed much better.
I'm worried that you and others will devote precious time and energy to responding to this incident, when you should be focused on doing great on your exams and papers. Separate and apart from the actual time wasted on this, though, I'm more worried that attention to these tired allegations will push this stereotype to the fore during the exam period. This risks triggering dynamics of anger, self-doubt, and insecurity at the very moment you should be most confident in the knowledge and insights you have gleaned over the semester, and in your ability to successfully convey your learning.
Once a stereotype has been activated, of course, you can't simply put it out of your mind. But you can put it in its proper place. In this instance, the proper place is in the trash (folder). Once exams are over, there will be plenty of time to respond to the offending email, if it still seems important to do so.
At this point, it's better to shake it off. Yes, another person suspects minorities lack what it takes, and yes, it hurts to read that garbage. We've been fighting that calumny for generations, and I suspect we still have years and years to go. But we get to choose when we'll fight racial stereotypes, and when we'll ignore them and focus on our strengths and talents, on our past accomplishments and our aspirations for the future, on our families and communities and their hopes and dreams for us.
I hope you'll make the choice to take up the racial justice fight — but over the length of your career, and always in the manner and time of your choosing. For now, I fervently hope you'll just shake your head and laugh — first in sorrow, then in incredulous wonder that we're here again, and ultimately from the shear craziness of it all — and then, together with your friends, that you'll get on with doing great on your finals.
With the utmost confidence in what you'll accomplish, now and in the future,
Ian Haney Lopez
I want to fuck and impregnate this female 3L with my superior sperm so we can start a new Aryan nation bwahaha
I want to fuck and impregnate this female 3L with my superior sperm so we can start a new Aryan nation bwahaha
Nothing 'politically incorrect' about, its just that its FALSE. Her assertions were proven wrong many times over the last 40 years. Income/Geographics correlate more with crime propensity and academic achievement than race. Look up the Rand studies from the 80s.
This student made a false assertion, then argued with it. She made a claim that was not true, then asserted that no evidence exists to prove her wrong. The equivalent would be me saying
“I dont understand why people disagree with the assumption that the sky is red. And its sad that no evidence has come to light proving that the sky is NOT red”.
Likewise, this law student is trying to argue genetics, evolution and social science with NO correlative background in it. It would be like a lawyer (Im a law student myself) trying to write a discourse on brain surgery. No background.
Nothing 'politically incorrect' about, its just that its FALSE. Her assertions were proven wrong many times over the last 40 years. Income/Geographics correlate more with crime propensity and academic achievement than race. Look up the Rand studies from the 80s.
This student made a false assertion, then argued with it. She made a claim that was not true, then asserted that no evidence exists to prove her wrong. The equivalent would be me saying
“I dont understand why people disagree with the assumption that the sky is red. And its sad that no evidence has come to light proving that the sky is NOT red”.
Likewise, this law student is trying to argue genetics, evolution and social science with NO correlative background in it. It would be like a lawyer (Im a law student myself) trying to write a discourse on brain surgery. No background.
I can't find any clear, sound or persuasive argument contained within this post.
LOL, you really think that you get into t-14 for 'doing better' than other grads? LOL. The LSAT is a joke, and I know 4.0 grads who couldnt get into a top 14, and a guy who graduated with a 3.0 and a 155 on the LSAT who got into Stanford.
If you think 'how well you do' in undergrad has any effect on t-14 acceptance, I have ocean front property in Idaho to sell you.
LOL, you really think that you get into t-14 for 'doing better' than other grads? LOL. The LSAT is a joke, and I know 4.0 grads who couldnt get into a top 14, and a guy who graduated with a 3.0 and a 155 on the LSAT who got into Stanford.
If you think 'how well you do' in undergrad has any effect on t-14 acceptance, I have ocean front property in Idaho to sell you.
LOL, you really think that you get into t-14 for 'doing better' than other grads? LOL. The LSAT is a joke, and I know 4.0 grads who couldnt get into a top 14, and a guy who graduated with a 3.0 and a 155 on the LSAT who got into Stanford.
If you think 'how well you do' in undergrad has any effect on t-14 acceptance, I have ocean front property in Idaho to sell you.
The only poltically correct position for this female 3L is prone. Submit to my Superior Sperm, wench!
The only poltically correct position for this female 3L is prone. Submit to my Superior Sperm, wench!
The only poltically correct position for this female 3L is prone. Submit to my Superior Sperm, wench!
The only poltically correct position for this female 3L is prone. Submit to my Superior Sperm, wench!
The only poltically correct position for this female 3L is prone. Submit to my Superior Sperm, wench!
The only poltically correct position for this female 3L is prone. Submit to my Superior Sperm, wench!
Ummm, you have some serious hypocrisy in your post. First you say “People can give their two cents, but they probably don't know anything and making assumptions one way or the other is dumb” but then you categorically state that she is completely wrong. To me that sounds an awful lot like making an assumption one way or the other which you yourself just said was dumb. I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't a geneticist either and thus aren't anymore qualified to judge her comments than the rest of us.
BLSAers: Instead of confronting the author and/or the idea he/she espouses on the merits, how wonderfully “intelligent” of you to appear vindictive; your actions actually garner more sympathy for this person–not the right thing to do if you want to combat the misconceptions that he/she has.
This is true as hell. I have a final on Friday and I've spent the last 4 hours responding to people's racist bullshit about this story. Urgh.
This is true as hell. I have a final on Friday and I've spent the last 4 hours responding to people's racist bullshit about this story. Urgh.
You are a liar. Show me these studies. My side can come back with Richard Lynn, Michael Hart, the Bell Curve, Scarr-Weinberg, or a myriad of others.
It is quite sad that a professor at HLS could be so deeply ignorant. The Mismeasure of Man is a thouroughly discredited book. There is a clear biological content to racial differences even if the way we understand race is culturally conditioned. This person may be qualified to write about law, but he clearly knows very little about the science on intelligence.
So once you control for the “Income/Geographics” factor, the inequality disappears, right?
So once you control for the “Income/Geographics” factor, the inequality disappears, right?
So once you control for the “Income/Geographics” factor, the inequality disappears, right?
So once you control for the “Income/Geographics” factor, the inequality disappears, right?
So once you control for the “Income/Geographics” factor, the inequality disappears, right?
So once you control for the “Income/Geographics” factor, the inequality disappears, right?
Why don't you post your LSAT score genius? And remember, you can lie to us, but you can't lie to yourself.
Bad on Kash to prejudge the issue by labeling the e-mail “racist”. It was not. This is really troubling, not for the sentiments expressed in the e-mail, but in the furious, know-nothing, McCarthy-like response to legitimate questions. I think Larry Summers knows something about this response.
Of course it's going to be correlated with income. Dumb people will not have high paying jobs. They'll pass on their dumb genes to their kids. God, liberalism makes otherwise smart people really stupid.
Clueless, dipshit Professor. Not biologically meaningful, huh?
http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/10/cx_mh_0509race...
Stick to what you know, fuckwit.
Clueless, dipshit Professor. Not biologically meaningful, huh?
http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/10/cx_mh_0509race...
Stick to what you know, fuckwit.
you're clearly poor, because you're so incredibly stupid.
dumb people don't have high paying jobs? george w. bush didn't have high paying jobs?
you're clearly poor, because you're so incredibly stupid.
dumb people don't have high paying jobs? george w. bush didn't have high paying jobs?
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Crimson DNA seems like a great person! Crimson DNA, if you're reading this then perhaps we could have lunch?
All you crazy liberals need to shut the hell up and stay out of our racist agendas.
Love,
Kyle Bristow
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-alleged-hat...
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
Of course it doesn't. The fact that numerous studies have proved that adopted children reach the IQ potential of their biological parents, and not their adopted parents, clears up for me the liberal fantasy that intelligence is nurture, and not nature.
So why is it ok to out a Northwestern African-American 3L who might have gotten arrested for a DWI – (something that's just NOT news worthy), yet it is not ok to out a Harvard bigot?? Raises questions about ATL!!
So why is it ok to out a Northwestern African-American 3L who might have gotten arrested for a DWI – (something that's just NOT news worthy), yet it is not ok to out a Harvard bigot?? Raises questions about ATL!!
It seems like your comment that you “not so secretly hate all white people” is much, much, more inflammatory than anything Crimson wrote. Should you be barred from any position in which you can have influence?
It seems like your comment that you “not so secretly hate all white people” is much, much, more inflammatory than anything Crimson wrote. Should you be barred from any position in which you can have influence?
It seems like your comment that you “not so secretly hate all white people” is much, much, more inflammatory than anything Crimson wrote. Should you be barred from any position in which you can have influence?
It seems like your comment that you “not so secretly hate all white people” is much, much, more inflammatory than anything Crimson wrote. Should you be barred from any position in which you can have influence?
It seems like your comment that you “not so secretly hate all white people” is much, much, more inflammatory than anything Crimson wrote. Should you be barred from any position in which you can have influence?
It seems like your comment that you “not so secretly hate all white people” is much, much, more inflammatory than anything Crimson wrote. Should you be barred from any position in which you can have influence?
Her name is Stephanie Grace, she's definitely in fedsoc (organized some events last here) and a member of harvard law review, and she is clerking for Kozinsky next year.
Kill yourself, you fat fuck.
Kill yourself, you fat fuck.
Liberalism is so good at making smart people dumb. Everyone really needs to read Scarr-Weinberg before they keep embarrassing themselves.
And what exactly is your Phd in that you can make authoritative pronouncements on the matter?
And what exactly is your Phd in that you can make authoritative pronouncements on the matter?
And what exactly is your Phd in that you can make authoritative pronouncements on the matter?
And what exactly is your Phd in that you can make authoritative pronouncements on the matter?
And what exactly is your Phd in that you can make authoritative pronouncements on the matter?
And what exactly is your Phd in that you can make authoritative pronouncements on the matter?
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
You present it as if it's an either/or matter. Personally, when it comes to intelligence, I believe there are both genetic and environmental components.
Right. Of course someone with good genetics who is locked in a room with no food or medicine will not appear intelligent, but the fact is, the vast majority is genetic.
Right. Of course someone with good genetics who is locked in a room with no food or medicine will not appear intelligent, but the fact is, the vast majority is genetic.
I never said that I was. I included myself in those comments that I am not a genetist, and I do not claim to be one. But, unlike DNA and other posters on this, I have enough sense to realize that there are other explanations to “gaps” between racial groups than genetics. That's just common sense. I don't need a degree in genetics for that. It is also common since that while the IQ testing standard is not based on standards for race, that it has been manipulated to fit the views of people like DNA's.
I've made no assumptions, I've stated that there are other reasons for these apparent gaps. DNA assumes that there are genetic reasons for her beliefs, but that she could be disproved. She never said she did not have those views in her email
Criticizing what I've said does not take away the fact that DNA's views are ignorant and do not have a basis in science, but it I am astounded at how fast people took to her views or defended them when they also do not have a scientific background. I am just giving another perspective.
We are all of one race: HUMAN. Ethnicities and origins vary, and expressed phenotypes are caused by miniscule differences in DNA. There is no genetic basis to the concept of race.
Astounded this is literally the only good comment so far, and I'm including my own in that statement. Thanks.
Astounded this is literally the only good comment so far, and I'm including my own in that statement. Thanks.
Astounded this is literally the only good comment so far, and I'm including my own in that statement. Thanks.
This is out of control. The first thing that needs to be made perfectly clear is that the student in question never expressed a personal opinion or view as to a conclusive position on the subject. What's sad is that the orthodoxy of political correctness has been so deeply ingrained in us that the mere suggestion that genetic disparities are possible leads to this kind of “firestorm.”
Given the current state of science, I certainly cannot condone a conclusion that such genetic disparities exist. But if the expression of something as innocuous as honest uncertainty produces this kind of reaction–threatening the reputation, livelihood, and undoubtedly the very life of the person who dares to make their doubts known–then I fear for the future of those venerable institutions of logic and reason. People who take the position that an unpopular conclusion has not been disproved should not be shouted down. The chilling effect on actual debate and rational inquiry (scientific or otherwise) is all too obvious.
Surely we all want to believe that genetics do not dictate attributes such as intelligence. But it is not irrational, ignorant, or wrong in any sense to ask the question and withhold judgment in the absence of something truly dispositive. On the contrary, this entire debacle–the fact that one can even refer to it as a “debacle”–is evidence that the dominant attitude in society generally, and academia specifically, is irrational.
Ummm… This whole (silly) argument is premised on the notion that there exist “pure” black and white racial groups in the United States. Quite to the contrary, most of us here who are the descendants of slaves have white anscestors. Yes, white America, you've got black cousins. So, did our white ancestors somehow figure out a way to avoid passing on their “smart” genes to the children they fathered with slaves?
Ummm… This whole (silly) argument is premised on the notion that there exist “pure” black and white racial groups in the United States. Quite to the contrary, most of us here who are the descendants of slaves have white anscestors. Yes, white America, you've got black cousins. So, did our white ancestors somehow figure out a way to avoid passing on their “smart” genes to the children they fathered with slaves?
Ummm… This whole (silly) argument is premised on the notion that there exist “pure” black and white racial groups in the United States. Quite to the contrary, most of us here who are the descendants of slaves have white anscestors. Yes, white America, you've got black cousins. So, did our white ancestors somehow figure out a way to avoid passing on their “smart” genes to the children they fathered with slaves?
Ummm… This whole (silly) argument is premised on the notion that there exist “pure” black and white racial groups in the United States. Quite to the contrary, most of us here who are the descendants of slaves have white anscestors. Yes, white America, you've got black cousins. So, did our white ancestors somehow figure out a way to avoid passing on their “smart” genes to the children they fathered with slaves?
It's interesting that when IQ is controlled for, the entire income disparity between blacks and whites (and asians for that matter) disappears. I believe in fact that blacks earn 101% the income of equivalent IQ whites.
It's interesting that when IQ is controlled for, the entire income disparity between blacks and whites (and asians for that matter) disappears. I believe in fact that blacks earn 101% the income of equivalent IQ whites.
This is ridiculous, and I do not even mean to offend. Do you (!!!!) know much about the science of intelligence? (This is rhetorical you see, because it appears you do not)
Come on, the point is not whether intelligence is influenced by genetic factors. Um…It is scientifically clear that it is. The idiocy is in assuming (and even debating!!) this proves or has relevance in buttressing the ill-informed and repugnant point; that is, that these genetic factors differ across race, gender, etc. They do not. There is greater genetic differentiation between the peoples of northern africa then there is across the world as a whole. And here's the newsflash (a century old one, no? to those purported science-goers out there)—this teeny tiny differentiation with respect to genetic code relates to physical factors only. Something that makes evolutionary sense, right? Um…you tend to be shorter and stockier if your ancestors came from cold regions because you have less bodily surface area from which you might exude heat.
If you talk science–read it. Be informed. Your espousal is social darwinist, pure ignorance with the guise of science. It is a shame that this is even being debated.
This is ridiculous, and I do not even mean to offend. Do you (!!!!) know much about the science of intelligence? (This is rhetorical you see, because it appears you do not)
Come on, the point is not whether intelligence is influenced by genetic factors. Um…It is scientifically clear that it is. The idiocy is in assuming (and even debating!!) this proves or has relevance in buttressing the ill-informed and repugnant point; that is, that these genetic factors differ across race, gender, etc. They do not. There is greater genetic differentiation between the peoples of northern africa then there is across the world as a whole. And here's the newsflash (a century old one, no? to those purported science-goers out there)—this teeny tiny differentiation with respect to genetic code relates to physical factors only. Something that makes evolutionary sense, right? Um…you tend to be shorter and stockier if your ancestors came from cold regions because you have less bodily surface area from which you might exude heat.
If you talk science–read it. Be informed. Your espousal is social darwinist, pure ignorance with the guise of science. It is a shame that this is even being debated.
This is ridiculous, and I do not even mean to offend. Do you (!!!!) know much about the science of intelligence? (This is rhetorical you see, because it appears you do not)
Come on, the point is not whether intelligence is influenced by genetic factors. Um…It is scientifically clear that it is. The idiocy is in assuming (and even debating!!) this proves or has relevance in buttressing the ill-informed and repugnant point; that is, that these genetic factors differ across race, gender, etc. They do not. There is greater genetic differentiation between the peoples of northern africa then there is across the world as a whole. And here's the newsflash (a century old one, no? to those purported science-goers out there)—this teeny tiny differentiation with respect to genetic code relates to physical factors only. Something that makes evolutionary sense, right? Um…you tend to be shorter and stockier if your ancestors came from cold regions because you have less bodily surface area from which you might exude heat.
If you talk science–read it. Be informed. Your espousal is social darwinist, pure ignorance with the guise of science. It is a shame that this is even being debated.
This is ridiculous, and I do not even mean to offend. Do you (!!!!) know much about the science of intelligence? (This is rhetorical you see, because it appears you do not)
Come on, the point is not whether intelligence is influenced by genetic factors. Um…It is scientifically clear that it is. The idiocy is in assuming (and even debating!!) this proves or has relevance in buttressing the ill-informed and repugnant point; that is, that these genetic factors differ across race, gender, etc. They do not. There is greater genetic differentiation between the peoples of northern africa then there is across the world as a whole. And here's the newsflash (a century old one, no? to those purported science-goers out there)—this teeny tiny differentiation with respect to genetic code relates to physical factors only. Something that makes evolutionary sense, right? Um…you tend to be shorter and stockier if your ancestors came from cold regions because you have less bodily surface area from which you might exude heat.
If you talk science–read it. Be informed. Your espousal is social darwinist, pure ignorance with the guise of science. It is a shame that this is even being debated.
This is ridiculous, and I do not even mean to offend. Do you (!!!!) know much about the science of intelligence? (This is rhetorical you see, because it appears you do not)
Come on, the point is not whether intelligence is influenced by genetic factors. Um…It is scientifically clear that it is. The idiocy is in assuming (and even debating!!) this proves or has relevance in buttressing the ill-informed and repugnant point; that is, that these genetic factors differ across race, gender, etc. They do not. There is greater genetic differentiation between the peoples of northern africa then there is across the world as a whole. And here's the newsflash (a century old one, no? to those purported science-goers out there)—this teeny tiny differentiation with respect to genetic code relates to physical factors only. Something that makes evolutionary sense, right? Um…you tend to be shorter and stockier if your ancestors came from cold regions because you have less bodily surface area from which you might exude heat.
If you talk science–read it. Be informed. Your espousal is social darwinist, pure ignorance with the guise of science. It is a shame that this is even being debated.
Why do blacks whose parents earn more than $70,000 (in 1995 dollars) a year score lower on average on the SAT than whites whose parents earn less than $10,000 a year?
What does that have to do with anything? Strawman for the win!
This should get the post count up…………
your post is incoherent and ungrammatical. The only importnat point you make — that the genetic differences between races only affect physical characteristics — is a completely unsubstantiated bullshit claim.
your post is incoherent and ungrammatical. The only importnat point you make — that the genetic differences between races only affect physical characteristics — is a completely unsubstantiated bullshit claim.
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
SO then we don't have a category of “race” in the animal kingdom? So when we see different birds that are different colored, we call them different species, I guess? Is that what we should start doing?
BLSA has not at this time done A THING. It has not made a single public statement. Other parties leaked this. THe BLSA email specifically said for us not to say anything. The person who leaked this might not even have been black. It could have been the same (possibly white/asian/latina) college with whom she was having the initial conversation. So what are you criticizing BLSA for doing exactly? How dare BLSA plan to issue a statement in response to a racist and hurtful email that has traumatized the community. Poor poor white girl. Lets defend the real victim. the SWF
BLSA has not at this time done A THING. It has not made a single public statement. Other parties leaked this. THe BLSA email specifically said for us not to say anything. The person who leaked this might not even have been black. It could have been the same (possibly white/asian/latina) college with whom she was having the initial conversation. So what are you criticizing BLSA for doing exactly? How dare BLSA plan to issue a statement in response to a racist and hurtful email that has traumatized the community. Poor poor white girl. Lets defend the real victim. the SWF
BLSA has not at this time done A THING. It has not made a single public statement. Other parties leaked this. THe BLSA email specifically said for us not to say anything. The person who leaked this might not even have been black. It could have been the same (possibly white/asian/latina) college with whom she was having the initial conversation. So what are you criticizing BLSA for doing exactly? How dare BLSA plan to issue a statement in response to a racist and hurtful email that has traumatized the community. Poor poor white girl. Lets defend the real victim. the SWF
BLSA has not at this time done A THING. It has not made a single public statement. Other parties leaked this. THe BLSA email specifically said for us not to say anything. The person who leaked this might not even have been black. It could have been the same (possibly white/asian/latina) college with whom she was having the initial conversation. So what are you criticizing BLSA for doing exactly? How dare BLSA plan to issue a statement in response to a racist and hurtful email that has traumatized the community. Poor poor white girl. Lets defend the real victim. the SWF
BLSA has not at this time done A THING. It has not made a single public statement. Other parties leaked this. THe BLSA email specifically said for us not to say anything. The person who leaked this might not even have been black. It could have been the same (possibly white/asian/latina) college with whom she was having the initial conversation. So what are you criticizing BLSA for doing exactly? How dare BLSA plan to issue a statement in response to a racist and hurtful email that has traumatized the community. Poor poor white girl. Lets defend the real victim. the SWF
colleague*
colleague*
colleague*
colleague*
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Me too girl.
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
Well, if you want to argue the relative intelligence of distinc racial groups, you need to have distinct racial groups for comparison. Black people in America are not a distinct racial group from whites; most of us have white ancestry. Got it?
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
It seems the Left has just chosen to ignore any science they disagree with. It's funny to see how people can argue that genetics have little to do with intelligence while a group that makes up one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population has won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.
It's much easier to smear people as White supremacists even though they acknowledge that Jewish and Asians inherit more intelligence.
Lsat score 164; IQ test sometime in elementary school 141;… 1st semester GPA 3.89… I however don't think that my lsat score, IQ test, or 1st semester GPA, implies much of anything about my overall intelligence level. My ability to succeed at anything I want is proof enough of that. So sorry Janus, I unfortunately won't be barred from any position which I can have influence… Furthermore, unlike the closet racists such as Stephanie Grace, I won't avoid being frank; white people on average are ridiculously racist, manipulative, bigoted, and exploitive. My hate stems predominantly from emails like the one this chick sent. I mean really do white people not have anything better to do than talk about how lazy, stupid, and violent black people are? I mean really, when is this whole welfare, reverse affirmative action, pity party of whites going to stop? Newsflash to white people– You were never slaves, you have never been oppressed, you have been able to get loans and establish credit below the mason dixon line for longer than 40 some odd years, you've never been subject to de jure segregation, and you never get pulled over for being in the wrong part of town… White anger is synonymouswith white supremacy…
Maybe since black people are so stupid, some stupid black guy will mug, rape and leave Stephanie Grace for dead in some back alley in cambridge. More fodder for the variance in her bell curves.
Lsat score 164; IQ test sometime in elementary school 141;… 1st semester GPA 3.89… I however don't think that my lsat score, IQ test, or 1st semester GPA, implies much of anything about my overall intelligence level. My ability to succeed at anything I want is proof enough of that. So sorry Janus, I unfortunately won't be barred from any position which I can have influence… Furthermore, unlike the closet racists such as Stephanie Grace, I won't avoid being frank; white people on average are ridiculously racist, manipulative, bigoted, and exploitive. My hate stems predominantly from emails like the one this chick sent. I mean really do white people not have anything better to do than talk about how lazy, stupid, and violent black people are? I mean really, when is this whole welfare, reverse affirmative action, pity party of whites going to stop? Newsflash to white people– You were never slaves, you have never been oppressed, you have been able to get loans and establish credit below the mason dixon line for longer than 40 some odd years, you've never been subject to de jure segregation, and you never get pulled over for being in the wrong part of town… White anger is synonymouswith white supremacy…
Maybe since black people are so stupid, some stupid black guy will mug, rape and leave Stephanie Grace for dead in some back alley in cambridge. More fodder for the variance in her bell curves.
Lsat score 164; IQ test sometime in elementary school 141;… 1st semester GPA 3.89… I however don't think that my lsat score, IQ test, or 1st semester GPA, implies much of anything about my overall intelligence level. My ability to succeed at anything I want is proof enough of that. So sorry Janus, I unfortunately won't be barred from any position which I can have influence… Furthermore, unlike the closet racists such as Stephanie Grace, I won't avoid being frank; white people on average are ridiculously racist, manipulative, bigoted, and exploitive. My hate stems predominantly from emails like the one this chick sent. I mean really do white people not have anything better to do than talk about how lazy, stupid, and violent black people are? I mean really, when is this whole welfare, reverse affirmative action, pity party of whites going to stop? Newsflash to white people– You were never slaves, you have never been oppressed, you have been able to get loans and establish credit below the mason dixon line for longer than 40 some odd years, you've never been subject to de jure segregation, and you never get pulled over for being in the wrong part of town… White anger is synonymouswith white supremacy…
Maybe since black people are so stupid, some stupid black guy will mug, rape and leave Stephanie Grace for dead in some back alley in cambridge. More fodder for the variance in her bell curves.
Lsat score 164; IQ test sometime in elementary school 141;… 1st semester GPA 3.89… I however don't think that my lsat score, IQ test, or 1st semester GPA, implies much of anything about my overall intelligence level. My ability to succeed at anything I want is proof enough of that. So sorry Janus, I unfortunately won't be barred from any position which I can have influence… Furthermore, unlike the closet racists such as Stephanie Grace, I won't avoid being frank; white people on average are ridiculously racist, manipulative, bigoted, and exploitive. My hate stems predominantly from emails like the one this chick sent. I mean really do white people not have anything better to do than talk about how lazy, stupid, and violent black people are? I mean really, when is this whole welfare, reverse affirmative action, pity party of whites going to stop? Newsflash to white people– You were never slaves, you have never been oppressed, you have been able to get loans and establish credit below the mason dixon line for longer than 40 some odd years, you've never been subject to de jure segregation, and you never get pulled over for being in the wrong part of town… White anger is synonymouswith white supremacy…
Maybe since black people are so stupid, some stupid black guy will mug, rape and leave Stephanie Grace for dead in some back alley in cambridge. More fodder for the variance in her bell curves.
Politically correct cowards all. The disingenuous claims of race being a social construct and that there are no cognitive differences between the races are amusing. Psychometrists have established that E. Asians on average have higher visuospatial ability than whites and other groups, hence the higher numbers of E. Asians demonstrating good skills in computation. Whites on average outscore E. Asians in verbal reasoning (which isn't only speech and reading, as some suggest). There is great overlap between Asians and whites, with Asians showing a slightly higher average, since visuospatial scores have been weighted more heavily the last few decades. When verbal reasoning was/is weighted more than visuospatial, then whites have a slightly higher average. Even more irritating to the race deniers is work that shows that those evil Caucasians do apparently possess more divergent reasoning ability than other groups. Horrible because one cannot mention anything that whites do well. An interesting side note are Ashkenazi Jews, who while tending to score below the “white” average on visuospatial tests, excel over all other groups on average in mathematics. This is likely due to their higher than average verbal reasoning abilities, that give them an 'average' IQ of about 108 (not the often quoted, but untrue 115). Even more irritating to some, are differences in average between European groups or differences between E. Asians and S.E. Asians.
Get real. There are differences, shaped by whatever selection pressure your ancestors faced. Jewish friends of mine think that the Jewish mind was “shaped” by the Jews in the past trying to make sure their daughters married the smartest, most learned rabbis and by “persecution”, with the smartest figuring their way out of problems, etc. to survive.
There are differences in physical abilities. Look at sprinters. Sure, Jeremy Wariner, white, has been in incredible success at 400 meters. But the exception proves the rule. A white or Asian Usain Bolt? Sure, there's no doubt some white guy or Asian guy with the talent. But how many black guys are out there with the same latent abilities? Thousands. The brain is a physical part of the body. It all reminds me of the SNL joke about officials claiming that the developer of computer virus out of China must have been a mathematical genius. This fact allowing the police to narrow the list to 60 million suspects.
Say what you want about the girl, but this has definitely become what Justice Thomas would call a 'high tech lynching.' When ATL post stuff like this they are doing a calculated character assassination, by letting the entire community of bloggers launch attacks on a person.
I don't think this is per se immoral, but the efforts to hide this 3Ls name are simply ridiculous, because obviously she'd been outed to anyone who would care to listen. This is an interesting approach to professional responsibility.
There is greater genetic variation within a race than there is across races.
“Race” and the Construction of Human Identity
Author(s): Audrey Smedley
Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 690-702
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/682047
The fact that Justice Thomas refers to anything other than being strung up from a tree as a “lynching” is one of the many, many reasons he is an appalling Justice.
Best post so far
You should study.
You should study.
How is it OK to hide the name of someone who is about to be a relatively senior (in the scheme of things) federal employee with the ears of one of the most influential judges on the federal bench? At the very least, you should be willing to post the name of the judge who is about to knowingly hire a racist. There's enough opacity on the federal bench as it is. Of course, that judge seems to be a favorite of the editors on this site…
The point that variation is greater intra-race than between races is irrelevant. White IQ will of course vary enormously, from severely disabled people with IQs less than fifty to people with IQs greater than 180. It's like saying that since a midget man is so much shorter than Bill Clinton, therefore men can't on average be significantly taller than women.
“a short and blunt conversation could have taught DNA about the false notion of biological race”
Hm, who to believe? Him, or my lying eyes?
“a short and blunt conversation could have taught DNA about the false notion of biological race”
Hm, who to believe? Him, or my lying eyes?
I do not think she is racist. I do think she grew up sheltered and the only challenges she ever faced had to do with school assignments. I do not think her harvard education and other academic acheivements mean that she is smart. Her tiny world consists of educational accomplishments, and that's why she looks at African-Americans in these terms. She will never comprehend why this email is so offensive. I see her side of it, and I feel sorry for her that she did not develop more common sense up to this point.
What concerns me is that in my experience there are a lot of privileged white kids who don't understand racial disparity. I am routinely shocked by the many women (not to say it is unique to women, that is just the group I have interacted with the most) that I have met in their early 20's who are ivy-league educated and heading into promising careers in science, economics and politics, who struggle with understanding racial and economic disparity and the real advantages they have received from their privileged lives. They are completely ignorant to the generations of education and social and economic security and entitlement they have and continue to profit from. As a white middle-class women, I am routinely shocked by the comments which are revealed to me in expectation of empathy. I think our educational system is letting down an entire generation by not delving into our racist and sexist past in nitty gritty detail, so that our nation can move forward with understanding and open eyes.
I'm sure news of this has already reached the judge. And her name has been outed numerous times above, so I'm sure anyone who cares to know it can find out.
So when is Ellie going to claim that everything is racist against him, and its ok to let all black murderers off because of racism? He's already done so for O.J.
DNA smug comments are offensive and badly informed. For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics. Since the variance in intelligence in the population is extremely broad, that's not possible. Also the DNA pools aren't that stable, “African-American” are literally the most “racially-diverse” race in America, because any Asian or white genes that have gotten mixed in over time are considered phenotypic African-American. Therefore “100% African-American” is a absurd concept. Based on DNA's thinking, her smugness about the superiority of her race may have to defer to the smugness of some Asian racists who assert their race is smarter than whites. Using DNA's information, logic and reasoning, perhaps her seat at Harvard should have been given to an Asian who could really have benefited from it, and who, after all those years of education, would not have believed such asinine sentiments. If intelligence really were a racial characteristic, I guess you'd have to give everyone an intelligence test in order to figure out what their race is. in fact, intelligence is a measurable individual characteristic, not a racial one.
irish people having red hair and black people being dumb: way to argue by analogy
also, saying someone is a certain way because of their race is racism, whether its true or not
oh yea, and its an absurd proposition – i can throw a stone from my window and hit a whole gaggle of stupid white people
outed as a small penis whitey
what is this supposed to prove?
Nature versus Nurture. The age old question.
Is it 100% one way or the other, or a combination of the two?
I am of the belief that Nature is a slightly higher component in the equation than Nurture, but that an individual can “overachieve” their natural ability through hard work and perseverance. Conversely, someone who has a higher natural ability can also be a total goofball and smoke weed all day and accomplish nothing.
I believe this is an Individual Equation and not a racial one.
Does my belief that Nature is more important, but not necessarily an overriding determinate of long term success, make me a racist?
“This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria.”
Beautiful geniuses? Can we at least agree that this girl has a terrible personality?
Generally speaking, sexually reproducing animals are distinguished as different species if they are unable or unwilling by geographic or biological restrictions to reproduces with one another. Humans are a single species.
Bottom line is this: she broke a cultural postulate. In polite society, we're supposed to assume that everyone is genetically the same in every way except superficial differences on the outside; its been ingrained into us since birth, through TV and movies and politically correct speech and schooling that focuses on diversity and everyone's culture being equal.
There is no proof of this; that's why its a postulate. Partially, the postulate comes from a misunderstanding of the term “all men created equal,” which refers not to every aspect of existence but only to their standing before the law—each man judged individually, but without preference as to group (of course, liberals have changed this in slowly creating their hate crime caste system, but that must never be acknowledged). The other part of the postulate comes from a pointed, determined propaganda by a small group of idealists, who relentlessly push the idea to serve an ideological end.
The writer got blown up and screwed because she dared question a cultural postulate, nothing more. It makes no difference whether the postulate is right or wrong, because, as a postulate, it can never be tested. The reason why? Those who push the postulate culturally fear that 1) it may take too long and too many studies to prove it correct, wasting valuable time that could be spent on their other social goals; and 2) they fear their postulate might be proven incorrect.
Wow. Exam time really brings out the craziness. To think, just a few months ago during the fall semester exam period, everyone was all upset about how Northwestern tried to prevent students from saying things like “this exam raped me.” Now, it's all about race. I can't wait for the next installment.
While the actual science on the subject to my knowledge does not in any way support Crimson DNA's hypothesis, intelligence is mostly not “nurture” dependent. After you account for such things as childhood nutrition and pre-natal care, intelligence is definitely heritable. If you are a smart person and you have a child with another smart person, regardless of who raises that child within a certain range (horrific abuse and mistreatment does mess people up) and what kind of childhood that child has (once again within a large but definite range), you are far more likely, statistically speaking, to have a child who is smart.
To be more clear on what I mean, I mean measurable intelligence and not knowledge, essentially I am thinking quantified intelligence such as IQ measurements and similar types of testing. Now IQ certainly doesn't account for every variable so my above statements are limited only to those functions of intelligence like those IQ measures which we have statistical data on.
Now, given that intelligence does have a strong genetic component, the thing most necessary to consider is that the native and directly descended sub-Saharan African population possesses more genetic diversity between various members as exists between all other non-African or African descended people. So there is likely to be more genetic diversity between two randomly selected sub-Saharans than between two randomly selected people from anywhere else on earth. With that greater diversity in mind, it is highly improbable that the African and recently African descended population would be genetically more predisposed towards low intelligence than any other group.
That higher diversity does mean that it is possible that we could observe (but I simply have never heard of anyone so observing) a greater range of intelligence among the sub-Saharan African population than among other groups.
One of DNA's statements other than that which I have discussed above I also want to talk about in keeping with the biological theme of my post. DNA asserted that differential pre-natal hormone levels influencing a person's brain development so that genders have differential abilities on average, an assertion for which there is some support but not for the effects he claims, indicated a genetic component to intelligence. Pre-natal hormone levels or hormone levels in general are biological factors, but they are environmental factors not a genetic ones (though hormone levels are influenced by genes they are not the only influence), so DNA clearly lacks a clear grasp on the science of this issue.
While the actual science on the subject to my knowledge does not in any way support Crimson DNA's hypothesis, intelligence is mostly not “nurture” dependent. After you account for such things as childhood nutrition and pre-natal care, intelligence is definitely heritable. If you are a smart person and you have a child with another smart person, regardless of who raises that child within a certain range (horrific abuse and mistreatment does mess people up) and what kind of childhood that child has (once again within a large but definite range), you are far more likely, statistically speaking, to have a child who is smart.
To be more clear on what I mean, I mean measurable intelligence and not knowledge, essentially I am thinking quantified intelligence such as IQ measurements and similar types of testing. Now IQ certainly doesn't account for every variable so my above statements are limited only to those functions of intelligence like those IQ measures which we have statistical data on.
Now, given that intelligence does have a strong genetic component, the thing most necessary to consider is that the native and directly descended sub-Saharan African population possesses more genetic diversity between various members as exists between all other non-African or African descended people. So there is likely to be more genetic diversity between two randomly selected sub-Saharans than between two randomly selected people from anywhere else on earth. With that greater diversity in mind, it is highly improbable that the African and recently African descended population would be genetically more predisposed towards low intelligence than any other group.
That higher diversity does mean that it is possible that we could observe (but I simply have never heard of anyone so observing) a greater range of intelligence among the sub-Saharan African population than among other groups.
One of DNA's statements other than that which I have discussed above I also want to talk about in keeping with the biological theme of my post. DNA asserted that differential pre-natal hormone levels influencing a person's brain development so that genders have differential abilities on average, an assertion for which there is some support but not for the effects he claims, indicated a genetic component to intelligence. Pre-natal hormone levels or hormone levels in general are biological factors, but they are environmental factors not a genetic ones (though hormone levels are influenced by genes they are not the only influence), so DNA clearly lacks a clear grasp on the science of this issue.
While the actual science on the subject to my knowledge does not in any way support Crimson DNA's hypothesis, intelligence is mostly not “nurture” dependent. After you account for such things as childhood nutrition and pre-natal care, intelligence is definitely heritable. If you are a smart person and you have a child with another smart person, regardless of who raises that child within a certain range (horrific abuse and mistreatment does mess people up) and what kind of childhood that child has (once again within a large but definite range), you are far more likely, statistically speaking, to have a child who is smart.
To be more clear on what I mean, I mean measurable intelligence and not knowledge, essentially I am thinking quantified intelligence such as IQ measurements and similar types of testing. Now IQ certainly doesn't account for every variable so my above statements are limited only to those functions of intelligence like those IQ measures which we have statistical data on.
Now, given that intelligence does have a strong genetic component, the thing most necessary to consider is that the native and directly descended sub-Saharan African population possesses more genetic diversity between various members as exists between all other non-African or African descended people. So there is likely to be more genetic diversity between two randomly selected sub-Saharans than between two randomly selected people from anywhere else on earth. With that greater diversity in mind, it is highly improbable that the African and recently African descended population would be genetically more predisposed towards low intelligence than any other group.
That higher diversity does mean that it is possible that we could observe (but I simply have never heard of anyone so observing) a greater range of intelligence among the sub-Saharan African population than among other groups.
One of DNA's statements other than that which I have discussed above I also want to talk about in keeping with the biological theme of my post. DNA asserted that differential pre-natal hormone levels influencing a person's brain development so that genders have differential abilities on average, an assertion for which there is some support but not for the effects he claims, indicated a genetic component to intelligence. Pre-natal hormone levels or hormone levels in general are biological factors, but they are environmental factors not a genetic ones (though hormone levels are influenced by genes they are not the only influence), so DNA clearly lacks a clear grasp on the science of this issue.
The biggest problem, is not so much in the analysis of the possibility that African Americans are less intelligent (I mean at minimum I don't think that is true, and more importantly DNA completely ignored nurture as an element that brings forth intellegence…try using ones genius when your basic human needs aren't met), but that other “races” were not also analyzed. Singling out African Americans is never a politic idea, and in this case, scientifically and academically disenginuous.
I was cracking up when I read that line. What a douche!!!
I was cracking up when I read that line. What a douche!!!
No. That's only because you are using the historic definition of racism. Today, racism means attacking an individual for immoral reasons. You are equivocating.
No. That's only because you are using the historic definition of racism. Today, racism means attacking an individual for immoral reasons. You are equivocating.
What a stupid comment. Race can be determined through DNA tests and by looking at bone structure. It is not a “construct.”
What a stupid comment. Race can be determined through DNA tests and by looking at bone structure. It is not a “construct.”
What a stupid comment. Race can be determined through DNA tests and by looking at bone structure. It is not a “construct.”
What a stupid comment. Race can be determined through DNA tests and by looking at bone structure. It is not a “construct.”
Pit bulls and toy poodles. Same species, different sub-species (or races) of dogs.
No one has a problem acknowledging that different breeds of dogs have differing temperaments, and various breeds are said to be smarter or less smart than others.
People are stupid to think that the same rules of Nature don't apply to humans.
Is there any reason to believe that characteristics of the sub-Saharan African population at large, or randomly chosen sub-Saharan Africans, can be extrapolated to African Americans (or even the “African” genetic component of African Americans)?
I mean, my understanding is that the ancestors of most African Americans were not randomly and evenly taken from across the sub-Sarahan portion of the continent.
Again, I'm frustrated your mother didn't abort you.
The idea that races differ statistically on mental traits due in part to genes is so controversial that anyone who argues the taboo side of the argument will be accused of racism. Don't believe me? Take a look at the comments here, then.
An open, civil discussion on such controversial questions simply cannot occur, because our society at this place and time has made it so taboo.
EphShep, I think you miss the idea of what intelligence means. “using ones genius” has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence is not about use, it is about that initial genius. That is not something which is controlled by nurture beyond a limited point. Most data in the cognitive neuroscience literature suggests that adult personality is roughly 50% heritable. Intelligence is something which is far more genetically dependent than general personality and which varies far less over the course of one's life than personality does. Nurture simply doesnt impact intelligence beyond a limited degree, genetic factors are by far the larger determinants of raw intelligence.
“using your genius” actually applying that intelligence or learning with it or being able to use it in some productive way is an entirely different story and something entirely separate from intelligence. Intelligence is a measure of capacity.
Yes, I got it, and it's completely irrelevant.
This entire blowup is just part of an apparently successful personal smear campaign. The email was written and sent six months ago, and its recipient wasn't trying to alert the world to racism or do anything noble by distributing it. She forwarded it to other students for the sole purpose of ruining the author's life, and everyone calling for exactly that result is just being used as a pawn in a personal disagreement gone horribly wrong.
“saying someone is a certain way because of their race is racism, whether its true or not”
If that is the case then there isnt nearly as much of a problem with “racism” as most of us understand it as making true observations about a definable group of people is neither a bad thing nor a problematic thing.
It also isnt exactly what DNA said, DNA never got down to specific individuals, they were making a population as a whole claim, that African Americans tend to be less intelligent than “whites”. Were this a true statement, it wouldnt mean anything for any particular individual nor would it be saying that the group known as african american was less intelligent because they were black, it was saying that blacks tended to have more people who were less intelligent because of their genes than whites do. Of course that isnt a true statement to begin with but you are engaging in some sloppy thinking and it doesn't help to criticize someone wrongly.
The motive for sharing the e-mail is utterly irrelevant to the opinions we draw from that e-mail. I think this woman is a racist and I don't like the idea of her serving a clerkship in the 9th Circuit. Why should I give a damn that someone else has a vested interest?
Here's a question: why is the writer being called a racist? If you think there is no genetic difference between racial groups in intelligence, why not say she's just wrong? Presumably you know there isn't a difference because it was tested and proven that way, meaning that at some point it was an open question that was investigated. Show your evidence, and prove her wrong. Otherwise, just say “there shall be no discussion on matters of race and intelligence, for we prefer our view to whatever the truth may be.” But you can't claim both that you're open to inquiry AND that this is a racist view.
For what it's worth, if you claim that there is no genetic correlation within racial groups, you pretty much have to say there is no heritability of intelligence, since a racial group is nothing but a large family within the human species.
I hate people.
Here's a question: why is the writer being called a racist? If you think there is no genetic difference between racial groups in intelligence, why not say she's just wrong? Presumably you know there isn't a difference because it was tested and proven that way, meaning that at some point it was an open question that was investigated. Show your evidence, and prove her wrong. Otherwise, just say “there shall be no discussion on matters of race and intelligence, for we prefer our view to whatever the truth may be.” But you can't claim both that you're open to inquiry AND that this is a racist view.
For what it's worth, if you claim that there is no genetic correlation within racial groups, you pretty much have to say there is no heritability of intelligence, since a racial group is nothing but a large family within the human species.
I hate people.
Here's a question: why is the writer being called a racist? If you think there is no genetic difference between racial groups in intelligence, why not say she's just wrong? Presumably you know there isn't a difference because it was tested and proven that way, meaning that at some point it was an open question that was investigated. Show your evidence, and prove her wrong. Otherwise, just say “there shall be no discussion on matters of race and intelligence, for we prefer our view to whatever the truth may be.” But you can't claim both that you're open to inquiry AND that this is a racist view.
For what it's worth, if you claim that there is no genetic correlation within racial groups, you pretty much have to say there is no heritability of intelligence, since a racial group is nothing but a large family within the human species.
I hate people.
Definitely true on all of your counts and a very good account of why DNA's thinking is erroneous.
I fail to see the connection between this comment and the post we are discussing.
Stephen Jay Gould dismissed theories of race-based intelligence in Mismeasure of Man.
Also, Prof. Uri Treisman of the University of Texas created a math workshop that stressed collaborative learning for black and Latino students. Treisman had observed that black and Latino students studied alone, whereas Asian students studied in groups. He thus had the black & Latino students adopt the Asian study-group model. As a result, their performance rose to the level of their white and Asian peers. And more black and Hispanic students entered math PhD programs and became math professors.
Here is a description of his program.
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/MeritWorkshop/uriModel...
Score one for nurture.
When some presents a consensus definition of the term intelligence, and presents a convincing case that the likely myriad factors that contribute to all aspects of all the things that go into “intelligence” can be considered as a single genetic trait, this conversation might begin to get interesting.
“relatively senior federal employee”
Bwahahahahahaha!
What, you were serious? Law clerks rank somewhere between the guy cleaning shit off the toilet and the 3rd level postal sorter in Wahogan, Michigan. Every once in a while, a clerk will show up who's something better, but that's indicative of the person, not the position.
“relatively senior federal employee”
Bwahahahahahaha!
What, you were serious? Law clerks rank somewhere between the guy cleaning shit off the toilet and the 3rd level postal sorter in Wahogan, Michigan. Every once in a while, a clerk will show up who's something better, but that's indicative of the person, not the position.
Certainly true. However, I believe that DNA were they pressed would probably specify that it was the african derived component which they would say would likely account for the difference. The selection of Nigeria as DNA's example in the post certainly points to that presumption on DNA's part.
This bears on her ability to perform well in a clerkship (and eventually, as an associate) – not because of her views, right or wrong – but because of her inability to see herself as others might see her (unless she was trying to bring on this sh*tstorm) and her alarming lack of judgment in putting such sentiments in a public forum (when you put something in writing and send it to one, but especially to a bunch of, person(s), don't write anything that would destroy your career if published in the NYT).
This bears on her ability to perform well in a clerkship (and eventually, as an associate) – not because of her views, right or wrong – but because of her inability to see herself as others might see her (unless she was trying to bring on this sh*tstorm) and her alarming lack of judgment in putting such sentiments in a public forum (when you put something in writing and send it to one, but especially to a bunch of, person(s), don't write anything that would destroy your career if published in the NYT).
This bears on her ability to perform well in a clerkship (and eventually, as an associate) – not because of her views, right or wrong – but because of her inability to see herself as others might see her (unless she was trying to bring on this sh*tstorm) and her alarming lack of judgment in putting such sentiments in a public forum (when you put something in writing and send it to one, but especially to a bunch of, person(s), don't write anything that would destroy your career if published in the NYT).
This bears on her ability to perform well in a clerkship (and eventually, as an associate) – not because of her views, right or wrong – but because of her inability to see herself as others might see her (unless she was trying to bring on this sh*tstorm) and her alarming lack of judgment in putting such sentiments in a public forum (when you put something in writing and send it to one, but especially to a bunch of, person(s), don't write anything that would destroy your career if published in the NYT).
Stephen Jay Gould by and large is a bad example to use. He wasnt a geneticist nor a cognitive neuroscience nor an evolutionary biologist. Generally when he did talk about such things the professionals in that field cringed. Not that your point is wrong but you are using a bad example for support.
And Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Richard Hernnstein, Rushton, and many others have disproved the liberal fantasies.
I don't like the idea of anyone who thinks what she wrote is morally bad to breathe, or exist in the United States. You should all be rounded up and hanged. See, we both can play this game.
I don't like the idea of anyone who thinks what she wrote is morally bad to breathe, or exist in the United States. You should all be rounded up and hanged. See, we both can play this game.
I don't like the idea of anyone who thinks what she wrote is morally bad to breathe, or exist in the United States. You should all be rounded up and hanged. See, we both can play this game.
Umm IQ, consensus definition among those who study the phenomenon seriously. Also “single genetic trait” I think you misunderstand genetics. For something to come from genes it need not come from a single genetic trait. The interaction of many genes however does account for intelligence as it is classically and scientifically understood. Intelligence here I mean precisely what kinds of things are measured by IQ, spatial reasoning etc. those things do seem to be at the root of most features associated with “intelligence”.
Umm IQ, consensus definition among those who study the phenomenon seriously. Also “single genetic trait” I think you misunderstand genetics. For something to come from genes it need not come from a single genetic trait. The interaction of many genes however does account for intelligence as it is classically and scientifically understood. Intelligence here I mean precisely what kinds of things are measured by IQ, spatial reasoning etc. those things do seem to be at the root of most features associated with “intelligence”.
I used the term “concept”, not “construct”. “Race” is a word, words describe concepts. Look into your idea about DNA and bone structure, and I think you will find that results are described in probabilistic terms. Scientists can latch onto a few genes or physical structures, and ascribe them to a certain race based on probability. According to the human genome study, there is very little variation in human genes across the whole of humanity.
I used the term “concept”, not “construct”. “Race” is a word, words describe concepts. Look into your idea about DNA and bone structure, and I think you will find that results are described in probabilistic terms. Scientists can latch onto a few genes or physical structures, and ascribe them to a certain race based on probability. According to the human genome study, there is very little variation in human genes across the whole of humanity.
Population groups vary in measureable intelligence. Get over it.
Im guessing that DNA didn't expect a personal email sent to those who were present at a specific event to clarify comments made at that event would be shared with the whole world. Certainly, until this recent storm of what I consider massive privacy violations through sharing people's facebook or email comments with others without the originator's permission, I had the full expectation that if I wrote a personal email to people I knew such an email wouldnt then be shared with a massive list-serv and eventually the internet writ large. I know better now but as I said until like 3 months ago I would have made comments I considered private communications to other people via email. In fact, I think most of us say things we do not intend for public consumption via email
Im guessing that DNA didn't expect a personal email sent to those who were present at a specific event to clarify comments made at that event would be shared with the whole world. Certainly, until this recent storm of what I consider massive privacy violations through sharing people's facebook or email comments with others without the originator's permission, I had the full expectation that if I wrote a personal email to people I knew such an email wouldnt then be shared with a massive list-serv and eventually the internet writ large. I know better now but as I said until like 3 months ago I would have made comments I considered private communications to other people via email. In fact, I think most of us say things we do not intend for public consumption via email
This is a Seinfeld moment, all about nothing. Everywhere in academia and in the workforce we see blacks under perform.
Even our president, supposedly an exemplar of African American achievement, has been fairly unproductive throughout life. In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar and actually got mediocre grades. After earning his HLS degree and going to work for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, he produced on average three billable hours of work a day. As chief executive of this country he has played more rounds of golf, watched more ESPN, gone on more breaks, and spent more down time in one year than W did in 8 years — and W was the frat boy president. Obama should be Mayor of Mayberry, not president of the US.
The much respected and hardly racist American Psychological Association with 150,000 members notes the gap in cognitive ability between whites and blacks — it merely hedges on the reason, as the email writer has. So why give her a hard time? She is in learned company with her views. And everyday experience tells us she is right.
Oh snap, DNA sure pis$3d off a whole bunch of white Nigerian orphans out there – she better watch her back – they will be out for blood!
Please explain, if IQ is “proof” of some difference between ethnic groups, why it is that it increases so steadily (the Flynn affect), like all other testing methods is affected by stereotype threat, and how it is that wealthier people do better on it. (Are they genetically blessed?)
all african-americans aren't created equal (re: her genetics/biology argument). what is an african-american? all “whites” aren't created equal either. even if we consider genetics, there are still too many factors that contribute to intelligence – access to opportunity, location, emotional background, eating habits – just to name a few.
No, it isn't “a large family”. Population genetics fail. The variation you can see between small groups (i.e. families), is not the same as the variation you see between large groups (i.e. ethnic groups.)
This is a scientific discussion, so why don't we look at the science.
The issue being discussed is call the Hereditarian Hypothesis . The Hypothesis is that the well established statistically average Black-White IQ gap has a partial genetic etiology, and this explains some of the performance differences that we find in our society and which show up in other societies .
It presupposes that there are descendant populations, which there are. (Eurasian populations broke off from SubSaharan populations 100,000 years ago; and humans, from the most recent primate 300,000 years ago). It presupposed that 100,000 years was sufficient time for evolving differences, which there was. It presupposes that 'race' refers, in part, to descendant populations, which it does. It presupposes that some of the various forms of IQ are highly heritable, and the differences between individuals within a race can be attributed, in part, to genes; which theycan.
So let's review. We have an (average) gap between African-Americans and European-Americans. This shows up on the GRE, LSAT, MCAT, SAT, and ACT and IQ tests. We know that African-Americans and European-Americans represent different genetic populations. We know that there was time for them to evolve medically significant differences and that they did; and we know that there was time to diverge cognitively. In addition to culture factors, we know there were also other factors which might account for this possible divergence, in addition to various other average ones, depending on the specific population under discussion.
It's plausible, and I would say probably, that some of the average difference (it's hard to say how much) has a genetic etiology. That said, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. We are not talking about some groups being smarter across the board; we are talking about more genetically predisposed smart individuals in one group as opposed to another.
That's because there isn't any evidence. There is only rank speculation.
Not a single person on this thread has pointed to a single fucking gene that (1) has anything to do with intelligence or (2) is more prevalent among one ethnic group than another.
Instead, they refer to concepts such as IQ, and completely ignore the counterarguments explaining the important role that nutrition, stereotype threat, access to education, socioeconomics, and parents' educational attainments play in having a high IQ score.
She didn't ignore nurture as an element: “I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores…”
This is a scientific discussion, so why don't we look at the science.
The issue being discussed is call the Hereditarian Hypothesis . The Hypothesis is that the well established statistically average Black-White IQ gap has a partial genetic etiology, and this explains some of the performance differences that we find in our society and which show up in other societies .
It presupposes that there are descendant populations, which there are. (Eurasian populations broke off from SubSaharan populations 100,000 years ago; and humans, from the most recent primate 300,000 years ago). It presupposed that 100,000 years was sufficient time for evolving differences, which there was. It presupposes that 'race' refers, in part, to descendant populations, which it does. It presupposes that some of the various forms of IQ are highly heritable, and the differences between individuals within a race can be attributed, in part, to genes; which theycan.
So let's review. We have an (average) gap between African-Americans and European-Americans. This shows up on the GRE, LSAT, MCAT, SAT, and ACT and IQ tests. We know that African-Americans and European-Americans represent different genetic populations. We know that there was time for them to evolve medically significant differences and that they did; and we know that there was time to diverge cognitively. In addition to culture factors, we know there were also other factors which might account for this possible divergence, in addition to various other average ones, depending on the specific population under discussion.
It's plausible, and I would say probably, that some of the average difference (it's hard to say how much) has a genetic etiology. That said, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. We are not talking about some groups being smarter across the board; we are talking about more genetically predisposed smart individuals in one group as opposed to another.
The expectation of protection for one's racist views is, like, the white privilege cherry on the white privilege sundae. My God. The entire world is not an ATL message board.
Most African-Americans are roughly half white/native american.
The threat of being called a racist is slowly losing the power to silence a growing number of people.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
“For what she said to be true, as a minimum, neural structures would have to be programmed from the exact same DNA that programs superficial racial characteristics.”
No it fucking does not. What does this even mean? The “same DNA”? Do you mean the same chromosome? “Race” as we know it is just an amalgamation of different haplotypes; they don't need to be, and aren't, all on the same chromosome.
All DNA and RNA is just the same base pairs arranged in different ways. Each individual codon can code for one, and only one, thing.
I think too many people are basing their opinions on what they think CRIMSON DNA probably believes, rather than what s/he actually said.
because that makes you a tool. not like a douchey popped collar tool—i mean an implement. a tool in her game. we're better than this.
“We know that African-Americans and European-Americans represent different genetic populations.” False. African-Americans by and large have both African and European ancestry in varying measures.
No, she put forward her own postulate–that a multigenic, strongly environmentally influenced trait like intelligence–varies among ethnic groups, which she refers to as “races.”
Because “race” is a flawed concept–all human population groups still belong to the same species, and we're more like twigs on the same branch rather than branches of the same trunk, and some subgroups are ethnically more homogenous, and ethnically more related to like groups than others. African-Americans tend to have African, Native American, and European ancestry, so any genes that Europeans have, African-Americans do too.
Also, the idea that there is any gene or set of genes that contribute highly to intelligence and were selected for more aggressively in one population of humans but not another is completely unsupported.
So, basically, she engages in speculation against a group that is smaller than her own ethnic group, with no data. The problem isn't that she dared to question–it's that she has no basis for her opinion, and because it is one that contributes to discrimination, people are irritated and are engaging in what you call counterspeech.
No, she put forward her own postulate–that a multigenic, strongly environmentally influenced trait like intelligence–varies among ethnic groups, which she refers to as “races.”
Because “race” is a flawed concept–all human population groups still belong to the same species, and we're more like twigs on the same branch rather than branches of the same trunk, and some subgroups are ethnically more homogenous, and ethnically more related to like groups than others. African-Americans tend to have African, Native American, and European ancestry, so any genes that Europeans have, African-Americans do too.
Also, the idea that there is any gene or set of genes that contribute highly to intelligence and were selected for more aggressively in one population of humans but not another is completely unsupported.
So, basically, she engages in speculation against a group that is smaller than her own ethnic group, with no data. The problem isn't that she dared to question–it's that she has no basis for her opinion, and because it is one that contributes to discrimination, people are irritated and are engaging in what you call counterspeech.
No, she put forward her own postulate–that a multigenic, strongly environmentally influenced trait like intelligence–varies among ethnic groups, which she refers to as “races.”
Because “race” is a flawed concept–all human population groups still belong to the same species, and we're more like twigs on the same branch rather than branches of the same trunk, and some subgroups are ethnically more homogenous, and ethnically more related to like groups than others. African-Americans tend to have African, Native American, and European ancestry, so any genes that Europeans have, African-Americans do too.
Also, the idea that there is any gene or set of genes that contribute highly to intelligence and were selected for more aggressively in one population of humans but not another is completely unsupported.
So, basically, she engages in speculation against a group that is smaller than her own ethnic group, with no data. The problem isn't that she dared to question–it's that she has no basis for her opinion, and because it is one that contributes to discrimination, people are irritated and are engaging in what you call counterspeech.
No, she put forward her own postulate–that a multigenic, strongly environmentally influenced trait like intelligence–varies among ethnic groups, which she refers to as “races.”
Because “race” is a flawed concept–all human population groups still belong to the same species, and we're more like twigs on the same branch rather than branches of the same trunk, and some subgroups are ethnically more homogenous, and ethnically more related to like groups than others. African-Americans tend to have African, Native American, and European ancestry, so any genes that Europeans have, African-Americans do too.
Also, the idea that there is any gene or set of genes that contribute highly to intelligence and were selected for more aggressively in one population of humans but not another is completely unsupported.
So, basically, she engages in speculation against a group that is smaller than her own ethnic group, with no data. The problem isn't that she dared to question–it's that she has no basis for her opinion, and because it is one that contributes to discrimination, people are irritated and are engaging in what you call counterspeech.
No, she put forward her own postulate–that a multigenic, strongly environmentally influenced trait like intelligence–varies among ethnic groups, which she refers to as “races.”
Because “race” is a flawed concept–all human population groups still belong to the same species, and we're more like twigs on the same branch rather than branches of the same trunk, and some subgroups are ethnically more homogenous, and ethnically more related to like groups than others. African-Americans tend to have African, Native American, and European ancestry, so any genes that Europeans have, African-Americans do too.
Also, the idea that there is any gene or set of genes that contribute highly to intelligence and were selected for more aggressively in one population of humans but not another is completely unsupported.
So, basically, she engages in speculation against a group that is smaller than her own ethnic group, with no data. The problem isn't that she dared to question–it's that she has no basis for her opinion, and because it is one that contributes to discrimination, people are irritated and are engaging in what you call counterspeech.
Every Princeton grad I've met has been a little crazy, and this girl isn't helping.
Every Princeton grad I've met has been a little crazy, and this girl isn't helping.
Every Princeton grad I've met has been a little crazy, and this girl isn't helping.
Every Princeton grad I've met has been a little crazy, and this girl isn't helping.
Every Princeton grad I've met has been a little crazy, and this girl isn't helping.
Basically are you saying that Einstein was not smarter than average, he just went to better schools and had better parents? I don't buy that in the least.
There is a Nature Component to Intelligence. It is not the only factor, but all things being equal, a genetically “smart baby” with all the same Nurture components being equal to a “dumb baby” will turn out “smarter” in the end.
If there is such a thing as being born retarded on one end of the scale, why is there not such a thing as being born a genius on the other end of the scale?
I am not saying this is racial in any way, just individual genetics at work.
Basically are you saying that Einstein was not smarter than average, he just went to better schools and had better parents? I don't buy that in the least.
There is a Nature Component to Intelligence. It is not the only factor, but all things being equal, a genetically “smart baby” with all the same Nurture components being equal to a “dumb baby” will turn out “smarter” in the end.
If there is such a thing as being born retarded on one end of the scale, why is there not such a thing as being born a genius on the other end of the scale?
I am not saying this is racial in any way, just individual genetics at work.
Basically are you saying that Einstein was not smarter than average, he just went to better schools and had better parents? I don't buy that in the least.
There is a Nature Component to Intelligence. It is not the only factor, but all things being equal, a genetically “smart baby” with all the same Nurture components being equal to a “dumb baby” will turn out “smarter” in the end.
If there is such a thing as being born retarded on one end of the scale, why is there not such a thing as being born a genius on the other end of the scale?
I am not saying this is racial in any way, just individual genetics at work.
Charles Murray's PhD is in political science. Hernnstein is a psychologist who spent most of his career studying animal behavior. Neither is an evolutionary biologist, no matter how much conservatives want to cling to The Bell Curve as gospel. And Gould added a chapter that directly dismantled the premise of The Bell Curve in the revised edition of Mismeasure of Man.
Charles Murray's PhD is in political science. Hernnstein is a psychologist who spent most of his career studying animal behavior. Neither is an evolutionary biologist, no matter how much conservatives want to cling to The Bell Curve as gospel. And Gould added a chapter that directly dismantled the premise of The Bell Curve in the revised edition of Mismeasure of Man.
Charles Murray's PhD is in political science. Hernnstein is a psychologist who spent most of his career studying animal behavior. Neither is an evolutionary biologist, no matter how much conservatives want to cling to The Bell Curve as gospel. And Gould added a chapter that directly dismantled the premise of The Bell Curve in the revised edition of Mismeasure of Man.
Wrong liberalsarescum, “all men are created equal” is a theory from classical liberalism which has to do with the great equalizer: death. In the “state of nature” before there were laws the strongest man could be killed by a weaker man if he was smarter. This example went to show that all were created equal because each can be killed by another. It has nothing to do with standing before the law. In fact, all of this was used to thwart the power of the day. They invoked “natural law” to overturn the “unjust laws” of monarchs to justify revolution. So the invocation inherent in “all men [being] created equal” speaks to the assertion that all of us are born with rights and responsibilities that not even the law can bestow or retract.
Equal protection of the laws, now that has to do with standing before the law, but it's irrelevant here, because the conversation is about genetics and birth. So no, liberalsarescum, this has nothing to do with the ideological propaganda of liberals. In fact, as a moderate, I'd warn conservatives not to totally abandon the “all men created equal” “postulate” if they don't want to lose sight of the governing majority. The benefit of the free market is a cultural postulate as well, and I'm sure (given your chosen posting name) that you like that one. The difference between socialists questioning capitalism and whites questioning the equality of the races is that one questions a system (a thought) and the other questions a group of people (based on immutable characteristics).
I don't expect you to see this difference. I just hope people don't trust your misinterpretation of that cultural postulate. I don't even want to get into how much faulty science has been spread today. Suffice it to say that “intelligence” is unpredictable and has proven elusive to anyone trying to measure it.
Also: foreign born Africans in the US tend to score higher on IQ tests than white Americans. So this theory assumes an evolution that occurs much, much more quickly than 10,000 or whatever years.
I mean, er, 100,000 years.
I mean, er, 100,000 years.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Refer to the research. The mixing is not disputed.
Is Harvard Law School even ABA accredited?
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
“In high school he was not a National Merit Scholar” HAHAHA you fail at life
Rank speculation? Well you can also open your eyes and observe the world around you. Of course the PC-bots believe what their masters tell them, not their own lying eyes.
>Not a single person on this thread has pointed to a single fucking gene that (1) has anything to >do with intelligence or (2) is more prevalent among one ethnic group than another.
(1) You are a fool if you you think there is a single gene for intelligence. Just like there is no “height gene” only a complex interaction of many different genes that can influence heights.
(2) SLC24A5 related to skin pigmentation and is more prevalent in some racial groups. This has been knows for some time.
>Instead, they refer to concepts such as IQ, and completely ignore the counterarguments…
And yet after billions of dollars and over 100 years of IQ research there is nowhere in the US or on earth where IQs of blacks and whites are equal. What does that tell you about the importance of natural v nurture? Do you really believe that there is literally not a single example in recorded history of the correct “nature” to give blacks the same IQ as whites?? If so, you've crossed the line from science to religion.
Rank speculation? Well you can also open your eyes and observe the world around you. Of course the PC-bots believe what their masters tell them, not their own lying eyes.
>Not a single person on this thread has pointed to a single fucking gene that (1) has anything to >do with intelligence or (2) is more prevalent among one ethnic group than another.
(1) You are a fool if you you think there is a single gene for intelligence. Just like there is no “height gene” only a complex interaction of many different genes that can influence heights.
(2) SLC24A5 related to skin pigmentation and is more prevalent in some racial groups. This has been knows for some time.
>Instead, they refer to concepts such as IQ, and completely ignore the counterarguments…
And yet after billions of dollars and over 100 years of IQ research there is nowhere in the US or on earth where IQs of blacks and whites are equal. What does that tell you about the importance of natural v nurture? Do you really believe that there is literally not a single example in recorded history of the correct “nature” to give blacks the same IQ as whites?? If so, you've crossed the line from science to religion.
Rank speculation? Well you can also open your eyes and observe the world around you. Of course the PC-bots believe what their masters tell them, not their own lying eyes.
>Not a single person on this thread has pointed to a single fucking gene that (1) has anything to >do with intelligence or (2) is more prevalent among one ethnic group than another.
(1) You are a fool if you you think there is a single gene for intelligence. Just like there is no “height gene” only a complex interaction of many different genes that can influence heights.
(2) SLC24A5 related to skin pigmentation and is more prevalent in some racial groups. This has been knows for some time.
>Instead, they refer to concepts such as IQ, and completely ignore the counterarguments…
And yet after billions of dollars and over 100 years of IQ research there is nowhere in the US or on earth where IQs of blacks and whites are equal. What does that tell you about the importance of natural v nurture? Do you really believe that there is literally not a single example in recorded history of the correct “nature” to give blacks the same IQ as whites?? If so, you've crossed the line from science to religion.
Rank speculation? Well you can also open your eyes and observe the world around you. Of course the PC-bots believe what their masters tell them, not their own lying eyes.
>Not a single person on this thread has pointed to a single fucking gene that (1) has anything to >do with intelligence or (2) is more prevalent among one ethnic group than another.
(1) You are a fool if you you think there is a single gene for intelligence. Just like there is no “height gene” only a complex interaction of many different genes that can influence heights.
(2) SLC24A5 related to skin pigmentation and is more prevalent in some racial groups. This has been knows for some time.
>Instead, they refer to concepts such as IQ, and completely ignore the counterarguments…
And yet after billions of dollars and over 100 years of IQ research there is nowhere in the US or on earth where IQs of blacks and whites are equal. What does that tell you about the importance of natural v nurture? Do you really believe that there is literally not a single example in recorded history of the correct “nature” to give blacks the same IQ as whites?? If so, you've crossed the line from science to religion.
Rank speculation? Well you can also open your eyes and observe the world around you. Of course the PC-bots believe what their masters tell them, not their own lying eyes.
>Not a single person on this thread has pointed to a single fucking gene that (1) has anything to >do with intelligence or (2) is more prevalent among one ethnic group than another.
(1) You are a fool if you you think there is a single gene for intelligence. Just like there is no “height gene” only a complex interaction of many different genes that can influence heights.
(2) SLC24A5 related to skin pigmentation and is more prevalent in some racial groups. This has been knows for some time.
>Instead, they refer to concepts such as IQ, and completely ignore the counterarguments…
And yet after billions of dollars and over 100 years of IQ research there is nowhere in the US or on earth where IQs of blacks and whites are equal. What does that tell you about the importance of natural v nurture? Do you really believe that there is literally not a single example in recorded history of the correct “nature” to give blacks the same IQ as whites?? If so, you've crossed the line from science to religion.
Rank speculation? Well you can also open your eyes and observe the world around you. Of course the PC-bots believe what their masters tell them, not their own lying eyes.
>Not a single person on this thread has pointed to a single fucking gene that (1) has anything to >do with intelligence or (2) is more prevalent among one ethnic group than another.
(1) You are a fool if you you think there is a single gene for intelligence. Just like there is no “height gene” only a complex interaction of many different genes that can influence heights.
(2) SLC24A5 related to skin pigmentation and is more prevalent in some racial groups. This has been knows for some time.
>Instead, they refer to concepts such as IQ, and completely ignore the counterarguments…
And yet after billions of dollars and over 100 years of IQ research there is nowhere in the US or on earth where IQs of blacks and whites are equal. What does that tell you about the importance of natural v nurture? Do you really believe that there is literally not a single example in recorded history of the correct “nature” to give blacks the same IQ as whites?? If so, you've crossed the line from science to religion.
And thank the lord of it.
Seriously guys, 737 comments? Well, 738 now I suppose. Drat, you got me.
And thank the lord of it.
Seriously guys, 737 comments? Well, 738 now I suppose. Drat, you got me.
And thank the lord of it.
Seriously guys, 737 comments? Well, 738 now I suppose. Drat, you got me.
And thank the lord of it.
Seriously guys, 737 comments? Well, 738 now I suppose. Drat, you got me.
And thank the lord of it.
Seriously guys, 737 comments? Well, 738 now I suppose. Drat, you got me.
And thank the lord of it.
Seriously guys, 737 comments? Well, 738 now I suppose. Drat, you got me.
Who are foreign born Africans in the US? I would guess most of them are either students or children of very successful people possibly doctors and engineers. Wouldn't one think that University students and children of highly educated and presumably intelligent parents would score above average on intelligence tests?
It is not an evolutionary phenomenon that you are citing, it is a familial phenomenon. Children of smart people usually have a little bit of a better chance of being smart themselves.
Who are foreign born Africans in the US? I would guess most of them are either students or children of very successful people possibly doctors and engineers. Wouldn't one think that University students and children of highly educated and presumably intelligent parents would score above average on intelligence tests?
It is not an evolutionary phenomenon that you are citing, it is a familial phenomenon. Children of smart people usually have a little bit of a better chance of being smart themselves.
Who are foreign born Africans in the US? I would guess most of them are either students or children of very successful people possibly doctors and engineers. Wouldn't one think that University students and children of highly educated and presumably intelligent parents would score above average on intelligence tests?
It is not an evolutionary phenomenon that you are citing, it is a familial phenomenon. Children of smart people usually have a little bit of a better chance of being smart themselves.
Who are foreign born Africans in the US? I would guess most of them are either students or children of very successful people possibly doctors and engineers. Wouldn't one think that University students and children of highly educated and presumably intelligent parents would score above average on intelligence tests?
It is not an evolutionary phenomenon that you are citing, it is a familial phenomenon. Children of smart people usually have a little bit of a better chance of being smart themselves.
At least she has some scientific experience in studying effect of race?
“former [] student [CRIMSON DNA] are extending work on how the racial composition of one's freshman year roommates influences behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions in subsequent college years. A particular focus is on the racial composition of best-¬friend networks, conditional on outcomes of random roommate assignments.”
“Every Princeton grad I've met has been a little crazy, and this girl isn't helping.”
Oh really? THAT post just narrowed down the possibilities quite a bit. Female princeton grad 3L at HLS? There are probably like, what, one of those?
never heard of it
any genetic differences are swamped by american black culture's corrosive effects on individual achievement
It's not 1960. A large number of foreign born African-Americans in this country are refugees and there are have been studies of these kids, recently, which have shown that they have higher IQ than white Americans.
The funny thing is that the bulk of people at HLS or its ilk are African. And probably “smarter” than the woman who sent this e-mail. Her inability to even conceive of this idea bespeaks her own racism.
If you really don't know who she is by now, you don't know how to use a search engine. Try Twitter.
If you really don't know who she is by now, you don't know how to use a search engine. Try Twitter.
This girl is going to be booed so hard at graduation…
let her know how you feel: sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
oh, we might even break 1,000
twitter –> “above the law” racist
…explain, exactly, why that variation is different? Assuming we agree that races developed because there was limited or no interbreeding between two geographically separate human subpopulations, and there was interbreeding within them, there is conceptually no difference between a family in New Jersey and one in Oregon that never interbreed for a few generations. The magnitude of difference is different, of course. If you don't like the analogy, give me a better one, perhaps one explaining why there is no such thing as race, as people keep asserting.
Actually, in the real America, most people support her.
Actually, in the real America, most people support her.
Believing that one race is more or less of anything, based on skin color alone is the critical core belief of racists. You do not have to believe or confirm that you are a racist in order to be a racist; of course the person who said it doesn't believe he's a racist, nonetheless, he holds racist views. Black people, like white people, like asian people, like indian people, like any people, are individuals and human beings. Individuals and human beings have varriying degrees of intelligence. Skin color, like hair color and eye color, is based simply and unequivocally on the amount of melanin in one's skin. Melanin alone determines the color of one's skin. Melanin is in no way connected to intellectual capacity. What racists like the Harvard 3L in this case fail to realize is that all human beings came from Africa and were thus, what would be described today as black Americans. The pyramids, the acient Egyptian civilization, and even the son of God (with hair like wool and feet of bronze) came from the womb of mother Africa. I'm quite sure whoever this Harvard 3L is, like most racists, will use indivuduals who are, in fact, not so intelligent and who happen to be black to reinforce his core belief that black's are less intelligent. He will ignore the many examples of intelligent black men as a rare, exception to the rule he articulated (some in history we will never know as a resul of white America's supression of black intelligence for so many years before and after slavery—and FYI a black man, not Thomas Edison, invented the light bulb). On the other hand, the Harvard 3L will not (and apparently has not) reach the same conclusion when he or she encounters unintelligent, ignorant whites. He will regard these whites as individuals and not attribute their ignorance to the white race in general–if he did he and his friends and loved ones would naturally be included. Even the powerful logic he's learned at what is arguably one of the greatest law schools in America, could not save him from his core, racist beliefs. His argument is racist: Even if some whites are not intelligent, whites as a whole are more intelligent than blacks. Because some blacks are not intelligent, blacks as a wholte are not as intelligent as whites. Furthermore, he attributes any differences to skin color alone (the amount of melanin one does or does not have) in spite of any other factors. Blacks were intelligent enough to free themselves from the bondage of slavery, intelligent enough to overcome Black codes ans segregation all over the country, and intelligent enough to become President of the United States of America–in spite of the racism that has indoctrinated people like Harvard 3L. Using Harvard 3L's logic, I guess I can conclude that white people are genetically more predispositioned to be evil and devilish, considering their atrocities against Native Americans, Blacks, and Jews. Nonetheless, I will attribute Harvard 3L's ignorance and racism to him, an individual, and him alone and decline to use his knowledge and extend my knowledge of his ignorance to be knowledge of the ignorance of white's alone.
Believing that one race is more or less of anything, based on skin color alone is the critical core belief of racists. You do not have to believe or confirm that you are a racist in order to be a racist; of course the person who said it doesn't believe he's a racist, nonetheless, he holds racist views. Black people, like white people, like asian people, like indian people, like any people, are individuals and human beings. Individuals and human beings have varriying degrees of intelligence. Skin color, like hair color and eye color, is based simply and unequivocally on the amount of melanin in one's skin. Melanin alone determines the color of one's skin. Melanin is in no way connected to intellectual capacity. What racists like the Harvard 3L in this case fail to realize is that all human beings came from Africa and were thus, what would be described today as black Americans. The pyramids, the acient Egyptian civilization, and even the son of God (with hair like wool and feet of bronze) came from the womb of mother Africa. I'm quite sure whoever this Harvard 3L is, like most racists, will use indivuduals who are, in fact, not so intelligent and who happen to be black to reinforce his core belief that black's are less intelligent. He will ignore the many examples of intelligent black men as a rare, exception to the rule he articulated (some in history we will never know as a resul of white America's supression of black intelligence for so many years before and after slavery—and FYI a black man, not Thomas Edison, invented the light bulb). On the other hand, the Harvard 3L will not (and apparently has not) reach the same conclusion when he or she encounters unintelligent, ignorant whites. He will regard these whites as individuals and not attribute their ignorance to the white race in general–if he did he and his friends and loved ones would naturally be included. Even the powerful logic he's learned at what is arguably one of the greatest law schools in America, could not save him from his core, racist beliefs. His argument is racist: Even if some whites are not intelligent, whites as a whole are more intelligent than blacks. Because some blacks are not intelligent, blacks as a wholte are not as intelligent as whites. Furthermore, he attributes any differences to skin color alone (the amount of melanin one does or does not have) in spite of any other factors. Blacks were intelligent enough to free themselves from the bondage of slavery, intelligent enough to overcome Black codes ans segregation all over the country, and intelligent enough to become President of the United States of America–in spite of the racism that has indoctrinated people like Harvard 3L. Using Harvard 3L's logic, I guess I can conclude that white people are genetically more predispositioned to be evil and devilish, considering their atrocities against Native Americans, Blacks, and Jews. Nonetheless, I will attribute Harvard 3L's ignorance and racism to him, an individual, and him alone and decline to use his knowledge and extend my knowledge of his ignorance to be knowledge of the ignorance of white's alone.
What happened to freedom of speech in America? Are these hysterical people also going to go after the respected mainstream scientists who support the existence of race-related research (and thus must been seen to propagate these apparently outrageous hypotheses)?:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231...
Honestly, haven't people got better things to do with their time that take words out of context and twist them into a racial scandal? This girl is asking logical questions in a scientific and emotionally-detached manner. Perhaps there is a little too much emotional detachment in her statements (another reason why putting these thoughts into email format was probably unwise) and that is what is leaving everybody a bit cold.
She even says “Everyone” (everyone – that means her too, right?) “wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence.” The point is: this research (or similar) hasn't been done (and probably never will be so long as it is perceived as unbeneficial to society: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231...). The girl in question spends much of her email discussing the cultural reasons that it would be not be possible to investigate these hypotheses. Her final comment “I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case” really only shows that she is open-minded ('open to the POSSIBILITY') about genetic differences (pertaining to intelligence or certain facets of intelligence) existing between races (and who knows – ANY races – this research if it was done could well show greater 'intelligence' in a number of races relative to caucasian). Some bias in her thinking is shown by the fact she starts the email “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.” Why phrase it that way round (why not “genetically predisposed to be more intelligent” or “genetically predisposed to show different intelligence”)? Presumably it was written to directly relate to the CONTEXT of the dinner discussion. I think this is where the freedom of speech issue comes in.
If that first sentence is not taken out of context however, she does go on to say, in the very next sentence: “I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances” (although again I would feel more comfortable if she had written “as intelligent or more intelligent than white people under the same circumstances”). It seems though that all she is doing is expressing that she is open to the scientific possibility of discrepancies in intelligence between races (on AVERAGE).
And to the person that said “Please recognize the intent of the email was someone apologizing for not being hard-core enough in their view on race”. I don't think that is the case: there is no evidence for that. She was apologising for not being CLEAR about her view, and was worried about having misrepresented herself. Presumably she was worried she had come across as racist at dinner, and now wanted to make it clear that she was only questioning the scientific POSSIBILITY “that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level” (again, I would feel more comfortable had she phrased it differently, and said “less OR more intelligent on a genetic level” but again, that could all be down to the context of the dinner conversation), and clarify that she didn't think that that should be a controversial standpoint.
What happened to freedom of speech in America? Are these hysterical people also going to go after the respected mainstream scientists who support the existence of race-related research (and thus must been seen to propagate these apparently outrageous hypotheses)?:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231...
Honestly, haven't people got better things to do with their time that take words out of context and twist them into a racial scandal? This girl is asking logical questions in a scientific and emotionally-detached manner. Perhaps there is a little too much emotional detachment in her statements (another reason why putting these thoughts into email format was probably unwise) and that is what is leaving everybody a bit cold.
She even says “Everyone” (everyone – that means her too, right?) “wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence.” The point is: this research (or similar) hasn't been done (and probably never will be so long as it is perceived as unbeneficial to society: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231...). The girl in question spends much of her email discussing the cultural reasons that it would be not be possible to investigate these hypotheses. Her final comment “I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case” really only shows that she is open-minded ('open to the POSSIBILITY') about genetic differences (pertaining to intelligence or certain facets of intelligence) existing between races (and who knows – ANY races – this research if it was done could well show greater 'intelligence' in a number of races relative to caucasian). Some bias in her thinking is shown by the fact she starts the email “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.” Why phrase it that way round (why not “genetically predisposed to be more intelligent” or “genetically predisposed to show different intelligence”)? Presumably it was written to directly relate to the CONTEXT of the dinner discussion. I think this is where the freedom of speech issue comes in.
If that first sentence is not taken out of context however, she does go on to say, in the very next sentence: “I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances” (although again I would feel more comfortable if she had written “as intelligent or more intelligent than white people under the same circumstances”). It seems though that all she is doing is expressing that she is open to the scientific possibility of discrepancies in intelligence between races (on AVERAGE).
And to the person that said “Please recognize the intent of the email was someone apologizing for not being hard-core enough in their view on race”. I don't think that is the case: there is no evidence for that. She was apologising for not being CLEAR about her view, and was worried about having misrepresented herself. Presumably she was worried she had come across as racist at dinner, and now wanted to make it clear that she was only questioning the scientific POSSIBILITY “that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level” (again, I would feel more comfortable had she phrased it differently, and said “less OR more intelligent on a genetic level” but again, that could all be down to the context of the dinner conversation), and clarify that she didn't think that that should be a controversial standpoint.
I mentioned Gould's Mismeasure of Man earlier. I also recommend Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond makes the compelling argument that cultural and genetic differences in population groups can be largely traced to geography. Europeans benefited from a climate perfectly suited to agriculture, as well as the blessing of domesticable animals. (Africa's native fauna — hippos, zebras, rhinos — were non-domesticable and unsuitable for farming.) Agriculture leads to population density, which relieves segments of the population to develop non-farming skills (e.g., metallury, shipbuilding, etc.). Hunter-gatherer societies in the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, and Australia had no such advantages.
In other words, Europeans weren't able to enslave Africans (and massacre Native Americans and Aborigines) because they were any smarter. They were able to do that because the agricultural resources of the Fertile Crescent allowed them to form dense urban centers where things like gunpowder and telescopes could be invented.
On an unrelated point: who exactly is “white”? The traditional 18th- and 19th-century definitions basically broke the world into white, Negro, and Mongoloid (Asian). South Asians and Native Americans were grouped under “white.” If one still subscribes to those racial categories as valid, then I ask: Why are modern Latino and Native American test scores suffering from the same achievement gap as black American test scores? Why aren't the superior “white” genes elevating Latinos and Native Americans up to the level of European whites?
It would seem that the one thing black Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans all share is societal marginalization. Again, using the traditional taxonomy of race, it seems that performance will be lower for any group that suffers from the maldistribution of social assets (education, prenatal care, etc.). Even subsets of the so-called “white” race.
When you can't find a job brotha, remember where it all started from.
Waaaaay out of line.
Check the research; that's already factored in.
You are confusing outrage for censorship.
saying the holocaust never happened is a POSSIBILITY. That does not make it so that the declaration or advocation of such a claim is not warranting disgust from the general public.
Seriously, if thats your racial view, you have a right to it, but we also have a right to hold you in social contempt for having it.
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Taboo-Athletes-Dominate-S...
Ah. Hadn't tried looking her up. This whole thing is going to go very badly for all involved. Sorry for my naivete.
Glad someone posted it. When a 'left wing' student makes an innappropriate comment, their name is pasted all over the student newspapers or blogs. This lady makes a racist claim underneath a logical fallacy (tied with in incorrect assumption) and she gets a pass from scrutiny by having her identity hidden.
Glad someone posted it. When a 'left wing' student makes an innappropriate comment, their name is pasted all over the student newspapers or blogs. This lady makes a racist claim underneath a logical fallacy (tied with in incorrect assumption) and she gets a pass from scrutiny by having her identity hidden.
I scored 180 on the LSAT. Does that make me more intelligent than the email author, assuming she did not score a perfect 180? It's a completely misguided and poorly thought out statement, especially when you consider that I didn't make law review, and I'm sure her grades in law school were better than mine.
Let's assume blacks score, on average, 5% below whites on any given standardized test requiring intelligence. I challenge anyone to speak to two people, one of whom scored 5% below the other on such a test, and be able to identify which is which. Ask them any questions you want – but questions that actually come up in real life, not the same ones as on the test – and make the argument to me that a 5% difference in “intelligence” as measured by these tests matters in some meaningful, identifiable way.
I went to Harvard, in part because I scored highly on the LSAT; many of the superstars at my firm went to GW, Iowa, Wisconsin, UT, BYU… after getting accepted to law school, these scores just don't matter for any reason except because we believe that they do. People who score lower on the LSAT than I did do so for all kinds of reasons, including a bad day or one tough question that threw them off and wasted five whole minutes. They still make law review, they still make partner, they still win intramural sports games and raise beautiful, well-behaved children and can still talk *intelligently* about any number of subjects from genetics to opera to modern art to foreign affairs. Some of them pick up languages and solve math problems or spatial relationships problems faster than I do, or are better at managing logistics of huge cases or are more thorough memo-writers than I am. Some of them are more fun out at the bar, some of them get asked out more frequently, some of them have more friends. Our culturally ingrained obsession with “intelligence” to the point of attempting to parse differences in a nonlinear trait with mathematic precision is childish and a waste of time.
I would bet that the people most curious, most interested, and most concerned about whether black people “on average” score lower than white people… are thus preoccupied mostly because they want desperately to buy into the idea that these test scores actually mean something important.
I scored 180 on the LSAT. Does that make me more intelligent than the email author, assuming she did not score a perfect 180? It's a completely misguided and poorly thought out statement, especially when you consider that I didn't make law review, and I'm sure her grades in law school were better than mine.
Let's assume blacks score, on average, 5% below whites on any given standardized test requiring intelligence. I challenge anyone to speak to two people, one of whom scored 5% below the other on such a test, and be able to identify which is which. Ask them any questions you want – but questions that actually come up in real life, not the same ones as on the test – and make the argument to me that a 5% difference in “intelligence” as measured by these tests matters in some meaningful, identifiable way.
I went to Harvard, in part because I scored highly on the LSAT; many of the superstars at my firm went to GW, Iowa, Wisconsin, UT, BYU… after getting accepted to law school, these scores just don't matter for any reason except because we believe that they do. People who score lower on the LSAT than I did do so for all kinds of reasons, including a bad day or one tough question that threw them off and wasted five whole minutes. They still make law review, they still make partner, they still win intramural sports games and raise beautiful, well-behaved children and can still talk *intelligently* about any number of subjects from genetics to opera to modern art to foreign affairs. Some of them pick up languages and solve math problems or spatial relationships problems faster than I do, or are better at managing logistics of huge cases or are more thorough memo-writers than I am. Some of them are more fun out at the bar, some of them get asked out more frequently, some of them have more friends. Our culturally ingrained obsession with “intelligence” to the point of attempting to parse differences in a nonlinear trait with mathematic precision is childish and a waste of time.
I would bet that the people most curious, most interested, and most concerned about whether black people “on average” score lower than white people… are thus preoccupied mostly because they want desperately to buy into the idea that these test scores actually mean something important.
I scored 180 on the LSAT. Does that make me more intelligent than the email author, assuming she did not score a perfect 180? It's a completely misguided and poorly thought out statement, especially when you consider that I didn't make law review, and I'm sure her grades in law school were better than mine.
Let's assume blacks score, on average, 5% below whites on any given standardized test requiring intelligence. I challenge anyone to speak to two people, one of whom scored 5% below the other on such a test, and be able to identify which is which. Ask them any questions you want – but questions that actually come up in real life, not the same ones as on the test – and make the argument to me that a 5% difference in “intelligence” as measured by these tests matters in some meaningful, identifiable way.
I went to Harvard, in part because I scored highly on the LSAT; many of the superstars at my firm went to GW, Iowa, Wisconsin, UT, BYU… after getting accepted to law school, these scores just don't matter for any reason except because we believe that they do. People who score lower on the LSAT than I did do so for all kinds of reasons, including a bad day or one tough question that threw them off and wasted five whole minutes. They still make law review, they still make partner, they still win intramural sports games and raise beautiful, well-behaved children and can still talk *intelligently* about any number of subjects from genetics to opera to modern art to foreign affairs. Some of them pick up languages and solve math problems or spatial relationships problems faster than I do, or are better at managing logistics of huge cases or are more thorough memo-writers than I am. Some of them are more fun out at the bar, some of them get asked out more frequently, some of them have more friends. Our culturally ingrained obsession with “intelligence” to the point of attempting to parse differences in a nonlinear trait with mathematic precision is childish and a waste of time.
I would bet that the people most curious, most interested, and most concerned about whether black people “on average” score lower than white people… are thus preoccupied mostly because they want desperately to buy into the idea that these test scores actually mean something important.
This is called diasporic selection. It means that the real smart Africans come and the others stay behind. You might have heard of 'brain drain'; that's the idea. The point is that we are talking about a distribution. And we are talking about statistical averages. Given immigration patters and populations density, in the future you could have the B-W difference reversed.
To the bigots who were claiming that race correlates more with crime than income, HERE ARE THE STUDIES SHOWING IT DOES NOT.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/L...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=Articl...
WARNING – this is a U of Chicago study, so a lot of you harvard people may not like it.
SO I ask again, whomever is claiming that there is even a POSSIBLE close correlation between race and crime/intellect is both a liar and a racist. Before you start spouting The Bell Curve, you should know that book was DEBUNKED in sociology academia due to its MANY statistical inferences and errors (its use of variables was unilaterally subjective).http://openlibrary.org/b/OL1024348M
To the bigots who were claiming that race correlates more with crime than income, HERE ARE THE STUDIES SHOWING IT DOES NOT.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/L...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=Articl...
WARNING – this is a U of Chicago study, so a lot of you harvard people may not like it.
SO I ask again, whomever is claiming that there is even a POSSIBLE close correlation between race and crime/intellect is both a liar and a racist. Before you start spouting The Bell Curve, you should know that book was DEBUNKED in sociology academia due to its MANY statistical inferences and errors (its use of variables was unilaterally subjective).http://openlibrary.org/b/OL1024348M
To the bigots who were claiming that race correlates more with crime than income, HERE ARE THE STUDIES SHOWING IT DOES NOT.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/L...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=Articl...
WARNING – this is a U of Chicago study, so a lot of you harvard people may not like it.
SO I ask again, whomever is claiming that there is even a POSSIBLE close correlation between race and crime/intellect is both a liar and a racist. Before you start spouting The Bell Curve, you should know that book was DEBUNKED in sociology academia due to its MANY statistical inferences and errors (its use of variables was unilaterally subjective).http://openlibrary.org/b/OL1024348M
“And probably “smarter” than the woman who sent this e-mail.”
This isn't disputed. But it also doesn't invalidate the claim, because there was a self-selection process in getting to the US. The nice things is that if the HH is true, the New African immigrants can cover it up.
Jared Diamond; real esoteric reference there, dipshit.
Is there something about Europe's unique geography that helped its denizens develop a written language? Or Euclidean geometry? Why were European immigrants able to turn a barren hunk of rock like Iceland into an ultra-developed nation? Why were Europeans able to figure out farming in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and why can't Africans quite get the hang of it? Why is that, even when they are generations removed from their ancestral homeland, Africans still lag behind Europeans?
And what about non-white nations? How to explain the greatness of Japan, which is probably just behind the aforementioned Iceland in terms of a dearth of natural resources?
It is possible that the ability to exploit “natural resources” is dependent on intelligence? If I left a mental retard on a piece of fertile land, would he just naturally “figure it all out”?
But yeah, it's all just luck. Africa is a pit-except until we change the subject to colonialism, when Africa suddenly becomes a rich jewel that the evil white man destroyed. Nice work.
Jared Diamond; real esoteric reference there, dipshit.
Is there something about Europe's unique geography that helped its denizens develop a written language? Or Euclidean geometry? Why were European immigrants able to turn a barren hunk of rock like Iceland into an ultra-developed nation? Why were Europeans able to figure out farming in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and why can't Africans quite get the hang of it? Why is that, even when they are generations removed from their ancestral homeland, Africans still lag behind Europeans?
And what about non-white nations? How to explain the greatness of Japan, which is probably just behind the aforementioned Iceland in terms of a dearth of natural resources?
It is possible that the ability to exploit “natural resources” is dependent on intelligence? If I left a mental retard on a piece of fertile land, would he just naturally “figure it all out”?
But yeah, it's all just luck. Africa is a pit-except until we change the subject to colonialism, when Africa suddenly becomes a rich jewel that the evil white man destroyed. Nice work.
I am going to try again to explain myself more clearly. Studies of African refugees, which in general are settled here not due to wealth or education but because of organizations like Catholic relief, tend to do much, much better than whites in IQ tests in the US. Studies have found this across the board. It kinda kills the evolution idea you're pull for, bro.
So in African-Americans with European ancestry the genes from their European ancestors that would (but for their black skin) express themselves in the form of a greater than average predisposition for intelligence are somehow muted? How would that work exactly?
Is Harvard even accredited? What a TTT.
Is Harvard even accredited? What a TTT.
Lois, if you think being 'racist' is a bad thing, do me a favor and define the term in a way that doesn't just mean being a liberal creationist .
Lois,
Please give some specifics to your assertion that african immigrants score higher than whites on iq tests. My impression was that Africans simply had a higher rate of higher education credentials. This would be explained by most of the Africans being let in the country in order to attend college or graduate school. Selection bias.
Fuck off and don't come back until you've acquainted yourself with the concepts of common ancestors and phylogenetics. And no, Egyptians were not “black” as we would think of it today, not anymore than Russians are actually Chinese because they share a border and have some genetic/cultural overlap.
And who, pray tell, was the black man who actually invented the light bulb?
Intellectual dishonesty-the stock in trade of the American left.
oh, stephanie grace. look at you and your off-color remarks.
oh, stephanie grace. look at you and your off-color remarks.
oh, stephanie grace. look at you and your off-color remarks.
She's right. Race is real, and blacks and whites differ in average IQ. In a sane society this wouldn't even be an issue.
“It’s pretty sad that a short and blunt conversation could have taught DNA about the false notion of biological race”
That simply isn't true.
And this blog says it is in the “nurture camp”? Really? You think intelligence is entirely a question of environment and has nothing to do with genetics? You call this a “racist” email? Facts aren't racist.
She's right. Race is real, and blacks and whites differ in average IQ. In a sane society this wouldn't even be an issue.
“It’s pretty sad that a short and blunt conversation could have taught DNA about the false notion of biological race”
That simply isn't true.
And this blog says it is in the “nurture camp”? Really? You think intelligence is entirely a question of environment and has nothing to do with genetics? You call this a “racist” email? Facts aren't racist.
180LSAT,
Why don't you ask these authors then? http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-...
Actually, as Diamond points out (if you'd bother to read the book), Europeans were able to farm in sub-Saharan Africa . . . after they brought crops and farming animals to the continent. You do realize that cattle and horses aren't native to Africa, right, genius?
Also — Zimbabwe and South Africa — it's a lot easier to build wealth when you exploit the black majority into indentured servitude and apartheid. How would the whites have done if they'd had to pay a living wage?
To answer your hypothetical, you, as a mental retard, still aren't able to figure it all out — despite the resources (the work of Diamond and others) at your disposal.
OUTRAGE is Yelena Shagall and her facebook status (since the day after the dinner took place) is “karma :)”
Interesting.
I find it terrible what “DNA” said but also terrible that someone (everyone at HLS BLSA?) decided it was necessary to bring in people from 13 other schools to talk about this. What do 14 different BLSA chapters have to do with what one HLS student stupidly said in an email?
“South Asians and Native Americans were grouped under “white.” If one still subscribes to those racial categories as valid, then I ask: Why are modern Latino and Native American test scores suffering from the same achievement gap as black American test scores? Why aren't the superior “white” genes elevating Latinos and Native Americans up to the level of European whites?”
What a stupid remark. That's like saying that someone who drinks one glass of milk in his life should have great bones, due to the superior calcium building properties of milk.
Pretty big man, calling people out behind an anonymous name. Bravo.
The only incorrect assumption is your liberal fantasy. You people should be hanged.
Hate mail is probably a drop in the bucket at this point. Imagine being this girl and having to walk around campus, go into classrooms and sit through discussions, etc., knowing that a lot of students hate you and want you to fail. I hope there are consequences to her racism, but emailing her seems silly. Her life will be hard enough.
Totally false, until she's had the same status for 4 months. This email is that old.
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu .
*unless
The status was put up April 22, the dinner in question was April 21st.
You find a statement of facts terrible? You're an idiot.
Except that your thing about being devilish is nonsense, given what Idi Amin and Mugabe are capable of. The fact that whites have more ability to commit atrocities doesn't mean they have more desire.
Except that your thing about being devilish is nonsense, given what Idi Amin and Mugabe are capable of. The fact that whites have more ability to commit atrocities doesn't mean they have more desire.
I can't tell whether you're an offended affirmative action baby or just some dorky liberal. Either way, fuck off.
Quite well, in fact. Take a look at Sweden.
I hope she has the courage not to back down and apologize.
picture?
Liberalism is an orthodoxy. It admits no dissent.
Ugh. Morons.
They're confusing a scientific question with a social question.
“Is <racial group> <binary operator> <racial group>?” is a scientific question. There's no more harm in it than there is in, say, asking what the threshold is at which fissionable material is likely to start a chain reaction. Can it be used for harm? Of course. Does that mean the question demonstrates bigotry? Hardly. Is it a scientist's responsibility to avoid all questions whose answers might help people mistreat each other? Yikes!
Should we judge an individual from <racial group> based on the science? Well… sure, if it doesn't harm society. Nobody is called a bigot for saying that African Americans are genetically predisposed to require different treatment from whites in the barber shop. Would it be right to celebrate any barber who ignored those genetic differences as a paragon of enlightened thinking?
Steven Pinker put it nicely:
“A denial of human nature, no less than an emphasis on it, can be warped to serve harmful ends. We should expose whatever ends are harmful and whatever ideas are false, and not confuse the two.”
Just to be perfectly clear: in my opinion, if there is any genetic difference in intelligence between whites and blacks, it is insignificant compared to individual differences and environmental effects, and therefore it makes no sense to decide how to treat anyone based on racial differences.
However, taking a SCIENTIFIC position just because it would justify the SOCIAL outcome you want is a demonstration of lack of intelligence–and also lack of basic human decency: what if there _is_ a difference? Would that justify mistreating whichever race turns out to be inferior? That's, um, great…
Jared Diamond, the environmental determinist? Who thought that no significant human genetic adaptation and differentiation occurred in the recent past? Sorry, the last 10 years of research have shown that population differentiation sped up in the last 100,000 years and has done so as a result of gene-culture evolution. So Diamond's research just adds more support to the idea.
You're going to have to back up what she said a little bit more if you want to call it a “statement of facts,” but either way, calling me an idiot isn't doing anything to help your cause. If you read the rest of that sentence (or did you even bother?), I'm clearly not in favor of tar-and-feathering this girl for her beliefs, whether they're true or not. Calling me an idiot for saying as much makes you look just as knee-jerk as those who are up in arms about this.
Whether or not her statements were factually correct, it was at least terribly stupid to present them like this in an email – which could be sent to basically everyone, including angry BLSA organizations. This story is proof of that.
I agree, except for this:in my opinion, if there is any genetic difference in intelligence between whites and blacks, it is insignificant compared to individual differences and environmental effects, and therefore it makes no sense to decide how to treat anyone based on racial differences.
I am one of those lefties people keep talking about, but I don't think this girl ought to be condemned for her opinions. She doesn't have an opinion. She's simply saying she doesn;t know. I have no idea whether black people are genetically predisposed to be better athletes. If they are (generally speaking) why can't intellegence be a genetic factor as well? I'm not saying that blacks or whites or asians or whoever should be denied an opportunity to pursue their goals. A white guy wants to try tomake it in the NBA, go for it. A black guy wants to apply to Harvard law school, good for him. But arguing with science is a waste of time, especially when science admits that it has no idea what the anser is.
I am one of those lefties people keep talking about, but I don't think this girl ought to be condemned for her opinions. She doesn't have an opinion. She's simply saying she doesn;t know. I have no idea whether black people are genetically predisposed to be better athletes. If they are (generally speaking) why can't intellegence be a genetic factor as well? I'm not saying that blacks or whites or asians or whoever should be denied an opportunity to pursue their goals. A white guy wants to try tomake it in the NBA, go for it. A black guy wants to apply to Harvard law school, good for him. But arguing with science is a waste of time, especially when science admits that it has no idea what the anser is.
It's terribly stupid to make factually accurate statements in an email? That can't be a good thing.
If dyslexia is passed genetically, and the dyslexia gene was more common (or exclusive) to one ethnic group, or absent from another, would it be racist to say so?
I think that ATL should have laid off of this story. While I respect the media's right to free speech, this sort of inflammatory “expose” of some heated private discussions on controversial subjects about race, especially when taking place at an academic institution, should not be the subject of community scorn. I do not see how this is relevant to anyone reading this web site, but it will certainly silence intelligent debate on these subjects that might have had the potential to persuade people with reason rather than anger.
I had this story earlier today and decided not to publish it precisely because the motivation for forwarding these e-mails was obviously personal anger, not concern over something newsworthy.
I think that ATL should have laid off of this story. While I respect the media's right to free speech, this sort of inflammatory “expose” of some heated private discussions on controversial subjects about race, especially when taking place at an academic institution, should not be the subject of community scorn. I do not see how this is relevant to anyone reading this web site, but it will certainly silence intelligent debate on these subjects that might have had the potential to persuade people with reason rather than anger.
I had this story earlier today and decided not to publish it precisely because the motivation for forwarding these e-mails was obviously personal anger, not concern over something newsworthy.
Use Google image search in connection with LinkedIn, or FB if you're in the right network. She's actually quite the hottie.
Weird – logged on and in lieu of the comments, there was a block, single paged screed that purported to give her name and email address. When you google for that name and the word Harvard, google points you to a link to this post and previews that you will find the same languge I saw.
So … fyi, your commenting system has issues.
The odds are overwhelming that the speaker is Jewish.
Unless certain mental disorders, such as autism, dyslexia, etc, have genetic causes which might correspond to race. In that case it makes sense to alter our policies regarding screening, so long as such resources are limited and have to be rationed in some fashion.
It's the way this comment system loads. It loads as plain text, bottom to top, at first and that's what the Google spiders are picking up. It just so happens that just a few posts back from this some ass has posted her name and email address about 20 times in a row.
This could be true. However, there has been way too much genetic mixing with people of different mutations to generalize about a group of people based on skin color. The author is clearly not aware that there are various mutations among Europeans, Africans as well as Asians. Europeans from certain mutations might as well be smarter as would be the case with Asians and Africans. People are generally also attracted to a person with a different mutation as this would give a better chance of survival for the offspring. Being smart is also a relative term, the author should have clearly known the consequences of posting a item such as this. A harvard law school graduate might be smart but would probably be not nearly as smart as someone doing a Phd in Physics, Math at a top tier school.
Does anyone else wish she'd been required to cite sources for her views? This student cannot be classified as 'well informed' in any sense of the word. As other commenters have pointed out, her opinions contain obvious factual errors.
For example, her contention that “[w]omen tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders” simply isn't true. Perhaps she read one study asserting that view, but many other studies suggest that the differences in performance are due more to nature than to nurture. [See this Economist article – a magazine I'm positive this girl has never picked up – http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=.... As another commenter pointed out, in other countries, woman outperform men in math.
Frankly, she shouldn't have a clerkship. Obviously scientific knowledge isn't a prerequisite to a federal clerkship but using logic is. She isn't well-versed in science, yet she seems to draw definite conclusions from reading one study on why women's math test scores are lower than men's. If I were the judge who hired her and I saw her thought process at work in this email, I would fire her immediately.
I know the BSLA may want her to lose the clerkship for her dangerous views, but, frankly, she should lose it for her stupidity.
you haven't pointed out any 'obvious factual errors'.
This is a silly, silly debate. A pointless uproar. A massive waste of time and energy.
1. Intelligence is a nebulous term. There is no consensu on what it is, or how to test for it.
2. Genetics and environment interact to mold a person's intellectual capacity in an unfathomably complex manner that will never be fully understood. Only wildy unethical means (genetic manipulation combined with longitudinal studies using human offspring in controlled environments) will ever even come close to providing relaible data on genetic differences in intelligence.
3. Individual variation within a genetic group and the mitigating impacts of environment will always make generalizations about race/genetics and intelligence (even if they are scientifically sound) largely meaningless in the real world
All of that aside, the comments in question, when read from beginning to end, are not all that controversial. Given the number of caveats and assumptions thrown in, the author isn't making any definitive claims about anything. The fact that the author considers a link between race and intelligence a question worthy of further scientific exploration may well offend certain people – but the point that most readers seem to be missing is that the author isn't claiming to believe one way or another with respect to that issue. Putting it all down in an e-mail was stupid, but the reaction is even more asinine. The big bad real world is a chaotic marketplace of ideas, ranging from the warm and fuzzy to the utterly repugnant. Part of being a mature, well-rounded member of society is learning to respond rationally and in appropriately measured manner to opinions with which you disagree. Instead of flipping out and tattling on the person with whom they disagree, these folks should have attempted to engage in some form of meaningful debate on the subject.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than their African counterparts due to genetic mixing with their white masters. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as Africans under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have lighter skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair.
It's hilarious to read one idiotic comment after another spouting the most absurd nonsense about genetics, gender, intelligence, you name it and then clucking over how stupid or ill-informed DNA is.
She's a typical law student, bullshitting about a topic she has only a shallow understanding of (Wikipedia). Not any different than most people, except she'll be serving on the 9th Circuit working on opinions that affect millions of people.
Knowing the law doesn't mean that you know science. And circular arguments like Down the rabbit holes' are just that, going nowhere. The human genome project has proven that race is a human construct and I would think that 1st year law students would know that. Eugenics is the white man's made up science to pump yourselves up. The idea that one is smart because you need 10,000 words to make an argument is overated too.
Knowing the law doesn't mean that you know science. And circular arguments like Down the rabbit holes' are just that, going nowhere. The human genome project has proven that race is a human construct and I would think that 1st year law students would know that. Eugenics is the white man's made up science to pump yourselves up. The idea that one is smart because you need 10,000 words to make an argument is overated too.
Knowing the law doesn't mean that you know science. And circular arguments like Down the rabbit holes' are just that, going nowhere. The human genome project has proven that race is a human construct and I would think that 1st year law students would know that. Eugenics is the white man's made up science to pump yourselves up. The idea that one is smart because you need 10,000 words to make an argument is overated too.
Awesome idea…take orphaned babies. Hire out of work actors, buy up vast tracts of farmland being used to produce surplus crops. Build hundreds of towns and reproduce the Truman Show with a bit of a Sliders bent. Each town a different study. Come back in 100 years.
Wow. First of all, DNA is obviously a dope, and even if she's not a klan member she is, without question, kind of racist. Second, the monolithic descriptions of race evince a startlingly poor grasp of human genetics. When you use umbrella terms like “white people” and “black people” you're covering an incredibly broad range of genetic characteristics. The genetic code of an African American might have more in common with that of an Irish person than a Kenyan. White people might be from Iceland, Australia, Italy, or any other number of places. To assume genetic homegeneity across these groups is ridiculous.
The prevalent theory among DNA defenders is that we shouldn't rule out the possibility of an intelligence gene and we shouldn't stifle DNA's unique viewpoint. The problem with DNA isn't that her viewpoint doesn't conform to that of a liberal majority. The problem is that her expostulation makes no sense. If there is an intelligence gene, there is virtually no chance that its presentation would share a direct correspondence with the genes that determine skin tone. DNA's position is scientifically untenable and is consistently phrased to only allow for the possibility that white people are smarter than black people. DNA's vociferous defenders should be embarrassed.
Wow. First of all, DNA is obviously a dope, and even if she's not a klan member she is, without question, kind of racist. Second, the monolithic descriptions of race evince a startlingly poor grasp of human genetics. When you use umbrella terms like “white people” and “black people” you're covering an incredibly broad range of genetic characteristics. The genetic code of an African American might have more in common with that of an Irish person than a Kenyan. White people might be from Iceland, Australia, Italy, or any other number of places. To assume genetic homegeneity across these groups is ridiculous.
The prevalent theory among DNA defenders is that we shouldn't rule out the possibility of an intelligence gene and we shouldn't stifle DNA's unique viewpoint. The problem with DNA isn't that her viewpoint doesn't conform to that of a liberal majority. The problem is that her expostulation makes no sense. If there is an intelligence gene, there is virtually no chance that its presentation would share a direct correspondence with the genes that determine skin tone. DNA's position is scientifically untenable and is consistently phrased to only allow for the possibility that white people are smarter than black people. DNA's vociferous defenders should be embarrassed.
I think you're all a bunch of idiots. Who cares what was said in the email. I thought part of our rights as Americans is free speech. What ever happened to that? Its not like she was on a soap box in the middle of Times Square picking out people of color and forcing her opinions on them. This was an email directed towards a specific conversation that was had with a group of people over dinner nearly 6 months ago. This was only brought out of the archives because of a personal spat. This email was circulated in the attempt to purposefully destroy someones future. So tell me whats worse; having an opinion and discussing that with your peers over dinner, or determinedly sabotaging a young persons career and future.
I think you're all a bunch of idiots. Who cares what was said in the email. I thought part of our rights as Americans is free speech. What ever happened to that? Its not like she was on a soap box in the middle of Times Square picking out people of color and forcing her opinions on them. This was an email directed towards a specific conversation that was had with a group of people over dinner nearly 6 months ago. This was only brought out of the archives because of a personal spat. This email was circulated in the attempt to purposefully destroy someones future. So tell me whats worse; having an opinion and discussing that with your peers over dinner, or determinedly sabotaging a young persons career and future.
“The genetic code of an African American might have more in common with that of an Irish person than a Kenyan.”
Utter crap.
“To assume genetic homegeneity across these groups is ridiculous.”
No one did.
“The prevalent theory among DNA defenders is that we shouldn't rule out the possibility of an intelligence gene and we shouldn't stifle DNA's unique viewpoint.”
No one (who knows anything) thinks there is an intelligence gene.
“The problem is that her expostulation makes no sense.”
Her “expostulation”?
You're an ignorant, smug idiot.
“The genetic code of an African American might have more in common with that of an Irish person than a Kenyan.”
Utter crap.
“To assume genetic homegeneity across these groups is ridiculous.”
No one did.
“The prevalent theory among DNA defenders is that we shouldn't rule out the possibility of an intelligence gene and we shouldn't stifle DNA's unique viewpoint.”
No one (who knows anything) thinks there is an intelligence gene.
“The problem is that her expostulation makes no sense.”
Her “expostulation”?
You're an ignorant, smug idiot.
>I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African
>Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less
>intelligent.
At this point in time, the issue is not one of which answer is right or wrong. The mean values for various breeding groups are known and for the one in question, the mean value has been known for at least a century. Blacks in the US and Europe have a mean IQ that is at least 1 SD below that of European whites. The cause is clearly genetic. This conclusion is reached, not by one measurement, or two, or three, but of many diverse measurements and studies that have eliminated everything other than genetics as the cause.
>I could also obviously be convinced that by
>controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in
>fact, as intelligent as white people under the same
>circumstances.
No social environmental factor has been shown to alter g. Even rather extreme environmental conditions (as in the case of Isabel) have little, if any impact on intelligence, at least if corrected in childhood, but the normal range of “humane” environments has no impact on intelligence by adulthood. Childhood measurements can be misleading because they contain a shared environmental component that vanishes in the teen years.
Yes, there are environmental factors that contribute to intelligence. All of those fall into the category of the micro environment and are caused by chemical and biological conditions. The most believable value of heritability for intelligence is 83% in developed nations. There are at least some reasons to believe that most or all of the environmental factors take place during gestation. All known environmental factors decrease intelligence.
>The fact is, some things are genetic. African
>Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely
>to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women
>tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to
>prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations
>in mathematics performance within genders.
Correct, but the testosterone factor is not just related to prenatal levels; it relates to body levels after birth as well.
> This suggests to
>me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical
>twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I
>think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals
>whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria.
The babies in question will not be significantly affected by the environment, unless the environment is chemically or biologically toxic or lacking in one or more critical nutrients (iodine, iron, and folate).
I
>don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it
>is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent
>on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that
>opinion at dinner.
The one SD lower mean for blacks in the US and Europe is genetic, as is at least part of the mean of 68 (altered this year from Lynn's earlier estimate of 67) for sub-Saharan Africa.
>
>I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that
>cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of
>disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like
>income do account for some raw differences).
Culture doesn't affect intelligence, unless it involves a non-social practice that is harmful to intelligence.
> I would just like
>some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is
>often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects.
People have spent decades trying to disprove the genetic cause of mean intelligence; they have failed. What they have done instead was to build a very strong case for genetic causation. Scarr intended that her study of interracial adoption would prove the point for the environment. Instead, it very strongly supported the genetic explanation.
>From Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger:
Sandra Scarr, after conducting the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: “Within the range of 'humane environments,'variations in family socioeconomic characteristics and in child-rearing practices have little or no effect on IQ measured in adolescence.” P. 476
By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic. P. 178 Phenotypic g closely reflects the genetic g, but bears hardly any resemblance to the (shared) environmental g. P. 187
One
>example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people,
>based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are
>genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other
>statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era,
>however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African
>American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little
>violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously
>shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence
>could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the
>cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable
>data currently available to “explain” away the racial
>discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic
>cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic
>counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all
>variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is
>compelling.
It is not necessary to examine slaves, who probably had little opportunity to participate in violent crimes. Much more to the point is to examine national statistics on a country by country basis. The result is that the lowest crime rates are for East Asians and the highest crime rates are for blacks. For the US, the following illustrates the differences in crime rates:
>
>In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a
>conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at
>least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true.
>Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100
>African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and
>prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension,
>or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am
>merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.
>
>Please don’t pull a Larry Summers on me,
>CRIMSON DNA
It is not necessary to use a Disney utopia. Transracial adoptions have generally been into upper middle class homes. The adopted children have IQs that are consistent with the IQs of their biological parents and have a zero correlation to their non-genetic siblings. In the case of blacks, their adult IQs have been lower than their non-black adoptive families; in the case of East Asians, their adult IQs have been higher than their adoptive families.
Do you not know what expostulation means?
Most people, including CRIMSON DNA apparently, seem to think all genes present will express. The so-called “nature or nurture” dichotomy is a false one, however, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Many non-genetic things can trigger, suppress, or alter the expression of genes that code for various traits.
Also, in modern times, intelligence has been mapped to cover at least seven aspects, not just one overall ability. Even if it were somehow shown that all intelligence is genetically coded, the expression of those genes would be an enormously complex effect of many non-genetic influences.
Basically, we're not even close to understanding the full picture on human intelligence. Comparisons to hair color simply don't apply.
“The genetic code of an African American might have more in common with that of an Irish person than a Kenyan.”
“Utter crap.”
Haven't you ever heard of Shaquille O'Neal or Donovan McNabb?
“The human genome project has proven that race is a human construct.”
Exactly. Humans have constructed the idea of race such that Western Africans always get 7 of 8 spots in the 100m dash finals, and 7 of 8 corporate board members are white. Or, perhaps, this is not a binary issue. Perhaps race is both a biological fact, like your own eyes keep telling you, and also a social construct. Perhaps skin color is correlated with abilities, both mental and physical, AND people also react to skin color in predictable, culturally designed ways. Or is that a little too complex for you handle?
SOMEONE should tell miss know-it-all that a series of recent studies have shown that the intelligence gap between whites, blacks, asians, blues, yellows, greens etc; the gap is closing…why? because more and more people are getting access to the same opportunities than ever before. I will also recommend Malcolm Gladwell's 'Outliers'
A BBC documentary was shown here in the UK a few months ago, wish I still had the link. Firstly, the intelligence gap is not racial but cultural. In many asian countries, some parents display the grades and colleges their kids attended in their temples. African-americans may not have shown this same push and passion, but the records show that this trend is changing. We have to remember that african-americans were subject to too much prosecution which is unfortunately still embedded…first as slaves and then segregated. A whole generation was rejected by educational instituitions and whatever else which told them that they cannot have the same previledges as whites, this caused many african-americans to reject the system and find other ways of surviving, this culture may have been carried on to the next generation. BLACK PEOPLE ARE EQUALLY AS INTELLIGENT, some have not realised their potential yet. Many will not venture into the system because they feel the system is biased against them, knowing that people like DNA are in leadership and managerial positions.
Basically, cultural variations determine the value put on some instituitions in society and not race. Would obama have been the same person had he grown up in kenya? no, he would have had the same dna but nurture would have decided his fate.
So DNA dont think you and your race are better than others without considering logical explanations for differences, just because it makes you feel good about yourself. We live in the 21st century, more people are being educated and pushing themselves, developing nations are DEVELOPING, maybe not as rapid as the western world but it will get there…many of these nations were crippled by the western world (and some still are) before they had an opportunity to find themselves and develop their own civilisations.
comments from racists such as DNA is a sign of an egocentric individual who has not bothered to travel to different places to see how life really is…she is just buried in the sea of academia and biased media…she really has shown her intelligence level
I stopped reading after the “G largely isn't affected by environmental factors” lie. There are numerous studies that refute this very assertion and none of the environmental factors which affect the subjects in these studies can be considered “extreme”. Contrary to another your claims, the genetic basis for IQ has never been conclusively proven. While racists have gone about the way trying to prove a genetic basis, research is now available that provides evidence that Black American IQ has only climbed from the “baseline” that has been postulated from the genetic determinist.
The sample size for the transracial sample was too small, perinatal factors weren't taken into account, parentage admixture was imprecise, and was lacking a test for stereotype threat.
I stopped reading after the “G largely isn't affected by environmental factors” lie. There are numerous studies that refute this very assertion and none of the environmental factors which affect the subjects in these studies can be considered “extreme”. Contrary to another your claims, the genetic basis for IQ has never been conclusively proven. While racists have gone about the way trying to prove a genetic basis, research is now available that provides evidence that Black American IQ has only climbed from the “baseline” that has been postulated from the genetic determinist.
The sample size for the transracial sample was too small, perinatal factors weren't taken into account, parentage admixture was imprecise, and was lacking a test for stereotype threat.
Obviously, this email writer is familiar with the genome, and is familiar with melanin, and how it works, and that it does more than give skin color. Secondly, this email writer needs to go study black history, written by historians that is not lying about the African. Before the enslavers arrived in Africa, we were a great people, we did everything, we rule the world, when they came we were without fire power to protect all that we had, and all they did not want, or couldn't take, they destroyed. Look at all the facial monuments, the spinx, 95% of facial monuments including the spinx, their nose and mouth have been destroyed, why? When you have been enslave for 400 years, killed, or eyes destroyed for trying to lean to read a book, and all the other horrid violence against African people. She is lying about black people being violent, she/he said we were not violent even during slavery, that is the very reason they took Africa, because we were a peaceful people, and we made the big mistake to not protect all our greatness, and our wonderful civilazation. Obviously, this writer is feeling very badly about him/herself, to keep putting black people down, after all we did for Europe, America, and the Americas. All I can say is, one day we will get back what we lost, oh my beautiful black Africa.
“SOMEONE should tell miss know-it-all that a series of recent studies have shown that the intelligence gap between whites, blacks, asians, blues, yellows, greens etc; the gap is closing…why? because more and more people are getting access to the same opportunities than ever before.”
Cite them.
There are numerous studies that refute this very assertion
Cite them.
Contrary to another your claims, the genetic basis for IQ has never been conclusively proven.
Hardly anything has been conclusively proven. But the evidence is pretty strong.
“Racist” or not, she has good company. Let me quote one of our Founding Fathers:
“Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior … It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move….The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America…Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their master’s children. Epictetus, Terence, and Phaedrus, were slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced the distinction.”
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
All humans do not possess equal IQ and the reason two individuals can differ in IQ is the very same reason groups of people can differ in IQ and the reason is genetic. IQ is mostly genetic and nature has no concern at all for racial equality. This may frustrate our desires but this is just the way it is so why deny what is so plainly obvious?
From UCLA – Study gives more proof that intelligence is largely inherited
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/more-proof...
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
Her name is STEPHANIE GRACE. Feel free to email her at sgrace@jd10.law.harvard.edu
The below is an abstract of just one of the studies showing an increase of G:
SECULAR GAINS IN FLUID INTELLIGENCE: EVIDENCE FROM THE CULTURE-FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST
ROBERTO COLOM a1 and OSCAR GARCÍA-LÓPEZ a2
a1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
a2 Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Abstract
There is no doubt about the reality of the secular increase in cognitive test scores. However, there is disagreement about a key issue: does the observed increase reflect a genuine upward trend in intelligence? Evidence from the Raven test is clear, although there are some doubts about its adequacy as a fine-grained measure of fluid intelligence. Evidence from the so-called ‘method of correlated vectors’ is much less clear. When a crystallized battery is considered, the results leave little doubt: the increase does not reflect gains in general intelligence. However, when a fluid battery is analysed, the increase does reflect gains in general intelligence. The present study uses one of the best available measures of fluid intelligence (the Culture-Fair intelligence test) to provide new evidence for the secular increase in fluid intelligence, beyond the findings from the Raven test and the method of correlated vectors. A total of 4498 Spanish high school students and high school graduates were tested within a time interval of 20 and 23 years, respectively. The results show that there is a clear upward trend in intelligence. Moreover, students show an average increase equivalent to 6 IQ points, while graduates show an average increase of 4 IQ points. Therefore, more selected people (graduates) show a smaller increase than less selected people (students). Some implications are discussed.
Most of what is proven has great evidence supporting a single best conclusion. This is not such a case. Below is the proof you wanted for increases in G:
The evidence isn't strong enough for a genetic basis. The below is an abstract of just one of the studies showing an increase of G:
SECULAR GAINS IN FLUID INTELLIGENCE: EVIDENCE FROM THE CULTURE-FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST
ROBERTO COLOM a1 and OSCAR GARCÍA-LÓPEZ a2
a1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
a2 Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Abstract
There is no doubt about the reality of the secular increase in cognitive test scores. However, there is disagreement about a key issue: does the observed increase reflect a genuine upward trend in intelligence? Evidence from the Raven test is clear, although there are some doubts about its adequacy as a fine-grained measure of fluid intelligence. Evidence from the so-called ‘method of correlated vectors’ is much less clear. When a crystallized battery is considered, the results leave little doubt: the increase does not reflect gains in general intelligence. However, when a fluid battery is analysed, the increase does reflect gains in general intelligence. The present study uses one of the best available measures of fluid intelligence (the Culture-Fair intelligence test) to provide new evidence for the secular increase in fluid intelligence, beyond the findings from the Raven test and the method of correlated vectors. A total of 4498 Spanish high school students and high school graduates were tested within a time interval of 20 and 23 years, respectively. The results show that there is a clear upward trend in intelligence. Moreover, students show an average increase equivalent to 6 IQ points, while graduates show an average increase of 4 IQ points. Therefore, more selected people (graduates) show a smaller increase than less selected people (students). Some implications are discussed.
Proof for G increase:
SECULAR GAINS IN FLUID INTELLIGENCE: EVIDENCE FROM THE CULTURE-FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST
ROBERTO COLOM a1 and OSCAR GARCÍA-LÓPEZ a2
a1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
a2 Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Abstract
There is no doubt about the reality of the secular increase in cognitive test scores. However, there is disagreement about a key issue: does the observed increase reflect a genuine upward trend in intelligence? Evidence from the Raven test is clear, although there are some doubts about its adequacy as a fine-grained measure of fluid intelligence. Evidence from the so-called ‘method of correlated vectors’ is much less clear. When a crystallized battery is considered, the results leave little doubt: the increase does not reflect gains in general intelligence. However, when a fluid battery is analysed, the increase does reflect gains in general intelligence. The present study uses one of the best available measures of fluid intelligence (the Culture-Fair intelligence test) to provide new evidence for the secular increase in fluid intelligence, beyond the findings from the Raven test and the method of correlated vectors. A total of 4498 Spanish high school students and high school graduates were tested within a time interval of 20 and 23 years, respectively. The results show that there is a clear upward trend in intelligence. Moreover, students show an average increase equivalent to 6 IQ points, while graduates show an average increase of 4 IQ points. Therefore, more selected people (graduates) show a smaller increase than less selected people (students). Some implications are discussed.
If I were black, or 1/2 black, or 1/4 black, or 1/8 black (remember the “one drop” rule”, I would not want a person who was on record as believing that I was not as intelligent as a white person being the judge or the prosecutor, or even my defense lawyer in any case I was involved in.
This person is not having her free speech abridged; she is merely suffering the consequences of freely admitting to destructive prejudices.
Daffy:
The issue is not whether genes can be triggered or not, but rather what is the actual way that people turn out in the real world. It happens that various groups have difference mean intelligence. The individuals in those groups regress to the mean for their group. The children of blacks from the highest SES group (9) will regress to IQ 85, while the white children of the same group will regress to 100 and the children of Ashkenazi Jews will regress to 110.
There is only one g, not seven. All standardized IQ tests produce a single g as the common factor. That g can be extracted by heirarchar factor analysis, bifactoral extraction, or any of a number of other procedures, but the results show little variation and there is always only one g.
Really:
The gaps between breeding groups have not closed and have been relatively stable. The present day gap between white and black Americans is 15 points. The gap between East Asians and white Europeans is 5 points in favor of East Asians.
As for opportunities, US blacks are more educated than whites at every IQ level, when compared on an IQ to IQ basis. With the same comparison, blacks earn more (with a linear increase as IQ increases) than whites from the 40th percentile upwards. This is presumably a result of social promotion programs.
Blacks at SES level 9 (highest) have lower IQs than whites at SES level 1.
The intelligence gap is genetic. If column vectors from the Wechsler are examined for people with inbreeding, their IQs are depressed as a function of the g loadings of the vectors. Blacks show an identical pattern of IQ depression, using the same procedure. This is important because the only mechanism in inbreeding depression is genetic.
Blacks show slower response times, slower inspection times, longer P300 latencies, smaller brain volumes, etc. than any other breeding group. East Asians show the exact opposite, with Caucasians in the middle. All of these measurements are on a ratio scale and all are strongly predictive of intelligence.
When you address one individual (our president), you are showing total ignorance of the statistical nature of the observations I am citing. IQ is statistically robust at the group level, but is not deterministic at the individual level.
shbkyn:
Correlations
Absolute distance from the equator and cranial capacity (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984):
r = +.62 (p < 10)
cranial capacity = 2.5 cm3 × degrees latitude + 1257.3 cm3
Templer and Arikawa (2006):
skin color to winter high temperature r = .85 (p < 0.001)
IQ to skin color r = – .92 (p < 0.001)
Note that brain volume is a very robust group predictor of mean intelligence. It follows the same pattern from birth to adulthood: lowest = blacks; middle = whites; largest = East Asians.
You did not understand what she wrote. So I really don't want you to be a judge or a prosecutor or a defense lawyer in any case I'm involved in. I don't mean to infringe on your free speech; your free speech is saying a lot about you.
I think this is how Nazis came to power.
You get an F.
Please post one of the “series of recent studies” that show that racial gaps in intelligence are decreasing. The study you just posted has nothing to do with racial gaps.
You obviously don't understand what she wrote. So I don't want you to be a judge, or a prosecutor, or a lawyer, because you can't read.
Please understand, I am not abridging your free speech.
To acknowledge group differences automatically means one would be prejudiced? One can still embrace individualism while understanding there are group differences that exist. For example I would never assume all black males are violent criminals, however I also understand that in the black majority areas my odds of being a victim of a predatory or violent crime are much greater. To acknowledge this fact is not being racist, it's being both prudent and honest.
Well, that's it folks!
The Founding Fathers have spoken!
This debate is OVA!
You're a fucking idiot, bro.
I am outraged by what she said. There is absolutely no possibility that if you control for same circumstances that blacks are equal to whites. The higher the income and better the education level of blacks, the larger the racial gaps become.
What do you think the average BLSA LSAT Score at Harvard is?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9i7a_race-an...
watch the entire documentary from start to part 7
I am not going to watch a video aimed at high school intellects. Cite the studies.
Hopefully, she will be forever barred from teaching in public schools. There are enough people in academic positions with this mindset. Lets see… in my family, just among nieces and nephews alone, there is a cum laude PhD from MIT — who did not have to go after his first job, they came for him, two who are completing their Masters next month, one who they had stereotyped in HS only to discover in his senior year that he is actually close to genius level and was bored with what they were teaching (aced the finals without studying), two who are grads and in good positions in their respective corporations, one who is a Rose Hulman grad and is slated for a VP position ultimately, then there are the young-uns still in grade school all of whom are no less than B average — that would be about 5 of my nieces and grand nephews right there. Shall I go on?
That Harvard has not identified this person and slid this e-mail into their permanent file is beyond me.
University of Chicago Geneticist Bruce Lahn & economist Lanny Ebenstein wrote an article last year entitled 'Let's Celebrate Human Genetic Variation'. They note that in light of recent genetic findings the idea of biological sameness is untenable, there individuals and groups differ to some extent due to genetic variation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265...
Study after study shows that Blacks are idiots.
Proof that average African-American IQ has increased and is no longer at 85:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/2...
Further, it is interesting to see what academics actually think when surveyed anonymously.
The Snyderman Rothman survey of 661 members of the American Education Research Association, the National Council on Measurement in Education, the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, the Behavior Genetics Association, and the Cognitive Science Society, found:
“Respondents were asked to express their opinion of the role of genetic differences in the black-white IQ differential. Forty-five percent believe the difference to be a product of both genetic and environmental variation, compared to only 15% who feel the difference is entirely due to environmental variation. Twenty-four percent of experts do not believe there are sufficient data to support any reasonable opinion, and 14% did not respond to the question. Eight experts (1%) indicate a belief in an entirely genetic determination.”
Black people really need to stop getting tested for a genetic predisposition for sickle cell anemia since race is a purely social construct. The thing is, intelligence is more complicated than sickle cell anemia, or overall running speed, or melanin content in the skin, so we can't come to a conclusion on this subject yet. Maybe black people are more intelligent than white people, maybe not. Really the only clear conclusion is that white people are currently the dominant racial group for whatever reason (genetics, geography, cultural ruthlessness) and there is some argument that can be made that it is in poor taste to suggest that the politically weaker racial group is deficient in some fundamental way. Maybe even dangerous. So even if there was indisputable evidence that people of african ancestry have lower mental processing power (fewer mylinated axons, whatever provides better information processing) it might be best to just move on and ignore that information, unless it was useful for something other than calling someone a nigger.
Look, regardless of our supposed capacity, none of us like wasting time. So let's save some time. Here's a list of possible objections. This will really simplify things. For example, you can just say: She's racist! 4I.
And then some of us can reply : “Test score-differences fallacy 2: Improvability Proves Equalizabilit!”
so on which planet did you come from?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9i7a_race-an...
watch documentary from start through to part 7
The author of the e-mail is basing her entire premise on statistics collected in the US but even this can be misleading. To show just how wrong her premise is, she should consider that African-Americans who are first generation or second generation Africans, do far better on tests than all ethnic groups in the US including Asians. The same results hold in other countries such as the UK?
Should we conclude that Africans living in the US are the most intelligent racial group genetically and that some sort of genetic mutation occurred over time for those who were brought to the US as slaves?
Again. Look, regardless of our supposed capacity, none of us like wasting time. So let's save some time. Here's a list of possible objections. This will really simplify things. For example, you can just say: She's racist! 4I.
And then some of us can reply : “Test score-differences fallacy 2: Improvability Proves Equalizabilit!”
***Note that brain volume is a very robust group predictor of mean intelligence***
Indeed, see:
(2009). Whole-brain size and general mental ability: A review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119, 691-731
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2009%20IJN.pdf -
Slavery for 200 years. Desegregation for about 40. We discuss the merits of your tax dollars going to improving the black situation at 100? Okay?
Blacks are both the legacy and burden of America. We're not even halfway and people are already shitting their pants.
C'mon people, Blacks are stupid. Stop denying it.
http://vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6
***has increased and is no longer at 85:***
Actually, there is still a 1.1 std deviation difference. See Philip L Roth's meta analysis of over 6 million people. Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings:
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2010). The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap. Intelligence, 38, 213-219.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Edi...
Proof? No. A reasonable argument? OK. But also see
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Ru...
Actually race is a social construct but has a biological basis. You can see how groups cluster genetically here.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-...
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06/genetic-cl...
why don't all you idiot libreals come and move to an all black area here in new orleans and get back to me in about a month,if you survive.
I'll bet you could use a WLSA about now. I wonder why their isn't one?
BOB'S MANTRA
“Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
http://www.whitakeronline.org/
http://whiterabbitradio.net
Or could we perhaps consider that the legal immigrants the United States allows in from that area are overwhelmingly professionals or those seeking doctoral level education so we're only sampling the very top end of their intelligence distribution?
Is there an name for the author of this e-mail?
Produce a real name other than “Crimson DNA” or else it's an article from the Onion!
I propose the “Racist Comin' AT CHA!”:
The longer a racist thread exists with active posters, the more racists it attracts.
IQ TESTS ARE CULTURALLY BIASED, created by americans at a time when prejudice was at its peak, and somehow that's the benchmark for the rest of the world? errrrr….no
suddenly i feel like working harder to be a better person for myself, all black people out there should ignore DNA, she is one of very few white people who are still racists, she does not define us…be the best you can be, you dont have to prove anything to any1, do it all for you. obama, michelle, beyonce, tyra banks, rice, powell, gladwell ….etc i dont live in america but i know the list goes on of intelligent african americans out there who are successful and focused. go and have a cup of tea and relax cuz your future is brighter, ignore this
this story and the comments has helped to reveal how much racism still exists out there, its enlightening…its sad…no wonder american popularity has plummeted all around the world and DNA has shown why…the fact is that slavery unfortunately gave you the head start. eventually chinese is going to be our first language anyway…
I'm out
I say we just have civil war. I wanna kill some people with my All-American anger!
Her name Stephanie Grace, btw.
I say we just have civil war. I wanna kill some people with my All-American anger!
Her name Stephanie Grace, btw.
Let me get this straight. Because of genetics, people from Europe have light skin and people from Africa have dark skin. Because of genetics, people from Eastern Europe have diseases that people from Africa do not, and vice versa. Because of genetics, people from all over the world have skulls that are shaped differently from skulls of people from other places. Height varies among genetic groups. None of this is controversial. But holy shit – God forbid someone entertain the fucking thought that different races present, on average, different characteristics in any respect other than what we all observe simply by looking at them. That would be racist.
Look, if you meet a black guy who went to HLS and you think “I'm smarter than him because he is black,” you are not just a racist, you are also an idiot – you learn more from a person by talking to them for 5 minutes than anything about their race can tell you. But does that mean we should disregard trends? Wouldn't that kind of shit have some important social policy ramifications?
Let me get this straight. Because of genetics, people from Europe have light skin and people from Africa have dark skin. Because of genetics, people from Eastern Europe have diseases that people from Africa do not, and vice versa. Because of genetics, people from all over the world have skulls that are shaped differently from skulls of people from other places. Height varies among genetic groups. None of this is controversial. But holy shit – God forbid someone entertain the fucking thought that different races present, on average, different characteristics in any respect other than what we all observe simply by looking at them. That would be racist.
Look, if you meet a black guy who went to HLS and you think “I'm smarter than him because he is black,” you are not just a racist, you are also an idiot – you learn more from a person by talking to them for 5 minutes than anything about their race can tell you. But does that mean we should disregard trends? Wouldn't that kind of shit have some important social policy ramifications?
IQ tests haven't been culturally biased for 30 years. Read about the topic before your defense mechanisms start churning out nonsense.
In the scholarly community that studies human intelligence, there is really no disagreement about the fact that ethnoracial groups have substantial differences in IQ-type intelligence (average ethnoracial group IQs: Blacks ~85, Hispanics [people from Latin American with partial or full Native American and/or Black ancestry] ~88, American Indians [people from USA with partial or full Native American ancestry] ~88, Non-Jewish Whites ~ 100, East Asians ~ 106, High-caste Indians ~ 106, and Jews ~ 110). The only real argument is whether the ethnoracial group IQ differences are largely due to genetic differences (the Galtonian/Hereditarian theory) or whether they are totally due to environmental/cultural differences (the Boasian/Environmentalist theory).
Many famous intellectuals are amenable to the notion that Jews are genetically smarter than average, this appears to include Jared Diamond who usually poses as a Boasian/Environmentalist (e.g. as in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel). You see in 1994 Jared Diamond published an essay in Nature entitled “Jewish Lysosomes” where he hypothesized that Jews had evolved disease-associated gene alleles due to selective pressure toward increasing their intelligence–this same theory was advanced more recently by a group from Univ of Utah (led by Henry Harpending) and then was favorably discussed by Harvard's own Professor Steven Pinker. My guess is that at about 25% of lawyers are Jews (about 10 times their proportion of the overall US population) and probably a much higher proportion of the most successful and most wealthy lawyers are Jews (perhaps about 50%? i.e. about 20 times their proportion of the overall US population). I also remember reading some comments by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz where he claimed that a very high proportion of the best lawyers are Jews. This is probably because Jews tend to have higher IQs, and Jews are particularly high in the realm of verbal intelligence.
It is sort of ironic that the elite law school BLSAs are all upset over Stephanie Grace's email in which she merely claimed to be considering the theory that the lower IQ of Blacks might be due to genetic differences, because a few weeks ago the U Penn BLSA invited a wellknown Galtonian/Hereditarian writer, John Derbyshire, to give a lecture to their group at a symposium that was held at Penn on April 5, 2010. So a few weeks ago the BLSA people are soliciting a lecture that is endorsing the theory that ethnoracial groups have innate differences in IQ, and the then a few weeks later they go ballistic over the fact that some law student is merely thinking about the same theory.
For John Derbyshire's account of his lecture to the U Penn Black Law Students' Association see this link:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazi...
Thanks, brother,.. that's all we needed to know…. *grin*…
Peace!
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
What's really funny here is, everyone is missing the fact that black, white, etc, ARE NOT RACES. There are differering cultures, and differing physical characteristics, but that doesn't make you a different race. Human is the only race on earth. We are all human, and our capacity for intelligence is the same across all cultures, barring disabilities of one sort or another on an individual level.How that intelligence potential is developed..ah, that's a different story. class, culture, physical location..all those things play a part in that. What this woman wrote was pretty effin' ignorant, because she emphatically affirms the possibility that we blacks are not as smart as whites. she(as most of you do) re-affirms separation between us when there is none, and gives short shrift to the cultural/class differences that do account for the disparities that do exist. What's sad is, a great many americans feels just as she does, but, I'll give her this, she has courage enough to argue her POV forcefully. why she did it in an e-mail goes under the category “blonde moment”, because, she should have known the backlash she'd get if it ever got out.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
Conrad
“I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“the final solution”
Yeah, man. That's why we need the WLSA–for the final solution. I'm sure people right now are trashing black resumes, insulting black employees, and getting ready to begin the revolution. Or maybe they aren't. Whatever the truth, be afraid, America…the moment of reckoning is nearly at hand.
This sort of post annoys me. If blacks are dumb then the rest of us will shun and harshly discriminate against them.
Either we set up charter schools in every ghetto and fix this shit, or else blacks are forever doomed to the social slavery that is horrific racism, discrimination and prejudice.
It's really that simple.
oh great lets take away her clerkship because she doesn't agree with the popular ideas of the time…if we did that, we still would have slavery and this lady herself would not even be in law school.
Who gives a damn, seriously? all this whining and crying over an obvious fact or an opinion for the sake of the argument? Im not to into the whole genetics thing but from personal first hand interaction with black people on almost on a daily bases at my university I'd say 95% of them are borderline retarded at best and by no means am I trying to be rude or funny by saying so. Not trying to be hateful (although your opinions couldn't mean less to me) Im just speaking from first hand experiance.
“obvious fact”
“95% of them are borderline retarded”
“not trying to be hateful”
Yeah, I believe you.
Oh awesome, you rant about physical characteristics not being related to intelligence and then go on to use a stereotype that generalizes an entire group of people based on the physical characteristic of hair color.
I hope to go I missed the subtle irony in this statement and you're flame.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9icu_race-an...
1. No one is trying to “take away” her clerkship. Only Judge Kozinski can do that. This point has already been proven, and yet you're still running with it. Typical of the closed-minded.
2. Re: the second half of your “thought”…your logic is all kinds of backwards. If most people agreed with the author of the email, we might possibly still have slavery and exclusion of women from law school–not the other way around.
3. Finally, you and several other commentators really should stop conflating this issue with free speech issue. No one is debating the student's right to air her opinion. It's the so-called “opinion”–anachronistic, baldly racist, inaccurate, etc. that is problematic. She had the right to express her nonsense, and one of her colleagues merely helped her spread her message.
What exactly is your problem, and more relevantly, what is your point?
“So a few weeks ago the BLSA people are soliciting a lecture that is endorsing the theory that ethnoracial groups have innate differences in IQ, and the then a few weeks later they go ballistic over the fact that some law student is merely thinking about the same theory”.
Your problem: assuming that Harvard BLSA and Penn BLSA are the same organization, and that all of its members are the same and have the same beliefs. They are not. Even within Harvard or Penn BLSA, individual members may have very little in common. Indeed, they are not even racially homogenous.
Oops, one of your isms is showing.
“blonde moment” is a euphemism..we all know what it means, and it's complete lack of relevance to the subject we're discussing :) (except perhaps you)
What's that nonsense have to do with explaining Haiti, Liberia or Nigeria?
Just hope this story doesn't get linked to the Drudge Report, then you will see some people with actual genetic deficiencies posting here
Then why can they often tell the race of a person from a dna sample gathered at a crime scene? Did you miss the PBS special hosted by no other than the infamous Mr Gates of Harvard where they would tell people their genetic heritage after taking their dna?
Then why can they often tell the race of a person from a dna sample gathered at a crime scene? Did you miss the PBS special hosted by no other than the infamous Mr Gates of Harvard where they would tell people their genetic heritage after taking their dna?
Then why can they often tell the race of a person from a dna sample gathered at a crime scene? Did you miss the PBS special hosted by no other than the infamous Mr Gates of Harvard where they would tell people their genetic heritage after taking their dna?
Then why can they often tell the race of a person from a dna sample gathered at a crime scene? Did you miss the PBS special hosted by no other than the infamous Mr Gates of Harvard where they would tell people their genetic heritage after taking their dna?
Yep, and there are plenty of “euphemisms” white racists use to describe behaviors or action that you would call racist. I think it's very relevant.
The first two lines of the email make it sound as though she left the discussion leaving others with the impression that she absolutely REJECTED the possibility IQ differences could be explained genetically:
“… I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.”
These lines make it sound like she believes that when the conversation ended, it sounded like she ruled out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. Perhaps she was adamantly defending African Americans' genetic predispositions in the conversation, but just wants to clarify in the email that she thinks genetic factors COULD be an explanation.
The email has plenty of ambiguity to it, and I think we should all remember that it was intended to be a private communication between two people who had a lot more context than we do before arriving at conclusions as to the author's real beliefs.
replying to your 2nd post here,(for some reason the reply button doesn't appear for me under it). apples and oranges on that. it's not the same. try dealing with the actual topic, and leave the diversionary sharpshooting alone, hmm?
“But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp.”
OK, but that does not mean you are correct. In some extreme cases, you are obviously wrong. Google fragile X, or genetic causes of mental retardation, if you don't believe me. In this particular matter, you are further from the scientific consensus than you think. Disagreement over a scientific question should not mean that people who think nurture and environmental explanations have failed to make accurate predictions lose their jobs.
Trying to pull a Summers on this woman makes you a witch hunter. You are no better than a “climate skeptic” trying to get people who believe the scientific consensus fired. How would you have responded to an accidently-adressed email from a student who claimed that black underperformance on intelligence tests, under-representation in positions that require intelligence, and low average LSAT scores was caused by institutional racism? If you would respond differently, why?
Someone else said,
“Genetic differences between ethnic groups, including blacks and whites, are very small. They are so small that we all pretty much function as one genetic unit. If you're going to raise “well, what about DNA testing” DNA testing measures variations in non-coding portions of the DNA.”
Sure. But what those differences are, and how “structured they are matters. As an example, take everyone in the world with hemophilia. On average, they will differ from other men by a single nucleotide. 1/6 billion. Would you take that to mean hemophilia is imaginary? It actually points towards small differences mattering.
And then a third person wrote,
“He didn't conclude anything because he has NO EVIDENCE – no double-blind study, no statistics. So why postulate that theory in particular? Why not postulate that, say, the Irish have flat feet? No it had to be “blacks are stoopid”. When somebody does the science, we can start ruling stuff in and out.”
Um, we have lots of studies. Double-blind studies are pretty much impossible: there can't be many people who don't know what race they are, and the researchers would figure it just by looking. intelligence testing is well-established. No established test is biased against black people. In fact, most over-predict how well black people. On the SAT, children of high income black parents (70K/year) do less well on the SAT than children of whites who make less than 20K/year. Something besides income causes the average difference.
rob
Whatever issues exist or not between DNA and OUTRAGE is of no moment. Ultimately it is about what DNA said. It is about DNAs lack of judgment to know when to speak and when to remain silent. It is about DNAs ability to influence based on faulty logic. DNA arrogantly paints with broad strokes based on speculation and conjecture. It is, ultimately, about DNAs innate willingness, in a federal clerkship position, to automatically give less credence to legal arguments made by African Americans. To judge legal arguments on anything less than the merits is contrary to everything that HLS and every other law school in America teaches. The law should be blind. However, DNA has shown that she is anything but. She is arrogantly ignorant – a dangerous combination particularly in light of her HLS and clerkship credentials. Finally, those who support DNA's ill-thought position, or seek to recast the discussion as a mere personality conflict, should step back, take a deep breath, and look honestly at the issue in context. Such introspection might be painful, but, intellectual growth is well worth it.
Of course charter schools in every ghetto would then mean that you are condeming 90% of the students in those areas most likely to reduced educational resources and certainly from access to the “goal oriented” group of their peers who would be taken out of their social circles and placed into a separate school system. Place charters schools in every ghetto and a percentage will rise out of there, and there rest will be stuck worse than ever.
If the people who maintain this site have any decency, they will remove all references to the law students name and email (real or not).
Further, the email was not racist. She did not say that black people should be treated any differently than white people. She said that, if she's right, equal treatment will result in unequal outcomes. Whatever consequences you think should or would happen if her position were true are yours alone.
Nothing at all wrong with this statement. I was just at a talk by Richard Nisbett, who's been doing a great deal of work on this lately and actually knows how to do so, unlike the majority of pretenders posting here, and his conclusions were a) conclusions here are always tentative b) genetic differences likely account for 3 IQ points between white and black c) genetic differences likely account for less than 1 IQ point between white and asian. Just thought I'd share that, so anyone who actually cares about being right will know where to direct their attention. The rest of you cowards can go on feeling sanctimonious.
Nothing at all wrong with this statement. I was just at a talk by Richard Nisbett, who's been doing a great deal of work on this lately and actually knows how to do so, unlike the majority of pretenders posting here, and his conclusions were a) conclusions here are always tentative b) genetic differences likely account for 3 IQ points between white and black c) genetic differences likely account for less than 1 IQ point between white and asian. Just thought I'd share that, so anyone who actually cares about being right will know where to direct their attention. The rest of you cowards can go on feeling sanctimonious.
“It’s unfortunate that this person appears to be on paper a highly educated individual, yet her viewpoints prove otherwise, and is likely to be put in positions of influence.”
Translation: She blasphemed against our Holy Book (Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man)!
The amount of EXTREME IGNORANCE shown by you Law School people about the well known fact that racial groups differ in IQ-type intelligence IS REALLY QUITE ASTOUNDING. Perhaps you all should spend an hour or two reading up on some of the literature in the field of intelligence research, here are some links to some articles that you all could read (that is if you do not want to remain so ignorant).
A good review article by Phil Rushton and Arthur Jensen (two leading Hereditarian psychologists) was published in 2005 in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294
THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Ru...
An article critical of the hereditarian view on racial group differences in IQ but that still advocates further research into the subject, by Earl Hunt (professor emeritus from U of Washington)
Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/2/2/194.full.pdf...
Several interesting articles on the topic of racial differences in IQ and scholastic ability are available at the website of Linda Gottfredson (Professor of Educational Psychology at Univ Delaware).
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/i...
One Thousandth?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9iju_race-an...
*links racist video*
*hopes people watch it*
I like how it's a liberal thing to not be racist. Thanks for proving everything that's ever said about you conservatives.
I imagine black people would do just fine in the poor white areas of the country?
This has got to be an ATL comment record.
“Im not to into the whole genetics thing but from personal first hand interaction with black people on almost on a daily bases at my university I'd say 95% of them are borderline retarded at best and by no means am I trying to be rude or funny by saying so. Not trying to be hateful (although your opinions couldn't mean less to me) Im just speaking from first hand experiance.”
For the record, you are a bigot, and you don't have to try.
Your writing and spelling skills call your own intelligence into question, even beyond the success that your sweeping generalization of “black people” had in casting said intelligence into doubt.
I'm black, and I know that “basis” =/= “bases”, and that “experiance” is not a word, whereas you do not…so…?
her name is stephanie grace? i guess her name is stephanie grace!
Nisbett thinks the 1SD (15 point in the 80's) differences is 20% genetic; just to clarify, the Hereditary hypothesis which he argues against, puts is at >50% and <80% 7.5 to 12 points. probably 30-40% (5-6 points) is more accurate. Not much to talk about.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9ing_race-an...
If intelligence is genetics, how does the writer explain her own ignorance and that of so many white Americans?
The writer is absolutely on point accept for the fact that he makes reference to only African-Americans as opposed to ALL so-called Blacks. That gives a clue that the writer is simply [another] insecure, narrow-minded white American bigot… pursuing an Ivy-League degree.
Anyway, the truth is, it is not that 'African-Americans' are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent, but that so-called Whites are the ones genetically predisposed to be MORE intelligent (the white survival on a black planet situation). Still, the fact remains, whether the glass is half empty or half full, either way, the result is the same. Just that it's becoming boring having it rubbed in our faces every year by some racist academic.
Several hundred comments ago someone suggested that affirmative action was meant to deal with the genetic inferiority of blacks because as Lat suggests it is possible that African-Americans ON AVERAGE might be innately less intelligent than their caucasian and asian counterparts due to the presence or lack thereof of some gene or gene(s).
When someone rightly pointed out that affirmative action was a response to discrimination the retort was that Jews and Asians, though discriminated against, do not receive affirmative action, thereby again implying that African-Americans are…somehow genetically inferior. Or at least it is a possibility. Or even probable. After all, it seems readily observable…like African Americans ON AVERAGE being taller than Asians.
Of course, Asians received reparations for their internment during World War II…while Blacks served in a segregated army. Britain and the United States of course allowed Israel to become a nation again in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Both events, unlike slavery, survivable by a single person. Both events, unlike slavery, received a good faith effort at amends. Due to the average person's inability to truly fathom even a moment of terror on such a grand scale, the only defense is to belittle the experience.
There is talk of Affirmative Action. What use is it to have a slightly better shot at getting into a school whose degree has no value? A degree that was worthless even before the recession because if you're black and have the degree, well, it must be due to Affirmative Action right?
But let's be honest. Intelligence isn't like height. You can't tell it by looking at someone. Intelligence has so many different facets it's impossible to test fully, despite society's worship of standardized tests. We know they do not predict future success in the real world or in the academic world. We cannot trust statistics. All we have are anecdotes. And History. The history of smart men of all races. And the history of regimes who tried to prove their was a Master Race.
But Lat, let me tell you my theory on why Asians may do better in school in the United States than their caucasian and black counterparts. Perhaps it is because getting to the United States is difficult and expensive. Asians without the intelligence and resources to get to the United States die writhing in poverty in their home countries. Like many Africans.
I wonder how Asians would fare in a country where they had been enslaved for centuries, ten generations from slavery, two from apartheid.
Actually I don't. It's common sense. And basic human decency.
Someone said that Yelena Shagall is the person who forwarded the email on. Is that right?
It is perfectly acceptable to observe that Africans are faster runners than all other races.
A European (White) or Asian has NEVER run a 100m race in under 10sec. Never, not a single White or Asian athlete has ever done it.
Why is it so taboo to discuss any other differences?
Why, in Western Civilization, is it acceptable to conduct Soviet style witch hunts of any person who disagrees with the current political Orthodoxy?
It is hilarious how you Law School people actually believe all the Boasian PC bullshit about how races supposedly only differ in terms of cultural factors and that “there are no important genetic differences…” …yeah right…
We in the medical and human genetics research field just laugh when we hear all this politically correct crazy bullshit, because we study racial and ethnic differences in genetic traits ALL THE TIME but you PC-freaks just don't know it because we use some special code words to fool you. You see, rather than saying “racial groups” instead we say “continental or large subcontinental human population groups” and instead of saying “ethnic groups” we say “human population sub-groups”. We are always careful to remember to say “population” instead of “race” because then the PC-police give us a free pass to do our research on racial group genetic differences–oops I mean human population group differences.
For example we often use a site called HapMap that catalogs ethnoracial group genetic differences-
http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/index.html.en
This site shows the ethnoracial group gene allele differences that are mapped throughout the human genome in regards to eleven ethnoracial groups, and more will be added soon. Now we have gene differences cataloged for the following eleven ethnoracial groups:
Population descriptors:ASW: African ancestry in Southwest USA, CEU: Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection, CHB: Han Chinese in Beijing, China, CHD: Chinese in Metropolitan Denver, Colorado, GIH: Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, JPT: Japanese in Tokyo, Japan, LWK: Luhya in Webuye, Kenya, MEX: Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, MKK: Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya, TSI: Toscans in Italy, YRI: Yoruban in Ibadan, Nigeria.
Translation of everyday “race talk” into “HapMap talk”:
Black = ASW, LWK, MKK, YRI
Hispanic = MEX
White = CEU, TSI
Asian Indian = GIH
East Asian = CHB, CHD, JPT
In the past few years there has been a whole bunch of exciting new research on discovering genes that have undergone evolutionary selection during the history of modern humans as the racial groups developed (…now don't you kinda of suspect that this includes the genes that modulate intelligence???…) and what they are finding is that much of this selection for new gene alleles has occurred in Europeans and East Asians but not in Africans. Here are links to some of these new research discoveries on genetic differences between racial groups:
Identification and analysis of genomic regions with large between-population differentiation in humans
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/full...
Natural selection has driven population differentiation in modern humans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18246066
How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20084086
The role of geography in human adaptation
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%...
Genotype, haplotype and copy-number variation in worldwide human populations
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18288195
The genetics of human adaptation: hard sweeps, soft sweeps, and polygenic adaptation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20178769
Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/826.full.p...
This last paper cited above (“Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations” by Professor Jonathan Pritchard's group at U of Chicago) is all about how there has been positive selection for genes including a pathway called NRG-ERBB4 that controls brain development and brain synapse function and that has even been linked to cognitive function. One point made in the paper is that selection for the new versions of these important brain influencing genes only occurred in Whites and Asians (not in Blacks). Finding this sort of scientific discovery does not bode well for the Boasian theory that all ethnoracial groups have the same genetic endowment for intelligence.
Genome Res. 2009 May;19(5):826-37. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations.
Pickrell JK, Coop G, Novembre J, Kudaravalli S, Li JZ, Absher D, Srinivasan BS,
Barsh GS, Myers RM, Feldman MW, Pritchard JK.
Department of Human Genetics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
pickrell@uchicago.edu
Genome-wide scans for recent positive selection in humans have yielded insight
into the mechanisms underlying the extensive phenotypic diversity in our species,
but have focused on a limited number of populations. Here, we present an analysis
of recent selection in a global sample of 53 populations, using genotype data
from the Human Genome Diversity-CEPH Panel. We refine the geographic
distributions of known selective sweeps, and find extensive overlap between these
distributions for populations in the same continental region but limited overlap
between populations outside these groupings. We present several examples of
previously unrecognized candidate targets of selection, including signals at a
number of genes in the NRG-ERBB4 developmental pathway in non-African
populations. Analysis of recently identified genes involved in complex diseases
suggests that there has been selection on loci involved in susceptibility to type
II diabetes. Finally, we search for local adaptation between geographically close
populations, and highlight several examples.
It is hilarious how you Law School people actually believe all the Boasian PC bullshit about how races supposedly only differ in terms of cultural factors and that “there are no important genetic differences…” …yeah right…
We in the medical and human genetics research field just laugh when we hear all this politically correct crazy bullshit, because we study racial and ethnic differences in genetic traits ALL THE TIME but you PC-freaks just don't know it because we use some special code words to fool you. You see, rather than saying “racial groups” instead we say “continental or large subcontinental human population groups” and instead of saying “ethnic groups” we say “human population sub-groups”. We are always careful to remember to say “population” instead of “race” because then the PC-police give us a free pass to do our research on racial group genetic differences–oops I mean human population group differences.
For example we often use a site called HapMap that catalogs ethnoracial group genetic differences-
http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/index.html.en
This site shows the ethnoracial group gene allele differences that are mapped throughout the human genome in regards to eleven ethnoracial groups, and more will be added soon. Now we have gene differences cataloged for the following eleven ethnoracial groups:
Population descriptors:ASW: African ancestry in Southwest USA, CEU: Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection, CHB: Han Chinese in Beijing, China, CHD: Chinese in Metropolitan Denver, Colorado, GIH: Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, JPT: Japanese in Tokyo, Japan, LWK: Luhya in Webuye, Kenya, MEX: Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, MKK: Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya, TSI: Toscans in Italy, YRI: Yoruban in Ibadan, Nigeria.
Translation of everyday “race talk” into “HapMap talk”:
Black = ASW, LWK, MKK, YRI
Hispanic = MEX
White = CEU, TSI
Asian Indian = GIH
East Asian = CHB, CHD, JPT
In the past few years there has been a whole bunch of exciting new research on discovering genes that have undergone evolutionary selection during the history of modern humans as the racial groups developed (…now don't you kinda of suspect that this includes the genes that modulate intelligence???…) and what they are finding is that much of this selection for new gene alleles has occurred in Europeans and East Asians but not in Africans. Here are links to some of these new research discoveries on genetic differences between racial groups:
Identification and analysis of genomic regions with large between-population differentiation in humans
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/full...
Natural selection has driven population differentiation in modern humans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18246066
How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20084086
The role of geography in human adaptation
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%...
Genotype, haplotype and copy-number variation in worldwide human populations
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18288195
The genetics of human adaptation: hard sweeps, soft sweeps, and polygenic adaptation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20178769
Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/826.full.p...
This last paper cited above (“Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations” by Professor Jonathan Pritchard's group at U of Chicago) is all about how there has been positive selection for genes including a pathway called NRG-ERBB4 that controls brain development and brain synapse function and that has even been linked to cognitive function. One point made in the paper is that selection for the new versions of these important brain influencing genes only occurred in Whites and Asians (not in Blacks). Finding this sort of scientific discovery does not bode well for the Boasian theory that all ethnoracial groups have the same genetic endowment for intelligence.
Genome Res. 2009 May;19(5):826-37. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations.
Pickrell JK, Coop G, Novembre J, Kudaravalli S, Li JZ, Absher D, Srinivasan BS,
Barsh GS, Myers RM, Feldman MW, Pritchard JK.
Department of Human Genetics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
pickrell@uchicago.edu
Genome-wide scans for recent positive selection in humans have yielded insight
into the mechanisms underlying the extensive phenotypic diversity in our species,
but have focused on a limited number of populations. Here, we present an analysis
of recent selection in a global sample of 53 populations, using genotype data
from the Human Genome Diversity-CEPH Panel. We refine the geographic
distributions of known selective sweeps, and find extensive overlap between these
distributions for populations in the same continental region but limited overlap
between populations outside these groupings. We present several examples of
previously unrecognized candidate targets of selection, including signals at a
number of genes in the NRG-ERBB4 developmental pathway in non-African
populations. Analysis of recently identified genes involved in complex diseases
suggests that there has been selection on loci involved in susceptibility to type
II diabetes. Finally, we search for local adaptation between geographically close
populations, and highlight several examples.
It is hilarious how you Law School people actually believe all the Boasian PC bullshit about how races supposedly only differ in terms of cultural factors and that “there are no important genetic differences…” …yeah right…
We in the medical and human genetics research field just laugh when we hear all this politically correct crazy bullshit, because we study racial and ethnic differences in genetic traits ALL THE TIME but you PC-freaks just don't know it because we use some special code words to fool you. You see, rather than saying “racial groups” instead we say “continental or large subcontinental human population groups” and instead of saying “ethnic groups” we say “human population sub-groups”. We are always careful to remember to say “population” instead of “race” because then the PC-police give us a free pass to do our research on racial group genetic differences–oops I mean human population group differences.
For example we often use a site called HapMap that catalogs ethnoracial group genetic differences-
http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/index.html.en
This site shows the ethnoracial group gene allele differences that are mapped throughout the human genome in regards to eleven ethnoracial groups, and more will be added soon. Now we have gene differences cataloged for the following eleven ethnoracial groups:
Population descriptors:ASW: African ancestry in Southwest USA, CEU: Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection, CHB: Han Chinese in Beijing, China, CHD: Chinese in Metropolitan Denver, Colorado, GIH: Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, JPT: Japanese in Tokyo, Japan, LWK: Luhya in Webuye, Kenya, MEX: Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, MKK: Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya, TSI: Toscans in Italy, YRI: Yoruban in Ibadan, Nigeria.
Translation of everyday “race talk” into “HapMap talk”:
Black = ASW, LWK, MKK, YRI
Hispanic = MEX
White = CEU, TSI
Asian Indian = GIH
East Asian = CHB, CHD, JPT
In the past few years there has been a whole bunch of exciting new research on discovering genes that have undergone evolutionary selection during the history of modern humans as the racial groups developed (…now don't you kinda of suspect that this includes the genes that modulate intelligence???…) and what they are finding is that much of this selection for new gene alleles has occurred in Europeans and East Asians but not in Africans. Here are links to some of these new research discoveries on genetic differences between racial groups:
Identification and analysis of genomic regions with large between-population differentiation in humans
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/full...
Natural selection has driven population differentiation in modern humans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18246066
How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20084086
The role of geography in human adaptation
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%...
Genotype, haplotype and copy-number variation in worldwide human populations
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18288195
The genetics of human adaptation: hard sweeps, soft sweeps, and polygenic adaptation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20178769
Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/826.full.p...
This last paper cited above (“Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations” by Professor Jonathan Pritchard's group at U of Chicago) is all about how there has been positive selection for genes including a pathway called NRG-ERBB4 that controls brain development and brain synapse function and that has even been linked to cognitive function. One point made in the paper is that selection for the new versions of these important brain influencing genes only occurred in Whites and Asians (not in Blacks). Finding this sort of scientific discovery does not bode well for the Boasian theory that all ethnoracial groups have the same genetic endowment for intelligence.
Genome Res. 2009 May;19(5):826-37. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations.
Pickrell JK, Coop G, Novembre J, Kudaravalli S, Li JZ, Absher D, Srinivasan BS,
Barsh GS, Myers RM, Feldman MW, Pritchard JK.
Department of Human Genetics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
pickrell@uchicago.edu
Genome-wide scans for recent positive selection in humans have yielded insight
into the mechanisms underlying the extensive phenotypic diversity in our species,
but have focused on a limited number of populations. Here, we present an analysis
of recent selection in a global sample of 53 populations, using genotype data
from the Human Genome Diversity-CEPH Panel. We refine the geographic
distributions of known selective sweeps, and find extensive overlap between these
distributions for populations in the same continental region but limited overlap
between populations outside these groupings. We present several examples of
previously unrecognized candidate targets of selection, including signals at a
number of genes in the NRG-ERBB4 developmental pathway in non-African
populations. Analysis of recently identified genes involved in complex diseases
suggests that there has been selection on loci involved in susceptibility to type
II diabetes. Finally, we search for local adaptation between geographically close
populations, and highlight several examples.
oh shoshana.
oh my dear shoshana.
so what are you? a communications major?
10 years down the road, are you still going to be the same stupid shoshana? Or are you actually going to use all that money being wasted on your university education to actually get an education? My money is on you remaining the same stupid, semi-illiterate shoshana who thinks she is actually educated.
Amusing as heck. I was waiting for the usual Indian Supremacist to show up. And one did, claiming that “high-caste” Indians have an “average” IQ of 106. They don't. It's 96. Far above the rest of the 'average' in India, but much lower than what this person claims. To throw more fuel on the fire, this person claims E. Asians average 106. Yet other psychometrists claim the average is 103 to 105, which is lower than the average for different N. European groups when separated from the rest of Europe (Germans, Poles, Swedes etc) who average about 107. While all these averages seem to be up and down a few points, one thing that can't be avoided is the fact that blacks, mestizos, Amerindians and such do in fact score lower than E. Asians, N. Europeans, Ashkenazi Jews, etc. However, with the bolsheviks in charge for now, you can only make whites out to be weak in some area, to be criminal, stupid, slow, evil. With certain approved groups who make a grand show of being aggrieved getting a pass of course. Just ask Alan Dershowitz, a rabid, hypocritical racist who's one of the biggest academic frauds of all time.
Talking about intellectual differences is foundationally different. Children won't be steered away from college because they are tall. But, the will be discouraged fom going to college because of a perception that they lack the intelligence to succeed in college, be it Harvard or a community college. In the job placement context, adults aren''t relegated to food service jobs because they are fast. But, if they are percieved as less intelligent, and therefore, less able to learn/adapt, they will be forever pigeon-holed in service-industry positions. Don't misunderstand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with service-industry jobs, as long as that postion is chosen by the individual, not society. And, as long as the individual retains the right of self determination.
Who ya gonna believe – the P.C. Brigade or your own lying eyes?
What's kinda lost here is that her email, as we understand it, was to “clarify” (walk back from?)the “views” that she had earlier expressed at the dinner. That begs the question: what in the world did she say at the dinner?
Frightening. There's clearly a MUCH bigger story here.
It is hard to believe which judge that Gawker.com is reporting the unenlightened emailer is clerking for. LOL. This is a huge story.
Big deal. There is all sorts of evidence that different human populations have statistically significant differences in intelligence and other behavior. There is enormous evidence for differences between blacks, whites, Jews, Asians, etc. It is also well known that much more evidence will be coming in the next few years as the human genome is further explored. The idea that there is ZERO genetic influence on IQ is pretty silly when you think about it. And it is a shame that Harvard and other universities continue to put political correctness above truth and free speech.
Yes there is an organized attempt to take away her clerkship. She is guilty of a thought crime.
“We’re a legal blog, not a science blog. But personally, when it comes to intelligence, I’m in the nurture rather than nature camp”
Well that is convenient, isn't it. I bet your not in the nurture camp when it comes to homosexuality though, are you. That is the problem with political correctness these days. People line up behind science based on ideology, not based on facts and evidence.
All I know is that blacks are genetically predisposed to having wide noses and such. Breathing up all the white man's air. They're also genetically predisposed to be the best dancers and eat all of the fried chicken at a picnic. Oh, and THEY STINK!!!
LOL! I see what you did….Classic Chappelle skit.
Here's some quotes and studies I've come across, whilst reading on this subject:
“Joseph Graves argues that in [his] study the people sampled were from regions separated by large distances such as South African Bantu and Russians. He argues that if more people came from the regions that bridge the continents results may have been different. Examples such as Armenians would cluster both with Asia and Europe. Somalians or Yemenites may cluster both with Africa and Asia.”
“Nicholas Wade, who often cites the work of clusters in articles for the New York Times, says that even if individuals can be assigned to continent of origin based on their genotype (genes), this is not an indication of phenotype. This is because the SNPs used in the clustering study are selectively neutral i.e. stretches of Junk DNA that have no known function. Since they do not code for any protein or have regulatory function, mutations can occur without interfering in normal cell function. Over time these mutations can accumulate much quicker in local populations and thus they can be used to identify continent of origin. Therefore these SNPS that can be used to differentiate continental populations are not known to influence intelligence, behavior, susceptibility to disease or ability in sports. “
http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?subm
http://minority-health.pitt.edu/archive/0000051...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c7542mt2448...
http://www.psych.illinois.edu/%7Ebroberts/Neiss...
So “nurture” is the only causal factor in the disproportionate dominance in certain professional sports (e.g., NBA, NFL) of individuals identified with African-origin genetic populations?
Not that anyone will notice this on the 25th page of comments but everyone seems to be missing the bigger point – it doesn't matter. You all are talking about the value of a human life being based on its genes. Its not.Generalizing about the relative values of large groups of humans is irrelevant. How you interact with the individuals you come into contact with in the course of going about your life is the only thing that matters. Predetermining those interactions based on the ethnicity of the individual in question at any given moment leads to less favorable outcomes. period.
The first time I read his report I thought it was 1st. April and it was some sort of joke. But appears to be for real! It's not so much that this person's comments were racist. Strictly speaking I
don't think they were although they strongly suggest the author IS racist. More importantly I think they demonstrate abject stupidity and a level of knowledge and “scientific” thinking equivalent to the standards of the 16th Century. Let's all head for Salem and have some more witch hunts. And for someone who has studdied law and intends to make a career in that field, possibly in Judicial office eventually the blog demonstrates an incredible lack of good sense, tact and appreciation of the likely impact of the comments. For these latter reasons alone I wouldn't want this person ever representing my interests.
This e-mail was not racist in the slightest. Race probably has some small genetic links to intelligence (it would be surprising if there were NO links). This does not mean anything for civil rights, and this student never implied it did. Above all, she is talking about a *fact question* in a careful, respectful way, and does not deserve to be pilloried for it.
She is not asking the right questions, she herself proves she is racist just by the fact that she questions if black people may have genetically less intelligence, than whites. The correct question is if race affects intelligence. The outcome may be that blacks are more intelligent than whites. Yet, she used her preconceived notions of intelligence to hint at black inferiority. Consider the fact that she never mentions the possibility of white inferiority. This shows that she already had a preconceived notion.
Her information is also out of date, consider the quote “Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone.” This statement is wrong, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/3.... Women are as good in math as men are.
Her response to the controversy continues her veiled racism. Take the quote “I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level”. She did not realize the folly of picking a single race as possibly inferior. She could have added that asians, blacks, native americans could also possibly be mentally superior. Because she did not consider all these alternatives, this makes me to believe that she has at least some veiled racist notions about black people.
Stupid federalist society.
The extreme lack of intelligence displayed in a majority of these comments is frightening.All anyone has to do is take a look around and observe what is happening in our society(in America). All the answers are there.If you are too blinded by political correctness to see the truth,well you are an idiot who deserves whatever happens to you when the welfare class revolts because the money has run out.
“You may be better at math “then” me, but your grammar sure isn’t any better.”
“I” not “me”
grammar correction fail.