Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jim__

(14,506 posts)
66. No, you're misstating the issue.
Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:56 PM
Jan 2019

From post #64:

At issue is whether or not there is any genetic component to IQ, so it’s not as if there’s any middle ground.


No, that's not the issue. I'm not sure there is any biologist or psychologist who denies that there is a genetic component to intelligence.

From the Turkheimer article:

Intelligence is heritable. To say that intelligence is heritable means that, in general, people who are more similar genetically are also more similar in their IQ. Identical twins, who share all their DNA, have more similar IQs than fraternal twins or siblings, who only share half. Half-siblings’ IQs are even less similar than that; cousins, still less.

Heritability is not unique to IQ; in fact, virtually all differences among individual human beings are somewhat heritable. Pairs of identical twins are more likely to be similar not only in height and weight and skin color compared with fraternal twins, but also in their marital status, their political views, and TV-watching habits.

Murray takes the heritability of intelligence as evidence that it is an essential inborn quality, passed in the genes from parents to children with little modification by environmental factors. This interpretation is much too strong — a gross oversimplification. Heritability is not a special property of certain traits that have turned out to be genetic; it is a description of the human condition, according to which we are born with certain biological realities that play out in complex ways in concert with environmental factors, and are affected by chance events throughout our lives.


Heritability is not unique to IQ. Turkheimer et al are not denying that there is a genetic component to IQ.

The issue they are taking is:

...

Genetic group differences in IQ. On the basis of the above premises, Murray casually concludes that group differences in IQ are genetically based. But what of the actual evidence on the question? Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. They know that science is not designed for proving absolute negatives, but we will go this far: There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.

...


As to whether it’s not as if there’s any middle ground, I refer you back to my post #29. Five premises are listed as Murray's. A middle ground is accepting any or all of the first 4 premises and rejecting premise 5

_______________

From post #64:
As far as Harris diving into the controversy, that was pretty much his whole point. At some level there has to be discussion with those who may be diametrically opposed politically.


Whether or not group differences in IQ are genetically based is not a political question. If Harris's point was to dive into the controversy, Turkheimer et al presented him with an excellent opportunity. He failed to join the debate at any substantive level.

Notice the similarity between the claim that you made in post #64:

At issue is whether or not there is any genetic component to IQ, so it’s not as if there’s any middle ground.


And the description in the Turkheimer article about Murray's rhetorical move:

... Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. ...


Murray's challenge is not actually pertinent to the debate.






Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I freely admit that my faith is unprovable. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #1
Not all republicans are racist. Eko Dec 2018 #2
Are you certain of this? guillaumeb Dec 2018 #3
Some might be stamp collectors also. Eko Dec 2018 #5
Mao tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, the current leaders of the Chinese Government, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #10
Terrorist. Eko Jan 2019 #11
Nonsense. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #12
I just gave you the definition. Eko Jan 2019 #13
You gave me a defintion that suited your purpose. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #14
Why did you leave out the first 3 sentences from your link ? Eko Jan 2019 #15
I provided a definition. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #16
Because he never argues in good faith. trotsky Jan 2019 #24
Presenting an argument isn't the same as arguing something Major Nikon Jan 2019 #28
So religious terrorism is mentioned Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #34
And in #10, I gave examples of non-theistic mass murderers. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #35
Here, I address just one claim Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #62
Arguably? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #65
They would be if all still issued similar threats today Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #68
No. Those terrorists are long dead. MineralMan Jan 2019 #70
1) Threats, 2) as well as acts, are terrorist. Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #72
How do you know they are atheist? Eko Jan 2019 #36
OK. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #38
That doesn't show Stalin was an atheist. Eko Jan 2019 #39
Previously done. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #40
Previously done where? Eko Jan 2019 #41
DU. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #42
There is the whole wide internet out there for you to use. Eko Jan 2019 #43
Not interested in this diversion. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #44
You made the claim that they were. Eko Jan 2019 #45
Here: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #48
Once again you leave things out. Eko Jan 2019 #49
So he eased up. That proves nothing about his position. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #50
Not helping your case. Eko Jan 2019 #51
You are failing in your diversion: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #52
Yes, that clearly shows he was an atheist. Eko Jan 2019 #53
The ever moving goal posts. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #54
Then obviously he didn't believe in atheism lol. Eko Jan 2019 #55
Nice one!! guillaumeb Jan 2019 #56
To be consistent. Eko Jan 2019 #57
Stalin himself was inconsistent on the matter. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #58
He was a brutal monster. Eko Jan 2019 #59
He may have been both, at different times. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #60
He may have been a lot of things. Eko Jan 2019 #61
You made the claim they were Major Nikon Jan 2019 #47
Stalin biographer, Edvard Radzinsky says he wasn't an atheist Major Nikon Jan 2019 #46
That is flawed Dorian Gray Jan 2019 #30
It was a jab. I did not mean it to be logical at all. Eko Jan 2019 #37
So your follow up to obvious strawman rhetoric is adding your own favorite strawman rhetoric Major Nikon Jan 2019 #8
It's best when the strawman argument Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #4
It's a yet another sign of their desperation... NeoGreen Dec 2018 #6
It doesn't get much better from there Major Nikon Jan 2019 #9
I have never met an atheist who believed he or she was perfectly rational. MineralMan Jan 2019 #7
Totally. None of us who aspire to rational thought, including atheists, believe we are infallible. erronis Jan 2019 #26
A podcast of the debate between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein. Jim__ Jan 2019 #17
Please summarize it for me. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #18
It's based on Harris's podcast with Charles Murray and Vox's criticism of it. Jim__ Jan 2019 #19
Thank you. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #20
I'm not sure how you scored it Major Nikon Jan 2019 #21
They're talking about Harris's interview of Murray and Vox's criticisms of that interview. Jim__ Jan 2019 #22
I read the entire transcript Major Nikon Jan 2019 #23
I listened to the entire podcast. I didn't think it needed to be mentioned. Jim__ Jan 2019 #25
You aren't really identifying points of contradiction, at least ones debatable Major Nikon Jan 2019 #27
Rather than do this back-and-forth, I'm going to post a link to the article ... Jim__ Jan 2019 #29
The article is worth reading but I think you left out the most significant parts Major Nikon Jan 2019 #31
No, the title does not accuse Harris of peddling in junk science. Jim__ Jan 2019 #32
Harris didn't see it that way Major Nikon Jan 2019 #33
No, there's no contradiction. Jim__ Jan 2019 #63
I don't think semantics counts for much here Major Nikon Jan 2019 #64
No, you're misstating the issue. Jim__ Jan 2019 #66
From your own reference... Major Nikon Jan 2019 #67
OK, from my own reference. Jim__ Jan 2019 #69
The point is essentially 'where's the beef'? Major Nikon Jan 2019 #71
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Sam Harris and the Myth o...»Reply #66