Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.
J Lopez (email@example.com)
14 Feb 1995 23:27:17 -0500
In <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Fury) writes:
>In article <D3ytDw.GJH@eskimo.com>
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>> >Essentially, it's all guesswork...without fully (or significantly)
>> >understanding genetics, you assume that it composes 60% of intelligence
>> >(which is a questionable term in itself) and the other 40%
>> >(environmental) is also vaguely understood and certainly can't be
>> No, I don't assume. It is what the data indicates.
>It's /not/ what the data indicates.
>heritability estimate of .6 **only** indicates that **within** (let me
>stress this point) a group, 60% of **variation** may be accounted for
>by genetics. It says **nothing** about whether genetics account for
>**any** of the difference between "whites" and "blacks". Heritability
>is unable to account for any differences between groups as being either
>genetic or environmental.
>I'm not usually this peevish, but this is really getting frustrating.
Expect to be frustrated. We have gone over this ground time and time
again with Mr. Lajoie, and he insists on claiming, *despite the clear
warnings of even Herrnstein and Murray in their text*, that the .6
estimate pertains to differences between racial groups.
jlopez :: "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost
total reference to Harold Robbins?" --Willy Russell