Dumb and Dumber Are development experts becoming racists?

[mtbturtle]

BY CHARLES KENNY | Foreign Policy | APRIL 30, 2012

Columnist John Derbyshire's recent effluvia on the subject of things your white kid should know about black people was met with suitable disdain and a rapid expulsion from the web pages of the National Review. Genetic determinism with regard to racial intelligence -- alongside the very idea that intelligence can be meaningfully ranked on a single linear scale of intrinsic worth -- has been firmly debunked by Stephen Jay Gould, among others.

Sadly, Derbyshire-like prattishness on the intellectual inferiority of dark-skinned races and its impact on social and economic outcomes in the United States has a historied international equivalent. In fact, if anything, the academic consensus on why some countries are rich and others are poor is tacking closer to the shoals of genetic determinism than it has been since the days of high empire. Derbyshire's deserved disgrace is a needed reminder to throw brickbats at his partners in malodor who work in global development.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/30/dumb_and_dumber

[Marshall]

BY CHARLES KENNY | Foreign Policy | APRIL 30, 2012

Columnist John Derbyshire's recent effluvia on the subject of things your white kid should know about black people was met with suitable disdain and a rapid expulsion from the web pages of the National Review. Genetic determinism with regard to racial intelligence -- alongside the very idea that intelligence can be meaningfully ranked on a single linear scale of intrinsic worth -- has been firmly debunked by Stephen Jay Gould, among others.

Sadly, Derbyshire-like prattishness on the intellectual inferiority of dark-skinned races and its impact on social and economic outcomes in the United States has a historied international equivalent. In fact, if anything, the academic consensus on why some countries are rich and others are poor is tacking closer to the shoals of genetic determinism than it has been since the days of high empire. Derbyshire's deserved disgrace is a needed reminder to throw brickbats at his partners in malodor who work in global development.

Charles Kenny (of the World Bank?) provides a link to the effluvia (a polite word for sewage :-D)
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_non ... z1rgwl52y7
This was an eyeopener for me. I had never seen "Taki Magazine" which seems to be an outlet for smart reactionary/libertarian columnists. Could one say propagandists? One of them is Taki Theodoracopulos herself.
I had never read anything by these people. Sheltered by my own blinders. Life is too short to sample everything. This is what I would call "champagne effluvia".

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... and_dumber

For me there are two issues. One is these fascinating people I never realized were there: Taki and Derby.
What motivates them? Do they really have the flair and debater skill that I sense on first sight?

The other is issue is where Charles Kenny seems to be pointing at *academic* people *scientists* and *experts* who are out of line--I have to sample his links to see what he really means. Is there a sense of betrayal? What's going on? Here are some of Kenny's links:
http://williameasterly.files.wordpress. ... dy_prp.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12153.pdf

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n ... 0418a.html (critical review of a book by Lynn and Vanahan)

http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsRavenAfr2010.pdf (a scholarly review of Lynn and Vanahan's book and many other related writings, with thorough bibliography. Plus what seems to be a clear discussion of Flynn effect)

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey ... rgence.pdf (hopeful 2004 article by Charles Kenny himself, on global convergence)

Yes Charles Kenny is or was a senior economist at the World Bank:
http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiogr ... thorId=618
also he is with the Center for Global Development:
http://www.cgdev.org/content/expert/detail/1424569

[mtbturtle]

Marshall,

I had never heard of Taki either but knew of John Derbyshire and his prominence among Conservatives and of course the National Review.

[flannel jesus]

I read Derbyshire's piece. I understand what's offensive about it to people, but he in fact never implied anything about "genetic determinism." If you want to call it racist, that's all fine and good, but when you start making things up about what he said...come on now. That's garbage.

[CanadysPeak]

I read Derbyshire's piece. I understand what's offensive about it to people, but he in fact never implied anything about "genetic determinism." If you want to call it racist, that's all fine and good, but when you start making things up about what he said...come on now. That's garbage.

I like your posts. They are easy to read, free of the clutter of facts and rarely hiding behind rational analysis. Did you not notice the snarky barb about West Africa? Do you have the slightest clue about the tribal implications of that? You are correct - there is garbage here, but I fear it is your post that fills that bill.

[flannel jesus]

Did you not notice the snarky barb about West Africa? Do you have the slightest clue about the tribal implications of that?

No I don't. Care to explain it to me? If my post is garbage, I'd love to see why -- but it's garbage to tell me it's garbage without explaining why.

[CanadysPeak]

Did you not notice the snarky barb about West Africa? Do you have the slightest clue about the tribal implications of that?

No I don't. Care to explain it to me? If my post is garbage, I'd love to see why -- but it's garbage to tell me it's garbage without explaining why.

No, I don't care to explain it. I can only suggest that you might substitute facts for emphatic assertion in future posts.

[flannel jesus]

You can't explain it? Alright...

Guess you don't see the irony in your last post, do ya? See, if you can't explain it, it's just "an emphatic assertion" isn't it?

[CanadysPeak]

You can't explain it? Alright...

Guess you don't see the irony in your last post, do ya? See, if you can't explain it, it's just "an emphatic assertion" isn't it?

The difference is that I know of what I speak; you don't. I am capable of explanation, but I no longer bother explaining anything about race to Anglos. Nothing personal, but it's a waste of my time.

[wolfhnd]

While it may be appropriate to denounce those who promote racial superiority there are practical reasons to consider the contribution of minorities to their situation.

Take a look at the ten point platform of the Black Panthers

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.html

Their is very little there accept demands, where are the positive steps they have for promoting their own fulfillment?

The best way that Liberals can combat the bigotry of conservatives may in fact be by highlighting what minorities can and should do for themselves? The idea that someone may be offended is an impediment to progress?

African nations on the verge of social collapse remind me of 1500 years of European intermittent warfare, religious and cultural oppression, and disease following the collapse of Rome. There is a lesson their for emerging nations and I think they should take a look at it. If finding their own identity means repeating the same old follies then the focus on cultural identity and diversity is itself a problem.

[flannel jesus]

The difference is that I know of what I speak

I couldn't tell. All I've seen is baseless assertions from you. That is a waste of time, I agree.

[flannel jesus]

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.html

Their is very little there accept demands, where are the positive steps they have for promoting their own fulfillment?

The best way that Liberals can combat the bigotry of conservatives may in fact be by highlighting what minorities can and should do for themselves? The idea that someone may be offended is an impediment to progress?

That's a very interesting point, wolfhnd. Movies like Avatar, among other hollywood blockbusters, truly show what the white liberal thinks of his relationship to minorities. These movies are always about one group oppressed by another group (a proxy for a minority being oppressed by white man), and somebody from the oppressive group has to come and save the day because the oppressed group are completely incapable of helping themselves. I think this is essentially a common white man liberal fantasy of how he should help the oppressed races. See KONY 2012 for a perfect example of that fantasy in action.

I hope one day all this hatred will end as much as the next guy. I just don't think the modern paradigm of white guilt is the optimal way to end it. I don't know what is.

[wolfhnd]

When preparing for war there are a couple things you must do.

Weaken the enemy by negotiation.

Organize you own people to maximum productivity.

Provide leadership that increases morale.

Weaken the enemy resolve with propaganda.

Strike where and when the enemy least expects it.

Most important is 'The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu

As this applies to the OP it could be translated as open confrontation only when it cannot be avoided.

[CanadysPeak]

While it may be appropriate to denounce those who promote racial superiority there are practical reasons to consider the contribution of minorities to their situation.

Take a look at the ten point platform of the Black Panthers

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.html

Their is very little there accept demands, where are the positive steps they have for promoting their own fulfillment?

The best way that Liberals can combat the bigotry of conservatives may in fact be by highlighting what minorities can and should do for themselves? The idea that someone may be offended is an impediment to progress?

African nations on the verge of social collapse remind me of 1500 years of European intermittent warfare, religious and cultural oppression, and disease following the collapse of Rome. There is a lesson their for emerging nations and I think they should take a look at it. If finding their own identity means repeating the same old follies then the focus on cultural identity and diversity is itself a problem.

Have I missed something? Are the Black Panthers now an official African country?

[wolfhnd]

CanadysPeak I understand what you are saying. Please give me a chance to explain. The original post is about Racist and my reply to "Have I missed something? Are the Black Panthers now an official African country?" would be > Are African countries defined by race? But what I was getting at was that simply providing aid and opportunity is not sufficient to resolve the issues. See bold text below.

According to the U.S. Department of State, Office of Foreign Assistance, Eritrea is the only African nation that has not requested US aid for the fiscal year of 2011.

In keeping with its self-relaince policy, the government of Eritrea stopped requesting any financial assistance from the United States since 2005, and fully cut-off all third party NGOs that were financially sponsored by the United States after 2006. According to the Eritrean government, it firmly believes that foreign assistance breeds a culture of dependency that shackles African countries into a cycle of poverty.

Moreover, a growing number of economic experts are now taking the same position as Eritrea's government by suggesting aid to Africa is doing more harm than good. Economist such as Dambisa Moyo argues aid to Africa is making African countries poorer. Moyo, who has a Doctorate in Economics from Oxford University, and a Masters from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, believes foreign aid is "easy money that fosters corruption and distorts economies, creating a culture of dependency and economic laziness" (ABC).

The following chart below shows the top 10 highest aid recipients from the United states. Please keep in mind, these figures are only from the United States, and do not include other European and Eastern nations that contribute substantially to their yearly fiscal budgets. To read the top 10 most aid recipients of foreign aid that includes all donors, visit here.



Rank Nations US Assistance
1 Egypt 1,558,000,000
2 Kenya 713,951,000
3 Nigeria 647,748,000
4 South Africa 586,350,000
5 Ethiopia 583,519,000
6 Tanzania 549,622,000
7 Uganda 480,302,000
8 Sudan 439,979,000
9 Mozambique 415,071,000
10 Zambia 408,760,000

On a side note:

In my opinion the shift from addressing issues related to race to one of addressing racism is not the best way to proceed or expend one's energy and is too often self indulgent. We can agree that enforcing laws that prevent discrimination and providing some level of equal opportunity are first steps that must be completed before there is any hope of reducing racist ideology. That said the civil rights movement was successful not because it attempted to eliminate racial bigotry but rather because it ignored bigotry and focused on tangible improvements to the legal status of minorities. Those steps will not however address deeper social issues resulting from past discrimination in and of themselves and I believe this is where the confusion comes from. The deeper social issues can only be addressed by the minorities themselves.

[Lomax]

I read Derbyshire's piece. I understand what's offensive about it to people, but he in fact never implied anything about "genetic determinism."

Derbyshire's reference to the West-African ancestry of many African-Americans linked to this piece, which I assume is the reason his piece was taken to be referring to genetic, rather than social, determinants.

[CanadysPeak]

Wolfhound and Flannel Jesus,

My responses have not been about racism, or even race, except to the extent that one cannot talk about Africa without discussing both. Nonetheless, I should be happy to ignore all that. My complaint is about intellectual sloth. To assert that a reference to West Africa by a purported racist has nothing to do with genetic determination requires either that one not understand genetic determinism or that one know absolutely nothing about Africa. Either instance is prima facie evidence of educational shortcoming.

My "beef" , if you will, is that I have spent at least several hundred hours discussing Africa with FSOs (most in the commercial section), I have known citizens of many African nations, I have read quite a bit, and my second wife grew up in Nigeria and Ghana. I don't come to the discussion totally ignorant. When someone firmly asserts that they think they have a good opinion because, after all, it is their opinion and must be therefore pretty pertinent, I suspect it is but a bit of bad porridge. I work hard at knowing something about what I speak of; should I not ask similar of others?

The relevance of the Black Panthers is a complete mystery to me. I might as well mention the Knights Templar or perhaps Henry Hook (popularly called "Hookie"). Where is the connection between the failure of economic development in Burkina Faso and a group of American thugs?

I must ask: Is this to be an intellectual forum? Dare anyone answer this?

[wolfhnd]

I might as well mention the Knights Templar or perhaps Henry Hook (popularly called "Hookie").

Indeed you might have accept the Knights Templar were not a group claiming to represent the interest of an oppressed minority ;-). I could have use the MEChA platform as an example just as well as the Black Panthers but their brand of revolution is more self reliant :-). If you really need to know I used there platform because I recently had read it at the Black Panthers website and found it interesting. If you haven't read it recently I think you may find it amusing. I think you already know that I was only attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the oppressed looking for aid from the oppressor. I also fail to see how you could dismiss "believes foreign aid is "easy money that fosters corruption and distorts economies, creating a culture of dependency and economic laziness" as unintellectual. There is of course a whole body of work to support this position both historically and in current affairs.

While we strive to be an intellectual forum the real value of forums is to explore what "the common man" in each of us is thinking and get feed back on those thoughts. That doesn't mean some standard doesn't need to be maintained but certainly there is a great deal of room for discussion. If people become disingenuous that is when the purpose of forums is defeated more so than the occasional out burst, mistake or poor choice of words.

[wolfhnd]

Good Fortune Is an interesting documentary that explores some of the ideas I was talking about.

http://www.goodfortunefilm.com/

I'm looking for another film I watched on local traditional practices reducing desertification more effectively than outside agency plans but can't find it.

[flannel jesus]

To assert that a reference to West Africa by a purported racist has nothing to do with genetic determination requires either that one not understand genetic determinism or that one know absolutely nothing about Africa. Either instance is prima facie evidence of educational shortcoming.

I can reference West Africa in a million different ways without saying anything about genetic determinism. This isn't really your argument, is it? That one CAN'T reference West Africa without talking about genetic determinism? I thought this was supposed to be an intellectual forum...

Watch this, I'm going to reference West Africa without saying anything about genetic determinism:
My friend Pete is from West Africa.

Watch this, I'm going to do it again, this time with a relevant quote:
American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture.

If this is the kind of logic that I'm to expect of you...well, it's pretty clear evidence of educational shortcoming. There's not a single region on Earth that it makes sense to say "You can't mention that place without implying something about genetic determinism." I don't know how you thought that that kind of argument is somehow intellectually respectable.

[Lomax]

I can reference West Africa in a million different ways without saying anything about genetic determinism.

But, in doing so, would you hyperlink the sentence to a discussion of West African genetics (as Mr Derbyshire did)?

Consider the following:

"There are several jews in positions of high office in America."

It's true and uncontroversial itself, but wouldn't the hyperlink render it suspect? By analogy, why ignore Derbyshire's link to a discussion of genetics?

[CanadysPeak]

I can reference West Africa in a million different ways without saying anything about genetic determinism.

But, in doing so, would you hyperlink the sentence to a discussion of West African genetics (as Mr Derbyshire did)?

Consider the following:

"There are several jews in positions of high office in America."

It's true and uncontroversial itself, but wouldn't the hyperlink render it suspect? By analogy, why ignore Derbyshire's link to a discussion of genetics?

Your point is well the more important one, but there are also the underlying code words (as a UK resident, you likely would not know these, anymore than we would know the meaning of "yob") about West Africa, whether it be WAWA or references to the distinct phenotypes. American racists make a sharp distinction between, say, Tanzinians and Nigerians. I don't fault the distinction-finding - I personally find Lesotho women strikingly beautiful, while thinking Sudanese women rather plain - but it has been widely used as justification for thinking West Africans inferior.

[CanadysPeak]

I might as well mention the Knights Templar or perhaps Henry Hook (popularly called "Hookie").

Indeed you might have accept the Knights Templar were not a group claiming to represent the interest of an oppressed minority ;-). I could have use the MEChA platform as an example just as well as the Black Panthers but their brand of revolution is more self reliant :-). If you really need to know I used there platform because I recently had read it at the Black Panthers website and found it interesting. If you haven't read it recently I think you may find it amusing. I think you already know that I was only attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the oppressed looking for aid from the oppressor. I also fail to see how you could dismiss "believes foreign aid is "easy money that fosters corruption and distorts economies, creating a culture of dependency and economic laziness" as unintellectual. There is of course a whole body of work to support this position both historically and in current affairs.

While we strive to be an intellectual forum the real value of forums is to explore what "the common man" in each of us is thinking and get feed back on those thoughts. That doesn't mean some standard doesn't need to be maintained but certainly there is a great deal of room for discussion. If people become disingenuous that is when the purpose of forums is defeated more so than the occasional out burst, mistake or poor choice of words.

The fellow who killed all the children in Norway claimed to be representing the interests of an oppressed minority. He is White. Shall I include him in any discussion of why the Greek economy is in the toilet? Relevance.

[flannel jesus]

But, in doing so, would you hyperlink the sentence to a discussion of West African genetics (as Mr Derbyshire did)?

It was a link to results of African American genetic studies, not West African genetics. The study linked, as far as I can tell, was only used to show that they are in fact mostly descended from West Africans. I don't think that's a particularly offensive thing to say or to show.

[Marshall]

But, in doing so, would you hyperlink the sentence to a discussion of West African genetics (as Mr Derbyshire did)?

It was a link to results of African American genetic studies, not West African genetics. The study linked, as far as I can tell, was only used to show that they are in fact mostly descended from West Africans. I don't think that's a particularly offensive thing to say or to show.

Flannel, your part in the conversation strikes me as quibbling over terms like "genetic determinism". I suppose people mean different things by words, or imagine different meanings--so there's always the risk of getting distracted by semantics.

I'm curious to know what people think are the main issues here. Are they so divisive/explosive that we dare not look them in the face lest they tear society apart? If so then don't we need a taboo against their open discussion?

I'd like to know what, in Derby's piece, people find the most scary to talk about or the most disgusting of him to have mentioned. Or if we can't safely talk about such matters what do we do? Lock the thread?

=============================
My take on the "development experts" question. Correct me if I'm wrong---I think it is a side issue. I think Kenny is just using our revulsion against Derby as a weapon to tar his professional foes. I think Kenny's rhetorical trick of mixing up two different sets of issues is potential cause of serious confusion.

A. International development. What world bank and development aid policies are best to apply in Africa? Are their regional/tribal differences that should be taken into account by the policy maker or the aid technician? Are there BOGUS studies in circulation which should be discredited and NOT taken into account?
Personally I can't see myself trying to discuss this. [I can scarcely believe this but back in the 60s I had a subcription to Foreign Policy journal, and I used to browse related stuff at the library. How could that have been?! I don't know or understand any of that stuff now.]

B. The American race agony and associated antigovernment bellyaching. We goof if we confuse this with questions about regional economic development and political stability. There are ANALOGIES which appeal to certain people. Analogies can be dangerously misleading.
=======================

For me the most disturbing thing Derby says is this
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_non ... ire/page_2

==quote Derby==
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.
==endquote==

I was unable to find out what is meant by "The DMV lady". At our local post office there is a chinese lady and a black lady. The black lady seems more perceptive, knowledgeable, and more simpatico. Could just be a language problem on the other's part. Or difference in personality/experience. On the other hand, the postal delivery guy is ethnic chinese from Burma. He's great fun, witty, and infallible. His substitute, a black woman, seems bored with the job and more likely to make mistakes. Impossible to generalize.

Anyway, how does one respond to Derby's 11) and 12)? Do you mentally flush him down the toilet? Or do you try to examine his assertions in detail? The whole discussion seems sorrowful and vexing. Also dangerous to government for and by the people---democracy. He seems to be skillfully whipping up bitter resentment.

[flannel jesus]

Flannel, your part in the conversation strikes me as quibbling over terms like "genetic determinism". I suppose people mean different things by words, or imagine different meanings--so there's always the risk of getting distracted by semantics.

I don't think it's quibbling or semantics. It was a central point. If it's incorrect, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out.

Anyway, how does one respond to Derby's 11)?

Number 11 is, I'm sure, the perfect example of what one might interpret as him promoting ideas about "genetic determinism." However, to assume that that's what happening is a mistake. A forgivable mistake, but a mistake none-the-less.

He said "The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites." He didn't say "The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites because whites are genetically predisposed to be smarter." He didn't provide any reason for it at all, so to read genetic determinism into what he said is probably projection of some sort on the part of the reader.

His justification for believing what he said was given in IQ score statistics. One thing that it's hard for some people to do (people like you I think, given your response) is to ask the question "Is this correct?" instead of the question "Do I dislike what this implies?" You see, it's the latter question that makes people outraged at any statistical difference between the races. Outraged at factual results. When you're becoming outraged at facts...you know there's a mental disconnect there. You've divorced your beliefs from reality completely at that point. Facts are facts. Facts are not racist, not prejudiced, not sexist. If you're unwilling to accept the facts, well, that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

Now, what he's saying might not be factual at all. It could be incorrect. But, it's my guess that you haven't even considered the possibility that it's correct because you're so outraged by what it suggests to you. One of the proper responses to Derby's #11 is to find out if it is or isn't correct that they score lower. That would be a much more clear-headed and reasonable approach than outrage. He may be completely incorrect. Perhaps after controlling for income, and some other factors, IQ scores are much closer to even than Derby thinks.

But, you didn't ask "is he correct?" You asked, "how do we respond?" If you're too busy of thinking how to respond to somebody that you're not even listening to what they're saying, you should probably step back and keep quiet for a while, because that's when you know a hard bias is at play.

We all believe in some degree of genetic determinism. Each and ever last one of us. The ones with eyes and brains, at least. We all believe that a person's skin color is in large part determined by his genes. We believe that, to varying degrees, a person's body type, weight, height, skeletal structure, etc, is at least partially determined by genes. Nobody with half a brain rejects the idea that genes determine some things.

Similarly, nobody with half a brain accepts the idea that genes determine ALL things. When it comes to genetic determinism, everyone believes something somewhere on the scale between no genetic determinism and complete genetic determinism, but nobody worth listening to believes in either of the complete extremes.

I don't doubt for a second that the average black in the US scores lower than the average white. Do I think that's determined by genetics? No. We can accept the fact without implying a reason for it being a fact, can't we? Unlike you, I'm not afraid to say "it's true that US blacks score lower on IQ tests." I'm not afraid to say "Voldemort" either. We don't have to fear facts. Like you, though, I'm not ready to accept that it's because of "genetic determinism." There are certainly a lot of factors at play, and so although the average black scores lower, one must also recognize that the average black is born into a situation that's less conductive to intelligence in general.

But, at the same time that I think it's probably not due to genetic determinism and it's much more to do with social situation and things like that, I still don't cower away from the possibility that it could be genetic determinism. I know it's a hard idea to stomach, but whether it stomachable or not is irrelevant. The only relevant thing, as far as I'm concerned, is whether it's true or not. Like I said, I don't think it's true, but I'm open to the possibility that it is.

Derby didn't explicitly say anything about genetic determinism in his article. I am willing to grant, however, that he also didn't say that it's not because of genetic determinism, AND I'm willing to grant that, statistically speaking, the likelihood that he believes that the IQ scores are because of genetics to some degree is pretty high, given that the kind of person that would actually write an article like that often does hold that kind of idea. So, he probably is a "genetic determinist" more than most, yes. Probably. But, to say his article is promoting genetic determinism is a leap from saying that he probably is a genetic determinist. I'm just pointing out that leap.

[wolfhnd]

Well I admit that I tried to divert the thread away from the key issues because they are simply too inflammatory for our news forums. I'm tempted to split the discussion out of news and send it to social science where questions about the meaning of IQ test can be discussed. I don't mind having these news items but the subsequent discussions should be about and relevant to how the news impacts current events. I'm as guilty as anyone else so don't take it personal.

[CanadysPeak]

Marshall,

The thrust of the original piece, as well as the respone, certainly sounded as though it had something to do with the "failure to thrive" found in many African economies. There are myriad possible causes that informed folks might consider: irrational, and often high protective tariffs; inter-tribal warfare; "nations" created by European powers on the basis of where their strategic interests lay instead of traditional boundaries; lack of a democratic tradition; famine and drought; wide-spread diseases such as malaria and sleeping-sickness; or cultural antipathy to such activity (there are folk legends in these parts of Irish millhands drunkenly burning what was left of their wages because they were so ashamed of being hourly workers). Although few people in the aid and development world deal in such blatant horseshit, one might even consider the possibility of low intelligence or laziness.

The point is that a ton of experts, and not a few university thinkers, have looked at this for decades. None that I know of have ever suggested that any action or attitude among American Blacks have anything to do with African developmental lags.

I would not blame you for locking the thread, but I must again raise the question: Can anything of significance ever be discussed in these forums once the right wing decides to trash the discussion? Are we to only discuss those topics which the merely opinionated favor?

[Marshall]

Canady, as usual I can only react to some of the points you raise, too many interesting points and references to reply to all. I totally reject mixing foreign policy and economic development issues with those concerning American blacks.(term used in conventional sense, something of a misnomer) Too much chance of confusion trying to talk about both things at once. Got to keep it simple.

I have no impulse to lock thread. I just mentioned it as one of the possibles. It is Mtb turtle's thread anyway but even if it were up to me, and painful as it is, I would not lock it. For me the substantial genetic factor in people's abilities, e.g. the heritable component, is not the issue, it is the political use being made of it by people like Derby that I find odious.

Here's a story which may be irrelevant. A friend of mine ethnic Jew, FWIW was army radioman BTW in Korea occasionally at positions under fire and risk of being overrun. Later became college teacher. His son is a big quiet intelligent guy who has worked many years for Apple as a senior programmer in user interface design. The son married a black woman, professor at UC Berkeley. They decided to have a kid. So what did they do? They used a SPERM BANK. They got a daughter who is remarkably intelligent, exceptional. I think they consciously took advantage of an opportunity to boost their child's natural potential, in a sense. I think they chose the professional profile of the sperm donor and they selected for extra high intelligence. The daughter has proven unusually easy to raise because they can talk to her about their concerns. She understands grownups. I forget how old now, maybe 14? Mature, easy to get along with. Able to travel by herself and get places reliably.
I think more people are open to genetic manipulation than one might suspect. Even people who are already successful professionals, perhaps gifted themselves, and without genetic diseases, are likely to be tempted to boost their children's chances of happiness (to the extent there are genetically determined components--- heritable factors that are relevant.)
Oh, it may not be relevant but the daughter looks very much like her mother. Maybe they selected for that as well. Or maybe not. I've never asked about the process. I just take the girl as a given. 5 of us read the Tempest out loud when she was 11, taking the various parts. She wanted to do it and was good in her parts. It was fun. You don't ask questions, like "how did you get your genes?", you just take it as it comes.

I already posted about my wife's nephew who is getting twin boys free from the huntington chorea gene, because of in vitro. Another application of genetic technology. As it becomes more available I guess more people will use it.
That's the flip side of "genetic determinism". To the extent that something is heritable it becomes subject to choice. Maybe that is too futuristic or speculative. Not conforming with conventional ideas of human nature.

There is a germ of an idea here, perhaps you will think it a very bad idea, and perhaps it is. It is far from being generally acceptable, at least at present. Just the seed: Parents are responsible for the genetic endowments of their children. (as long as they have the readily available opportunity to exercise choice, if there is no opportunity to choose there can be no responsibility.)

[CanadysPeak]

Marshall,

Thank you for the reply. I will rerspond to a part of it that seems very relevant to the OP.

There are at least two ways of looking at genetic determinism: the notion that the physical appearance, mental capacity, temperment, etc of a genetically isolated (my term - think Amish) group are determined primarily by their genetic makeup (history); and, the effort to improve appearance, intelligence, etc of offspring through selective breeding (similar to Eugenics, but not so calculating - after all, many of us have looked at our future in-laws with a suspicious eye). You might argue that the two perspectives are almost inseperable. that is so; they differ only in whether we wish to be at effect or proactive.

You might look at Mitt Romney's dogged optimism and indifference to criticism and see either the genetic heritage of those immigrants who literally stepped off a boat in New York, grabbed a push cart and walked to Utah, or you might see merely the cultural heritage of a group who are mandated to go out into a skeptical, hostile world to proselytize for two years. Who can say?

Either view is, in my opinion, suitable for use. Some might wish to clean up my sloppy language, especially in the area of genetics, but I believe my divisions to be generally correct. My original point is this: If a fundamentalist television evangelist were to say that a President Romney would be unable to grasp the Defense of Marriage Act's importance, I would suspect the speaker a believer in genetic determinism. If he were to say that Romney were unable to grasp the importance of waging war on Iran, I would think that has nothing to do with Romney's heritage, whether we call it genetic or cultural. I am able to hold several thoughts in my ancient cranium at once, so seldom see the need to always be as naive as the far right would wish me.