What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Hehehe]

I think that even if selected for by environmental factors (including cultural influences/pressures but excluding artificial factors such as breeding), multifactorial traits such as intelligence, muscle coordination, etc, will only affect a very small number of individuals.
Now, a small number of individuals can certainly shift a statistical average (aside from all the methodological flaws that are inherent to IQ tests). I think that part of the problem we are having is that we love to generalize (see, I did it right there! ) as such, sound theories of evolution become social darwinism.

What does this mean? Surely intelligence affects everyone, whether they have a lot of it or not? Also, in general, intelligence, as measured by IQ, follows a normal distribution. Furthermore, IQ tests are a lot more reliable than some people would like to believe. IQ does have a lot of predictive validity (it is a better predictor of future income and educational attainment than parent's socio-economic status for example).

Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][49] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][50][51] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[52]

You are in the realm of fantasy with your view that we are about to create people with higher IQ, and that 'down the pipeline' also with >150 IQ due to being near to mapping what intelligence is. Intelligence is a degree of complexity in one's ability to either think (conscious), feel (conscious and part subconscious) or intuitively (subconscious) form a sense of something.

What is it that you want here? Genetic engineering isn't possible yet, but it will be in the future. As for definitions of intelligence, I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish here. IQ may not be a perfect measure of intelligence, but it is a pretty good one, given how it has a lot of predictive validity.

The issue is not something out of cheap sci-fi, and nor do the human genome studies that are in their absolute infancy allow for analyzing with facts what intelligence is formed by.

On this point, you are absolutely right. As things stand, one is better off looking at the heritability studies, rather than genome studies. They both support the hereditarian hypothesis. But as for the genes associated with intelligence, researchers have looked at their racial distribution. As it turns out, the frequency of these alleles differs within populations roughly in par with their IQ, meaning that beneficial alleles tend to be more common in relatively more high-IQ populations.

The conclusion that a racial disparity shown in an IQ study being due to the fact that race A in general has "better genes for intelligence" than race B does not follow from what you've said.

This is a good point. I've stated that it is so, but I haven't shown that it is so. Would you like me to go over this topic in depth? I hate to sound like a broken record, but for that, I'd like to create a new thread, so that I don't have to explain the same things over and over again to every new poster. Or would you like me to show you the heritability studies, which lead us to conclude that intelligence is genetic? Or would you like me to show you the study which assesses expert opinions on the matter, to see what they think? Last, but not least, I can also show you the study which looks at the frequency of IQ-related alleles within different population groups (or "races").

Given the fact that supposed inherent differences in mental capacities was historically widely used as a justification for discrimination, it behooves us to be extremely careful in talking about these claims. In particular we want to make damn sure that we're not providing excuses for bigots to discriminate based on flimsy evidence and conjecture.

Yes, I realize that there is a lot of historical baggage to this sort of thing. Should we deny reality because we don't like it?

Moreso we need to recognize that both IQ and racial categorization are not scientifically ironclad concepts - they are loaded with societal baggage that needs to be unpacked before we can even make sense of the issues involved.

Well, nothing is "scientifically ironclad". But these concepts do have predictive validity. That being said, we can discuss that societal baggage if you want.

Finally there's a so what factor. Why should we care so much about broad generalizations which routinely doesn't apply to individuals?

As things stand, nearly all of our social policies are based on an assumption which, according to all evidence, is completely false. This is also why these policies have failed. I realize that there are uncomfortable implications to this sort of thing, but I'm afraid that sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that reality is something other than what it is, isn't healthy either.

 

[bernie14]

What does this mean? Surely intelligence affects everyone, whether they have a lot of it or not? Also, in general, intelligence, as measured by IQ, follows a normal distribution. Furthermore, IQ tests are a lot more reliable than some people would like to believe. IQ does have a lot of predictive validity (it is a better predictor of future income and educational attainment than parent's socio-economic status for example).

Yes, i did not phrase that correctly....what i meant was that multifactorial/polygenic traits are not passed on as simple dominant or recessive. It takes a combination of many genes (and more than likely environmental factors as well) and given how genes recombine during meiosis, only a small number of progeny are likely to receive all the genes required for the trait to manifest.

in regards to the validity of iq tests, I don’t doubt there is some predictive validity to iq scores but I see a problem with equating averages of "x" test score with social perceptions of what might be considered superior or inferior, especially when applied to (and by) groups. anecdotally, I recently had the (mis)fortune of undergoing neuropsychological testing, including a WAIS 4, (wechsler adult intelligence scale) and I can say that some of the questions included vocabulary, general information and visual puzzles which could be judged to have cultural biases.

 

[Berzerker]

I believe that the Nazis just used their racial pseudoscience as nothing more than ad-hoc justification for what they were doing. I believe that they didn't hate Jewish people because Jews were inferior, but because they weren't.

yup

Finally there's a so what factor. Why should we care so much about broad generalizations which routinely doesn't apply to individuals?

exactly

if I'm feeling superior, I better avoid people or my bubble's gonna pop real fast...

 

[inthesomeday]

Wait what the heck is this fella Hehehe actually arguing that race has some bearing on genetic intelligence?

 

[bernie14]

Wait what the heck is this fella Hehehe actually arguing that race has some bearing on genetic intelligence?

Individual and Racial Differences in IQ and Allele Frequencies

 

[Kyriakos]

An issue is that [obviously] there are many MANY people of any "race" which will appear (or even be, though the latter usually is more difficult to conclude, unless the difference is extreme) 'less intelligent' than many people of any other "race". Eg in such studies, which (i mean those mentioned in the thread, i wouldn't really feel inclined to look for this at all) seem to show 'black' people are by and large of 'less iq' than 'white' or 'asian' or whatever, don't provide insight as to why there very obviously are very many black people who are more intelligent than very many white people.
I'd wager, personally, that socio-economical conditions (eg in the ghetto, or in african poor states) are a vastly more potent cause of 'lower intelligence' than some dubious racial-dna theory. Afterall, if a person has to worry about money already as a kid, chances are they won't even have time to self-reflect or be interested in more theoretical things.
Furthermore, as noted, intelligence is of many types. Eg emotional intelligence is more difficult to examine than more logical/analytical one. That said, the most important mathematicians were using intuition heavily. Some even claimed it was by far the most important mental ability.

Anyway, to not miss the chance to sound snobbish ( ), i am also finding it strange that the thread discusses intelligence, when there largely doesn't seem to be any depicted in the main cultural showings of our current world. I mean, it isn't like we are discussing the proof of the last theorem of Fermat; are we really comparing lowly pop culture person of race x to lowly pop culture person of race y?

 

[Berzerker]

Maybe geography plays a role in IQ... supposedly the human lineage began in Africa notwithstanding the recent Greek finds and started leaving >1 mya... So what happened to them? We have evidence of erectus in Africa and SE Asia and larger brained Neanderthals and Denisovans in Eurasia. I think rougher climates select for intelligence, not only do you need the smarts to survive, the not so intelligent are more likely to die off. But if you're living in a nicer environment with less stress, the less intelligent wont suffer the same mortality rate.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe geography plays a role in IQ... supposedly the human lineage began in Africa notwithstanding the recent Greek finds and started leaving >1 mya... So what happened to them? We have evidence of erectus in Africa and SE Asia and larger brained Neanderthals and Denisovans in Eurasia. I think rougher climates select for intelligence, not only do you need the smarts to survive, the not so intelligent are more likely to die off. But if you're living in a nicer environment with less stress, the less intelligent wont suffer the same mortality rate.

That didn't prevent north europeans to be rather less developed and druidophilic for most of recorded history

 

[Hehehe]

Yes, i did not phrase that correctly....what i meant was that multifactorial/polygenic traits are not passed on as simple dominant or recessive. It takes a combination of many genes (and more than likely environmental factors as well) and given how genes recombine during meiosis, only a small number of progeny are likely to receive all the genes required for the trait to manifest.

Ah, that clears that up. As for environmental factors, the way I usually think about it is that genes determine potential, and environment determines whether or not that potential will be reached. We know that things like malnutrition or child abuse can have a downward impact a child's intelligence, but aside from absence of detrimental conditions, we do not know anything that can raise a child's intelligence.

in regards to the validity of iq tests, I don’t doubt there is some predictive validity to iq scores but I see a problem with equating averages of "x" test score with social perceptions of what might be considered superior or inferior, especially when applied to (and by) groups. anecdotally, I recently had the (mis)fortune of undergoing neuropsychological testing, including a WAIS 4, (wechsler adult intelligence scale) and I can say that some of the questions included vocabulary, general information and visual puzzles which could be judged to have cultural biases.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more or less intelligence doesn't make anyone "superior" or "inferior". Intelligence is a highly maladaptive trait, which is why evolution is stamping it out. And even if it weren't, intelligence follows a normal distribution. There are both smart and stupid people in every population, which is why individuals cannot be judged by group averages.

As for IQ tests, yes, there are many different types of tests for many different purposes. There are also many different types of subtests. The possible bias in these tests is a bit of a contested issue. There is some evidence to show that there is no bias. But even if that weren't the case, if we only did subtests which are more g-loaded, I believe we would find even bigger racial gaps (g being general intelligence).

On a sidenote, when some people say that you can train for IQ tests, it's sort of true and sort of not. You can train for the subtests that aren't g-loaded, whereas as far as I know, one cannot really train for g-loaded subtests. It is also interesting to note that g does correlate to actual physiological changes in the brain. Also, when people bring up the Flynn-effect, it is worth noting here that the Flynn-effect increases have a negative correlation with g, meaning that the increases have mostly happened in non-g-loaded subtests.

Wait what the heck is this fella Hehehe actually arguing that race has some bearing on genetic intelligence?

It sounds impossible for those that know nothing of modern intelligence research. But for those that do know about, it seems highly likely that there are some genetic differences.

An issue is that [obviously] there are many MANY people of any "race" which will appear (or even be, though the latter usually is more difficult to conclude, unless the difference is extreme) 'less intelligent' than many people of any other "race". Eg in such studies, which (i mean those mentioned in the thread, i wouldn't really feel inclined to look for this at all) seem to show 'black' people are by and large of 'less iq' than 'white' or 'asian' or whatever, don't provide insight as to why there very obviously are very many black people who are more intelligent than very many white people.
I'd wager, personally, that socio-economical conditions (eg in the ghetto, or in african poor states) are a vastly more potent cause of 'lower intelligence' than some dubious racial-dna theory. Afterall, if a person has to worry about money already as a kid, chances are they won't even have time to self-reflect or be interested in more theoretical things.
Furthermore, as noted, intelligence is of many types. Eg emotional intelligence is more difficult to examine than more logical/analytical one. That said, the most important mathematicians were using intuition heavily. Some even claimed it was by far the most important mental ability.

You're right in that intelligence does follow a normal distribution, and individuals cannot be judged based on group averages.

How would you separate these environmental influences from genetic ones? IQ does have an effect on life outcomes. Those with low IQ tend to, on average, do poorly in life compared to those with high IQ. Thus they are more likely to end up in a ghetto. And, given how genetics works, they will pass their genes to their kids. So if the kids grow up to have a low IQ, was it caused by their genes, environment, or both? To gauge these kinds of things, we do heritability studies, to see how much of the variation we see is caused by either environment or by genes.

As for emotional intelligence, as far as I know, there is no scientific basis for it, but you're free to prove me wrong.

Anyway, to not miss the chance to sound snobbish ( ), i am also finding it strange that the thread discusses intelligence, when there largely doesn't seem to be any depicted in the main cultural showings of our current world. I mean, it isn't like we are discussing the proof of the last theorem of Fermat; are we really comparing lowly pop culture person of race x to lowly pop culture person of race y?

Please, by all means, do make a thread for discussing the proof of the last theorem of Fermat. CFC can discuss many things at once.

 

[Kyriakos]

I would, but i am inclined to suppose that non-greek peoples aren't intelligent enough to participate in the thread, and that english guy proving the theorem is probably greek too.

More seriously: i really don't agree with your statement that 'less intelligent people tend to end up in worse jobs', cause, actually, very theoretically-minded people can find it extremely hard to bother with the base antagonism for rather meaningless but well-paid positions available. Of course some will, but going after money does require a bit of base interest. I suppose that many people just wish to have enough to live decently, and wouldn't compromise so as to have more, while in a job where the superficiality of it all is painfully sensed. I wouldn't see Riemann or Shopenhauer being high-level staff at some bank, for example.

Those jobs are more for Pepe types.

 

[Perfection]

This is a good point. I've stated that it is so, but I haven't shown that it is so. Would you like me to go over this topic in depth? I hate to sound like a broken record, but for that, I'd like to create a new thread, so that I don't have to explain the same things over and over again to every new poster. Or would you like me to show you the heritability studies, which lead us to conclude that intelligence is genetic? Or would you like me to show you the study which assesses expert opinions on the matter, to see what they think? Last, but not least, I can also show you the study which looks at the frequency of IQ-related alleles within different population groups (or "races").

I don't particularly want to wade through what I am fairly certain will be you mishandling data to arrive at false conclusions that support racist views. You would have to speak to a moderator to find out if it's acceptable to post such content here, not me. The outline of your argument does not give me confidence in the robustness needed for you to draw the conclusions you express in below.

As things stand, nearly all of our social policies are based on an assumption which, according to all evidence, is completely false. This is also why these policies have failed. I realize that there are uncomfortable implications to this sort of thing, but I'm afraid that sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that reality is something other than what it is, isn't healthy either.

If you do decide to post such content and I do reply, it will likely me trying to disabuse you from misconceptions. A task I would take little joy in and only do out of a sense of obligation to not let such behavior go unchallenged.

Yes, I realize that there is a lot of historical baggage to this sort of thing. Should we deny reality because we don't like it?

Make no mistake, I am firmly in the camp of not sugarcoating reality or suppressing truth for the sake of political sensibilities. But this is not something one should not make sloppy speculative arguments about and claim to have high confidence in their conclusions. One needs to exhibit an extremely high degree of integrity here and I am very skeptical that you will meet that standard.

Well, nothing is "scientifically ironclad". But these concepts do have predictive validity. That being said, we can discuss that societal baggage if you want.

Perhaps nothing in science is ironclad but IQ and race are clad in silly putty. They have predictive utility only in a vague sense and are extremely temperamental. They ought not be trusted.

 

[Berzerker]

That didn't prevent north europeans to be rather less developed and druidophilic for most of recorded history

ice age ended, we got dumb again

 

[FriendlyFire]

ice age ended, we got dumb again

it wasnt called the dark ages for nothing you know

 

[Hehehe]

I don't particularly want to wade through what I am fairly certain will be you mishandling data to arrive at false conclusions that support racist views. You would have to speak to a moderator to find out if it's acceptable to post such content here, not me. The outline of your argument does not give me confidence in the robustness needed for you to draw the conclusions you express in below.

If you do decide to post such content and I do reply, it will likely me trying to disabuse you from misconceptions. A task I would take little joy in and only do out of a sense of obligation to not let such behavior go unchallenged.

"Mishandling data", huh? I don't know how familiar you are with intelligence research, but we have a fairly large body of evidence to suggest that intelligence is partly genetic. This, by extension, would mean that racial differences are partly genetic. My view is perfectly in line with that of the majority of experts.

Make no mistake, I am firmly in the camp of not sugarcoating reality or suppressing truth for the sake of political sensibilities. But this is not something one should not make sloppy speculative arguments about and claim to have high confidence in their conclusions. One needs to exhibit an extremely high degree of integrity here and I am very skeptical that you will meet that standard.

Perhaps nothing in science is ironclad but IQ and race are clad in silly putty. They have predictive utility only in a vague sense and are extremely temperamental. They ought not be trusted.

Given the amount of interest this topic has received, I suppose I ought to make a separate thread about this. Forgive me but it will take some time to prepare my opening post. I will also source everything and I'll have to write counter-arguments beforehand to the few ever so predictable counter-arguments that I know I'm going to get.

 

[Ryika]

I would, but i am inclined to suppose that non-greek peoples aren't intelligent enough to participate in the thread, and that english guy proving the theorem is probably greek too.

More seriously: i really don't agree with your statement that 'less intelligent people tend to end up in worse jobs', cause, actually, very theoretically-minded people can find it extremely hard to bother with the base antagonism for rather meaningless but well-paid positions available. Of course some will, but going after money does require a bit of base interest. I suppose that many people just wish to have enough to live decently, and wouldn't compromise so as to have more, while in a job where the superficiality of it all is painfully sensed. I wouldn't see Riemann or Shopenhauer being high-level staff at some bank, for example.

Those jobs are more for Pepe types.

I would agree that the theory stops working at the point where more and more people rationalize that "living for a job" is not worth it and instead either "work a job that feels meaningful", or "working a job to have what they need to live a good life". For a huge chunk of the population however, the availability of "decent" jobs is "softcapped" and somewhat predetermined by their educational level. People with high IQ scores tend to have higher education levels than others. Of course whether you actually do well in your working life has so much more to do with character traits than it has with IQ.

Overall, I find this "What came first? Low intelligence, or living in the ghetto?"-question to be very irritating. It seems obvious that at least in the case of the USA, low intelligence came first, because black people generally did not have access to much education during... well... slavery. Combine that with the fact that racism does not magically disappear just because slavery is officially abolished, and you have a group of people that was basically guaranteed to stay at the bottom of society.

 

[Perfection]

"Mishandling data", huh? I don't know how familiar you are with intelligence research, but we have a fairly large body of evidence to suggest that intelligence is partly genetic. This, by extension, would mean that racial differences are partly genetic.

You do not need to convince me that intelligence is partially genetic. But just because observed differences between individuals might be well explained by genetic differences doesn't mean the same of observed racial disparities. That extension is pure conjecture. I am not interested in your conjectures.

Moreover your final extension that societal problems regarding race are largely due to racial differences in intelligence is much farther removed. You do not demonstrate the humility I would expect for someone who really understood the rigor needed to successfully assess these sorts of claims.

 

[Hehehe]

You do not need to convince me that intelligence is partially genetic. But just because observed differences between individuals might be well explained by genetic differences doesn't mean the same of observed racial disparities. That extension is pure conjecture. I am not interested in your conjectures.

Why would you think that the differences do not then extend to race? Is that not a proposition that we can test? In fact we can, and have, tested it. But I will go into detail on this later. I've sent a moderator message asking if I can start a thread about this. If I get a permission, it will take me maybe a week to write and source my text.

Moreover your final extension that societal problems regarding race are largely due to racial differences in intelligence is much farther removed. You do not demonstrate the humility I would expect for someone who really understood the rigor needed to successfully assess these sorts of claims.

I never said that they're "largely" due to racial differences. I only said that they're partially due to racial differences. Genes and environment operate in a feedback loop. Environment selects for genes, genes create environment (to some extent). Environment affects individuals regardless of genetics, genes influence the way people react to their environment.

But I guess we have to have a proper discussion about this, so that you may teach me some humility.

 

[Ryika]

You do not need to convince me that intelligence is partially genetic. But just because observed differences between individuals might be well explained by genetic differences doesn't mean the same of observed racial disparities. That extension is pure conjecture. I am not interested in your conjectures.

There have been studies on twins that rather clearly hint at the idea that intelligence is partly genetic, as twins always test for similar levels of intelligence, even if split up after birth.

There is an article on wikipedia that links to a lot of useful sources that apply other methods of testing these things. Intelligence IS partially genetic, we know that.

 

[inthesomeday]

We also know that genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences, which indeed are those used to identify the "races". Like skin color, eye shape, and hair color.

To claim otherwise would incur a burden of proof and I absolutely guarantee that you won't find any proof outside of disgusting white supremacist nonsense.

Racists have been trying to distort and falsify science to confirm their racism for several hundred years, and it's always fallen short. Whatever the newest attempt by you racists is it will most certainly fail again.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Sometimes I wish people wouldn't jerk themselves off so much over intelligence. We now live in a society where physical strength is almost completely unecessary; With full robotization and artificial limbs in a few decades it will be entirely useless. I really, really do hope the same happens to intelligence, people have obsessed over it for much too long. It's a stale meme that should have faded into obscurity after the heydays of biological racism. There are things infinitely more important. Compassion, Ambition, Curiosity, those are things I value in other human beings. IQ, without all those characteristics, ultimately only turns you into an insufferable dick. It can be just as negative as it can be positive. There is absolutely nothing inherently good about intelligence, especially if it is used to build new weapons, surpress the "lesser ones" or elevate onself.

I will be the one to throw the first stone: I'm stupid as fudge. Mods, take me away now.