What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Kyriakos]

Are you conflating intelligence with sophistry? IQ is just an approximation learning speed, abstraction ability, and intangibles that lead to successful life outcomes, that's why IQ is the best single predictor of life outcomes, because by it's scoring your ability to solve problems.

I think that Warpus refers to the fact that some kinds of intelligence are rather... unintelligible

Eg intuition, or even more vague sense of something. Juxtaposed to analytical thinking, which by its very nature has to be conscious and readily communicable to some form.

 

[Hehehe]

@Terxpahseyton It isn't a good measure of intelligence at all. It's decent at measuring a certain type of intelligence, sure. But overall intelligence, nope.

Look here

Warpus, first of all, please link to primary sources. Give us the study, not the article about the study. Second, that article is worthless. All they're saying is that the researchers made their own test, and then nothing. They didn't prove that their test is valid, let alone that it is better than IQ. And even if it were better than IQ, it still wouldn't disprove the validity of IQ. But I will make sure I address the validity of IQ in my opening post.

Because there are plenty of other plausible options. For instance, it could be that any large group (including racial) differences in genetics regarding intelligence are exceedingly minor compared to individual differences and that cultural factors play the dominant role in situations where we see racial disparities in IQ test results. It could also be that population groups do have significant differences in the genetics regarding intelligence between each other but these differences are are on scales much smaller than race (for instance, those descended from a population of expat white-collar workers might have higher IQ scores - and these sorts of factors drown out race). It could also be that there are differences in cognition among groups that transcend simple IQ classification but can effect IQ scores depending on how their drafted.

We see environmental differences, sure, but the environment has a very limited effect on IQ. Besides, the mere fact that there are environmental differences proves nothing, given that it is perfectly in line with the hereditarian hypothesis.

Out of all possible conjectures you picked the conjecture that confirms racial biases. You seem to claim (correct me if I'm wrong) to have good evidence that demonstrates the existence of genetically-caused racial differences in gross mental capability that is significant enough to require changes in our political thinking (I am bolding it because that is more-or-less the proposition I'm ultimately concerned with). That conlusion is not nakedly extendable from there being significant genetic differences among individuals.

It may be possible to test the above bolded proposition. But I do not think it would be easy and I'm extremely skeptical you have done so. If you continue to post regarding this I will be holding your feet to the fire here in demonstrating the complete proposition in a rigorous fashion. Speculative implications that merely have an air of plausiblability will not do. You must not merely demonstrate that the proposition fits the data but that only it fits the data. That is a high bar to clear, but since it seems clear to me that the fullfillment of your political goals will result in the marginalization of at least hundreds of millions of people, I believe it is morally irresponsible to not set such a high bar.

That sounds fair. I will make sure to address that in my opening post.

As for my political goals, I believe in equal opportunities. I'm not proposing to marginalize anyone. The way I often put it is, we know for example that white high-school dropouts have a lower than average IQ. Does that mean we should mistreat them? Of course not, why would you even think that? There is every practical and moral reason as to why we should treat people equally (do I need to go over what normal distribution means?). The only thing IQ differences mean is that we absolutely should continue to work towards equal opportunities, while also accepting that that might not lead to equal outcomes.

I'll accept your objection to my term "largely" but partially is pretty weasily (partially includes the possibility of an insignificant contribution which then through some intellectual slight of hand gets assumed to be significant). Thus in my above bolded proposition I chose significantly with the significance being of enough to require changes in our political thinking.

I have no faith in my ability to convince you of anything whatsoever. When I attempt to disabuse you of your flawed reasoning, I do with the full expectation that it will fail. My hope in engaging with you is that those observing this argument who may have found elements of your argument interesting will reevaluate their perspective. My fear is that my engaging provides a bigger soapbox for your odious claims and this disucssion results in you simply learning to hide your methodological errors under a more polished vaneer.

According the experts, genetics accounts for about 47% of the IQ gap (mean of all answers, Rindermann, Coyle, Becker, 2013). But I'm fine with a range of figures, from 20 % to 80 %. As for my "flawed reasoning", I have to ask, how familiar are you with this topic? Is this your first rodeo? I doubt that you'd be that confident of your position if you knew much about intelligence research. I mean I sort of get where you're coming from. Had I known nothing about the research, I too would have thought that the position I'm holding now is impossible.

 

[Ryika]

Let's see the recent peer reviewed research that leads to that conclusion.

Come on. I'm on board with the idea that intelligence is more than IQ, and that the tests' results should not be valued too highly, but that question is just as dumb as asking: "Do we actually know that this arithmetic test does test how well you are at doing arithmetic? Have there been any peer-reviewed studies?" - if you doubt the accuracy of a testing method that is widely used and generally seen as accurate, then you better provide some starting point, instead of just asserting that it is not good at testing what it is trying to test. The study that you've linked certainly does not make that assertion.

 

[Kyriakos]

Come on. I'm on board with the idea that intelligence is more than IQ, and that the tests' results should not be valued too highly, but that question is just as dumb as asking: "Do we actually know that this arithmetic test does test how well you are at doing arithmetic? Have there been any peer-reviewed studies?" - if you doubt the accuracy of a testing method that is widely used and generally seen as accurate, then you better provide some starting point, instead of just asserting that it is not good at testing what it is trying to test. The study that you've linked certainly does not make that assertion.

So was phrenology, and apparently also the flogiston theory. Then some people thought of leaving rats to suffocate inside glass tubes.

Intelligence as a subject itself does not have the needed traits to be bounded in anything close to a verified examination - unlike what math is based on, and even unlike specific physical phenomena tied to experiment.

 

[Ryika]

So was phrenology, and apparently also the flogiston theory. Then some people thought of leaving rats to suffocate inside glass tubes.

Yeah, and so are tons of other tests that are still seen as accurate. Again, if one thinks that the tests are not accurate, one should provide a starting point, not just assert it. I have only looked very quickly, but I could not find a single study that casts serious doubts on its accuracy, only studies that doubt its range of applicability.

Intelligence as a subject itself does not have the needed traits to be bounded in anything close to a verified examination - unlike what math is based on, and even unlike specific physical phenomena tied to experiment.

Yeah. But thankfully we weren't talking about whether IQ tests are a good way to test for intelligence, but rather whether IQ tests are good at testing for the traits they are designed to test for.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Even if IQ-tests just measure a sub-set of intelligence - and to some extend that certainly is so, of course - let's call it IQ-intelligence, that is still interesting, relevant, and potentially fruitful.

The one side is saying: Oh look at these results. There seems to really be something there.
Whereas the other side just bites its own tail in a pointless effort to superficially cast doubts. Doubt matter, sure. But only in the effort to account for them in the research, not to throw your hands in the air and go "Oh no - it can not be done!"

It is btw also telling how the article warpus posted (I overlooked it before, sorry warpus) without any reason thinks that questioning IQ also questions its contentious implications, regarding sexes, races, social classes etcetera. Like another, perhaps better and more refined, intelligence test wouldn't find such differences just as much... No it must be the evil IQ test. It is the same pattern I just described of not really being interested in results, but just discrediting the whole effort, because the results are not politically correct.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

We see environmental differences, sure, but the environment has a very limited effect on IQ..

What makes you say that? I have read some to the contrary. Plainly being motivated can account for a difference of 20 points, I have read somewhere, and we do know that modern education pretty much trains you to be better in IQ tests. We also know that a bad social background can severely lower your cognitive abilities, not due to your genes, but because human cognitive development is designed to be very adaptable. For better or worse. Stress for instance, can make your brain physically shrink, even in adults. It can do much more harm to a child, though. Say the kind of stress experienced in a dysfunctional family.

But then, I also read the average African IQ is 70. Which, as I said before, would be reason to consider classifying you as being clinically handicapped, in the Western world. But okay, it is Africa, a crap-hole in many places. However, supposedly even South-African college-educated blacks got only 80. Those are some pretty heavy numbers. And it is pretty striking how dysfunctional many African states are, on a level and scale you will not find anywhere else in the world, colonial history or not. Sure that all sounds very racist, but IMO also pretty impressive.

 

[Akka]

So was phrenology, and apparently also the flogiston theory.

I'm shocked to see such horrible spelling of "phlogiston", especially coming from a Greek. That's tantamount to high treason.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm shocked to see such horrible spelling of "phlogiston", especially coming from a Greek. That's tantamount to high treason.

Why, do you think that in a noble language like greek the 'f' sound is created by a double letter?

It is just a φ, so i went with the lesser of the two dysmorphic and barbaric approximations.

 

[Hehehe]

What makes you say that? I have read some to the contrary. Plainly being motivated can account for a difference of 20 points, I have read somewhere, and we do know that modern education pretty much trains you to be better in IQ tests. We also know that a bad social background can severely lower your cognitive abilities, not due to your genes, but because human cognitive development is designed to be very adaptable. For better or worse. Stress for instance, can make your brain physically shrink, even in adults. It can do much more harm to a child, though. Say the kind of stress experienced in a dysfunctional family.

Yes, environment can have an impact, but in industrialized western countries, it is pretty small. This is contained in the general heritability figures. Also, I should note that the heritability of IQ in the west is not the same as in Africa.

But then, I also read the average African IQ is 70. Which, as I said before, would be reason to consider classifying you as being clinically handicapped, in the Western world. But okay, it is Africa, a crap-hole in many places. However, supposedly even South-African college-educated blacks got only 80. Those are some pretty heavy numbers. And it is pretty striking how dysfunctional many African states are, on a level and scale you will not find anywhere else in the world, colonial history or not. Sure that all sounds very racist, but IMO also pretty impressive.

Yes, this is what I find curious as well. If minority groups are being held back by white racism, then you would expect them to do better if you lift the yoke of the white man off of their shoulders. Yet what we find seems to be the exact opposite. Some countries with little to none colonial history tend to do very poorly (Haiti, Ethiopia) whereas some countries with a lot of colonial history (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) tend to do very well. I really wonder what is the common denominator there.

Also, Rushton tested the IQs of black and white college students, and found them to be one standard deviation above their racial mean, or 85 and 115 respectively. IQ of 85 is about the average IQ of a western elementary school dropout. Someone with an IQ of 85 is bound to struggle in college, which is exactly what we find in South Africa.

 

[Akka]

Why, do you think that in a noble language like greek the 'f' sound is created by a double letter?

It is just a φ, so i went with the lesser of the two dysmorphic and barbaric approximations.

Like in amfitheater ?
(and which letter do you use to replace the "th" then ? )

 

[Kyriakos]

Like in amfitheater ?
(and which letter do you use to replace the "th" then ? )

theta?

θ

Αμφιθέατρο(ν)

Good point. Well, i just have to use what is there in latin writing, itself euboean greek alphabet anyway. Maybe ask the citizens of Chalkis and Eretria before they were burned to the ground by the persians.

 

[Akka]

I mean you replaced the "ph" used to represent the "phi" with a "f".
I'm asking which letter should replace the "th" used to represent the "theta"
(I could ask the same for the "ch" used to represent the "chi", like in "chiropractor")

 

[Kyriakos]

I mean you replaced the "ph" used to represent the "phi" with a "f".
I'm asking which letter should replace the "th" used to represent the "theta"
(I could ask the same for the "ch" used to represent the "chi", like in "chiropractor")

Already got it, and replied. Φθθθθφθθ

 

[Hrothbern]

Yes, this is what I find curious as well. If minority groups are being held back by white racism, then you would expect them to do better if you lift the yoke of the white man off of their shoulders. Yet what we find seems to be the exact opposite. Some countries with little to none colonial history tend to do very poorly (Haiti, Ethiopia) whereas some countries with a lot of colonial history (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) tend to do very well. I really wonder what is the common denominator there.

There is something like the disease burden at young age. Infections at young age have a negative effect on brain growth/development, affecting IQ. Countries like US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand have better childhood healt environment and care than for example Haiti, Ethiopia.

The sad thing is that I fear that the EQ potential is likely also affected.

 

[Hehehe]

Countries like US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand have better childhood healt environment and care than for example Haiti, Ethiopia.

Why? Why do those countries have better childhood care than those other countries? Why is this? Is it some kind of purely random chance? All just a coincidence? Or is it theoretically possible that maybe, just maybe, there is some kind of trait that helps people produce wealth? That helps people organize their countries in such a way as to provide better healthcare? A trait that helps doctors in their studies? Is it possible that we might see differences in those kinds of traits?

 

[Hrothbern]

Why? Why do those countries have better childhood care than those other countries? Why is this? Is it some kind of purely random chance? All just a coincidence? Or is it theoretically possible that maybe, just maybe, there is some kind of trait that helps people produce wealth? That helps people organize their countries in such a way as to provide better healthcare? A trait that helps doctors in their studies? Is it possible that we might see differences in those kinds of traits?

That question widens the scope of this thread tremendously, beyond any simple and specific answer.

But in general tropical climate zones have far more germs, parasites, etc than moderate climate zones.
Once you have a high population density (increasing the spreading of diseases) and inadequate food production (malnutrition), you are in a pitfall.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So do you reject "race realism" then?

You'll have to define it for me and then I'll let you know.

 

[Hehehe]

That question widens the scope of this thread tremendously, beyond any simple and specific answer.

But in general tropical climate zones have far more germs, parasites, etc than moderate climate zones.
Once you have a high population density (increasing the spreading of diseases) and inadequate food production (malnutrition), you are in a pitfall.

And how many of those diseases are treatable? If tropical climate is the only variable here that counts, do we see them affecting, say, white and black South Africans in the same way?

Before we dive deeper into the whole diseases argument, tell me again, what is this supposed to achieve? If you're arguing that the heritability of IQ is lower in Africa than in Europe, fair enough, I agree. If you're trying to argue that this completely disproves any genetic input to IQ differences, then you're wasting your time. Genes and environment are not a question of either/or. It's a feedback loop. If, say, you had a population that is substantially less intelligent, you would expect them to be poorer. You would expect them to have worse healthcare. Because of these things, you would expect them to have a worse environment, which, in turn, could further put downward pressure on IQ.

Or look at it this way, if you will: what if we took, say, a bunch of Africans, and moved them into western industrialized countries, where there is adequate healthcare? Would we still expect to see IQ differences? Is that something we can examine? Yes we can and yes we have. They have an IQ of about 85, which is higher than for native Sub-Saharan Africans but lower than for European whites. Removal of these diseases and poverty still does not eliminate the IQ gap. It closes it to some extent but it does not disappear.

 

[inthesomeday]

You'll have to define it for me and then I'll let you know.

Pseudoscientific theories that propose there are significant biological differences, that in some way affect individual performance or personality, that are a result of the genetics that produce superficial "racial" characteristics.