What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Lexicus]

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

More simply, if you believe that race causes racism rather than the other way around, you are a race realist.

 

[civver_764]

More simply, if you believe that race causes racism rather than the other way around, you are a race realist.

This is like asking if chickens cause eggs or the other way around.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

hmmhm.. did the atomic bomb invent oppenheimer.. or did oppenheimer invent the atomic bomb? :thinkang:

 

[warpus]

if you doubt the accuracy of a testing method that is widely used and generally seen as accurate

It's not generally seen as accurate at all, at least by experts. That's the whole point

Seems like a lot of people think that it is because it's used everywhere

 

[civver_764]

hmmhm.. did the atomic bomb invent oppenheimer.. or did oppenheimer invent the atomic bomb? :thinkang:

You imagine that someone sat around and "invented" racism the way oppenheimer invented the atomic bomb?

 

[Lexicus]

This is like asking if chickens cause eggs or the other way around.

Not really, because unlike race chicken eggs are real.

You imagine that someone sat around and "invented" racism the way oppenheimer invented the atomic bomb?

Certainly not. But racism was a multigenerational political project the goal of which was to establish a particular class structure (slavery) in the New World. You can see this dynamic at work very easily in early Virginia, where the first half of the 17th century saw poor whites and blacks revolt together against the (mainly white) ruling class. After the most serious rebellion the powers that be began consciously using race as a way to divide the lower classes, and gradually blacks and whites became differentiated in their status such that nearly all whites were free and hardly any blacks were. In essence "whiteness" originated as a bribe to get poor whites to accept their low status, by giving them someone to be inherently superior to.

@Traitorfish can explain all this better and in far more detail than I can.

 

[luiz]

Certainly not. But racism was a multigenerational political project the goal of which was to establish a particular class structure (slavery) in the New World. You can see this dynamic at work very easily in early Virginia, where the first half of the 17th century saw poor whites and blacks revolt together against the (mainly white) ruling class. After the most serious rebellion the powers that be began consciously using race as a way to divide the lower classes, and gradually blacks and whites became differentiated in their status such that nearly all whites were free and hardly any blacks were. In essence "whiteness" originated as a bribe to get poor whites to accept their low status, by giving them someone to be inherently superior to.

@Traitorfish can explain all this better and in far more detail than I can.

I don't get this, even though of course I agree with the general point that races don't exist. If racism was a project to establish slavery in the New World, then you wouldn't call Japanese attitudes to other Asian peoples during WW2 racism? You wouldn't call the attitudes of certain Arabs / Berbers in North Africa towards Sub-Saharans racist?

It makes sense to say that the British ruling classes pushed racism in their American colonies. I would even agree with that. But it makes no sense to say they invented racism, or that racism is that and only that.

 

[Perfection]

Also, in general, intelligence, as measured by IQ, follows a normal distribution.

IQ Scores follow a normal distribution because they have been defined to follow a normal distribution, not because of some objective distribution of intelligence. If you design an IQ test and it doesn't give you a normal distriubtion of scores you have failed to design a proper IQ test.

There have been studies on twins that rather clearly hint at the idea that intelligence is partly genetic

In my post I said "You do not need to convince me that intelligence is partially genetic." - that means you do not need to convince me that intelligence partially genetic. I accept that as a given.

Of course that's also not now burden of proof works, you yourself have made a definite claim - that 'genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences' - and would have to provide proof for that claim before we assume it to be correct, because we do know that there are differences, and there is no obvious reason for why there would only superficial differences, and in fact, there are non-superficial, statistical differences such as the medical differences mentioned above.

Until you do that, the only valid stance is the good old "We do not know which thesis is correct".

I'm not saying your wrong in criticising @Traitorfish, but it's important to be very careful in casting burden of proof. Remember that the idea that other races where mentally inferior and needed the guidance of white masters was a defining reasons to justify white supremacy back when it was the defining social order in much of the world. Scientists and academics were complicit in this and were actively providing (bogus, of course) arguments to justify the percieved mental inferiority.

Individual and Racial Differences in IQ and Allele Frequencies

Not methodologically correct either from the looks of it.

This study basically takes alleles associated with smart people and looks to see how they're distributed accross the world and lo and behold, European and East Asians are on top, and South Asians, Hispanics, and Africans on the bottom. It also correlates to national average IQ scores. Well that sells it doesn't?

Well, no, because here's how they figured out what the smart people alleles are: get a massive database of peoples genomes. Go through all the alleles - find the ones most associated with the highest IQ scores and educational attainment. BAM, those are smart people alleles. (actually they found studies of people who did that - reputable researchers who doing that to find interesting genes for Alzheimers research and the like) The problem is, if educational attainment and IQ scores are racially biased for environmental/measurement reasons, then what you think are smart people genes are going to be racially biased as well. And if you put biased data in, don't be surprised if you get biased data out.

Here's a toy model. Let's say there are only two races (Euros and Afros) and let's say the genetic component of intelligence is only controlled by 3 alleles (a,b,c) - each which give the holder a +10 IQ boost. Let's also assume that due to environmental/measuremen issues Euros are 20 IQ points ahead of Afros

Let's say the distribution of smart allelles are as such
A
10% Euros 0% Afros
B
10% Euros 10% Afros
C
0% Euros 10% Afros

Let's say in our toy model an Afro without any smart genes has an IQ of 88 and an unenhanced Euro without any smart genes has 108 (this gives an average world IQ of 100) - now we are presuming that is due to non-genetic causes and that given the right enviornment both would do equally well.

Now this is a of course a toy model, but it shows to me that the results of your linked study (the research "institute" is also not a reputible academic group but a white nationalist linked think tank) does not adquately demonstrate that racial bias is due to genetic reasons.

So a study is run to see if there are any smart genes that explain IQ differences.
Here's how our alleles stack up.
A - Average IQ 119
B - Average IQ 109
C - Average IQ 99

If you note, A will definitely get picked up by the study, B might get picked up if they're sensitive enough and C will be ignored. And as a result when a study is performed to see if Afros and Euros have the same amount of smart genes the result will be that Euros have more, even though in reality they are genetically equal.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

I've honestly never been interested enough to look into any of the research and form an opinion either way. I've seen claims that there are real, inherent IQ differences between races (or "races", whatever), and I've seen other people claiming this is abhorrent nonsense. I really don't know either way, but how emotional the latter group always get about it doesn't make me have much faith in their reasoning, although they may well be correct anyway. And even if there are real, measurable IQ differences between racial groups, there are other possible sociological explanations for this. So the genuine answer is that I honestly don't know either way.

However, it seems more than plausible to me that it could be the case, given that we're just animals like any other, and I certainly don't find the claims "offensive" in any way. I actually started a thread about it ages ago, although I can't remember how smoothly that went (I'd guess not very).

But I'll reiterate that I have no opinion either way about whether or not any of it is correct.

 

[inthesomeday]

@luiz

Lexicus' explanation was specific to America; both of the examples you give followed very similar patterns. Both the East Asian imperial conquests of Japan and the Arab supremacy in North Africa were products of labor/economic relationships.

 

[Lexicus]

It makes sense to say that the British ruling classes pushed racism in their American colonies. I would even agree with that. But it makes no sense to say they invented racism, or that racism is that and only that.

Replace "racism" with "white supremacy" then, if you like.

 

[Hehehe]

It's not generally seen as accurate at all, at least by experts. That's the whole point

Seems like a lot of people think that it is because it's used everywhere

I can't blame you for not reading the whole thread, but I already addressed this in post 101 on page 6. This is exactly why I will put these things in OP when I will make a thread, so that I can clear out all the silly misconceptions at once.

IQ Scores follow a normal distribution because they have been defined to follow a normal distribution, not because of some objective distribution of intelligence. If you design an IQ test and it doesn't give you a normal distriubtion of scores you have failed to design a proper IQ test.

Are you saying that, with large sample sizes, IQ does not follow a normal distribution? Really?

The whole reason why the normal distribution is so useful is because some random phenomena tend to more or less follow the normal distribution (depends on the sample size)

Not methodologically correct either from the looks of it.

This study basically takes alleles associated with smart people and looks to see how they're distributed accross the world and lo and behold, European and East Asians are on top, and South Asians, Hispanics, and Africans on the bottom. It also correlates to national average IQ scores. Well that sells it doesn't?

Well, no, because here's how they figured out what the smart people alleles are: get a massive database of peoples genomes. Go through all the alleles - find the ones most associated with the highest IQ scores and educational attainment. BAM, those are smart people alleles. (actually they found studies of people who did that - reputable researchers who doing that to find interesting genes for Alzheimers research and the like) The problem is, if educational attainment and IQ scores are racially biased for environmental/measurement reasons, then what you think are smart people genes are going to be racially biased as well. And if you put biased data in, don't be surprised if you get biased data out.

Here's a toy model. Let's say there are only two races (Euros and Afros) and let's say the genetic component of intelligence is only controlled by 3 alleles (a,b,c) - each which give the holder a +10 IQ boost. Let's also assume that due to environmental/measuremen issues Euros are 20 IQ points ahead of Afros

Let's say the distribution of smart allelles are as such
A
10% Euros 0% Afros
B
10% Euros 10% Afros
C
0% Euros 10% Afros

Let's say in our toy model an Afro without any smart genes has an IQ of 88 and an unenhanced Euro without any smart genes has 108 (this gives an average world IQ of 100) - now we are presuming that is due to non-genetic causes and that given the right enviornment both would do equally well.

Now this is a of course a toy model, but it shows to me that the results of your linked study (the research "institute" is also not a reputible academic group but a white nationalist linked think tank) does not adquately demonstrate that racial bias is due to genetic reasons.

So a study is run to see if there are any smart genes that explain IQ differences.
Here's how our alleles stack up.
A - Average IQ 119
B - Average IQ 109
C - Average IQ 99

If you note, A will definitely get picked up by the study, B might get picked up if they're sensitive enough and C will be ignored. And as a result when a study is performed to see if Afros and Euros have the same amount of smart genes the result will be that Euros have more, even though in reality they are genetically equal.

What you mention is a very real problem. To get around this, scientists look for these correlations in ethnically homogeneous populations, and then they will see if the correlation still applies in other sample populations. If it does, you have a match.

 

[warpus]

I can't blame you for not reading the whole thread, but I already addressed this in post 101 on page 6.

I did read that post

. 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)

It wasn't about intelligence

 

[Hehehe]

I did read that post



It wasn't about intelligence

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]

Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][49]

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."

Did that clear it up? Or did you still have some questions?

 

[warpus]

I don't see anything tying IQ to intelligence there, aside from the very last quote. And that quote just says that intelligence CAN be measured with some degree of accuracy, but it doesn't say HOW.

Maybe you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that IQ isn't useful. I'm just saying it's not a great tool to measure overall intelligence. It might be a good way to test certain aspects of intelligence... but that is not what I am disputing.

This thread is about overall intelligence, not just the part of intelligence that IQ tests are good at quantifying.

 

[Perfection]

Are you saying that, with large sample sizes, IQ does not follow a normal distribution? Really?

The whole reason why the normal distribution is so useful is because some random phenomena tend to more or less follow the normal distribution (depends on the sample size)

I'm saying IQ tests pressuppose it they don't measure it. I'm not saying IQ doesn't follow a Gaussian distribution.

What you mention is a very real problem. To get around this, scientists look for these correlations in ethnically homogeneous populations, and then they will see if the correlation still applies in other sample populations. If it does, you have a match.

The scientists are doing it in a way that ensures that the alleles they find actually do impact intelligence but it doesn't ensure a racially unbiased selection. If there is an allele that positively impacts intelligence, and is common in Aricans but rare in Europeans it would not be added to the list. Thus the list is biased.

 

[civver_764]

Certainly not. But racism was a multigenerational political project the goal of which was to establish a particular class structure (slavery) in the New World. You can see this dynamic at work very easily in early Virginia, where the first half of the 17th century saw poor whites and blacks revolt together against the (mainly white) ruling class. After the most serious rebellion the powers that be began consciously using race as a way to divide the lower classes, and gradually blacks and whites became differentiated in their status such that nearly all whites were free and hardly any blacks were. In essence "whiteness" originated as a bribe to get poor whites to accept their low status, by giving them someone to be inherently superior to.

@Traitorfish can explain all this better and in far more detail than I can.

But even if that's true, they wouldn't have been able to divide people in this way if there weren't obvious racial differences between whites and blacks, ie. race caused the racism.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You imagine that someone sat around and "invented" racism the way oppenheimer invented the atomic bomb?

Like almost all concepts we deal with as humans, they certainly were not "invented" by "one single great man", rather they were constructed via human interaction; they are not inherent to us as a species

Racism is a rather recent concept, therefore tracing back its roots is not all that hard.

 

[Hehehe]

I don't see anything tying IQ to intelligence there, aside from the very last quote. And that quote just says that intelligence CAN be measured with some degree of accuracy, but it doesn't say HOW.

Maybe you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that IQ isn't useful. I'm just saying it's not a great tool to measure overall intelligence. It might be a good way to test certain aspects of intelligence... but that is not what I am disputing.

This thread is about overall intelligence, not just the part of intelligence that IQ tests are good at quantifying.

Please, do tell me then, what crucial aspects of intelligence doesn't IQ measure then? It measures how well people do in school and on the job. It also measures how smart a person's peers say they are. Is intelligence some mystical, unquantifiable force? Life is not an RPG. We can't just press tab and look at a person's INT attribute. Surely intelligence has to have some measurable real world consequences? So which of those doesn't IQ measure?

I'm saying IQ tests pressuppose it they don't measure it. I'm not saying IQ doesn't follow a Gaussian distribution.

Isn't it ok to presuppose that the scores do follow a normal distribution? So what's your point?

The scientists are doing it in a way that ensures that the alleles they find actually do impact intelligence but it doesn't ensure a racially unbiased selection. If there is an allele that positively impacts intelligence, and is common in Aricans but rare in Europeans it would not be added to the list. Thus the list is biased.

Ok, let's say we're biased and we only care about Europeans. Even so, wouldn't we still find the genes that contribute to intelligence? I mean surely we're not biased against individual genes? I mean we wouldn't even know if it's common among Africans, at least not when searching them? Or are you saying that rarity affects how easily we connect certain genes to intelligence? If you are saying that, what is it based on?

Also, of course, Piffer's study isn't ultimate proof that the differences are genetic. He simply took a look at the genes we've found so far, and lo and behold, the results were exactly in line with the hereditarian hypothesis. I mean of course, it is always possible that there is some intangible, unprovable racist white supremacy that affects people in exactly the same way as genes would. But given all the evidence we have, the genetic explanation seems more likely.

By the way, if genetics are not a thing, how come Jewish people are doing so well? How does the egalitarian model explain that?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

But even if that's true, they wouldn't have been able to divide people in this way if there weren't obvious racial differences between whites and blacks, ie. race caused the racism.

There's also tremendous differences between a southern Greek and a Swede, but somehow they are both white.

There's also tremendous differences between an Indian and a Han Chinese, but somehow they are both asian.

Interestingly some of the biggest genetic differences are all found within the "black race":

The genetic difference between a Berber from northern Africa and a Sotho from Southern Africa is bigger than the difference between a Berber and a southern European.

which, in turn, is why this whole system of thought is ****** in the head and not in the least bit coherent or scientifically accurate