What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[stinkubus]

Why are you so interested in intelligence, specifically? I think the genetic differences are represented in a large variety of traits, intelligence probably being one of them.

For example - do you think that black people are not inherently superior at playing basketball?

Not really. There aren't too many pygmies in the NBA.

 

[inthesomeday]

Why are you so interested in intelligence, specifically? I think the genetic differences are represented in a large variety of traits, intelligence probably being one of them.

For example - do you think that black people are not inherently superior at playing basketball?

I absolutely do not think so. That's an absurd idea to even propose.

It is only the racist fool who sees the end result-- more black people in basketball, more white people in academia, more Jewish people in finance-- and tries to attribute these things to biology, based on his own racist idea of divisions within the human species. The realities are always cultural, as races exist only sociologically, and the basis of this sociological existence is only superficial.

 

[civver_764]

I absolutely do not think so. That's an absurd idea to even propose.

It is only the racist fool who sees the end result-- more black people in basketball, more white people in academia, more Jewish people in finance-- and tries to attribute these things to biology, based on his own racist idea of divisions within the human species. The realities are always cultural, as races exist only sociologically, and the basis of this sociological existence is only superficial.

Well there are genetic differences between populations, that is hard to deny. You seem to believe that these differences are purely superficial, but you don't seem to have any reason for this belief other than blind faith. If I remember correctly you reject religion, don't you? I don't think you've actually looked at the science yourself.

Do you deny that there are genetic traits which would lead one to be better at basketball? If so, is it really a huge stretch to believe these genes are more present in certain populations than others? Maybe it's not the case, but don't even seem willing to consider the possibility because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well there are genetic differences between populations, that is hard to deny. You seem to believe that these differences are purely superficial, but you don't seem to have any reason for this belief other than blind faith.

You can't prove a negative.

It doesn't require faith to deny anything, it's faith to insist on a correlation. After all, a lot of superstitions are founded on filling the gaps.

 

[Ryika]

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

And I'm sure you can substantiate this claim.

Wikipedia (yes) sources studies that state that IQ tests are generally seen as reliable in measuring what they attempt to measure, and that the scores individuals get if they take part in multiple tests over time, are usually rather close to each other (which was certainly the case for me personally). That's the same general opinion I find when I google for whether iq tests are reliable (after skipping the many results that discuss whether iq tests accurately capture what "intelligence" is).

So please show me those experts you're talking about.

 

[Perfection]

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

it's fine to assume it, just don't pretend that's not what you're doing.

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?

I believe the way (most of) the studies cited were designed would favor finding alleles that boost intelligence predominately in populations that already have high iqs and educational attainment and disfavor alleles that boost intelligence in populations with low iqs and educational attainment.

Because of this bias the Piffers study cannot reliably determine if the reason for the genetic correlation shown is because of genetically caused group intelligence differences or because nongenetic factors influenced which alleles ended up in the study.

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.

I believe his results are likely easily explained by obviously bad methodology.

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

i am not saying genetics aren't a thing nor am I defending any particular other model of intelligence my axe to grind is against the existence of genetically-caused racial differences in gross mental capability that is significant enough to require changes in our political thinking

 

[warpus]

And I'm sure you can substantiate this claim.

Wikipedia (yes) sources studies that state that IQ tests are generally seen as reliable in measuring what they attempt to measure, and that the scores individuals get if they take part in multiple tests over time, are usually rather close to each other (which was certainly the case for me personally). That's the same general opinion I find when I google for whether iq tests are reliable (after skipping the many results that discuss whether iq tests accurately capture what "intelligence" is).

So please show me those experts you're talking about.

I have posted links throughout this thread. Feel free to go back and find them.

That you get the same score with different tests is beside the point.

 

[Ryika]

I have posted links throughout this thread. Feel free to go back and find them.

That you get the same score with different tests is beside the point.

Then you've just not understood the point I'm making yet, because the links you have provided discuss whether IQ tests can accurately measure "intelligence", which they cannot, we agree on that.

They can however accurately measure how well individuals do in certain fields of intelligence, and for that they're still as useful as they've always been. There is no "expert consensus" against this at all, quite the opposite, all the experts I've found agree that IQ tests do a reasonably good job at capturing the things they try to test for, it's just that this does not match what we think of as "intelligence" as a whole.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think it's incontrovertible that IQ tests capture the things they test for.

Spoiler :

It's also tautological

 

[warpus]

whether IQ tests can accurately measure "intelligence", which they cannot, we agree on that.

Then we agree that IQ tests would be useless as a way to determine whether different races are more intelligent than others. That's all I was saying in my initial post here.

 

[inthesomeday]

Do you deny that there are genetic traits which would lead one to be better at basketball?

Not at all.

If so, is it really a huge stretch to believe these genes are more present in certain populations than others?

It sure is! Especially the populations identified as "races", a term that describes generalized sociocultural assumptions based on a broad set of superficial physical characteristics like skin color that are the result of environmental conditions over a very long period of time. Skin color, and, I guess, skull shape (?), do not have any bearing on abilities at basketball. The cultural phenomena common to many communities of forcefully segregated populations that share common racial characteristics like skin color might contribute to basketball being a more common passtime and then a more common skillset among members of those communities, but to suggest that this is a biological trend is eugenic and disgusting.

Maybe it's not the case, but don't even seem willing to consider the possibility because it makes you uncomfortable.

I don't need to consider it any more than I need to consider the theory that the universe is governed by Jesus Christ. Consideration comes from evidence and scientific support.

 

[Ryika]

Then we agree that IQ tests would be useless as a way to determine whether different races are more intelligent than others. That's all I was saying in my initial post here.

Yeah, again, we don't disagree on that. This discussion started when I said that the guy you're quoting is overreaching by saying IQ-tests are useless as a general statement.

Of course they still show what is happening in some parts of the whole that is "intelligence".

 

[yung.carl.jung]

So you're not even arguing against race being real, you're just arguing a more fine-tuned version of it. There is no contradiction between our positions here.

The only thing I disagree with: "Differences between races are not smaller than differences within races." That's obviously false (or at least, you're phrasing it in a dishonest way), and I refer you to the diagrams I posted previously.

What does "race being real" even mean? Is "love" real? Is "god" real? Is "postmodernism" real? None of those things are tangible. This is stupid as **** and you know it. Arguing with you is just entirely pointless, maybe we should go back to pm.

It is a fact that (genetic) differences between races are smaller than within.

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them.

http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102 (spring 01)/articles/aaa_race.html

here, have an outstanding citation to go along with it, too. this is consensus. there is no debating.

hope this is finally enough to clear this up, I honestly cannot go on repeating myself anymore

 

[warpus]

Yeah, again, we don't disagree on that.

Cool, then we're good. That's the only point I tried to make here. I didn't notice the tangents.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Here's civver's diagram, which indicates that it is "adapted from" a particular source: History and Geography of Human Genes.

So I went to the library to look into Cavalli-Sforza et al. Section 1.6 of their work is titled "Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races." Here are some quotes from that section:


Then, just before they give their version of the chart whose adapted version civver provided us, they say this:

They knew how their chart was going to be misused and did their level best to prevent its misuse.

*I think they mean either "Let there be no misunderstanding" or "Lest there be any misunderstanding"

I unironically want to give you a brotherly hug. You're doing god's work.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your chart doesn't even show race, it shows a weird mixture of ethnic and national classifications. And tell me, what are these "very real" genetic differences you refer to? Have they got anything to do with intelligence?

You don't think that "Danish" and "South American Indian" are equivalent groups? My, what cynicism.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is a fact that (genetic) differences between races are smaller than within.

It should of course be pointed out that A > B does not imply B = 0

 

[Hehehe]

it's fine to assume it, just don't pretend that's not what you're doing.

Ummm.... Ok?

I believe the way (most of) the studies cited were designed would favor finding alleles that boost intelligence predominately in populations that already have high iqs and educational attainment and disfavor alleles that boost intelligence in populations with low iqs and educational attainment.

Because of this bias the Piffers study cannot reliably determine if the reason for the genetic correlation shown is because of genetically caused group intelligence differences or because nongenetic factors influenced which alleles ended up in the study.

I believe his results are likely easily explained by obviously bad methodology.

"Bad methodology"? There is zero proof of that.

Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they sample European populations exclusively. Also, for the sake of argument, let's say there's a black intelligence gene, meaning that it increases intelligence, and that it is significantly more common among people of African origin compared to people of European origin. They would still be just as likely to find this gene just by sampling European populations. So far, they've found compared 9 genetic variants, and the situation in 9-0. What are the odds of that happening, if all the positive variants are evenly distributed?

Look, the facts are these: there is an IQ gap. It is present even in industrialized western countries. Nothing can close the gap. Is it so hard to believe that it might be down to genetics to some extent?

i am not saying genetics aren't a thing nor am I defending any particular other model of intelligence my axe to grind is against the existence of genetically-caused racial differences in gross mental capability that is significant enough to require changes in our political thinking

Ok, so I take it that you believe that the IQ gap between Jewish people and non-Jewish white people is down to genetics? Is that what you're saying?

Then we agree that IQ tests would be useless as a way to determine whether different races are more intelligent than others. That's all I was saying in my initial post here.

Ok Warpus, let me put it like this: once you normalize for IQ, pretty much all differences between the races disappear. Educational attainment, job performance, crime rates, all of it. I will be covering this in my opening post.

 

[warpus]

Ok Warpus, let me put it like this: once you normalize for IQ, pretty much all differences between the races disappear. Educational attainment, job performance, crime rates, all of it. I will be covering this in my opening post.

That's interesting, but I still think that IQ tests are useless

 

[Senethro]

It should of course be pointed out that A > B does not imply B = 0

But it does make it harder for people claiming that B is how we should organize socieeties to build a case.