Race and IQ

[Norepinephrinistania]

Like others said, the real study didn't mention chimpanzees. I didn't read the real study. You got me there.

So then tell us, why should we take you seriously given this?

You should take the statistics I quote and my arguments by themselves, I don't pretend to make any ethos arguments based on my own credibility.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

(Image)

The book is also suspect in its use of statistics. As I mentioned, virtually all its data derive from one analysis—a plotting, by a technique called multiple regression, of social behaviors that agitate us, such as crime, unemployment, and births out of wedlock (known as dependent variables), against both IQ and parental sociometric status (known as independent variables). The authors first hold IQ constant and consider the relationship of social behaviors to parental socioeconomic status. They then hold socioeconomic status constant and consider the relationship of the same social behaviors to IQ. In general, they find a higher correlation with IQ than with socioeconomic status; for example, people with low IQ are more likely to drop out of high school than people whose parents have low socioeconimic status.

But such analyses must engage two issues—the form and the strength of the relationship—and Herrnstein and Murray discuss only the issue that seems to support their viewpoint, while virtually ignoring (and in one key passage almost willfully hiding) the other. Their numerous graphs present only the form of the relationships; that is, they draw the regression curves of their variables against IQ and parental socioeconomic status. But, in violation of all statistical norms that I've even learned, they plot only the regression curve and do not show the scatter of variation around the curve, so their graphs do not show anything about the strength of the relationships—that is, the amount of variation in social factors explained by IQ and socioeconomic status. Indeed, almost all their relationships are weak: very little of the variation in social factors is explained by either independent variable (though the form of this small amount of explanation does lie in their favored direction). In short, their own data indicate that IQ is not a major factor in determining variation in nearly all the social behaviors they study—and so their conclusions collapse, or at least become so greatly attenuated that their pessimism and conservative social agenda gain no significant support.

Herrnstein and Murray actually admit as much in one crucial passage, but then they hid the pattern. They write, "It [cognitive ability] almost always explains less than 20 percent of the variance, to use the statistician's term, usually less than 10 percent and often less than 5 percent. What this means in English is that you cannot predict what a given person will do from his IQ score.... On the other hand, despite the low association at the individual level, large differences in social behavior separate groups of people when the groups differ intellectually on the average." Despite this disclaimer, their remarkable next sentence makes a strong casual claim. "We will argue that intelligence itself, not just its correlation with socio–economic status, is responsible for these group differences." But a few percent of statistical determination is not causal explanation. And the case is even worse for their key genetic argument, since they claim a heritability of about 60 percent for IQ, so to isolate the strength of genetic determination by Herrnstein and Murray's own criteria you must nearly halve even the few percent they claim to explain.

My charge of disingenuousness receives its strongest affirmation in a sentence tucked away on the first page of Appendix 4, page 593: the authors state, "In the text, we do not refer to the usual measure of goodness of fit for multiple regressions, R², but they are presented here for the cross–sectional analyses." Now, why would they exclude from the text, and relegate to an appendix that very few people will read, or even consult, a number that, by their own admission, is "the usual measure of goodness of fit"? I can only conclude that they did not choose to admit in the main text the extreme weakness of their vaunted relationships.

Herrnstein and Murray's correlation coefficients are generally low enough by themselves to inspire lack of confidence. (Correlation coefficients measure the strength of linear relationships between variables; the positive values from 0.0 for no relationship to 1.0 for perfect linear relationship.) Although low figures are not atypical for large social–science surveys involving many variables, most of Herrnstein and Murray's correlations are very weak—often in the 0.2 to 0.4 range. Now, 0.4 may sound respectably strong, but—and this is the key point—R² is the square of the correlation coefficient, and the square of a number between zero and one is less than the number itself, so a 0.4 correlation yields an R–squared of only .16. In Appendix 4, then, one discovers that the vast majority of the conventional measures of R², excluded from the main body of the text, are less than 0.1.

These very low values of R²expose the true weakness, in any meaningful vernacular sense, of nearly all the relationships that form the meat of The Bell Curve.

[Mavorpen]

Explain to me how blacks don't receive preferential treatment in states where affirmative action isn't banned.

Because if we did, it would actually show. We would be overrepresented in the workplace, universities, etc. and we wouldn't see any significant discrimination against us in these spheres as well. Neither of these are true.

[Norepinephrinistania]

This probably has the same amount of truth that the claim that vaccines cause autism have. (None.)

Natural selection=vaccines cause autism?

[Amuaplye]

This probably has the same amount of truth that the claim that vaccines cause autism have. (None.)

Natural selection=vaccines cause autism?

I was just saying it's bull.

[Mavorpen]

So then tell us, why should we take you seriously given this?

You should take the statistics I quote and my arguments by themselves, I don't pretend to make any ethos arguments based on my own credibility.

But why should we? I could understand if there was no reason to question your credibility, but there is.

[USS Monitor]

There is also a strong correlation between brain size and body size, which you didn't adjust for.



That chart doesn't say what you think it says. The "distance" to chimpanzees is the same in each column.



Test anxiety is not the same as self-esteem.



The results of the transracial adoption studies are interesting, and probably the best evidence you're going to find if you want to argue that some races are naturally more intelligent. But being adopted by white people doesn't control for the way people are treated by their teachers and classmates, or just the psychological effect of being in an environment where you look obviously different from the people around you.

If you've never been in an environment where you were a minority, I recommend trying it just to see how it feels. Even when nobody is behaving hatefully, it still feels different than being surrounded by people like you. And it's not a subtle difference at all. It is very noticeable.



Consider the time period when they worked and the level of societal racism they lived with. Neither of them did exhaustive research on the subject of race and intelligence, so their conclusions should be taken with a pile of salt.



It's possible, but it's difficult to get a straight answer because people are quite sensitive about it and people on both sides of the issue have a bad habit of distorting the facts to suit their own agenda. You are guilty of this was well. Even though I consider this an unsettled question, I still had to argue against you more than agree with you because you made intellectually dishonest claims -- particularly the thing about chimpanzees.

But let's consider what it would mean, hypothetically, if some races really were more intelligent on average. Would it change your own individual intelligence? No. Would it change the individual intelligence of the black guy next door? No. There would still be a need to evaluate people on an individual level for the purposes of hiring, college admissions, etc. Does a person with an IQ of 120 have more legal rights than a person with an IQ of 100? No. So everyone still needs their legal rights.

Another thing to consider is that hereditary differences are not all genetic. They can also be epigenetic. Epigenetic differences are related to recent family history, not evolution from tens of thousands of years ago, which means that things like 19th century slavery can affect modern people at a biological level.

I think that 15+ IQ points, a full standard deviation cannot just be due to environmental factors outside the home.

Studies on animals have shown that environmental factors can have a substantial effect on brain development. I don't see why this couldn't explain a 15 point difference in IQ.

Also...

...hereditary differences are not all genetic. They can also be epigenetic. Epigenetic differences are related to recent family history, not evolution from tens of thousands of years ago, which means that things like 19th century slavery can affect modern people at a biological level.

We often give blacks preferential treatment in academics.

You're going to need to expand on just how this "preferential treatment" works. You're acknowledging that they are treated differently, so how do you know that treatment does not hinder them in some way? Just because you see it as "preferential" doesn't mean it actually promotes intellectual or neurological development. If you feel like they are being coddled, keep in mind that sheltered people can be very clueless and fragile.

To me, explaining away a full standard deviation or more of IQ with silly things like test anxiety (IQ tests aren't graded) is the height of naivete.

Read the rest of my post. It was not a one-liner about test anxiety.

[The Archregimancy]

Yes it does. Literally every single group is the exact same distance from chimpanzees. Japanese, English, and Bantu are 1.60.

Like others said, the real study didn't mention chimpanzees. I didn't read the real study. You got me there.

So you admit that you used fraudulent data that wholly misrepresents the original cited study to advance your claims about human genetics.

That's a statement, not a question, incidentally.

That does rather undermine your approach.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) The brain size chart doesn't give us any reason for the causes of those differences, which I suspect come down to malnutrition primarily.

2) Chart shows distance between the various groups of humans, not the Chimps.

3) Don't have anything to dispute the SAT figures; for all I know, you may actually have something there, but I kind of doubt it.

4) If they are adopted, it is possible the family they originally came from doesn't have the same intelligence as those that they are being adopted by, so it isn't really fair to compare the intelligence of adopted to biological children, because they are working with a different set of inherited genes. (e.g. if two smart people adopt the orphan of dumb people, the child they adopt will be less likely to share their intelligence, and vice versa).

[Norepinephrinistania]

Explain to me how blacks don't receive preferential treatment in states where affirmative action isn't banned.

Because if we did, it would actually show. We would be overrepresented in the workplace, universities, etc. and we wouldn't see any significant discrimination against us in these spheres as well. Neither of these are true.

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?
Your people don't advance as much due to inborn genetic differences caused by evolution. This is what you liberals and other race denialists may never understand. There are harsh realities about the world governed by science that we live in.

[Norepinephrinistania]

You should take the statistics I quote and my arguments by themselves, I don't pretend to make any ethos arguments based on my own credibility.

But why should we? I could understand if there was no reason to question your credibility, but there is.

Clearly you are researching my arguments for yourself. There's no hidden metric "credibility" that makes my arguments more or less true.

[Mavorpen]

Because if we did, it would actually show. We would be overrepresented in the workplace, universities, etc. and we wouldn't see any significant discrimination against us in these spheres as well. Neither of these are true.

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?

I like how you completely fail to read and understand what people are actually saying while still pretending to be intellectually superior because of race.

Your people don't advance as much due to inborn genetic differences caused by evolution.

Still waiting on these genetic differences. Here, I'll give you a place to start. Point to me the genetic differences that are inherent and exclusive to each race.

This is what you liberals and other race denialists may never understand. There are harsh realities about the world governed by science that we live in.

The extent of the "science" you live in is the garbage you pull from white supremacist websites.

[Norepinephrinistania]

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?

I like how you completely fail to read and understand what people are actually saying while still pretending to be intellectually superior because of race.

Your people don't advance as much due to inborn genetic differences caused by evolution.

Still waiting on these genetic differences. Here, I'll give you a place to start. Point to me the genetic differences that are inherent and exclusive to each race.

This is what you liberals and other race denialists may never understand. There are harsh realities about the world governed by science that we live in.

The extent of the "science" you live in is the garbage you pull from white supremacist websites.

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?

[USS Monitor]

No it doesn't. It shows evidence for the presence of clades.

Also, nice backpedaling. Is this an admission that that chimpanzee stuff was bullshit?

I did indeed read that too fast and didn't recognize how the graph worked. That doesn't disprove my assertion that sub-Saharan Africans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, (out of Africa theory), however.

Yes, it does.

Just because African people and chimpanzees live on the same continent doesn't mean they have been interbreeding more recently.

[Mavorpen]

Clearly you are researching my arguments for yourself. There's no hidden metric "credibility" that makes my arguments more or less true.

Of course it does. You've demonstrated an inability to fact check "evidence" that you present. You've demonstrated a failure to even understand said evidence. So why in the world should we take your interpretation of them that forms the basis of your arguments seriously?

[Ifreann]

Because if we did, it would actually show. We would be overrepresented in the workplace, universities, etc. and we wouldn't see any significant discrimination against us in these spheres as well. Neither of these are true.

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?
Your people don't advance as much due to inborn genetic differences caused by evolution. This is what you liberals and other race denialists may never understand. There are harsh realities about the world governed by science that we live in.

Harsh realities like sub-Saharan Africans not actually being more closely related to chimpanzees than Europeans or East Asians.

[Mavorpen]

Still waiting on these genetic differences. Here, I'll give you a place to start. Point to me the genetic differences that are inherent and exclusive to each race.

The extent of the "science" you live in is the garbage you pull from white supremacist websites.

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?

I like how you completely fail to read and understand what people are actually saying while still pretending to be intellectually superior because of race.

Your people don't advance as much due to inborn genetic differences caused by evolution.

Still waiting on these genetic differences. Here, I'll give you a place to start. Point to me the genetic differences that are inherent and exclusive to each race.

This is what you liberals and other race denialists may never understand. There are harsh realities about the world governed by science that we live in.

The extent of the "science" you live in is the garbage you pull from white supremacist websites.

[Norepinephrinistania]

So you view current affirmative action programs as lies, masquerades?

Still waiting on these genetic differences. Here, I'll give you a place to start. Point to me the genetic differences that are inherent and exclusive to each race.

The extent of the "science" you live in is the garbage you pull from white supremacist websites.

If there is no genetic difference between races, why do we have so many obvious phenotypical differences?

More than just skin color.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Your people don't advance as much due to inborn genetic differences caused by evolution. This is what you liberals and other race denialists may never understand. There are harsh realities about the world governed by science that we live in.

Given that you've admitted to cherrypicking results and not reading your own sources a few times now, you're the last person in this thread who gets to play the 'oh, I'm not biased, I'm just stating the cold, hard empirical facts' card.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Your people don't advance as much due to inborn genetic differences caused by evolution. This is what you liberals and other race denialists may never understand. There are harsh realities about the world governed by science that we live in.

Given that you've admitted to cherrypicking results and not reading your own sources a few times now, you're the last person in this thread who gets to play the 'oh, I'm not biased, I'm just stating the cold, hard empirical facts' card.

Cold, hard, empirical facts. It's more politically expedient to claim egalitarianism between races for Western nations today so it isn't brought up as much as it should be.

[USS Monitor]

If there is no genetic difference between races, why do we have so many obvious phenotypical differences?

More than just skin color.

Since when are facial features the subject of the thread?

[Norepinephrinistania]

If there is no genetic difference between races, why do we have so many obvious phenotypical differences?

More than just skin color.

Since when are facial features the subject of the thread?

Facial features can correlate with skull size/shape.

[Mavorpen]

If there is no genetic difference between races, why do we have so many obvious phenotypical differences?

Because there aren't any. Rather, there are small ones that are irrelevant and superficial but we focus on because we've evolved to be social and visual creatures.

(Image)
More than just skin color.

Well no, it's nothing, really.

Also, you almost caught me. Reply to this:

Still waiting on these genetic differences. Here, I'll give you a place to start. Point to me the genetic differences that are inherent and exclusive to each race.

[Redsection]

If there is no genetic difference between races, why do we have so many obvious phenotypical differences?

More than just skin color.

Evolution is the answer to that. Why do people from hotter climates have curly hair. The answer to this is because the hair helps them sweat faster, thus cooling them faster. Why do some rabbits that live in hotter climates have such huge ears, it is because they need to cool down faster.

[MERIZoC]

Oh yay, misleading data, scientific misunderstanding, and racism all in one box. Has Christmas come early, mommy?