Race and IQ

[Mavorpen]

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences. There are dog breeds recognized as smarter than others and dogs have spent less time in genetic isolation.

Do you even know how dog breeds were made? Centuries of stringent inbreeding.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't think SAT's are actually considered a way to measure intelligence - they are (definitively) supposed to purely measure 'scholarly aptitude' - at least, that's the idea.

Correlates quite well with IQ, and IQ is quite good because it is predictive of academic success (even larger black-white gap) and earning potential.

So what you're saying is that two academic tests have some degree of correlation?

That's not really surprising.

It also has little or nothing to do with reliable metrics of intelligence.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Exactly, it is not solely due to environment as Marvopen and others have claimed.

Or genetic/racial, as you have said.
Turns out intelligence is complicated.

" results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide [b]little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, "

My view is that a mixture of both, but most likely 75% genes (some environmental suggestions such as who do you hang out with as a child may have biological backgrounds). These intelligence related genes differ in various ethnic groups due to natural selection. This is irrefutable with current evidence.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Correlates quite well with IQ, and IQ is quite good because it is predictive of academic success (even larger black-white gap) and earning potential.

So what you're saying is that two academic tests have some degree of correlation?

That's not really surprising.

It also has little or nothing to do with reliable metrics of intelligence.

Source?

[The United Remnants of America]

Yes, good job, you wrongly assumed the cause for racial variance in IQ.

Yes, IQ is different among races. Yes, whites have a higher IQ than blacks.

No, it's not based on biology. Yes, it's based on sociology. IQ tests are culturally skewed. Hence why, when given an IQ test from 1942, most current people fail it miserably due to the fact that IQ tests are skewed.

[Norepinephrinistania]

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences. There are dog breeds recognized as smarter than others and dogs have spent less time in genetic isolation.

Do you even know how dog breeds were made? Centuries of stringent inbreeding.

Genetic isolation and natural selection have similar effects. Not always, by the way.

[USS Monitor]

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences. There are dog breeds recognized as smarter than others and dogs have spent less time in genetic isolation.

Dogs have shorter generations and there has been artificial selection.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences. There are dog breeds recognized as smarter than others and dogs have spent less time in genetic isolation.

Dog breeds have undergone a hideous amount of inbreeding in order to get where they are today. Parents breeding with their children, siblings with each other - it's pretty gross. Not comparable to human populations.

[Grave_n_idle]

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences.

On the subject of seeing no concrete proof.... you've yet to provide any, for... well, anything.

Indeed, only a few pages in you made claims about posts you said I'd made = which you somehow haven't managed to prove I made, despite the fact that they supposedly happened in THIS thread.

You really don't have a leg to stand on on the 'proof' front.

[Mavorpen]

Do you even know how dog breeds were made? Centuries of stringent inbreeding.

Genetic isolation and natural selection have similar effects. Not always, by the way.

You didn't understand a word I said, did you?

[Flyover]

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences. There are dog breeds recognized as smarter than others and dogs have spent less time in genetic isolation.

Do you disagree with the entire scientific community when they say that malnutrition can damage brain development? Even if we exclude race entirely, that is clearly evidence for the argument than environmental factors (like starving) can directly impact someone's IQ.

[Mavorpen]

Or genetic/racial, as you have said.
Turns out intelligence is complicated.

" results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide [b]little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, "

My view is that a mixture of both, but most likely 75% genes (some environmental suggestions such as who do you hang out with as a child may have biological backgrounds). These intelligence related genes differ in various ethnic groups due to natural selection. This is irrefutable with current evidence.

Please put your money where your mouth is.

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.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Yes, good job, you wrongly assumed the cause for racial variance in IQ.

Yes, IQ is different among races. Yes, whites have a higher IQ than blacks.

No, it's not based on biology. Yes, it's based on sociology. IQ tests are culturally skewed. Hence why, when given an IQ test from 1942, most current people fail it miserably due to the fact that IQ tests are skewed.

This is the most silly argument of them all.
Tests written by black psychologists have seen the same +1 standard deviation.

[Grave_n_idle]

So what you're saying is that two academic tests have some degree of correlation?

That's not really surprising.

It also has little or nothing to do with reliable metrics of intelligence.

Source?

Source for what? You claim that IQ tests and SATs correlate?

[Norepinephrinistania]

Source?

Source for what? You claim that IQ tests and SATs correlate?

"It also has little or nothing to do with reliable metrics of intelligence"
It obviously does. Where is your source it doesn't?

[United Christian America]

I don't think SAT's are actually considered a way to measure intelligence - they are (definitively) supposed to purely measure 'scholarly aptitude' - at least, that's the idea.

Correlates quite well with IQ, and IQ is quite good because it is predictive of academic success (even larger black-white gap) and earning potential.

Bolded for emphasis.

As someone who worked for various after-school and learning centers as a tutor for the SATs among other things, I will state, for the record, that the bolded portion is a false correlation. Ideally, people would enter the SATs with no preparation beforehand and be able to have a score that properly represents their academic potential. Unfortunately, a lot of people, even some lower income families, utilize some form of tutoring to improve their student's academic and standardized testing performance.

As a result, someone who otherwise had relatively low grades or proves ignorant of various subjects can still get a decent (say 2000+ on the 2400 scale) score just through studying and frankly cramming in these SAT prep courses. Afterwards, not a few students forget what they learned. The fact that many students make use of these SAT prep courses skews the assumption that the SAT is indicative of a student's academic potential. Granted this argument threatens the legitimacy of the SAT itself, but it's safe to say that getting a 2400 is no easy task and, even when using the prep courses, the SAT does demonstrate an ability to perform decently on a test under pressure and write a half-decent essay in a relatively short amount of time.

[Flyover]

Or genetic/racial, as you have said.
Turns out intelligence is complicated.

" results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide [b]little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, "

My view is that a mixture of both, but most likely 75% genes (some environmental suggestions such as who do you hang out with as a child may have biological backgrounds). These intelligence related genes differ in various ethnic groups due to natural selection. This is irrefutable with current evidence.

The claim that it's 75% biology is irrefutable because you refuse to provide actual proof -or even a tangible argument- to refute.
You just keep saying it. Why would it be 75%, other than to fuel your inherently anti-scientific racism?

EDIT: Also, if you don't believe in environmental factors, explain the Flynn Effect. I can tell you now that humans aren't getting more intelligent genes out of nowhere all over the globe, but I can tell you that IQ score averages are; which correlates to higher standards of nutrition and living.

[Norepinephrinistania]

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences. There are dog breeds recognized as smarter than others and dogs have spent less time in genetic isolation.

Dogs have shorter generations and there has been artificial selection.

They've also not been wolves for a much shorter time than homo sapiens have not been homo sapiens.

[Laerod]

Or genetic/racial, as you have said.
Turns out intelligence is complicated.

" results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide [b]little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, "

My view is that a mixture of both, but most likely 75% genes ...

Odd. That's exactly the number of statistics that are made up on the spot.

[Periodspace]

I think this has to do with the different environments that black and white people usually grow up in. I'm no sociologist, but I think it's safe to assume that more black than white people grow up in poor areas and single-parent households. This makes it harder for these black kids to get as good of an education as white kids. Also, I'm not sure how much of an affect this might have, but poverty in the black community can lead to malnourishment, which might make it harder for children's brains to develop... but like I said, I'm not sure if that has any affect or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota ... tion_Study
89 average IQ for blacks adopted by whites, 106 for whites adopted by whites. Over a standard deviation so much more likely to be biologically influenced.

Keep in mind that some black boys are discouraged from "acting white" by their peers. I forget the exact source I read it from, but I do remember reading something that showed a correlation between black high schoolers' performance in school and their popularity. The better they did in school, the less popular they were with their classmates. Remember, being a "nerd" and doing well in school is much more socially acceptable for Asian or white boys than black boys.

[The United Remnants of America]

Yes, good job, you wrongly assumed the cause for racial variance in IQ.

Yes, IQ is different among races. Yes, whites have a higher IQ than blacks.

No, it's not based on biology. Yes, it's based on sociology. IQ tests are culturally skewed. Hence why, when given an IQ test from 1942, most current people fail it miserably due to the fact that IQ tests are skewed.

This is the most silly argument of them all.
Tests written by black psychologists have seen the same +1 standard deviation.

So you're saying there is no difference and no cultural skewing among IQ tests?

I call bullshit. Mainly because I had to study this.

[Ifreann]

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences.

Would you recognise the proof even if you did see it? You've already demonstrated that you aren't reading your own sources.

[Mavorpen]

Dogs have shorter generations and there has been artificial selection.

They've also not been wolves for a much shorter time than homo sapiens have not been homo sapiens.

Are you saying that every single race has undergone strict inbreeding for thousands of years?

[Norepinephrinistania]

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences.

Would you recognise the proof even if you did see it? You've already demonstrated that you aren't reading your own sources.

Why do you think natural selection stopped for the hundreds of thousands of years after humans left Africa? They're two different continents with a very small border and little reason to travel back and forth. Little evidence of African-Eurasian paleolithic contact also.

[Norepinephrinistania]

They've also not been wolves for a much shorter time than homo sapiens have not been homo sapiens.

Are you saying that every single race has undergone strict inbreeding for thousands of years?

Not every breed of dog has undergone strict inbreeding. What?