Race and IQ

[Vassenor]

Even if there's a difference... What's the big issue?

The decline of Western Civilization.

You heard it here first: treating black people as equal to white people will be the end of civilisation.

[Norepinephrinistania]

I can never understand how liberals think the very size of your brain has no influence on your IQ, and that genetics mean nothing in regard to IQ. It shows the influence of Marxism and SJW junk on modern American liberalism.

So you agree with the idea that Neanderthals were smarter than us? And that blue whales are twice as intelligent as we are?

It's one biological factor out of many.
Neotony, which blacks are the lowest on, Asians on top, is also correlated with intelligence.

[Norepinephrinistania]

The decline of Western Civilization.

You heard it here first: treating black people as equal to white people will be the end of civilisation.

If there is no scientific basis to do so, yes.

[Mavorpen]

So you agree with the idea that Neanderthals were smarter than us? And that blue whales are twice as intelligent as we are?

It's one biological factor out of many.
Neotony, which blacks are the lowest on, Asians on top, is also correlated with intelligence.

Thankfully, neotony is also fairly high in whales.

Whales master race.

[Nikolausstadt]

Even if there's a difference... What's the big issue?

The decline of Western Civilization.

Haha, buddy, I think the pressure of mass immigation and the lack of integration of immigrants are a bigger problem than their average IQ.

Even with a big difference, that means we got enough people doing all kinds of jobs instead of a lack of low-edu workers.

[Imperializt Russia]

Affirmative action is not preferential treatment for minorities.
Because even with it, they are still woefully underrepresented.

This is not "preferential".

This is ridiculous.
Hypothetical:
Blacks are 13% of the population.
Blacks are 5% of college students.
We make the standards of admission half for black students. 10% are now black.
We didn't give them any preferential treatment because they're still underrepresented.

Your hypothetical is ridiculous as it makes boldly ridiculous claims about the achievement of black students.

(Who, let's face it, are probably going to score lower in grades due to the racism they experience anyway. School tests are a good way of examining... how well people do at school tests. It doesn't translate to knowledge or intelligence)

[The Cobalt Sky]

We're arguing with a brick wall here. That's not going to achieve anything.

I can never understand how liberals

All liberals. Yes, ALL LIBERALS ARE THE MONOLITH. JOIN THE COLLECTIVE AND BE ABSORBED INTO THE HIVE MIND.

think the very size of your brain has no influence on your IQ, and that genetics mean nothing in regard to IQ.

Onus is one you to prove all this, which you haven't.

It shows the influence of Marxism and SJW junk on modern American liberalism.

OH NO, THE INTERNET ACTIVISTS! THEY'RE GONNA BRING ABOUT THE MORAL DECAY OF AMERICA! OH HOLY CHRISTIAN GOD, SAVE US ALL!
For real? You're the one going against the whole 'all men are created equal' which both liberals and conservatives like to harp about.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, it's a viewpoint descended from the realization that while not all cultures may be "equal", the IQ test as presented today represents knowledge of a particular sort gained in a specific sort of environment, and that intelligence will express itself in different ways depending upon one's particular cultural standards and one's environment. That's not Marxism. That's Cultural Anthropology 101.

General brain functionality is not subjective and not tied to culture.

True, but the manner in which said functionality asserts itself is entirely dependent upon the needs of the culture and the particular challenges of the environment. My psychology professor parents told me about one famous example in which children in a school district were given a test to measure their general intelligence, and one of the questions was as follows:

Your mother sends you to the store for a carton of milk. When you get there, the store owner says that he is out of milk. Do you:

a) Go to another store to buy the milk.
b) Go home.
c) Tell the owner to go get some milk for you.

Most of the kids from white neighborhoods answered "a", which was the correct answer. Most of the kids from black neighborhoods, which were in the inner city, answered "b", and this was marked incorrectly. However, as one person administering the test later pointed out, they had also answered correctly: Most of these kids were from neighborhoods that only had one store, and would have to walk over a mile to get to another one, meaning that returning home was the most sensible course of action for them.

You find things like this in all sorts of tests designed to measure intelligence, even Stanford-Binet. If one cannot apply himself to geometry due to crowded conditions, malnutrition, or other factors beyond one's control, then one is less likely to be able to do geometry. If one has to work a part-time job after school in order to support the family, and has to do homework in a state of exhaustion with little help, then one is less likely to learn the basics of reading comprehension. If one is arriving to school after negotiating gang territory every day, then one is likely to be more distracted in class...and none of these things have anything to do with race.

[Imperializt Russia]

The decline of Western Civilization.

You heard it here first: treating black people as equal to white people will be the end of civilisation.

Let's face it, western civilisation was built on treating people who weren't rich white guys as shit.

[Confederate Ramenia]

Yes, races have different average intelligences and IQs. OP is right about that. But that doesn't mean policy should discriminate racially. It also doesn't mean that only genetics are responsible for these differences, or that genetics are responsible at all. Just because one race has lower average intelligence than another doesn't mean a person from that race can't do better than a person from the race with higher average intelligence. In terms of employment, it's idiotic to reject a potential employee who is completely qualified for the job on the basis of race. If you discriminate on the basis of race you just make things worse for everyone.

You can't judge individuals by averages. For example, Jews win a huge amount of Nobel Prizes, but you can't assume that every Jew you meet is a genius.

[Vassenor]

You heard it here first: treating black people as equal to white people will be the end of civilisation.

If there is no scientific basis to do so, yes.

So what scientific basis is there for treating Black people as inferior to white people?

[Mavorpen]

If there is no scientific basis to do so, yes.

So what scientific basis is there for treating Black people as inferior to white people?

inb4linkalreadyrefuted

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Affirmative action is not preferential treatment for minorities.
Because even with it, they are still woefully underrepresented.

This is not "preferential".

This is ridiculous.
Hypothetical:
Blacks are 13% of the population.
Blacks are 5% of college students.
We make the standards of admission half for black students. 10% are now black.
We didn't give them any preferential treatment because they're still underrepresented.

The standards of admission are not "half" for black students. You've moved from deliberate misrepresentation and cherry-picking to outright lies.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, races have different average intelligences and IQs. OP is right about that. But that doesn't mean policy should discriminate racially. It also doesn't mean that only genetics are responsible for these differences, or that genetics are responsible at all. Just because one race has lower average intelligence than another doesn't mean a person from that race can't do better than a person from the race with higher average intelligence. In terms of employment, it's idiotic to reject a potential employee who is completely qualified for the job on the basis of race. If you discriminate on the basis of race you just make things worse for everyone.

You can't judge individuals by averages. For example, Jews win a huge amount of Nobel Prizes, but you can't assume that every Jew you meet is a genius.

Just my daughter.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's often claimed that race or ethnicity have nothing to do with intelligence. It seems to me that this belief is mislead.

And you're really fucking wrong.

Human ethnic groups have lived in separation from each other for hundreds of thousands of years, enough time for significant evolutionary change to take place.

There are more biological differentiations within "races" than outside them. And acting like individual ethnic groups have real, significant differences (i.e. Celtic vs. Anglo-Saxon) is just silly.

[Grave_n_idle]

You heard it here first: treating black people as equal to white people will be the end of civilisation.

If there is no scientific basis to do so, yes.

Treating people as equal, with or without scientific basis, pretty much defines western society.

That's why we have to tolerate this nonsensical thread. There's obviously no scientific basis for treating your bullshit as equal, but western civilisation requires us to allow you to speak as though you were our equal.

[Norepinephrinistania]

General brain functionality is not subjective and not tied to culture.

True, but the manner in which said functionality asserts itself is entirely dependent upon the needs of the culture and the particular challenges of the environment. My psychology professor parents told me about one famous example in which children in a school district were given a test to measure their general intelligence, and one of the questions was as follows:

Your mother sends you to the store for a carton of milk. When you get there, the store owner says that he is out of milk. Do you:

a) Go to another store to buy the milk.
b) Go home.
c) Tell the owner to go get some milk for you.

Most of the kids from white neighborhoods answered "a", which was the correct answer. Most of the kids from black neighborhoods, which were in the inner city, answered "b", and this was marked incorrectly. However, as one person administering the test later pointed out, they had also answered correctly: Most of these kids were from neighborhoods that only had one store, and would have to walk over a mile to get to another one, meaning that returning home was the most sensible course of action for them.

You find things like this in all sorts of tests designed to measure intelligence, even Stanford-Binet. If one cannot apply himself to geometry due to crowded conditions, malnutrition, or other factors beyond one's control, then one is less likely to be able to do geometry. If one has to work a part-time job after school in order to support the family, and has to do homework in a state of exhaustion with little help, then one is less likely to learn the basics of reading comprehension. If one is arriving to school after negotiating gang territory every day, then one is likely to be more distracted in class...and none of these things have anything to do with race.

Then why do tests written by black psychologists show the same 1-1.5 standard deviation IQ gap?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

True, but the manner in which said functionality asserts itself is entirely dependent upon the needs of the culture and the particular challenges of the environment. My psychology professor parents told me about one famous example in which children in a school district were given a test to measure their general intelligence, and one of the questions was as follows:

Your mother sends you to the store for a carton of milk. When you get there, the store owner says that he is out of milk. Do you:

a) Go to another store to buy the milk.
b) Go home.
c) Tell the owner to go get some milk for you.

Most of the kids from white neighborhoods answered "a", which was the correct answer. Most of the kids from black neighborhoods, which were in the inner city, answered "b", and this was marked incorrectly. However, as one person administering the test later pointed out, they had also answered correctly: Most of these kids were from neighborhoods that only had one store, and would have to walk over a mile to get to another one, meaning that returning home was the most sensible course of action for them.

You find things like this in all sorts of tests designed to measure intelligence, even Stanford-Binet. If one cannot apply himself to geometry due to crowded conditions, malnutrition, or other factors beyond one's control, then one is less likely to be able to do geometry. If one has to work a part-time job after school in order to support the family, and has to do homework in a state of exhaustion with little help, then one is less likely to learn the basics of reading comprehension. If one is arriving to school after negotiating gang territory every day, then one is likely to be more distracted in class...and none of these things have anything to do with race.

Then why do tests written by black psychologists show the same 1-1.5 standard deviation IQ gap?

Could you show me some of these tests written by black psychologists?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

So you agree with the idea that Neanderthals were smarter than us? And that blue whales are twice as intelligent as we are?

It's one biological factor out of many.
Neotony, which blacks are the lowest on, Asians on top, is also correlated with intelligence.

And brain size is negatively correlated with intelligence, if blue whales and Neanderthals are taken into consideration. Chihuahuas and Shih Tzus are also much more neotenous than humans, but are much less intelligent - neoteny can also therefore be negatively correlated with intelligence.

Perhaps it could be that simply lining up variables and correlating them with one another doesn't actually prove a causal relationship?

[Grave_n_idle]

True, but the manner in which said functionality asserts itself is entirely dependent upon the needs of the culture and the particular challenges of the environment. My psychology professor parents told me about one famous example in which children in a school district were given a test to measure their general intelligence, and one of the questions was as follows:

Your mother sends you to the store for a carton of milk. When you get there, the store owner says that he is out of milk. Do you:

a) Go to another store to buy the milk.
b) Go home.
c) Tell the owner to go get some milk for you.

Most of the kids from white neighborhoods answered "a", which was the correct answer. Most of the kids from black neighborhoods, which were in the inner city, answered "b", and this was marked incorrectly. However, as one person administering the test later pointed out, they had also answered correctly: Most of these kids were from neighborhoods that only had one store, and would have to walk over a mile to get to another one, meaning that returning home was the most sensible course of action for them.

You find things like this in all sorts of tests designed to measure intelligence, even Stanford-Binet. If one cannot apply himself to geometry due to crowded conditions, malnutrition, or other factors beyond one's control, then one is less likely to be able to do geometry. If one has to work a part-time job after school in order to support the family, and has to do homework in a state of exhaustion with little help, then one is less likely to learn the basics of reading comprehension. If one is arriving to school after negotiating gang territory every day, then one is likely to be more distracted in class...and none of these things have anything to do with race.

Then why do tests written by black psychologists show the same 1-1.5 standard deviation IQ gap?

You're asking a question that is answered IN the post you're responding to.

[Norepinephrinistania]

This is ridiculous.
Hypothetical:
Blacks are 13% of the population.
Blacks are 5% of college students.
We make the standards of admission half for black students. 10% are now black.
We didn't give them any preferential treatment because they're still underrepresented.

The standards of admission are not "half" for black students. You've moved from deliberate misrepresentation and cherry-picking to outright lies.

It's was a hypothetical designed to show how it's ridiculous to say that blacks don't receive preferential treatment because they're still underrepresented. It was not intended to be interpreted as a statistical claim.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Mavorpen, Prussia-Steinbach, Grave_n_idle, Yumyum, other guy whose name I forgot...
You guys are great, but I still wish Laerod were here to tell this dude how wrong he is.

On the other hand, you're wrong.

Ahhh, there we go...

[Norepinephrinistania]

If there is no scientific basis to do so, yes.

So what scientific basis is there for treating Black people as inferior to white people?

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

[Mavorpen]

The standards of admission are not "half" for black students. You've moved from deliberate misrepresentation and cherry-picking to outright lies.

It's was a hypothetical designed to show how it's ridiculous to say that blacks don't receive preferential treatment because they're still underrepresented. It was not intended to be interpreted as a statistical claim.

If it was a hypothetical, then it doesn't address his post. Why? Because his post is based on the context that we're speaking about the real world.

[Imperializt Russia]

True, but the manner in which said functionality asserts itself is entirely dependent upon the needs of the culture and the particular challenges of the environment. My psychology professor parents told me about one famous example in which children in a school district were given a test to measure their general intelligence, and one of the questions was as follows:

Your mother sends you to the store for a carton of milk. When you get there, the store owner says that he is out of milk. Do you:

a) Go to another store to buy the milk.
b) Go home.
c) Tell the owner to go get some milk for you.

Most of the kids from white neighborhoods answered "a", which was the correct answer. Most of the kids from black neighborhoods, which were in the inner city, answered "b", and this was marked incorrectly. However, as one person administering the test later pointed out, they had also answered correctly: Most of these kids were from neighborhoods that only had one store, and would have to walk over a mile to get to another one, meaning that returning home was the most sensible course of action for them.

You find things like this in all sorts of tests designed to measure intelligence, even Stanford-Binet. If one cannot apply himself to geometry due to crowded conditions, malnutrition, or other factors beyond one's control, then one is less likely to be able to do geometry. If one has to work a part-time job after school in order to support the family, and has to do homework in a state of exhaustion with little help, then one is less likely to learn the basics of reading comprehension. If one is arriving to school after negotiating gang territory every day, then one is likely to be more distracted in class...and none of these things have anything to do with race.

Then why do tests written by black psychologists show the same 1-1.5 standard deviation IQ gap?

Demonstrate that they do.