Race and IQ

[Cedoria]

Nope. It hasn't been. As anybody who opened Gould's work on the subject would know. I suggest you read that before commenting on this topic, it helps, believe me:)

Gould being a pop science author with a background in another field, regarded as a crank by anyone with a clue.

If his argument were any good, you'd just give the argument rather than name-dropping.

And if you knew as much as you claim to, you'd refute his argument that IQ is a non-scientific term rooted in racist misconceptions and cultural power struggles of the early 20th century rather than just ranting about cranks.

The fact you haven't even tried to do this means you haven't actually read his argument, in which case you shouldn't really be claiming to know more than you do, or you HAVE read it and can't refute it. In which case you are wrong.


See? I can do this too, doesn't change the fact that this subject really shouldn't be explored by anyone who hasn't read the damn book.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'm still trying to understand how someone, in spite of ample evidance otherwise, think some people are dumber because of their skin tone

[Cedoria]

I'm still trying to understand how someone, in spite of ample evidance otherwise, think some people are dumber because of their skin tone

There's a word for such people...

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'm still trying to understand how someone, in spite of ample evidance otherwise, think some people are dumber because of their skin tone

There's a word for such people...

There's a few words. I'll use two. Willfully Ignorant

[HMS Barham]

We don't just perceive things like intelligence, empathy, and future-orientation as important, they have real practical importance, at least in so far as anything has real and not perceived importance. Perhaps I only "perceive" it as important that I do not jump in front of a car!

We do perceive intelligence, yes. That's part of the problem in fact. 'Intelligence' is a qualitative assessment, not quantitative. We can't measure intelligence in the same way that we measure blood glucose or bone density or what have you. That's why psychology has bequeathed us IQ and its many offspring, variants and sub-variants. They are all sloppy and subjective attempts to quantify the qualitative. And they all suffer from the exact same problems of attempting to divinate the physical from the non-physical.

There are racial differences in bone density and blood glucose too.

If you want to assert that there is no such thing as intelligence because it is hard to measure, you have departed company with planet earth. If you want to argue that because intelligence is hard to measure we should assume it is exactly the same for everyone, even such a description is not enough to categorise your insanity.

I didn't choose that example at random: you've made my point for me. Races are socially constructed labels, and so are colours - that doesn't mean the underlying phenomenon is not real. If you want to say that we could draw the line between red and orange somewhere else, or just call both red and orange "orange", you would be right. If you want to say that that means red and orange are literally physically the same, you are wrong. The argument that labels are socially constructed can be applied to just about any phenomenon - which essentially no important consequences. It has no important consequences when applied to race either.

If our expanded 'orange' includes the wavelengths that we also call red then yes, a thing can be 'orange' and red. The problem here is that you're essentially denying the existence of the underlying structure of light (ie the EM spectrum) and insisting that all light should only be grouped into red, orange, yellow, green, blue indigo and violet. That's what insisting that race is a valid taxonomic group means.

No I am not. My whole point is that the labelled colours (socially constructed) reflect an underlying physical reality (visible light has a continuous spectrum of possible wavelengths). In the same way, racial categories (socially constructed) reflect an underlying physical reality (races have coherent genetic differences).

[HMS Barham]

Gould being a pop science author with a background in another field, regarded as a crank by anyone with a clue.

If his argument were any good, you'd just give the argument rather than name-dropping.

And if you knew as much as you claim to, you'd refute his argument that IQ is a non-scientific term rooted in racist misconceptions and cultural power struggles of the early 20th century rather than just ranting about cranks.

The fact you haven't even tried to do this means you haven't actually read his argument, in which case you shouldn't really be claiming to know more than you do, or you HAVE read it and can't refute it. In which case you are wrong.


See? I can do this too, doesn't change the fact that this subject really shouldn't be explored by anyone who hasn't read the damn book.

There are far more books that one can possibly read in a lifetime; some triage is required.

I've read a lot of the original papers because this field is not exactly hard (certainly much easier than mine). Measured IQ reproducibly associates with measured aptitude performing useful tasks and with all sorts of positive life outcomes from income to criminality. It's also far from the only heritable personality trait. In fact, almost every personality trait is highly heritable. This really is not just about IQ, just as race is not just "skin colour", but a systemic (if subtle) difference in almost all physical attributes.

What can Gould say to this? Unless he's performed expriments (he hasn't) that totally blow up someone else's field (he hasn't) without them noticing or paying any real attention to him (he hasn't), his book is full of politics-based, rhetoric arguments, clever non-sequiturs, and red herrings. Much like this thread.

[Cekoviu]

For a refutation of pretty much every racialist point you can make, see the RationalWiki page on racialism and related articles in the racialism/race category. I don't know too much about this topic myself, so I'll butt out now.

[HMS Barham]

I'm still trying to understand how someone, in spite of ample evidance otherwise, think some people are dumber because of their skin tone

Races are no more skin tone than books are covers. They have different bone structures, average heights, susceptibility to different diseases and life expectancies, and reproducible behaviour patterns already as babies, before culture can have had any impact. If there weren't differences in intelligence it would be outright weird, a stupendous and inexplicable coincidence. But no such arguments are required, because we have direct measurements - there's no need to believe intelligence differs for any indirect reason, simply the fact that measured intelligence does in fact differ should be enough.

[Seraven]

In other words, imperialism works.

Doesn't work as well with IQ90 populations as IQ105 populations though.

Given the necessity to give them endless welfare to pretend they were on the same level as us, even a functional Iraq colony would, with current assumptions, be of negative value.


ModEdit: This discussion has been split off from the UK politics thread, which is why the OP seems a little brief; it's the point where the thread veered towards a different topic rather than a deliberate thread OP.

This is actually real, a thread discussing topic of the relations between race, and IQ.

I'm still trying to understand how someone, in spite of ample evidance otherwise, think some people are dumber because of their skin tone

Welcome to Earth.

[Sovaal]

I'm still trying to understand how someone, in spite of ample evidance otherwise, think some people are dumber because of their skin tone

Races are no more skin tone than books are covers. They have different bone structures,

True
[quite]average heights,

Eh, to a pint I wouldn’t find this unbelievable, but you do have to take into account things such as health and diet as well.

susceptibility to different diseases

Examples? Only thing that comes to mind for me is sickle cell for malaria resitance, and that has more to do wyou th the groups of people who love in such areas of Africa then blacks as a whole.

and life expectancies,

Gonna need to see your source on this.

and reproducible behaviour patterns already as babies, before culture can have had any impact.

Such as? And how are the behaviors observable, and how do they vary from group to group?

If there weren't differences in intelligence it would be outright weird, a stupendous and inexplicable coincidence.

Uh huh. I’m sure your taking into account variations in intelligence between individuals as well?
[quite]But no such arguments are required, because we have direct measurements - there's no need to believe intelligence differs for any indirect reason, simply the fact that measured intelligence does in fact differ should be enough.

Uh huh. And do these measurement take into account any environmental or other outside forces/controls that could positively or negatively affect a particular group or individuals performance and mental growth?

[HMS Barham]

You don't get any sources until you present even the tiniest sliver of positive evidence for exact biological equality of what are clearly visibly different creatures. Your position is not the null hypothesis - it's a wildly implausible one.

[Cekoviu]

You don't get any sources until you present even the tiniest sliver of positive evidence for exact biological equality of what are clearly visibly different creatures. Your position is not the null hypothesis - it's a wildly implausible one.

Wait, are you doing the whole separate species shtick now too? (Sorry, I know I said I'd butt out.)

[Leoterra]

Half african half scottish 2nd generation american iq of 135 and proud of it

[HMS Barham]

You don't get any sources until you present even the tiniest sliver of positive evidence for exact biological equality of what are clearly visibly different creatures. Your position is not the null hypothesis - it's a wildly implausible one.

Wait, are you doing the whole separate species shtick now too? (Sorry, I know I said I'd butt out.)

Species is not a definite concept.

[Sovaal]

You don't get any sources until you present even the tiniest sliver of positive evidence for exact biological equality of what are clearly visibly different creatures. Your position is not the null hypothesis - it's a wildly implausible one.

I’m not debating anything, I’m asking you about your position and your supporting evidence for it.

And I’ve personally seen enough human behavior on my part to find the idea that each race has any extreme behavioral differences uncompelling.

[MERIZoC]

Wait, are you doing the whole separate species shtick now too? (Sorry, I know I said I'd butt out.)

Species is not a definite concept.

what the fuck lol

[Bombadil]

Given there's more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined.. to say 'black people' as a race is completely misguided.

[HMS Barham]

You don't get any sources until you present even the tiniest sliver of positive evidence for exact biological equality of what are clearly visibly different creatures. Your position is not the null hypothesis - it's a wildly implausible one.

I’m not debating anything, I’m asking you about your position and your supporting evidence for it.

And I’ve personally seen enough human behavior on my part to find the idea that each race has any extreme behavioral differences uncompelling.

Denying the existence of extreme difference is a side-step. Here is measured IQ in the USA separated by race (oh dear I lied, you get a source for free...):



The distributions overlap almost entirely but that does not stop them being enormously different.

Furthermore the social environment we inhabit is very rarely composed of people selected at random. If you only spend major time with strangers at work or in public spaces like restaurants, you might only see people with 90+ IQs. That might lead you to assume that there are very few very dumb blacks out there. But there are: in fact they're a very large fraction of the total distribution of black IQs. It's just that they are not employable places you are likely to see them.

So is the difference depicted above extreme? Arguably not. It's still clearly socially important, quite plausibly the main cause in reality of most of the problems ascribed to racism (i.e. whites).

[Jabberwocky]

Here's how I know that IQ is utter b.s.: I took an IQ test decades ago. The psychologist told me I tested in the top 1 percentile, in the nation. Funniest thing I've ever heard. Except maybe this thread.

[HMS Barham]

Here's how I know that IQ is utter b.s.: I took an IQ test decades ago. The psychologist told me I tested in the top 1 percentile, in the nation. Funniest thing I've ever heard. Except maybe this thread.

It snowed yesterday so global warming doesn't exist.

[Bombadil]

I’m not debating anything, I’m asking you about your position and your supporting evidence for it.

And I’ve personally seen enough human behavior on my part to find the idea that each race has any extreme behavioral differences uncompelling.

Denying the existence of extreme difference is a side-step. Here is measured IQ in the USA separated by race (oh dear I lied, you get a source for free...):



The distributions overlap almost entirely but that does not stop them being enormously different.

Furthermore the social environment we inhabit is very rarely composed of people selected at random. If you only spend major time with strangers at work or in public spaces like restaurants, you might only see people with 90+ IQs. That might lead you to assume that there are very few very dumb blacks out there. But there are: in fact they're a very large fraction of the total distribution of black IQs. It's just that they are not employable places you are likely to see them.

So is the difference depicted above extreme? Arguably not. It's still clearly socially important, quite plausibly the main cause in reality of most of the problems ascribed to racism (i.e. whites).

We could quite probably see similar graphs for 'people with big ears and people with small ears', 'hairy people and non-hairy people'.. definitely if people with small ears had been systematically abused for centuries with an inbuilt cultural belief about superiority or not.

Given the vast genetic diversity of people with the same skin colour, it's as much grouping all tall people together and calling them a race.

[HMS Barham]

Denying the existence of extreme difference is a side-step. Here is measured IQ in the USA separated by race (oh dear I lied, you get a source for free...):



The distributions overlap almost entirely but that does not stop them being enormously different.

Furthermore the social environment we inhabit is very rarely composed of people selected at random. If you only spend major time with strangers at work or in public spaces like restaurants, you might only see people with 90+ IQs. That might lead you to assume that there are very few very dumb blacks out there. But there are: in fact they're a very large fraction of the total distribution of black IQs. It's just that they are not employable places you are likely to see them.

So is the difference depicted above extreme? Arguably not. It's still clearly socially important, quite plausibly the main cause in reality of most of the problems ascribed to racism (i.e. whites).

We could quite probably see similar graphs for 'people with big ears and people with small ears', 'hairy people and non-hairy people'.. definitely if people with small ears had been systematically abused for centuries with an inbuilt cultural belief about superiority or not.

Given the vast genetic diversity of people with the same skin colour, it's as much grouping all tall people together and calling them a race.

I don't see your point. If hairy people are dumber than non-hairy people, does that somehow make blacks not dumber than whites? If you accept the graph you accept my position. At least enough of it to become a fellow thought criminal. And that graph is just data collected by the US government on a pretty generic test.

[Seangoli]

Uh huh. And do these measurement take into account any environmental or other outside forces/controls that could positively or negatively affect a particular group or individuals performance and mental growth?

Fun fact: People 100 years ago would test significantly lower on modern IQ tests than people today do. Apparently our direct Great Grandparents were genetic idiots, at least if IQ tests give an innate testing of one's intelligence.

It also is rather odd that things such as basic preparation on how to take said tests, or deciding to eat breakfast that morning can yield significantly higher test results. If a test is testing genetic intelligence, we would not expect this to be the case at all. And yet it is.

In other words, IQ tests do not test some sort of innate intelligence, never did, and never will. For pity's sake, the people who create and adminster these test know this as they have to keep adjusting the scores as time goes on. What do I mean by this? By defintion, the average IQ is 100. If you test literally everyone in the world, they average is 100. That's the point. The problem is that every generation, rather paradoxically, increases the average "rating". Meaning that in 100 years, you today would score something on the order of 5-10 points lower on IQ tests for no other reason than the scoring being adjusted to mean new, higher, averages.

So either humans are undergoing a period of mental evolution that is noticeable in just two generations, or IQ tests are not actually measuring some sort of innate intelligence at all and people who believe this to be true are fundamentally wrong.

I'm banking on the latter, personally, as noticeable differences in evolutionary behavior tend to take more than one generation to happen. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't seem bloody well likely.

[Jabberwocky]

Here's how I know that IQ is utter b.s.: I took an IQ test decades ago. The psychologist told me I tested in the top 1 percentile, in the nation. Funniest thing I've ever heard. Except maybe this thread.

It snowed yesterday so global warming doesn't exist.

Okay, that's funny

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I'm still trying to understand how someone, in spite of ample evidance otherwise, think some people are dumber because of their skin tone

Anything to justify their racism.