Race and IQ

[Seangoli]

Intelligence does not go down just because someone's skin gets darker.

Here's a list of nations by IQ.

Countries which put a strong cultural focus on education as well as relatively high standards of living show higher test results. Meanwhile, countries going through constant warfare and are mired by poverty and starvation test lower.

Color me shocked. Shocked I say, shocked. Perhaps next you will blow my mind with your brilliant treatises on Water Being Wet, or that Bears Do Infact Shit in the Woods.

[Seangoli]

On top of that, other factors besides bad education need to be put in, on top of the fact that IQ test are inaccurate ways to measure someone's intelligence

I'm going to address the education bit shortly, but your statement brings up a related point; so you would like to see alternative measures of intelligence as related to race, yes?

Allow me to put it this way: 100 years ago, the average person in the US would have scored roughly 30 points lower than the average person now. If IQ tests are testing some sort of intrinsic knowledge, then the human race has gone through a truly explosive period of evolution, where our average innate intelligence in the US has climbed by nearly 50% in just three generations. Or IQ tests in no way test innate biological intelligence, and to present them as such is to be either willfully misleading or woefully misinformed.

I lean on the latter, personally, given that it's damn impossible to see that sort of evolutionary change in the course of three generations.

[Oil exporting People]

Countries which put a strong cultural focus on education as well as relatively high standards of living show higher test results. Meanwhile, countries going through constant warfare and are mired by poverty and starvation test lower.

Color me shocked. Shocked I say, shocked. Perhaps next you will blow my mind with your brilliant treatises on Water Being Wet, or that Bears Do Infact Shit in the Woods.

So I'll add you likewise to the docket of people saying the difference is due to socio-economic status, yes?

[Seangoli]

Countries which put a strong cultural focus on education as well as relatively high standards of living show higher test results. Meanwhile, countries going through constant warfare and are mired by poverty and starvation test lower.

Color me shocked. Shocked I say, shocked. Perhaps next you will blow my mind with your brilliant treatises on Water Being Wet, or that Bears Do Infact Shit in the Woods.

So I'll add you likewise to the docket of people saying the difference is due to socio-economic status, yes?

That should be obvious, but yes. Yes you should.

[Oil exporting People]

Allow me to put it this way: 100 years ago, the average person in the US would have scored roughly 30 points lower than the average person now.

I'll go ahead and address this one, since it's a different tact than what you and others are saying with regards to socio-economic factors.

That's actually patently false, as the U.S. Army did do standard IQ tests in 1917, exactly 100 years ago, and found average White IQ was around 100 while Blacks had an average IQ of 83. Nowadays, it's been found to be about 85 as the mean for American Blacks, while Whites still have a mean of around 100, although I have reason to believe it's higher based on a review of IQ levels by State.

[Cedoria]

Countries which put a strong cultural focus on education as well as relatively high standards of living show higher test results. Meanwhile, countries going through constant warfare and are mired by poverty and starvation test lower.

Color me shocked. Shocked I say, shocked. Perhaps next you will blow my mind with your brilliant treatises on Water Being Wet, or that Bears Do Infact Shit in the Woods.

So I'll add you likewise to the docket of people saying the difference is due to socio-economic status, yes?

Well it is. Intelligence is at least as much socially and environmentally determined as genetically. That is obvious to anybody with even a vague scientific literacy of the subject.

That's before we get to correct the erroneous assumption that IQ is actually an accurate metric to start with, which it's not.

[Seangoli]

Allow me to put it this way: 100 years ago, the average person in the US would have scored roughly 30 points lower than the average person now.

I'll go ahead and address this one, since it's a different tact than what you and others are saying with regards to socio-economic factors.

That's actually patently false, as the U.S. Army did do standard IQ tests in 1917, exactly 100 years ago, and found average White IQ was around 100 while Blacks had an average IQ of 83. Nowadays, it's been found to be about 85 as the mean for American Blacks, while Whites still have a mean of around 100, although I have reason to believe it's higher based on a review of IQ levels by State.

You have no idea how IQ tests work, then. Not one damn clue.

They are constantly adjusted over time so as the average comes out as 100. If they weren't adjusted, the average person in the US today would have a score at about 120 if tested under the metrics 100 years ago, or the average person 100 years ago would test at about 70 points if tested today. The fact that don't understand this very simple premise of IQ tests pretty much means you lack even a basic understanding of how they work.

The entire point of the tests is that a 100 score represents the average IQ of the entire population; the problem is that IQs rise over time. The solution is that they adjust the scores and the metrics under which people are tested for and against. Of course the "average" score 100 years ago is 100, because by definition it absolutely has to be. That doesn't mean that a score of 100 back then is the same as a score today is. In reality, a score of 100 back then would equate to about 70 today. The fact you do not know this indicates you are on the "woefully misinformed" side of the equation.

[Liriena]

I'll go ahead and address this one, since it's a different tact than what you and others are saying with regards to socio-economic factors.

That's actually patently false, as the U.S. Army did do standard IQ tests in 1917, exactly 100 years ago, and found average White IQ was around 100 while Blacks had an average IQ of 83. Nowadays, it's been found to be about 85 as the mean for American Blacks, while Whites still have a mean of around 100, although I have reason to believe it's higher based on a review of IQ levels by State.

...

You have no idea how IQ tests work, then. Not one damn clue.

They are constantly adjusted over time so as the average comes out as 100. If they weren't adjusted, the average person in the US today would have a score at about 120 if tested under the metrics 100 years ago, or the average person 100 years ago would test at about 70 points if tested today. The fact that don't understand this very simple premise of IQ tests pretty much means you lack even a basic understanding of how they work.

The success of Nazi bullshit is predicated on its shameless stupidity when it comes to science.

[Oil exporting People]

I was trying to wait for Greater Ohio Valley to respond before we tackled these myths, but might as well.

Well it is. Intelligence is at least as much socially and environmentally determined as genetically. That is obvious to anybody with even a vague scientific literacy of the subject.

That there is indeed an environmental part has never been in doubt, but that whether or not such explained the gap. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption study, which was conducted to test this theory of socio-economic status explaining the difference, found that it did not decisively.

That's before we get to correct the erroneous assumption that IQ is actually an accurate metric to start with, which it's not.

So you don't like IQ, that's fine. Here's SAT scores:

[Akaran Islands]

Allow me to put it this way: 100 years ago, the average person in the US would have scored roughly 30 points lower than the average person now.

I'll go ahead and address this one, since it's a different tact than what you and others are saying with regards to socio-economic factors.

That's actually patently false, as the U.S. Army did do standard IQ tests in 1917, exactly 100 years ago, and found average White IQ was around 100 while Blacks had an average IQ of 83. Nowadays, it's been found to be about 85 as the mean for American Blacks, while Whites still have a mean of around 100, although I have reason to believe it's higher based on a review of IQ levels by State.

Trusting a study on race from 1917 is ridiculous. And concerning the map and rankings of countries by IQ that you linked, the researcher who performed that study attributes the differences in IQ to nutrition, not race.

[Seangoli]

I'll go ahead and address this one, since it's a different tact than what you and others are saying with regards to socio-economic factors.

That's actually patently false, as the U.S. Army did do standard IQ tests in 1917, exactly 100 years ago, and found average White IQ was around 100 while Blacks had an average IQ of 83. Nowadays, it's been found to be about 85 as the mean for American Blacks, while Whites still have a mean of around 100, although I have reason to believe it's higher based on a review of IQ levels by State.

Trusting a study on race from 1917 is ridiculous. And concerning the map and rankings of countries by IQ that you linked, the researcher who performed that study attributes the differences in IQ to nutrition, not race.

It's not even trusting a study from 100 years ago; it is fundamentally not knowing how IQ tests function. It is lazy, and stupid, science that requires one to completely omit the nature of IQ tests to come to the conclusions they did. It requires one to completely dismiss how they work. It's an absurdity and is utterly ridiculous.

Or, to be more blunt: Oil has no damn clue what he is talking about. He doesn't even understand how IQ tests work, yet claims he does. Simply put, the scores of IQ tests have been adjusted over time to ensure that the average is always pegged at 100, even though the truth is that when adjusted scores have been increasing significantly. Anybody who argues against this is essentially saying that Water is Not Wet or the Sky is Not Blue. It is a fundamental fact of the tests that they are adjusted over time, and this adjustment is constantly because IQ scores would be ever increasing otherwise.

[Oil exporting People]

You have no idea how IQ tests work, then. Not one damn clue.

No, I believe it was a case of misunderstanding what you were suggesting on my part; I thought you were arguing the difference between Whites and Blacks was made up for in these overall gains.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Nothing on that article indicates that intelligence is tied to the amount of melanin in ones skin, what it seems to indicate is that the countries with the most garbage education systems have a higher population with lower average intelligence.

Before we proceed further, you do agree that the IQ levels shows that the darker populations of the world, irrelevant of the cause, have a lower IQ?

If we’re just looking at it, irrelevant of the cause, then sure.

[Oil exporting People]

If we’re just looking at it, irrelevant of the cause, then sure.

See here then:

Well it is. Intelligence is at least as much socially and environmentally determined as genetically. That is obvious to anybody with even a vague scientific literacy of the subject.

That there is indeed an environmental part has never been in doubt, but that whether or not such explained the gap. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption study, which was conducted to test this theory of socio-economic status explaining the difference, found that it did not decisively.

That's before we get to correct the erroneous assumption that IQ is actually an accurate metric to start with, which it's not.

So you don't like IQ, that's fine. Here's SAT scores:

[Aillyria]

I'm open to the idea that there's a difference in average intelligence between races, however, I don't think I'd be enough to matter much. Access to education and socio-economic status would probably have more of a longterm effect on that.

[Cekoviu]

I'm open to the idea that there's a difference in average intelligence between races, however, I don't think I'd be enough to matter much. Access to education and socio-economic status would probably have more of a longterm effect on that.

Get out of here with your rational thinking.

[Aillyria]

I'm open to the idea that there's a difference in average intelligence between races, however, I don't think I'd be enough to matter much. Access to education and socio-economic status would probably have more of a longterm effect on that.

Get out of here with your rational thinking.

It's somewhat of a sin these days isn't it?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If we’re just looking at it, irrelevant of the cause, then sure.

See here then:

That there is indeed an environmental part has never been in doubt, but that whether or not such explained the gap. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption study, which was conducted to test this theory of socio-economic status explaining the difference, found that it did not decisively.



So you don't like IQ, that's fine. Here's SAT scores:

I’m still not convinced that this all comes down to skin color.

[Major-Tom]

See here then:

I’m still not convinced that this all comes down to skin color.

I agree with you. The socioeconomic differences mean quite a bit, but so does culture, confirmation bias, among much more. The working class white youth and working class black youth have cultural differences 100%. It's unfortunate, but they do. But to blame all of it on "well white folks are just smarter" is a dumb and huge jump to conclusions that one makes only if they have something they want to confirm.

Overall, differences in IQ (which itself is arbitrary in many ways), can't be boiled down to ethnicity, overall, the differences are negligible.

[Bombadil]

I’m still not convinced that this all comes down to skin color.

Well indeed, skin colour is very specific to an environment.. it's a highly visible trait but there are plenty of other traits that are less susceptible to environment that we could also divide the world into.. right handed, left handed and ambidextrous for example.. if we measured IQ across those we would also see a ranking and so would we conclude the dominant aspect of IQ is what hand you use?

I suspect the inability to close the correlation would be similar but would it mean it's the dominant factor or even a factor at all?

Take that country list.. interesting that the top two are city states. The pressure of land means school choice is less distributed. It makes for a highly competitive environment. Here in HK children are interviewed for the right school at the age of two, that school determines your entire academic career. It's very much the same in SG. It's a huge debate this pressure on children to perform. It creates anxiety later on because a child's life is so highly directed from a very early age it means they require direction at work.

For Korea, Japan and China it's not amazingly dissimilar - and for China i'd really like to see who exactly has been tested because it's certainly not the majority of the population. I might imagine it's those who are applying to study overseas. In fact that might be the case for most of those but regardless.. education is extremely highly stressed in those countries, it's seen as the path to success - the very number of school you go to in Beijing predicates your future success - I think Middle School 4 in Beijing is the most prestigious and gets you a guaranteed government job practically (if only because it means you're highly connected in government).

In Africa, the pressure on education as a means to success is probably quite low, it's not how you get power is it?

In the US you have a cultural environment that disadvantages African Americans from the get go, as to where they're likely to be born, the stress on education growing up because.. fuck it, the odds are stacked against you anyway. There was an interesting podcast where they exchanged a relatively poor school with a rich school in NY, the reactions were interesting. The most intelligent girl practically rejected education as a result of it.

A lot of African Americans on scholarships to colleges in the US drop out after the first year, they see just how much the odds have always been stacked against them, the ease with which rich white kids are assured of a prosperous career.

The simple fact is that too many genes have an effect on any one aspect, 13-14 on eye colour alone.. and there's not enough difference in humans to say skin colour alone is a differentiator.

[Montchevre]

If we’re just looking at it, irrelevant of the cause, then sure.

See here then:

That there is indeed an environmental part has never been in doubt, but that whether or not such explained the gap. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption study, which was conducted to test this theory of socio-economic status explaining the difference, found that it did not decisively.



So you don't like IQ, that's fine. Here's SAT scores:

(Image)

Oh dear, oh dear. Of course, out of all the possible factors, you seize on skin color. Yes, blacks and hispanics perform worse on the SAT. But they are also statistically more disadvantaged educationally than whites. Poverty in youth often defines success in life, and even beyond poverty there are still cultural differences about the value of education. Does that make a race "inferior?" Of course not! Are Asians superior to whites? They beat us on the SAT. But that used to not be the case; it changed over time. And I'm sure a proud "southern nationalist" would never say that an Asian is superior to him. It's so like a fascist to manage to see the world in such an entirely wrong way.

2017 Mean SAT Scores, and Percentage Meeting Benchmarks, by Race and Ethnicity

Group Reading and Writing Mathematics Met Both Benchmarks
American Indian/Alaska Native 486 477 27%
Asian 569 612 70%
Black 479 462 20%
Latino 500 487 31%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 498 488 32%
White 565 553 59%
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... -ethnicity

[Oil exporting People]

Oh dear, oh dear. Of course, out of all the possible factors, you seize on skin color. Yes, blacks and hispanics perform worse on the SAT. But they are also statistically more disadvantaged educationally than whites. Poverty in youth often defines success in life, and even beyond poverty there are still cultural differences about the value of education. Does that make a race "inferior?" Of course not!

So I take you didn't read anything my sources said at all? Those SAT scores were sorted by race and income levels, which found that Black children from families making $200,000 or more made virtually the same score as White children from families making $20,000. Further, the Minnesota Trans-Racial adoption study placed Black children in White Middle Class homes, thus testing the cultural differences angle, and found it did not close the gap.

Are Asians superior to whites? They beat us on the SAT. But that used to not be the case; it changed over time. And I'm sure a proud "southern nationalist" would never say that an Asian is superior to him. It's so like a fascist to manage to see the world in such an entirely wrong way.

We could go really deep into this one, because it is highly interesting, but for brevity I'll quote an individual to answer for me:

"Pride in one's own race—and that does not imply contempt for other races—is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilisations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilisation to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."

[Oil exporting People]

I’m still not convinced that this all comes down to skin color.

I literally know of no one, besides the Black Israelites, claiming melanin specifically has anything to do with IQ.

[Neutraligon]

Trusting a study on race from 1917 is ridiculous. And concerning the map and rankings of countries by IQ that you linked, the researcher who performed that study attributes the differences in IQ to nutrition, not race.

It's not even trusting a study from 100 years ago; it is fundamentally not knowing how IQ tests function. It is lazy, and stupid, science that requires one to completely omit the nature of IQ tests to come to the conclusions they did. It requires one to completely dismiss how they work. It's an absurdity and is utterly ridiculous.

Or, to be more blunt: Oil has no damn clue what he is talking about. He doesn't even understand how IQ tests work, yet claims he does. Simply put, the scores of IQ tests have been adjusted over time to ensure that the average is always pegged at 100, even though the truth is that when adjusted scores have been increasing significantly. Anybody who argues against this is essentially saying that Water is Not Wet or the Sky is Not Blue. It is a fundamental fact of the tests that they are adjusted over time, and this adjustment is constantly because IQ scores would be ever increasing otherwise.

I would think we would also have to get into difference in how people from different parts of the world think. If on average if people from one part of the world was asked to sort a set of items, would they sort it the same as someone from a completely different culture, even if the items where the same?

Another example, the language we use can actually effect our color perception. How much does the simple difference in language effect the results of these tests?

[Seangoli]

It's not even trusting a study from 100 years ago; it is fundamentally not knowing how IQ tests function. It is lazy, and stupid, science that requires one to completely omit the nature of IQ tests to come to the conclusions they did. It requires one to completely dismiss how they work. It's an absurdity and is utterly ridiculous.

Or, to be more blunt: Oil has no damn clue what he is talking about. He doesn't even understand how IQ tests work, yet claims he does. Simply put, the scores of IQ tests have been adjusted over time to ensure that the average is always pegged at 100, even though the truth is that when adjusted scores have been increasing significantly. Anybody who argues against this is essentially saying that Water is Not Wet or the Sky is Not Blue. It is a fundamental fact of the tests that they are adjusted over time, and this adjustment is constantly because IQ scores would be ever increasing otherwise.

I would think we would also have to get into difference in how people from different parts of the world think. If on average if people from one part of the world was asked to sort a set of items, would they sort it the same as someone from a completely different culture, even if the items where the same?

Another example, the language we use can actually effect our color perception. How much does the simple difference in language effect the results of these tests?

Here's a peculiar problem, as well: Non-industrial groups have difficulty with understanding hypothetical questions posed to them, regardless of race. This was realized in the 1930s when researchers were trying to administer IQ tests in rural Russia, and they were having the damndest time explaining to them how to answer some of the questions. One of the questions that they had trouble getting across was:

"There is snow at the North Pole; where there is snow, bears are white; what color are bears at the North Pole?"

To which the respondent would say "I've only ever seen brown bears, and I will only believe bears are white if someone tells me they have seen a white bear." Completely missing the point of the hypothetical question, mind you, which tend to be a good part of many IQ tests. Non-industrial people have problems abstracting the purpose of hypothetical questions, not because they are biologically less intelligent but because they have no damn reason to think in such abstract terms. They never really learned to think with that sort of logic. Yet, a few short generations later their descendants have no problem, at all, with it. The fundamental truth is that you need to actively train your mind to think abstractly and deductively, and that training comes with formal schooling coupled with industrialized societies allowing a greater access to information that does not exist otherwise.