Race and IQ

[HMS Barham]

State one way in which the numbers on the y axis could possibly materially affect the argument being made. The numbers on the y axis don't tell you anything about relative intelligence of racial groups, they tell you about the total population of the USA.

The y-axis does not tell you about the total population of the US. It tells you about the populations sampled. Which, once again, does not correspond to the total population unless you're trying to tell me that everyone in the US is either black or white. Without a y-axis, I can't even see how many people were sampled. If the graph is pulling data from a sample size of 50 in one district, the graph will not tell you about the US as a whole. Because the authors of the graph haven't included a y-axis, I'm concluding that they either don't want people to see it, or were too lazy to show their work. Neither conclusion is in their favour.

The samples have been scaled to show their relative size given their total share of the US population.

Yes, not everyone in the US is black or white, in 1980 it was indeed like 1% Asian and 1% Native or something. You got me there, and I hope it brings you happiness. But what does it change?

It's the same data used in the book The Bell Curve. The book was published in 1994, so using data out to 1990 doesn't seem strong evidence of some massive conspiracy. Probably the data from later years just hadn't been collected or processed yet when they began writing the book. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth is US government project with a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... al_Surveys

I don't have the book, and the wiki page has neither has data nor names a survey that ran from 1980-1990.

OK. You not owning a book or a library card, or being willing to pay for one, is not my problem and does not show my argument is wrong.

What allowance could be made when whether social standing an income cause or derive from biological factors like intelligence is one of the key points in dispute? The IQ data on its own admits either explanation (dumb people end up poor/poor people end up dumb), but twin studies come down heavily in favour of the former.

IQ is not the same as intelligence.

In the sense that a measurement on a scales is not the same as weight.

That aside, a scientific test for a biological component to intelligence cannot have outside variables like income disparities, social standing, and so on. It is fundamental to running an experiment that all variables must be accounted for except the one you're testing.

I already responded to that objection. Your assumption that social standing changes intelligence, rather than intelligence changing social standing, is one of the key points in dispute. You cannot just assume that "true" IQ is IQ at a given income level when that is the claim you are trying to prove.

Incidentally, how far are you on your way to a PhD? I find it hard to believe that someone aiming for an advanced degree in the sciences doesn't understand something that should be covered in a high school or first year science class.

How far are you?

You linked it yourself: you just don't want to pay for an ORCHID subscription. Sure, my argument is not as rigorous as a PhD thesis. You'll note that the egalitarian side is not making such an argument either. My argument is much more rigorous than theirs, based on (btw, largely uncontroversial) data that you can indeed find if you apply the time and money. Their argument is based on "but shirley", taunts, and social confirmation bias.

I did not link it myself. My link does not include any surveys from 1980-1990. As it stands, I see no data backing up your argument.

OK, so your rebuttal is largely that it is implausible that data from 1980 to 1990 could have been taken from a survey you agree exists and ran between 1979 and 1992. Let this be considered by a candid world.

[HMS Barham]

It's disheartening that we still have a debate as to whether people are smarter/dumber than others just because of their skin color.

Arguing that race correlates with intelligence doesn't necessarily mean the difference is caused by skin color. Correlation isn't causation.

If anyone does argue causation, that wouldn't make much sense.

The formulation of El-Amin Caliphate is deliberately ridiculous, so I won't endorse it, but twin studies do show that IQ is primarily hereditary and not strongly influenced by individual environment, at least in first world countries.

[The Widening Gyre]

Which would be what?

I'll lump my response to this in below, since it generally covers the same thing.

Human behaviour is physical, as are its causes. You're not religious are you?

Human behaviour is the result of physical, deterministic processes. Some human behaviours are easy to understand mechanistically, like breathing, because they are simple. What we call intelligence is not simple.

Before the 19th century there clearly was extremely little gene flow between, say, Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. Sure, it wasn't zero either. So what?

So it means that all humanity was one contiguous population of organisms, distributed across a large geographical range. Not several different isolated sub-populations, as we would expect in speciation events.

There are all sorts of "valid" ways of categorising people that have no direct relation to evolution, such as felon/non-felon, employed/unemployed, by level of physical attractiveness, by level of intelligence, etc. These are not "wrong". What does that even mean? Schemes of categorisation are tools. They can be more or less useful. They cannot be correct or incorrect.

The entire underpinning of 'race' as a concept is that they are biologically innate, specifically that they reflect the heritable 'essence' of the racial groups in question. If they are biologically essential and exist as real phenomena, they must therefore conform to our understanding of how biological systems work - namely that they had to have come about as the result of evolution. As Dobzhansky said, 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'. As below -

Even if I granted that races didn't relate to evolution, and even if I granted that not being related to evolution made a categorisation scheme "wrong", I strongly disagree that the centrist posters on this thread have been making the very narrow claim you describe. They have not been granting that races might be massively different just so long as those differences aren't directly attributable to human evolution - in the way that felons and non-felons are massively different - they are arguing that the races are biologically interchangeable.

My argument is that there cannot be massive difference between human populations without there being an underpinning in human evolution. We observe that there are differences in traits like measured IQ and bone density and what have you across humanity as a whole. The idea of races represents one set of hypotheses to explain that variation. As above, for races to be biologically innate they must be derived through evolutionary processes and be exhibited genetically as distinct phylogenetic groupings. Races fail every taxonomic test for significance that we can levy - therefore the most likely explanation is that races do not exist as valid groupings, and that the true explanatory mechanism lies elsewhere.

[HMS Barham]

Which would be what?

I'll lump my response to this in below, since it generally covers the same thing.

Human behaviour is physical, as are its causes. You're not religious are you?

Human behaviour is the result of physical, deterministic processes. Some human behaviours are easy to understand mechanistically, like breathing, because they are simple. What we call intelligence is not simple.

Nor is quantum field theory. Doesn't mean it is not physical.

Before the 19th century there clearly was extremely little gene flow between, say, Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. Sure, it wasn't zero either. So what?

So it means that all humanity was one contiguous population of organisms, distributed across a large geographical range. Not several different isolated sub-populations, as we would expect in speciation events.

All life on earth is one contiguous population of organisms. That does not mean that distinctions between them are useless or not grounded in actual physical differences.

Your initial claim was that races had no evolutionary significance. You have now abandoned this motte and fallen back to the bailey that races did not evolve entirely independently. True - but so what?

There are all sorts of "valid" ways of categorising people that have no direct relation to evolution, such as felon/non-felon, employed/unemployed, by level of physical attractiveness, by level of intelligence, etc. These are not "wrong". What does that even mean? Schemes of categorisation are tools. They can be more or less useful. They cannot be correct or incorrect.

The entire underpinning of 'race' as a concept is that they are biologically innate, specifically that they reflect the heritable 'essence' of the racial groups in question. If they are biologically essential and exist as real phenomena, they must therefore conform to our understanding of how biological systems work - namely that they had to have come about as the result of evolution. As Dobzhansky said, 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'. As below -

Look, I know a lot of long words. Tremendous long words. The best long words. You are not going to bamboozle me by saying nothing in a lot of long words.

Even if I granted that races didn't relate to evolution, and even if I granted that not being related to evolution made a categorisation scheme "wrong", I strongly disagree that the centrist posters on this thread have been making the very narrow claim you describe. They have not been granting that races might be massively different just so long as those differences aren't directly attributable to human evolution - in the way that felons and non-felons are massively different - they are arguing that the races are biologically interchangeable.

My argument is that there cannot be massive difference between human populations without there being an underpinning in human evolution. We observe that there are differences in traits like measured IQ and bone density and what have you across humanity as a whole. The idea of races represents one set of hypotheses to explain that variation. As above, for races to be biologically innate they must be derived through evolutionary processes and be exhibited genetically as distinct phylogenetic groupings. Races fail every taxonomic test for significance that we can levy - therefore the most likely explanation is that races do not exist as valid groupings, and that the true explanatory mechanism lies elsewhere.

1. Geographic barriers that are effective enough to have evolutionary significance are historically uncontroversial and do line up with the areas of habitation of the major world races. Where these barriers were relatively permeable (e.g. South East Asia) we do see continuous hybridisation. Where they weren't (e.g. the Sahara Desert) we do not. This argument is trivially wrong.

2. Even if this were a valid argument, it does not defeat my position. Let's suppose races do not have any deep underlying physical meaning, but they are still a social reality. It still does not follow that these totally arbitrary socially assigned groups should have exactly the same traits, nor that these traits should converge to the same mean at each subsequent generation. If we assigned all garbage men to one synthetic "race" and all the bankers to another synthetic "race", they would have real biological differences now, and their great great great grandchildren would very likely also have real biological differences.

[Aggicificicerous]

The samples have been scaled to show their relative size given their total share of the US population.

Oh yeah? Prove it.

OK. You not owning a book or a library card, or being willing to pay for one, is not my problem and does not show my argument is wrong.

No, it means the webpage you gave me does nothing to back up your argument. Try again.

In the sense that a measurement on a scales is not the same as weight.

The measurement on a scale can be converted directly and quantitatively into weight. Show me the direct and quantitative conversion for IQ to intelligence.

I already responded to that objection. Your assumption that social standing changes intelligence, rather than intelligence changing social standing, is one of the key points in dispute. You cannot just assume that "true" IQ is IQ at a given income level when that is the claim you are trying to prove.

I'm not trying to prove anything. If you want to argue that intelligence changes social standing, you're going to need a different study.

How far are you?

Far enough to know how to isolate a variable.

OK, so your rebuttal is largely that it is implausible that data from 1980 to 1990 could have been taken from a survey you agree exists and ran between 1979 and 1992. Let this be considered by a candid world

Could have is irrelevant. Either it did or it didn't. Show me the data.

Oh, and if the study ran from 1979-1992, why wouldn't they use the data from 1979-1992? Either they are once again withholding information, or they're lying.

[USS Monitor]

Arguing that race correlates with intelligence doesn't necessarily mean the difference is caused by skin color. Correlation isn't causation.

If anyone does argue causation, that wouldn't make much sense.

The formulation of El-Amin Caliphate is deliberately ridiculous, so I won't endorse it, but twin studies do show that IQ is primarily hereditary and not strongly influenced by individual environment, at least in first world countries.

Not really. Studies show a combination of hereditary and environmental influences.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Arguing that race correlates with intelligence doesn't necessarily mean the difference is caused by skin color. Correlation isn't causation.

If anyone does argue causation, that wouldn't make much sense.

The formulation of El-Amin Caliphate is deliberately ridiculous, so I won't endorse it, but twin studies do show that IQ is primarily hereditary and not strongly influenced by individual environment, at least in first world countries.

Sorry for not believing in racist eugenics. Also, as was said many times before, IQ does not reflect someone's actual intelligence. Africans can be just as smart as Europeans, who can be just as smart as Asians, who can be just as smart as indigenous people, who can be just as smart as mixed-race people if they put their mind to it.

[Vassenor]

Arguing that race correlates with intelligence doesn't necessarily mean the difference is caused by skin color. Correlation isn't causation.

If anyone does argue causation, that wouldn't make much sense.

The formulation of El-Amin Caliphate is deliberately ridiculous, so I won't endorse it, but twin studies do show that IQ is primarily hereditary and not strongly influenced by individual environment, at least in first world countries.

Let's see those studies then.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

The formulation of El-Amin Caliphate is deliberately ridiculous, so I won't endorse it, but twin studies do show that IQ is primarily hereditary and not strongly influenced by individual environment, at least in first world countries.

Sorry for not believing in racist eugenics. Also, as was said many times before, IQ does not reflect someone's actual intelligence. Africans can be just as smart as Europeans, who can be just as smart as Asians, who can be just as smart as indigenous people, who can be just as smart as mixed-race people if they put their mind to it.

Might be more precise to say that IQ only captures one type of intelligence. Agree that individuals who espouse a growth mindset come out better than those who do not, regardless of their racial background or genetic makeup.

[Vassenor]

Also how does this hypothesis account for alternative models of intelligence such as Gardner's?

[Oil exporting People]

Also how does this hypothesis account for alternative models of intelligence such as Gardner's?

I'd have to look into that one specifically, but it's accepted by mainstream science that IQ tests are in no way biased against Blacks.

[Vassenor]

Also how does this hypothesis account for alternative models of intelligence such as Gardner's?

I'd have to look into that one specifically, but it's accepted by mainstream science that IQ tests are in no way biased against Blacks.

I am interested in seeing the data that supports this particular hypothesis.

[Oil exporting People]

I am interested in seeing the data that supports this particular hypothesis.

That IQ isn't prejudiced against Blacks?

[Cekoviu]

Is there a way to "unwatch" a thread so it stops showing up when I click the "View your posts" button?

[HMS Barham]

The formulation of El-Amin Caliphate is deliberately ridiculous, so I won't endorse it, but twin studies do show that IQ is primarily hereditary and not strongly influenced by individual environment, at least in first world countries.

Sorry for not believing in racist eugenics. Also, as was said many times before, IQ does not reflect someone's actual intelligence. Africans can be just as smart as Europeans, who can be just as smart as Asians, who can be just as smart as indigenous people, who can be just as smart as mixed-race people if they put their mind to it.

IQ does reflect actual intelligence. People keep on saying this but never provide a shred of evidence for it (while calling me a pseudoscientist for quoting 1980-1990 statistics when the survey clearly says the study period is 1979-1992).

[HMS Barham]

The formulation of El-Amin Caliphate is deliberately ridiculous, so I won't endorse it, but twin studies do show that IQ is primarily hereditary and not strongly influenced by individual environment, at least in first world countries.

Not really. Studies show a combination of hereditary and environmental influences.

Yes they do but they show that hereditary influences are enormously more powerful than social environment. It is like saying that my expenses are partly driven by rent and partly driven by the price of olives. Technically true but somewhat misleading.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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.

Hmm, I guess I kinda pegged you as the person to assume intelligence was linked to skin color (since you’re a self-proclaimed Southern Nationalist which is connected to white nationalism) you have my apologies for misinterpretating your position on that. However, I’m still finding the connections between race and intelligence to be pretty dubious when environmental factors like poverty and quality/prevalence of education to matter much more than what their race and ethnicity is. Even if race and ethnicity had a part in intelligence at all, it’s probably negligible at best when compared to other factors like poverty and education.

[Oil exporting People]

Hmm, I guess I kinda pegged you as the person to assume intelligence was linked to skin color (since you’re a self-proclaimed Southern Nationalist which is connected to white nationalism) you have my apologies for misinterpretating your position on that.

You're good.

However, I’m still finding the connections between race and intelligence to be pretty dubious when environmental factors like poverty and quality/prevalence of education to matter much more than what their race and ethnicity is. Even if race and ethnicity had a part in intelligence at all, it’s probably negligible at best when compared to other factors like poverty and education.

Source: Journal of Blacks in Higher Education


Source: Jensen 1998 (Pg 358)

[Aggicificicerous]

IQ does reflect actual intelligence. People keep on saying this but never provide a shred of evidence for it (while calling me a pseudoscientist for quoting 1980-1990 statistics when the survey clearly says the study period is 1979-1992).

Looks like you've run out of excuses, but aren't above putting words in someone else's mouth. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Oil exporting People]

Looks like you've run out of excuses, but aren't above putting words in someone else's mouth. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

That's not an argument.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Hmm, I guess I kinda pegged you as the person to assume intelligence was linked to skin color (since you’re a self-proclaimed Southern Nationalist which is connected to white nationalism) you have my apologies for misinterpretating your position on that.

You're good.

However, I’m still finding the connections between race and intelligence to be pretty dubious when environmental factors like poverty and quality/prevalence of education to matter much more than what their race and ethnicity is. Even if race and ethnicity had a part in intelligence at all, it’s probably negligible at best when compared to other factors like poverty and education.

Source: Journal of Blacks in Higher Education


Source: Jensen 1998 (Pg 358)

Taking a look at those graphs leads me to believe that they incidate that socio-economic status (which black families tend to lean toward, unfortunately) results in lower test scores than those of higher socio-economic status. I have the inclination if the socio-economic gap had been closer then the test results have been more similar between whites and blacks.

[Oil exporting People]

Taking a look at those graphs leads me to believe that they incidate that socio-economic status (which black families tend to lean toward, unfortunately) results in lower test scores than those of higher socio-economic status. I have the inclination if the socio-economic gap had been closer then the test results have been more similar between whites and blacks.

The chart depicts comparisons of SAT scores by socio-economic level for both Blacks and Whites; at the lowest level, under $20,000 per year, White students still score 180 points higher.

[Aggicificicerous]

Looks like you've run out of excuses, but aren't above putting words in someone else's mouth. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

That's not an argument.

What? I've already made my arguments. I just don't appreciate people distorting what I've said.

[Republic of the Cristo]

How do you personally distinguish the colours green and yellow?

I learned them, with a little help from the centuries of social, cultural and linguistic history leading up to the current conditions of production and recognition at play in the social semiosis of colour in my own very specific corner of the world. The key is that I am aware of the fact that these categories exist because a long series of human beings throughout history willed it so, and that while the colours themselves, such as they are, are natural, the words and the way in which we classify them according to those words are not. If nobody had told me otherwise, I would have never known to differentiate between blue and cyan, or red and magenta (and the same is true for human phenotypical differences). And the same goes for race: we can perceive phenotypical differences at first glance, but the way in which we classify those differences is not itself natural. And in the case of race, the classifications we most commonly use are based on obsolete theories made by men with fewer resources, political biases, and a far simpler understanding of the natural world than ours, rather than our current scientific understanding of phenotypical and genetic differences. Your IQ shtick is ultimately little more than a shallow excuse to preserve your anachronistic categories for political purposes.

If nobody told you that red and blue were different you would think they were the same?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So apparently, a lot of people have been accusing IQ testing of "bias."

Tell me, what do you consider the alternative?