Aggicificicerous wrote:HMS Barham wrote: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?
HMS Barham wrote: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.
HMS Barham wrote: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?
HMS Barham wrote: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.