Race and IQ

[USS Monitor]

Species is not a definite concept.

what the fuck lol

Taxonomy is a social construct. Seriously. Why are Neanderthals considered a separate species even though there is ample evidence that they interbred with modern humans?

Of course, pointing out that taxonomy is a social construct does NOT mean that human "races" should be considered separate species. I would actually argue that we define the human species too narrowly by excluding extinct races like Neanderthals.

[Seangoli]

what the fuck lol

Taxonomy is a social construct. Seriously. Why are Neanderthals considered a separate species even though there is ample evidence that they interbred with modern humans?

To expound on this, the concept of "Species" is not actually a natural trait of animals, but rather just a handy means of studying them and organizing them based on how people think they relate to one another. The reality is that nature isn't so pretty as to have animals separate into distinct genetic groups, and it can get pretty messy to determine exactly where to draw the line. This is even more complex in the fossil record than it is in the modern day (Which already doesn't play nicely), as you don't have living populations to draw from.

There are actual paleontologists and anthropologists who seriously consider and present the notion that many of the Human groups from Homo erectus forward should instead be labelled as Homo sapiens and various subspecies due to the ability to interbreed and behavioral similarities, as well as a lack of clearly defined delineations in the biology of the animals. While it is fairly easy to take an Erectus and a modern Human and see the difference, it become much murkier when you are presented with the whole picture and "chain" of Human evolution from that point forward, and couple it with behavioral evidence. While I don't necessarily ascribe to the notion nor the multi-regional coalescence theory that it relates to, I will say that there is some compelling evidence for this argument.

[Sovaal]

what the fuck lol

Taxonomy is a social construct. Seriously. Why are Neanderthals considered a separate species even though there is ample evidence that they interbred with modern humans?

Of course, pointing out that taxonomy is a social construct does NOT mean that human "races" should be considered separate species. I would actually argue that we define the human species too narrowly by excluding extinct races like Neanderthals.

As an aside, what do you think of the current position of coyotes in regards their relation to wolves?

[Sovaal]

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).

Uh huh. Well looks like I’m going a digging by my lonesome then.

Until then, I think it a fair assessment from your behavior that ‘fruitful’ conversations are impossible, at least with this subject, so good evening/night to you sir.

[The Widening Gyre]

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

There exist gradients in many different physiological factors along socioeconomic, environmental and population lines. Some are genetic, others epigenetic and others developmental. These gradients no not conform to racial categorizations.

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'm saying intelligence is qualitative. It is something we perceive in others, but is not a physical quality in the people we observe it in - in the same way as taste in music or food.

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).

They do not, though, as races are not valid phylogenetic groups.

[USS Monitor]

Taxonomy is a social construct. Seriously. Why are Neanderthals considered a separate species even though there is ample evidence that they interbred with modern humans?

Of course, pointing out that taxonomy is a social construct does NOT mean that human "races" should be considered separate species. I would actually argue that we define the human species too narrowly by excluding extinct races like Neanderthals.

As an aside, what do you think of the current position of coyotes in regards their relation to wolves?

I haven't read up on it.

[The Widening Gyre]

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.

We have some pretty good definitions, though. Phylogenetically races do not cohere as clades (ie share a common ancestor). Consequently the classical Mayrian biological species concept doesn't fit either, since none of the 'races' are reproductively isolated. They don't fit the model of evolutionarily significant units, either. They are not geographically isolated, they do not universally hold novel pheno/genotypes derived as a result of the restriction of gene flow, they do not all share phenotypic traits which show signs of selection.

[Aggicificicerous]

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...):

(Image)

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

This doesn't have a quantifiable y-axis. Hence, it is meaningless.

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).

You can't make an argument either way because the graph doesn't say anything.

[Salandriagado]

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).

Meanwhile, in the world of actual research, you're just wrong.

[Cekoviu]

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).

Meanwhile, in the world of actual research, you're just wrong.

Well, that doesn't confirm his hypotheses, so it's obviously just libtard hippie """scientists""" ignoring the truth about race.

[Sovaal]

As an aside, what do you think of the current position of coyotes in regards their relation to wolves?

I haven't read up on it.

Eh, just had that popped up in my head with the New England Coy-wolves and everything is all. But yes, it’s is hard to put neat and orderly boxes on natural phenomenon.

[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).

Uh huh. Well looks like I’m going a digging by my lonesome then.

Until then, I think it a fair assessment from your behavior that ‘fruitful’ conversations are impossible, at least with this subject, so good evening/night to you sir.

Huh? You got your data, and you got the citation, and the citation (the US federal government) is pretty much above reproach. You can't at that point declare victory for lack of sources

[HMS Barham]

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

There exist gradients in many different physiological factors along socioeconomic, environmental and population lines. Some are genetic, others epigenetic and others developmental. These gradients no not conform to racial categorizations.

Can you make your point more explicit? I can't parse "These gradients no not conform to racial categorizations.". This statement seems to have many possible meanings, some of which are true, some of which are false.

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'm saying intelligence is qualitative. It is something we perceive in others, but is not a physical quality in the people we observe it in - in the same way as taste in music or food.

My taste in food is measured by my revealed preferences for food when I am given a free choice. Similarly intelligence is measured by ability to perform mentally-loaded tasks when under pressure to do so. They're both physical things.

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).

They do not, though, as races are not valid phylogenetic groups.

Races clearly do correspond largely to independently evolving groups separated by geographical barriers. Even if they didn't, though, that would neither 1. make the socially constructed labels "invalid" nor 2. mean that those groups are all the same interchangeable.

[HMS Barham]

Species is not a definite concept.

We have some pretty good definitions, though. Phylogenetically races do not cohere as clades (ie share a common ancestor). Consequently the classical Mayrian biological species concept doesn't fit either, since none of the 'races' are reproductively isolated. They don't fit the model of evolutionarily significant units, either. They are not geographically isolated, they do not universally hold novel pheno/genotypes derived as a result of the restriction of gene flow, they do not all share phenotypic traits which show signs of selection.

I don't think species, as it is used in either common speech or scientifically, is consistently defined. To say something is part of a species is much more a social statement than to say that someone is white. To say that blacks and whites are different species is primarily a political statement. It's not a statement I am making, but I can't say it's strictly false either - it's indefinite.

[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...):

(Image)

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

This doesn't have a quantifiable y-axis. Hence, it is meaningless.

Rubbish.

[HMS Barham]

Meanwhile, in the world of actual research, you're just wrong.

Well, that doesn't confirm his hypotheses, so it's obviously just libtard hippie """scientists""" ignoring the truth about race.

Ironically Unz Review is a far right blog. Chisala also isn't actually arguing that racial differences don't exist, rather than his own subgroup of blacks (Igbo) is racially superior to other blacks. Might be true.

The first paper is more interesting, though the data doesn't seem to support the conclusions. In table 5, they give the terminal outcomes for white, black, and mulatto (white mother) children, in which mulatto children significantly underperform white children on both the measures log(wage) and likelihood to be in full time employment. The only measure on which white and mulatto outcomes actually converge is likelihood to have finished college. But this is also the least meaningful: anyone can graduate from college at this point given enough social pressure.

The real result of this paper is that black dad-white mum mulattoes do worse than white dad-black mum mulattoes. Obvious explanation: black men are more attractive to white women than black women are to white men, so black fathers of mulatto children have higher quality white mates than black mothers of mulatto children.

[Cekoviu]

This doesn't have a quantifiable y-axis. Hence, it is meaningless.

Rubbish.

Have you ever taken a math class? A y-axis label is required, especially when you're making such a dubious claim as this one.

Well, that doesn't confirm his hypotheses, so it's obviously just libtard hippie """scientists""" ignoring the truth about race.

Ironically Unz Review is a far right blog. Chisala also isn't actually arguing that racial differences don't exist, rather than his own subgroup of blacks (Igbo) is racially superior to other blacks. Might be true.

The first paper is more interesting, though the data doesn't seem to support the conclusions. In table 5, they give the terminal outcomes for white, black, and mulatto (white mother) children, in which mulatto children significantly underperform white children on both the measures log(wage) and likelihood to be in full time employment. The only measure on which white and mulatto outcomes actually converge is likelihood to have finished college. But this is also the least meaningful: anyone can graduate from college at this point given enough social pressure.

The real result of this paper is that black dad-white mum mulattoes do worse than white dad-black mum mulattoes. Obvious explanation: black men are more attractive to white women than black women are to white men, so black fathers of mulatto children have higher quality white mates than black mothers of mulatto children.

Trying to check off every box on the "types of bigotry" list, eh? You're still completely ignoring the effects of social factors such as discrimination and being born into poverty.

[HMS Barham]

Rubbish.

Have you ever taken a math class? A y-axis label is required, especially when you're making such a dubious claim as this one.

Once or twice on the way to being awarded a PhD in physics. There is a y-axis label: the sum of the area under the two graphs is normalised to 1.0 Population of the United States. From this you could calculate numbers for the axis if you wanted but it would add no important information to the graph - presumably why it wasn't done.

Ironically Unz Review is a far right blog. Chisala also isn't actually arguing that racial differences don't exist, rather than his own subgroup of blacks (Igbo) is racially superior to other blacks. Might be true.

The first paper is more interesting, though the data doesn't seem to support the conclusions. In table 5, they give the terminal outcomes for white, black, and mulatto (white mother) children, in which mulatto children significantly underperform white children on both the measures log(wage) and likelihood to be in full time employment. The only measure on which white and mulatto outcomes actually converge is likelihood to have finished college. But this is also the least meaningful: anyone can graduate from college at this point given enough social pressure.

The real result of this paper is that black dad-white mum mulattoes do worse than white dad-black mum mulattoes. Obvious explanation: black men are more attractive to white women than black women are to white men, so black fathers of mulatto children have higher quality white mates than black mothers of mulatto children.

Trying to check off every box on the "types of bigotry" list, eh? You're still completely ignoring the effects of social factors such as discrimination and being born into poverty.

I'm not ignoring them. Or even disputing they are important (though I could). Maybe blacks suffer discrimination and have lower IQs than whites. I don't see what bearing it has on whether there are racial IQ differences.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Rubbish.

Have you ever taken a math class? A y-axis label is required, especially when you're making such a dubious claim as this one.

:highschool:

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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

[Oil exporting People]

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

Here's a list of nations by IQ.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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

Here's a list of nations by IQ.

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.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Here's a list of nations by IQ.

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.

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

[Oil exporting People]

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?

[Oil exporting People]

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?