Race and IQ

[Major-Tom]

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

Tell me, what do you consider the alternative?

To be fair, the IQ test is a mixed bag. It can pick up on a lot of things, but there simply isn't one single perfect measure for intelligence. Take Andy Warhol for example. Known as a very smart and creative guy, but supposedly had a near mental retardation IQ score. Just sayin'.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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

Tell me, what do you consider the alternative?

To be fair, the IQ test is a mixed bag. It can pick up on a lot of things, but there simply isn't one single perfect measure for intelligence. Take Andy Warhol for example. Known as a very smart and creative guy, but supposedly had a near mental retardation IQ score. Just sayin'.

The same applies. By what standard do you label Andy Warhol smart, if this contradicts his IQ score?

"Known as" is meaningless. Even when people on this site disagree with me, they don't make me out to be an idiot. Other websites have. Does this suggest that I am simultaneously an idiot and not an idiot?

[Petrolheadia]

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

Are you afraid of having your beliefs contradicted?

[Petrolheadia]

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

Tell me, what do you consider the alternative?

To be fair, the IQ test is a mixed bag. It can pick up on a lot of things, but there simply isn't one single perfect measure for intelligence. Take Andy Warhol for example. Known as a very smart and creative guy, but supposedly had a near mental retardation IQ score. Just sayin'.

Supposedly.

He skipped a grade at school twice.

[The Widening Gyre]

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

Effects at that scale can be measured physically. Intelligence can't because our entire conception of what intelligence is is rooted in the non-physical.

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.

All life is most certainly not one contiguous population. The last time you shared an ancestor with archaeans was 2.7 billion years ago.

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?

They still don't have evolutionary significance. Divergence and speciation are the metrics we use to measure evolutionary significance. The primary driver of divergence and speciation is isolation, whether behaviourally, geographically or biologically driven. We see no isolation between the races, therefore they are not the units at which speciation is occurring.

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.

I can try and use simpler words if you're having difficulty understanding.

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.

The Sahara is a barrier, but like our ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago, we bypassed it through routes like the coasts. There has never been a period in which any given human population has been isolated from its neighbours long enough to allow the process of divergence to occur significantly.

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.

If races do not have any innate biological existence, then the question becomes why should we entrench their existence in our cultures at all? Why is it necessary for us to get together and enforce the existence of a category based upon faulty science? If races don't reflect the real distribution of characteristics like intelligence in humanity, should we not dispose of races and instead try and find the real patterns present in human populations?

[Cekoviu]

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

Are you afraid of having your beliefs contradicted?

No, I'm just tired of having to scroll through the same exact argument over and over again. Interesting hypothesis, though.

[HMS Barham]

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.

You have not made an argument at all. You want me to buy you a journal subscription and then copy and paste all the text into the browser and then you will say it is all wrong because there is a decimal point in the wrong place. Meanwhile pretending to have no view on the issue of your own. What you are doing is textbook sealioning and warrants no response.

[HMS Barham]

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

Effects at that scale can be measured physically. Intelligence can't because our entire conception of what intelligence is is rooted in the non-physical.

Rubbish. Intelligence is the ability to manipulate the physical world to our advantage. When we say that Einstein is more intelligent than a street sweeper we are not making a mystical unprovable statement but a statement about their ability to perform physical tasks.

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.

All life is most certainly not one contiguous population. The last time you shared an ancestor with archaeans was 2.7 billion years ago.

To not be one contiguous population there would have to be separate branches that never shared a common ancestor, which isn't true as far as we know. Seemingly you are saying that there is some time gap at which two family streams become "as good as" separate. OK. Someone else can think that that age is 1,000 years.

They still don't have evolutionary significance. Divergence and speciation are the metrics we use to measure evolutionary significance. The primary driver of divergence and speciation is isolation, whether behaviourally, geographically or biologically driven. We see no isolation between the races, therefore they are not the units at which speciation is occurring.

Again, you are just wrong on this point. There is a clear and obvious geographical barrier between the negroids of Sub-Sahara and the europids to its north. Yes, it's not impregnable. That doesn't mean it has had no effect on evolution to its north and south. You are trying to impose absolutes on processes that are inherently fuzzy.

I can try and use simpler words if you're having difficulty understanding.

The opposite: I can easily tell you are saying nothing. The purpose of using long words is to hope that I don't understand, ad assume what you are saying must be meaningful because it is spoken in academic dialect.

The Sahara is a barrier, but like our ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago, we bypassed it through routes like the coasts. There has never been a period in which any given human population has been isolated from its neighbours long enough to allow the process of divergence to occur significantly.

By the same token my house is not 100% watertight but that does not mean that it does not provide any barrier against water and to consider water in and outside the house as meaningfully separated is wrong.

If races do not have any innate biological existence, then the question becomes why should we entrench their existence in our cultures at all? Why is it necessary for us to get together and enforce the existence of a category based upon faulty science? If races don't reflect the real distribution of characteristics like intelligence in humanity, should we not dispose of races and instead try and find the real patterns present in human populations?

Maybe we shouldn't. But at this point race is primarily being invoked by anti-racists. Why? Because a race-blind system results in Indo-Europeans, Jews and Asians dominating everything, blacks as a coolie race, and aborigines starving to death in the street, because of their trait differences. Sure, not every individual, but visibly on average. If you are willing to say "this is an acceptable outcome because, although it correlates with race, it's actually down to traits that aren't necessarily connected with any particular race" then fine. That is more or less my position. But you will quickly find yourself on the unacceptable far right with me if you do that. Real life anti-racists are not making the argument that races are invalid categories but that they are valid categories and all of them are equally capable at birth. It's a dishonest ploy that they only wheel out when someone challenges the data on the claim that all these groups are originally equally capable, which is very rare anyway since it's very dangerous to do that.

Now what happens if we go even further than dumping race (and, hence, anti-racism - affirmative action, hate speech laws, the whole lot) and "try and find the real patterns present in human populations"? We find that class is biological and, although unevenly distributed between the races, upper and lower class people of all races have more in common with their fellows than with people of the same race and different class. We find that the problems of the poor, broadly defined, are unfixable, and that social programmes designed to fix them should not be expected to work (as they do not). We find that the most beneficial social intervention, and indeed the prerequisite of long term civilisation survival, is to boost the birth rate of the higher class people while letting the lower class people slowly die out. In other words, we most totally repudiate socialism (and what Americans call "liberalism"). I.e. we move even further right even within the unacceptable right.

The foundational principles of almost all modern ideology are fundamentally at war with human biology.

[Aggicificicerous]

You have not made an argument at all. You want me to buy you a journal subscription and then copy and paste all the text into the browser and then you will say it is all wrong because there is a decimal point in the wrong place. Meanwhile pretending to have no view on the issue of your own. What you are doing is textbook sealioning and warrants no response.

Funny thing you should mention sealioning. Let's just check that site you linked and see how it describes the phenomenon.

Of course, these questions are not asked because the person genuinely wants to know. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the "debate principle"; when you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure.

In this case, I genuinely do want to know what the data is behind the graph. I even did my own digging to try and find it, and now I'm asking for information that is difficult to discover. Perhaps you can't provide that data, but you take it a step further. You refuse to even acknowledge that the data is relevant, and that graph's sourcing of a study that cannot be found. And no, 1979-1992 is not the same as 1980-1990. At the very least there are three whole years of data unaccounted for. What's the term for misrepresenting data? Oh yes: intellectual dishonesty.

What I want is for you to back up your arguments. What I've got from you so far is an incomplete graph citing a non-existent study. I haven't made any arguments because I don't need to: you have nothing. All your excuses, all your claims that it's fine, that a y-axis isn't necessary, that we don't need to see the data only highlight your woeful understanding of scientific rigor. This isn't even about opinions of viewpoints. You may believe any graph that confirms your beliefs, but if I had tried to present your arguments in even a first year science class, I would have been laughed at and told to show my sources for the data and their methodology. Want to know why data is important? Consider this graph that is backed up by a reputable source and clearly shows how blacks have a higher average IQ than whites. Let's see you try and disprove it.

You want a view on the issue? Here's one. Racists who try to back their opinions up with science always get the science wrong because they always start with the conclusion then try and work backwards to find the evidence. It's the opposite of how the scientific method works. They nitpick details, they nitpick sources, and they ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions. It's like watching Creationists citing geological studies to prove there really was a Great Flood, and Noah really did build an ark and save two of every animal.

[Oil exporting People]

To be fair, the IQ test is a mixed bag. It can pick up on a lot of things, but there simply isn't one single perfect measure for intelligence. Take Andy Warhol for example. Known as a very smart and creative guy, but supposedly had a near mental retardation IQ score. Just sayin'.

Your entire argument is made on the basis of conjecture on one individual, who "supposedly" had a low IQ; there is nothing intellectually sound there.

[Oil exporting People]

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

Tell me, what do you consider the alternative?

They have to deny the validity of IQ and claim undefined other metrics, because that is the only way to defend their assertion.

[Uxupox]

Say it with me. There is no scientific evidence that correlates your human intelligence with human skin color.

Unless your skin color is blue. At that point one would image that you have 0 IQ since, well, you are dead.

[Oil exporting People]

Say it with me. There is no scientific evidence that correlates your human intelligence with human skin color.

Unless your skin color is blue. At that point one would image that you have 0 IQ since, well, you are dead.

Once again it must be said that no one, with the exception of the Black Israelites, believe Melanin by itself defines intelligence. What it does do, is correlate with the genetics of those who do have a higher intelligence as a result of said genes.

[Uxupox]

Say it with me. There is no scientific evidence that correlates your human intelligence with human skin color.

Unless your skin color is blue. At that point one would image that you have 0 IQ since, well, you are dead.

Once again it must be said that no one, with the exception of the Black Israelites, believe Melanin by itself defines intelligence. What it does do, is correlate with the genetics of those who do have a higher intelligence as a result of said genes.

Genetics gets tricky though. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that it doesn't in fact one finds that they do play a role in determining "intelligence" in a human being, however, one must argue what is the definition being used here for "intelligence" itself.

[Oil exporting People]

There is no conclusive to suggest that it doesn't in fact one finds that they do play a role in determining "intelligence" in a human being,

Clarify this, if you will for me; I think you made a grammar error, but I want to make sure.

however, one must argue what is the definition being used here for "intelligence" itself.

General intelligence, or "g", which is the dominant view among Psychologists. As Howard Gardner, the propagator of the multiple intelligences theorem admits:

“MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background” This, he further states, is because they require “psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences.”

In effect, the entire basis of the claim has no evidence, according to it's own creator. Indeed, common sense would dictate this, as one can hardly have an aptitude for say Music without also having one for math.

[Uxupox]

There is no conclusive to suggest that it doesn't in fact one finds that they do play a role in determining "intelligence" in a human being,

Clarify this, if you will for me; I think you made a grammar error, but I want to make sure.

however, one must argue what is the definition being used here for "intelligence" itself.

General intelligence, or "g", which is the dominant view among Psychologists. As Howard Gardner, the propagator of the multiple intelligences theorem admits:

“MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background” This, he further states, is because they require “psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences.”

In effect, the entire basis of the claim has no evidence, according to it's own creator. Indeed, common sense would dictate this, as one can hardly have an aptitude for say Music without also having one for math.

fixed.

[Oil exporting People]

fixed.

Ah, okay so it was just a straight up MI argument; much appreciated for the clarification.

[Salandriagado]

There is no conclusive to suggest that it doesn't in fact one finds that they do play a role in determining "intelligence" in a human being,

Clarify this, if you will for me; I think you made a grammar error, but I want to make sure.

however, one must argue what is the definition being used here for "intelligence" itself.

General intelligence, or "g", which is the dominant view among Psychologists. As Howard Gardner, the propagator of the multiple intelligences theorem admits:

“MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background” This, he further states, is because they require “psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences.”

In effect, the entire basis of the claim has no evidence, according to it's own creator. Indeed, common sense would dictate this, as one can hardly have an aptitude for say Music without also having one for math.

One absolutely can have aptitudes for mathematics and music that vary wildly. Source: am mathematician. Am also tone deaf.

[HMS Barham]

You have not made an argument at all. You want me to buy you a journal subscription and then copy and paste all the text into the browser and then you will say it is all wrong because there is a decimal point in the wrong place. Meanwhile pretending to have no view on the issue of your own. What you are doing is textbook sealioning and warrants no response.

Funny thing you should mention sealioning. Let's just check that site you linked and see how it describes the phenomenon.

Of course, these questions are not asked because the person genuinely wants to know. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the "debate principle"; when you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure.

In this case, I genuinely do want to know what the data is behind the graph. I even did my own digging to try and find it, and now I'm asking for information that is difficult to discover. Perhaps you can't provide that data, but you take it a step further. You refuse to even acknowledge that the data is relevant, and that graph's sourcing of a study that cannot be found. And no, 1979-1992 is not the same as 1980-1990. At the very least there are three whole years of data unaccounted for. What's the term for misrepresenting data? Oh yes: intellectual dishonesty.

What I want is for you to back up your arguments. What I've got from you so far is an incomplete graph citing a non-existent study. I haven't made any arguments because I don't need to: you have nothing. All your excuses, all your claims that it's fine, that a y-axis isn't necessary, that we don't need to see the data only highlight your woeful understanding of scientific rigor. This isn't even about opinions of viewpoints. You may believe any graph that confirms your beliefs, but if I had tried to present your arguments in even a first year science class, I would have been laughed at and told to show my sources for the data and their methodology. Want to know why data is important? Consider this graph that is backed up by a reputable source and clearly shows how blacks have a higher average IQ than whites. Let's see you try and disprove it.

You found the study and then complained that you cannot access it to check that the data being plotted is really from that study. But you can access it: you just don't want to do the work or buy the subscription.

By the way, someone with any real interest in this topic might well consult the wikipedia page before going for the powerful "plotting 1980-1990 data from a 1979-1992 available range makes you a pseudoscientist" gambit. The first two sentences:

"The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. While tests have broadly shown differences in average scores based on self-identified race or ethnicity, there is considerable debate as to whether and to what extent those differences reflect environmental factors as opposed to genetic ones, as well as to the definitions of what "race" and "intelligence" are, and whether they can be objectively defined at all."

The existence of measured racial IQ gaps is not controversial. It is not "obscure or difficult to discover information". The approved centrist rebuttals are things like 1. denying intelligence exists or 2. denying that the differences are genetically caused or 3. stating that racial groups are socially constructed without explaining why that matters. I.e. the lines of attack outlined by wikipedia, and taken by every other centrist on this tread other than you.

You want a view on the issue? Here's one. Racists who try to back their opinions up with science always get the science wrong because they always start with the conclusion then try and work backwards to find the evidence. It's the opposite of how the scientific method works. They nitpick details, they nitpick sources, and they ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions. It's like watching Creationists citing geological studies to prove there really was a Great Flood, and Noah really did build an ark and save two of every animal.

Pretty much no one who will give you a scientific argument on this topic is a childhood racist trying to justify those views. Pretty much everyone capable of examining this data and making such an argument grew up in exactly the same middle/upper middle class egalitarian social milieu as you did.

By the way, now that you have outed yourself as having a view on the issue: prove that IQs do not differ between the races, with evidence.

[Aggicificicerous]

You found the study and then complained that you cannot access it to check that the data being plotted is really from that study. But you can access it: you just don't want to do the work or buy the subscription.

I already did the work: I did your job, found the basis for the graph you cited, and found that there is no survey taking place from 1980-1990. I would love to see the studies in full, but I'm no more keen on buying a subscription than you.

By the way, someone with any real interest in this topic might well consult the wikipedia page before going for the powerful "plotting 1980-1990 data from a 1979-1992 available range makes you a pseudoscientist" gambit.

I've never used the word 'pseudoscience' in this thread, but you've attributed it to me twice now.

The first two sentences:
"The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. While tests have broadly shown differences in average scores based on self-identified race or ethnicity, there is considerable debate as to whether and to what extent those differences reflect environmental factors as opposed to genetic ones, as well as to the definitions of what "race" and "intelligence" are, and whether they can be objectively defined at all."

The existence of measured racial IQ gaps is not controversial. It is not "obscure or difficult to discover information". The approved centrist rebuttals are things like 1. denying intelligence exists or 2. denying that the differences are genetically caused or 3. stating that racial groups are socially constructed without explaining why that matters. I.e. the lines of attack outlined by wikipedia, and taken by every other centrist on this tread other than you.

Sure. I never said anything to the contrary.

Also, don't call me a 'centrist'. You've a habit of distorting my position, and it's tiring.

Pretty much no one who will give you a scientific argument on this topic is a childhood racist trying to justify those views. Pretty much everyone capable of examining this data and making such an argument grew up in exactly the same middle/upper middle class egalitarian social milieu as you did.

Do you understand the concept of scope? I interjected in this thread to challenge a single graph. Not every piece of data that's been sourced; just one graph. You seem to have taken my challenge personally, as though I'm out to get you, and label you a 'pseudoscientist' (your word, not mine). I'm pointing out the graph is bullshit, not attacking you; whether or not you're a racist, the website that produced that graph has a blatantly racist agenda. I don't know why you're going to far to defend it, especially if there are as many proper studies out there as you're claiming. I'd suggest that in the future you stick to peer-reviewed studies.

By the way, now that you have outed yourself as having a view on the issue: prove that IQs do not differ between the races, with evidence.

?

See above.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Whole point of the IQ test is that it covers a persons Potential intelligence from an information-capacity-based perspective. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything beyond that, and quite honestly I think it is given way more credence than it deserves

[Somecoldwetislands]

Differences within races are much greater than the differences between them, so categorising race based on IQ is nonsense on stilts.

[Salandriagado]

Whole point of the IQ test is that it covers a persons Potential intelligence from an information-capacity-based perspective. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything beyond that, and quite honestly I think it is given way more credence than it deserves

It also doesn't work particularly well for doing that. It's a far better measure of, say, mathematical education than anything else.

[HMS Barham]

You found the study and then complained that you cannot access it to check that the data being plotted is really from that study. But you can access it: you just don't want to do the work or buy the subscription.

I already did the work: I did your job, found the basis for the graph you cited, and found that there is no survey taking place from 1980-1990.

On the contrary, you found there was a survey that took place from 1980-1990.

Pretty much no one who will give you a scientific argument on this topic is a childhood racist trying to justify those views. Pretty much everyone capable of examining this data and making such an argument grew up in exactly the same middle/upper middle class egalitarian social milieu as you did.

Do you understand the concept of scope? I interjected in this thread to challenge a single graph. Not every piece of data that's been sourced; just one graph. You seem to have taken my challenge personally

That is true; in your first post you did that and to your first post I made a narrow and specific response. In the paragraph to which I gave that reply, in a much later post, you made a general attack on scientific racists based primarily on character assassination. Even then, I did not take it personally, I merely pointed out that you are wrong to conflate blogster scientific racists with good ole boys living in their trailer parks in Alabama. As far as I am aware, and granting it's a largely anonymous pursuit, the overlap between them is practically nil.

By the way, now that you have outed yourself as having a view on the issue: prove that IQs do not differ between the races, with evidence.

?

See above.

You compared scientific racism to creationism. Either you are creationist or you believe scientific racism to be false; the tone of your post strongly suggested the latter.

[Oil exporting People]

One absolutely can have aptitudes for mathematics and music that vary wildly. Source: am mathematician. Am also tone deaf.

It need not translate into an actual ability with music, but the fact music and math share many similarities is well known.