Tabula rasa, or science denial of the left

[Frisbeeteria]

Recalibrate your crusade against racism accordingly.

Recalibrate your visits to this game. You're not welcome on this site, Nulla Bellum. Go away.

[Napkiraly]

The problem is that you're trying to narrow down multi-billion groups to simple statistics.

Is there going to be a difference between the average woman and man, or black and white person? Maybe. Maybe not.

But it does not change the fact that it's an average of many individuals, who do not have to compare to each other the same way groups do. For example, even if the average white person could play the guitar better than the average black man, I still would be unable to play a single chord of Purple Haze.

I don't think anyone has argued that, if genetics plays are large role in racial IQ gaps, that it means every single white person is smarter than every single black person.

[Napkiraly]

Translation: This expert opposes my unfounded bullshit so I'm going to smear him.

Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read authors of popular science of his generation.....
Gould was known by the general public mainly for his 300 popular essays in Natural History magazine,[6] and his numerous books written for both the specialist and non-specialist. In April 2000, the US Library of Congress named him a "Living Legend".[7]

Tbf it is actually a valid criticism of SJG (speaking as someone who doesn't mind his work) since he was openly ideological in regards to this topic (and others such as evolutionary psychology) and really only moderated his stance once people kept pointing out that he seemed to oppose it as an activist as opposed to a scientist.

[Ratateague]

Meh, disregarded.

[Chan Island]

*Reads title*

Oh good thing we're having this discussion! The Left's opposition to nuclear power, GMOs and the prevalence of anti-vaxxer feelings in these communities is a big pro-

*Reads the OP*

...blem.

*Reads the thread*

*Sigh*

Look, here's the thing. Even if all of the things you are saying were true (which they are not, as has been shown to you multiple times on this thread), real question to follow up is... so what? OK, so some people in XYZ demographic are less inclined on average to engage in TUV activity, now what? Are you going to discriminate against them?

Of course you'll say no to that one, but as has been discussed here, disadvantages and flaws in social environment can reverberate for generations, and as such of course you will see differences in things like IQ even decades after the fact.

So if you do say no though, then what are you trying to push? Opposition to affirmative action? Well, sorry, there is a lot people have already pointed out on this thread that shows that by doing that, you'll only magnify the privileges of those who are already privileged. Propagating stereotypes, perhaps? Which would harm those in the various ethnic and gender groups who don't conform, and frankly will only be bad for those who do. A crusade for science? Noble goal, but surely there are far better places to press on for that one. One that doesn't damage the standings of those who already are in a low position to begin with, if at all possible.

[Xmara]

IQ isn’t the best way to measure intelligence anyway.

[Napkiraly]

*Reads title*

Oh good thing we're having this discussion! The Left's opposition to nuclear power, GMOs and the prevalence of anti-vaxxer feelings in these communities is a big pro-

*Reads the OP*

...blem.

*Reads the thread*

*Sigh*

Look, here's the thing. Even if all of the things you are saying were true (which they are not, as has been shown to you multiple times on this thread), real question to follow up is... so what? OK, so some people in XYZ demographic are less inclined on average to engage in TUV activity, now what? Are you going to discriminate against them?

Of course you'll say no to that one, but as has been discussed here, disadvantages and flaws in social environment can reverberate for generations, and as such of course you will see differences in things like IQ even decades after the fact.

So if you do say no though, then what are you trying to push? Opposition to affirmative action? Well, sorry, there is a lot people have already pointed out on this thread that shows that by doing that, you'll only magnify the privileges of those who are already privileged. Propagating stereotypes, perhaps? Which would harm those in the various ethnic and gender groups who don't conform, and frankly will only be bad for those who do. A crusade for science? Noble goal, but surely there are far better places to press on for that one. One that doesn't damage the standings of those who already are in a low position to begin with, if at all possible.

I think the point that he is arguing is that there is hesitance of certain left-wing sorts to veer away from such research to begin with or to just automatically assume it's racist propaganda if it doesn't come back with the results they prefer as opposed to trying to justify racial hierarchies.

[Darussalam]

Because you're doing more than just acknowledging the existence of heredity. You're peddling racial pseudo-science using sources that genuinely are flawed and out of date.

There are people that do the same thing from the other side, using bad sources to claim, for example, that race has absolutely no correlation to biology rather than having only limited correlation. But that doesn't excuse you peddling racial pseudo-science. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have stated the problem quite clearly in the OP: that people insist evolution stops at the neck. Literally no one with a brain is disputing heredity of traits like skin color or lactose intolerance. That's not the problem of the left. The problem of the left is that they regard heredity of behavioral tendencies and cognitive ability as practically impossible and tantamount to racism, and not something to be discussed. They also regard differences in average between human subgroups as impossible and tantamount to racism, and not something to be discussed.

Why do I think it's a problem? Well, for one, none of things I said is "outdated". It's very convenient to think of James Watson as an old-fashioned racist who doesn't know a thing he's talking about, but... that's all there is. Convenient. The estimation of average African IQ is at least one standard deviation lower than average European IQ, maybe even lower. This is something that has been consistently replicated over time. Watson is right, his detractors are wrong.

Is "race" outdated? No, Montagu and Lewontin are. As an introduction, here's Jerry Coyne explaining races. Yes, humans can be biologically categorized into population clusters. No matter what genetic markers you choose: SNPs, STRs, no matter how you choose them: randomly or based on their "informativeness", it is relatively easy to classify DNA into the correct continental origin. Depending on the marker types (e.g., indel vs. microsatellite), and their informativeness (roughly the distribution differences between populations), one may require more or less markers to achieve a high degree of accuracy. But, the conclusion is the same: after a certain number of markers, you always succeed in classifying individuals according to continental origin. Here are a few quotes from studies above, and a few others:

Attention has recently focused on genetic structure in the human population. Some have argued that the amount of genetic variation within populations dwarfs the variation between populations, suggesting that discrete genetic categories are not useful (Lewontin 1972; Cooper et al. 2003; Haga and Venter 2003). On the other hand, several studies have shown that individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Stephens et al. 2001; Bamshad et al. 2003). Prior studies have generally been performed on a relatively small number of individuals and/or markers. A recent study (Rosenberg et al. 2002) examined 377 autosomal micro-satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sample of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. ... We have shown a nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE [self-reported ethnicity] for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.

Accurate characterization of ancestry is possible using small numbers of randomly selected SNPs. The results presented here show how investigators conducting genetic association studies can use small numbers of arbitrarily chosen SNPs to identify stratification in study subjects and avoid false positive genotype-phenotype associations. Our findings also demonstrate the extent of variation between continentally defined groups and argue strongly against the contention that genetic differences between groups are too small to have biomedical significance.

...Here we mine much larger datasets (more markers and more samples) to identify a panel of 300 highly ancestry-informative markers which accurately distinguish not just northwest and southeast European, but also Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. This panel of markers is likely to be useful in targeted disease studies involving European Americans.

A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic research. Some claim ‘no biological basis for race’ while others advocate a ‘race-neutral’ approach, using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity.

A major discussion has arisen recently regarding optimal strategies for categorizing humans, especially in the United States, for the purpose of biomedical research, both etiologic and pharmaceutical. Clearly it is important to know whether particular individuals within the population are more susceptible to particular diseases or most likely to benefit from certain therapeutic interventions. The focus of the dialogue has been the relative merit of the concept of ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’, especially from the genetic perspective. For example, a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1] claimed that “race is biologically meaningless” and warned that “instruction in medical genetics should emphasize the fallacy of race as a scientific concept and the dangers inherent in practicing race-based medicine.” In support of this perspective, a recent article in Nature Genetics [2] purported to find that “commonly used ethnic labels are both insufficient and inaccurate representations of inferred genetic clusters.” Furthermore, a supporting editorial in the same issue [3] concluded that “population clusters identified by genotype analysis seem to be more informative than those identified by skin color or self-declaration of ‘race’.” These conclusions seem consistent with the claim that “there is no biological basis for ‘race'” [3] and that “the myth of major genetic differences across ‘races’ is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence” [4]. Of course, the use of the term “major” leaves the door open for possible differences but a priori limits any potential significance of such differences.

In our view, much of this discussion does not derive from an objective scientific perspective. This is understandable, given both historic and current inequities based on perceived racial or ethnic identities, both in the US and around the world, and the resulting sensitivities in such debates. Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view.

...The distance measure is a measure of the distance in standard deviations from a sample to the center of the closest matching population.

...For the other HapMap populations, the classification procedure assigned 100% of the YRI [Yoruban = Nigerian] samples to France, and almost 100% of the CHB and JPT [Chinese and Japanese] samples to Russia. However, the distribution of the distance measure for the four populations was quite different. For the CEU [HapMap European] samples, the median and 95% CI of the distance measure were 0.41 (0.11–1.01), whereas for the YRI, CHB and JPT populations, the median and 95% CIs were 19.3 (18.0–20.6), 17.7 (15.9–19.3) and 18.0 (15.4–19.6), respectively.

...The Yoruban [Nigerian] and Asian samples were identified as belonging to the countries on the south and east edges, respectively, of the European cluster, and the distance measure clearly indicates that they do not fit well into any of the proposed populations. ...

Ostensibly, the answer to these questions can be found in Collins's paper, for he cites evidence to support his claim: a population genetics study conducted by Noah Rosenberg and his team of researchers that was published in Science in December 2002. Drawing on samples from the Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel, (8) these researchers investigated the 'correspondence of predefined groups with those inferred from individual multilocus genotypes'. (9) They used a complex computer algorithm to sort 1,064 genome samples, from fifty-two different populations, on the basis of 4,199 different alleles, at 377 highly variable 'junk-DNA' loci, into varying numbers of statistically significant genetic clusters, and then compared the clusters with the geographical origins of the populations from which they were drawn. Put simply, they took the labels off the samples and tried to see if the computer could sort them back into meaningful groups based solely on their genetic similarities.

They found that 'predefined labels' (such as 'Yoruba', 'Italian' or 'Japanese') were 'highly informative about membership in genetic clusters'. (10) Further, when asked to identify five clusters, the computer grouped the samples into sets roughly corresponding to five geographical regions: (i) sub-Saharan Africa, (ii) Europe and West Asia, (iii) East Asia, (iv) Oceania, and (v) the Americas (see the row marked 'K=5' in Figure 1 below for a graphical representation of these clusters). Curiously, these regions are roughly geographically concordant to those occupied by the 'black', 'white', 'yellow', 'tawny' and 'copper-coloured' 'varieties' outlined in Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's seminal eighteenth-century racial typology. (11)

So, with that being established, what are further objections?

Let's talk about a trait: height. We could of course measure average height of population clusters. Swedes, on average, are taller than Koreans. Sure, the range of heights within each group is larger than the difference in the averages. Nevertheless, at the tails of the distribution one would find very large discrepancies - this is standard statistics, and the key foundation of the Bell Curve. So this is also applicable for intelligence. Thinking about height is also relevant to how you should actually react to group differences - I don't think it's controversial to say that Europeans are on average taller than Asians, and yet some Asians are taller than some Europeans, and yet most tallest people in general are Europeans, and that speaks nothing about superiority and inferiority of anyone. How about thinking intelligence as the same thing?

IQ is not "outdated". Snyderman and Rothman have demonstrated that mainstream media report, that "intelligence cannot be defined" shtick, generally differed with mainstream scholarly opinion. American Psychological Association has a consensus statement on intelligence research, which is by no means invalid. Economists have been aware that national IQ is predictive of national wealth. To be precise, what is important is the g factor, the constant correlation one finds in every abilities measured in IQ. IQ matters for a lot of things.

Numerous research have indicated that racial disparity in IQ is predominantly heritable. Adoption studies consistently fail to show that black IQ improves upon adoption, which makes these factors: neighborhood, parental upbringing, nutrition, shared environment etc. fail to explain IQ disparity. Further studies established that IQ is quite robustly heritable. Let me quote from the studies in question:

We conclude that the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that in intelligence, brain size, and other life history traits, East Asians average higher than do Europeans who average higher do South Asians, African Americans, or sub-Saharan Africans. The group differences are between 50 and 80% heritable.

We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ∼1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

Accurate understanding of environmental moderation of genetic influences is vital to advancing the science of cognitive development as well as for designing interventions. One widely reported idea is increasing genetic influence on cognition for children raised in higher socioeconomic status (SES) families, including recent proposals that the pattern is a particularly US phenomenon. We used matched birth and school records from Florida siblings and twins born in 1994–2002 to provide the largest, most population-diverse consideration of this hypothesis to date. We found no evidence of SES moderation of genetic influence on test scores, suggesting that articulating gene-environment interactions for cognition is more complex and elusive than previously supposed.

So what is being outdated, again, exactly?

Hell, let's talk about genuinely outdated things. As in, Morton-outdated, measuring skulls to predict intelligence. Gould attacked it in his Mismeasure of Man. Turns out Gould actually manipulated the data, and indeed more recent researchs have indicated that skull size correlated with intelligence, although not very strongly, and brain size correlates with intelligence even stronger.

So... craniology. Even craniology, for all its flaws, is apparently less bunk than modern Gouldianism. What does that say about Gouldianism?

And that's why I said that the left needs to stop being allergic to biology. Because biology has likelihood of being right. If leftism absolutely requires human biological egalitarianism for it to survive, then leftism is bunk. But even the Catholic Church adapted to evolution eventually.

[Vassenor]

Oh Christ, are we actually trying to shill phrenology as legitimate science again?

[Darussalam]

Oh Christ, are we actually trying to shill phrenology as legitimate science again?

Genuine, non-rhetorical question: can you read?

[Vassenor]

Oh Christ, are we actually trying to shill phrenology as legitimate science again?

Genuine, non-rhetorical question: can you read?

Yes, I can.

[Vince Vaughn]

Genuine, non-rhetorical question: can you read?

Yes, I can.

Let's see some hustle.

[Darussalam]

Genuine, non-rhetorical question: can you read?

Yes, I can.

Second non-rhetorical question: have you read the links given? Hell, just one - the one you just kneejerked on, the link on Gould.

Third non-rhetorical question: what do you think about it?

[Vassenor]

Yes, I can.

Second non-rhetorical question: have you read the links given? Hell, just one - the one you just kneejerked on, the link on Gould.

Third non-rhetorical question: what do you think about it?

What do I think about you trying to shill a debunked pseudoscience that repeatedly gets co-opted by racists to "prove" that other ethnic groups are underdeveloped from an evolutionary perspective compared to white people?

[Goldenson]

Most everything deserves to be belittled or mocked. At the very essence of doing that, is the precept that we must question things; ask questions, test, verify. If something is destroyed by questioning then it wasn't worthy in the first place, if it is fortified or sustained, it is worth further questioning, even if that means enduring belittlement or mockery. I believe that God created the heaven and earth. Why? Thanks for asking. Because I have witnessed healings in Jesus' name, received the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues, and have received blessings that would have been temporally impossible without divine interaction. These past and present points of personal evidence factor into my faith. I have an evidence-based faith. I then postulate from that evidence to verify the claims from the past. There's a lot of history and archaeology that can help prove the Bible.

My final point is that science helped me truly find God and make my blind faith into an evidence-based one. And also, that every theory deserves belittlement and mockery, because that's how we get closer to truth.

Thank you,
Ashael Judah

[Darussalam]

Second non-rhetorical question: have you read the links given? Hell, just one - the one you just kneejerked on, the link on Gould.

Third non-rhetorical question: what do you think about it?

What do I think about you trying to shill a debunked pseudoscience that repeatedly gets co-opted by racists to "prove" that other ethnic groups are underdeveloped from an evolutionary perspective compared to white people?

Have you actually read what I have actually written?

Hell, let's talk about genuinely outdated things. As in, Morton-outdated, measuring skulls to predict intelligence. Gould attacked it in his Mismeasure of Man. Turns out Gould actually manipulated the data, and indeed more recent researchs have indicated that skull size correlated with intelligence, although not very strongly, and brain size correlates with intelligence even stronger.

So... craniology. Even craniology, for all its flaws, is apparently less bunk than modern Gouldianism. What does that say about Gouldianism?

And that's why I said that the left needs to stop being allergic to biology. Because biology has likelihood of being right. If leftism absolutely requires human biological egalitarianism for it to survive, then leftism is bunk. But even the Catholic Church adapted to evolution eventually.

I called craniology genuinely outdated thing. And yet it still has more predictive use than Gouldianism, that is, blank-slate egalitarianism. Do you agree that Gould manipulated the craniology data to point out that it's false, or not?

And what do you think about the rest of things I have written? Let me guess - you scrolled it dismissively, scoffing "racist".

[Bombadil]

The difference between the brain and height is plasticity, the ability of the brain to change and adapt given environment. What exactly do we think intelligence is.. the speed at which neutrons fire, the interconnection between different functions of the brain.. given plasticity then it becomes very hard to determine genetic statics within the brain as compared to height.

Even height is determined by environment, early nutrition etc., but it does not alter throughout life in the same manner the brain can.

It can't be size of brain, or shape of brain, it's not a height or strength thing.. the brain is a relatively distinct organ in its make up.

One can sure argue intelligence is the ability to work through a problem but the very recognition of a problem can be very culturally based that has little to do with brain performance. In viewing an image of fish westerners tend to focus on individual fish whereas Asians tend to focus on the grouping of fish.. that is not a function of brain difference but cultural difference. The cultural difference might be expressed in brain difference but plasticity allows for flexibility in that.

It's hard to create an intelligence test that averages and accounts for cultural differences.

So look, if you want to put things in categories then of course you're going to get numbers 1 through whatever, it's a function of the categorisation. It has very little real implications in regards to race and intelligence. It's not the same, for example, as noting height outliers and averages in populations.

[Darussalam]

Look, here's the thing. Even if all of the things you are saying were true (which they are not, as has been shown to you multiple times on this thread),

No, it has not been. See here for the details.

real question to follow up is... so what? OK, so some people in XYZ demographic are less inclined on average to engage in TUV activity, now what? Are you going to discriminate against them?

No, I would prefer that people stop attribute problems as caused by things that aren't there. Most of the things that people attribute to "structural oppression" can be explained almost entirely by biology.

You seem to be under impression that I am using this to justify state discrimination against the underprivileged. On the contrary, I am using this to oppose state discrimination against the "overprivileged". Blank slate does not have neutral policy implications in the real world. The implication of blank slate is that many people are being actively undermined by the privileged to succeed, and therefore they need to strike back against the privileged. It's probably true that just because people are different doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat everyone equally before the law. But it's also true that because people are different, we should expect different outcomes in non-discriminatory setting. Many in the left, meanwhile, expect same results across groups and found otherwise, and suspect discrimination.

The difference between the brain and height is plasticity, the ability of the brain to change and adapt given environment. What exactly do we think intelligence is.. the speed at which neutrons fire, the interconnection between different functions of the brain.. given plasticity then it becomes very hard to determine genetic statics within the brain as compared to height.

Even height is determined by environment, early nutrition etc., but it does not alter throughout life in the same manner the brain can.

It can't be size of brain, or shape of brain, it's not a height or strength thing.. the brain is a relatively distinct organ in its make up.

One can sure argue intelligence is the ability to work through a problem but the very recognition of a problem can be very culturally based that has little to do with brain performance. In viewing an image of fish westerners tend to focus on individual fish whereas Asians tend to focus on the grouping of fish.. that is not a function of brain difference but cultural difference. The cultural difference might be expressed in brain difference but plasticity allows for flexibility in that.

It's hard to create an intelligence test that averages and accounts for cultural differences.

So look, if you want to put things in categories then of course you're going to get numbers 1 through whatever, it's a function of the categorisation. It has very little real implications in regards to race and intelligence. It's not the same, for example, as noting height outliers and averages in populations.

...Have you read the paragraphs afterwards? If you have, do you think it's not sufficient, the experts are wrong, and that I should demonstrate more evidences for why intelligence is something that could be defined and measurable?

[Genivaria]

"Why did Europeans do so much better then Africans? Because they're racially superior!"
"Or because Europe won the geography lottery and has both tons of natural resources for industry as well as a climate to encourage urbanization?"
Sub-Saharan Africa not so much.

Europe has no national resources, what?

Much less than the Chinese, Australasians and Native Americans did anyway.

That is literally the opposite of what I just said.

[Bombadil]

Look, here's the thing. Even if all of the things you are saying were true (which they are not, as has been shown to you multiple times on this thread),

No, it has not been. See here for the details.

real question to follow up is... so what? OK, so some people in XYZ demographic are less inclined on average to engage in TUV activity, now what? Are you going to discriminate against them?

No, I would prefer that people stop attribute problems as caused by things that aren't there. Most of the things that people attribute to "structural oppression" can be explained almost entirely by biology.

You seem to be under impression that I am using this to justify state discrimination against the underprivileged. On the contrary, I am using this to oppose state discrimination against the "overprivileged". Blank slate does not have neutral policy implications in the real world. The implication of blank slate is that many people are being actively undermined by the privileged to succeed, and therefore they need to strike back against the privileged. It's probably true that just because people are different doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat everyone equally before the law. But it's also true that because people are different, we should expect different outcomes in non-discriminatory setting. Many in the left, meanwhile, expect same results across groups and found otherwise, and suspect discrimination.

The difference between the brain and height is plasticity, the ability of the brain to change and adapt given environment. What exactly do we think intelligence is.. the speed at which neutrons fire, the interconnection between different functions of the brain.. given plasticity then it becomes very hard to determine genetic statics within the brain as compared to height.

Even height is determined by environment, early nutrition etc., but it does not alter throughout life in the same manner the brain can.

It can't be size of brain, or shape of brain, it's not a height or strength thing.. the brain is a relatively distinct organ in its make up.

One can sure argue intelligence is the ability to work through a problem but the very recognition of a problem can be very culturally based that has little to do with brain performance. In viewing an image of fish westerners tend to focus on individual fish whereas Asians tend to focus on the grouping of fish.. that is not a function of brain difference but cultural difference. The cultural difference might be expressed in brain difference but plasticity allows for flexibility in that.

It's hard to create an intelligence test that averages and accounts for cultural differences.

So look, if you want to put things in categories then of course you're going to get numbers 1 through whatever, it's a function of the categorisation. It has very little real implications in regards to race and intelligence. It's not the same, for example, as noting height outliers and averages in populations.

...Have you read the paragraphs afterwards? If you have, do you think it's not sufficient, the experts are wrong, and that I should demonstrate more evidences for why intelligence is something that could be defined and measurable?

What.. this bit?

Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). Such disagreements are not cause for dismay. Scientific research rarely begins with fully agreed definitions, though it may eventually lead to them.

[Darussalam]

What.. this bit?

Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). Such disagreements are not cause for dismay. Scientific research rarely begins with fully agreed definitions, though it may eventually lead to them.

I have a simple request. Could you please argue with honesty, and not intentionally omitting the numerous sources I have given in favor of a wikipedia description?

Literally in the next paragraph to the one you quoted, I gave this:

IQ is not "outdated". Snyderman and Rothman have demonstrated that mainstream media report, that "intelligence cannot be defined" shtick, generally differed with mainstream scholarly opinion. American Psychological Association has a consensus statement on intelligence research, which is by no means invalid. Economists have been aware that national IQ is predictive of national wealth. To be precise, what is important is the g factor, the constant correlation one finds in every abilities measured in IQ. IQ matters for a lot of things.

The assertion of widespread chaos within science over intelligence is false. The statement that there are a number of theoretical differences about the concept of intelligence is only trivially true. In the practical context of research, provisional understanding, and 'normal science' this is rhetorically equivalent to underlining evolution as "only a theory" in media reports. Intelligence as a working scientific research concept and tool is both widespread (as a search for terms such as 'IQ', 'Intelligence' or 'cognitive ability' on PubMed, Google Scholar, or similar publication databases will show), and broadly consistent in approaches and shared theory, methods, premises, and data.

I don't mind disagreements, but I think from a neutral, objective perspective anyone can see that this is not debating in a good faith. You can, for example, start by addressing the points I have given. Or if you think racists are inferior people who are of course stupid and don't know anything, you are more than free to disengage.

Or, if you want more sources, just tell me so.

Taken from [url=openpsych.net/forum/attachment.php?aid=600]Panizzon et al., 2014[/url]. The paper informs us that ability on a wide range of mental tasks will all tend to correlate with one another. There is great degree of individual variation in these, but a central pattern does emerge when you look at large numbers of people. It is from this that the g factor emerges.

[Crysuko]

No. Identity politics divide, solidarity binds. if we spend our time quibbling over pointless minutia such as "blank slate egalitarianism" then we'll never get anything useful done. hey the left may not have any useful power but at least we can taek the moral fecking high ground, job well done.

[Bombadil]

What.. this bit?

Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). Such disagreements are not cause for dismay. Scientific research rarely begins with fully agreed definitions, though it may eventually lead to them.

I have a simple request. Could you please argue with honesty, and not intentionally omitting the numerous sources I have given in favor of a wikipedia description?

I took it from the link you provided: http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm - which is an article from American Psychologist as opposed to how you linked it as American Psychological Association - so you're kind of misrepresenting on two levels there..

It was the more in-depth look of the multiple sources you chose.. but the point is the fact remains there is no real consensus on what the definition of intelligence is so any individual study citing they have an answer is another definition.

I don't mind disagreements, but I think from a neutral, objective perspective anyone can see that this is not debating in a good faith.

Well quite..

I asked you before, what do you think determines intelligence? Neuron connectivity, interconnection, brain size, problem solving.. what?

Even reading through other links in detail I don't think you're fully reading through and understanding what they're saying..

For example in one it's in no way saying IQ is inherently worse in any particular country but that educations standards, which can be correlated to IQ tests, are worse and raising those standards will create a more prosperous future. It's nothing about inherent IQ bars but using IQ as a measurement of education standards in general.

Or the above, box folding abilities.. how do you equal that across cultures.

My mother had a lodger, a Cambridge graduate, who could not make instant coffee. She wasn't stupid, she'd just never made coffee before in her life, never used a kettle, didn't get any ratio of milk, powder and sugar - I don't think you understand how the brain works in that you need prior cultural context in problem solving. If boxes are not part of your childhood then box folding will seem very abstract as a problem to you.

[Darussalam]

I have a simple request. Could you please argue with honesty, and not intentionally omitting the numerous sources I have given in favor of a wikipedia description?

I took it from the link you provided: http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm - which is an article from American Psychologist as opposed to how you linked it as American Psychological Association - so you're kind of misrepresenting on two levels there..

It was the more in-depth look of the multiple sources you chose.. but the point is the fact remains there is no real consensus on what the definition of intelligence is so any individual study citing they have an answer is another definition.

I asked you before, what do you think determines intelligence? Neuron connectivity, interconnection, brain size, problem solving.. what?

Then you would have read the summary and conclusion.

"Because there are many ways to be intelligent, there are also many conceptualizations of intelligence. The most influential approach, and the one that has generated the most systematic research, is based on psychometric testing. This tradition has produced a substantial body of knowledge, though many questions remain unanswered. We know much less about the forms of intelligence that tests do not easily assess: wisdom, creativity, practical knowledge, social skill, and the like.

Psychometricians have successfully measured a wide range of abilities, distinct from one another and yet intercorrelated. The complex relations among those abilities can be described in many ways. Some theorists focus on the variance that all such abilities have in common, which Spearman termed g ("general intelligence"); others prefer to describe the same manifold with a set of partially independent factors; still others opt for a muitifactorial description with factors hierarchically arranged and something like g at the top. Standardized intelligence test scores ("IQs"), which reflect a person's standing in relation to his or her age cohort, are based on tests that tap a number of different abilities. Recent studies have found that these scores are also correlated with information processing speed in certain experimental paradigms (choice reaction time, inspection time, evoked brain potentials, etc.), but the meaning of those correlations is far from clear.

Intelligence test scores predict individual differences in school achievement moderately well, correlating about .50 with grade point average and .55 with the number of years of education that individuals complete. In this context the skills measured by tests are clearly important. Nevertheless, population levels of school achievement are not determined solely or even primarily by intelligence or any other individual difference variable. The fact that children in Japan and Taiwan learn much more math than their peers in America, for example, can be attributed primarily to differences in culture and schooling rather than in abilities measured by intelligence tests.

Test scores also correlate with measures of accomplishment outside of school, e.g. with adult occupational status. To some extent those correlations result directly from the tests' link with school achievement and from their roles as "gatekeepers." In the United States today, high test scores and grades are prerequisites for entry into many careers and professions. This is not quite the whole story, however: a significant correlation between psychometric intelligence and occupational status remains even when measures of education and family background have been statistically controlled. There are also modest (negative) correlations between intelligence test scores and certain undesirable behaviors such as juvenile crime. Those correlations are necessarily low: all social outcomes result from complex causal webs in which psychometric skills are only one factor.

Also, it's right at the title,
"Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the
American Psychological Association"

[Bombadil]

I took it from the link you provided: http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm - which is an article from American Psychologist as opposed to how you linked it as American Psychological Association - so you're kind of misrepresenting on two levels there..

It was the more in-depth look of the multiple sources you chose.. but the point is the fact remains there is no real consensus on what the definition of intelligence is so any individual study citing they have an answer is another definition.

I asked you before, what do you think determines intelligence? Neuron connectivity, interconnection, brain size, problem solving.. what?

Then you would have read the summary and conclusion.

"Because there are many ways to be intelligent, there are also many conceptualizations of intelligence. The most influential approach, and the one that has generated the most systematic research, is based on psychometric testing. This tradition has produced a substantial body of knowledge, though many questions remain unanswered. We know much less about the forms of intelligence that tests do not easily assess: wisdom, creativity, practical knowledge, social skill, and the like.

Psychometricians have successfully measured a wide range of abilities, distinct from one another and yet intercorrelated. The complex relations among those abilities can be described in many ways. Some theorists focus on the variance that all such abilities have in common, which Spearman termed g ("general intelligence"); others prefer to describe the same manifold with a set of partially independent factors; still others opt for a muitifactorial description with factors hierarchically arranged and something like g at the top. Standardized intelligence test scores ("IQs"), which reflect a person's standing in relation to his or her age cohort, are based on tests that tap a number of different abilities. Recent studies have found that these scores are also correlated with information processing speed in certain experimental paradigms (choice reaction time, inspection time, evoked brain potentials, etc.), but the meaning of those correlations is far from clear.

Intelligence test scores predict individual differences in school achievement moderately well, correlating about .50 with grade point average and .55 with the number of years of education that individuals complete. In this context the skills measured by tests are clearly important. Nevertheless, population levels of school achievement are not determined solely or even primarily by intelligence or any other individual difference variable. The fact that children in Japan and Taiwan learn much more math than their peers in America, for example, can be attributed primarily to differences in culture and schooling rather than in abilities measured by intelligence tests.

Test scores also correlate with measures of accomplishment outside of school, e.g. with adult occupational status. To some extent those correlations result directly from the tests' link with school achievement and from their roles as "gatekeepers." In the United States today, high test scores and grades are prerequisites for entry into many careers and professions. This is not quite the whole story, however: a significant correlation between psychometric intelligence and occupational status remains even when measures of education and family background have been statistically controlled. There are also modest (negative) correlations between intelligence test scores and certain undesirable behaviors such as juvenile crime. Those correlations are necessarily low: all social outcomes result from complex causal webs in which psychometric skills are only one factor.

Also, it's right at the title,
"Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the
American Psychological Association"

Jesus.. read the whole paragraph rather than bolding a line that doesn't even say what you think it does.

"Because there are many ways to be intelligent, there are also many conceptualizations of intelligence. The most influential approach, and the one that has generated the most systematic research, is based on psychometric testing. This tradition has produced a substantial body of knowledge, though many questions remain unanswered. We know much less about the forms of intelligence that tests do not easily assess: wisdom, creativity, practical knowledge, social skill, and the like.

What it's saying is that one approach has allowed for systemic research and results and a degree of knowledge dependent on that approach despite there being a vast range of unanswered questions.

It's like saying moon landings have given us the most physical information of space compared to other forms of exploration but we still know very little about the physical nature of all space.