Slate.com on race and IQ [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

yukoncpa

11-24-2007, 04:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nice, but let's take it a bit further.

Imagine there are two groups with a billion people each. One group has 10,000,000 people with IQs above 130. The other group has 100,000 people with IQs above 130. Does the subject become relevant?

Now go to 150. One group has 1,000,000 people with IQs above 150. The other group has 1000 people with IQs above 150. Relevant?

Go the other way. One group has 500 million people with IQs below 75. The other group has 20 million people with IQs below 75. Relevant?

Nice, but let's take it a bit further.

Imagine there are two groups with a billion people each. One group has 10,000,000 people with IQs above 130. The other group has 100,000 people with IQs above 130. Does the subject become relevant?

Now go to 150. One group has 1,000,000 people with IQs above 150. The other group has 1000 people with IQs above 150. Relevant?

Go the other way. One group has 500 million people with IQs below 75. The other group has 20 million people with IQs below 75. Relevant?

If I was to put these two groups in identical starting conditions at the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, what do you think their respective societies, technologies, literature & philosophies would look like today?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would expect the high IQ folks to be more technologically advanced then the lower IQ folks, but I could be wrong. Are you suggesting that American Indians, who are genetically the same as Asians, must be genetically inferior IQ wise to the rest of the civilized world because they were easily conquered by Europeans and in the 1500's on forward to modern times didn’t have the literary and technological advances of the Europeans?

Subfallen

11-24-2007, 04:29 AM

0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes.

Still waiting for why this isn't statistically significant.

SNOWBALL

11-24-2007, 04:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This subject might be relevant if there was a significant difference between an IQ of 95 and 115.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not significant at all really, just double the difference between average Jew and non-Jewish white.

Also, the effect of a mean difference becomes more pronounced as you move away from the mean (in both directions).

[/ QUOTE ]

according to this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations), average Israeli IQ is below that of many european nations. Is the book inaccurate? Where is your data from?

yukoncpa

11-24-2007, 04:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
according to this book, average Israeli IQ is below that of many european nations. Is the book inaccurate? Where is your data from?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he's getting his information from here: Attempted world-wide compilations by Herrnstein and Murray, authors of The Bell Curve, Richard Lynn and Rushton of average IQ by race generally place Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians at the top

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence)

Although my reasoning for posting here is really not to refute Snowball, but rather to give my self an excuse to compliment him on his location: “Where the citizens kneel for sex.” This is a location that I constantly strive for and I compliment Snowball in his success.

Taraz

11-24-2007, 07:38 AM

Here we go again . . .

Most of the work that is cited in that Slate article has been shown to be flawed methodologically.

To sum up the argument that has been made on this issue several times:

- What IQ tests measure and what the general intelligence factor (g) means is highly debated

- There is probably some genetic component to intelligence

- Environmental factors >>>>>>> Genetic factors

- The evidence that the IQ difference between races is genetic is tenuous at best

InTheDark

11-24-2007, 09:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the work that is cited in that Slate article has been shown to be flawed methodologically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn near every bit of social science has warts or worse. Some is fraudulent, some skewed by agenda. Some is withheld since it doesn't confirm (or rejects) the beloved PC hypothesis, as in the recent revelations regarding Robert Putman.

So when I look at any race/IQ research from the last 40 years I assume there exists pressure to conform, as academia rewards the small players when they do. I think that older research might sometimes include a racist taint as well. But so many trends have occured over and over, a critically thinking observer is going to reach similar conclusions to Saletan.

Fly

11-24-2007, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This subject might be relevant if there was a significant difference between an IQ of 95 and 115.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not significant at all really, just double the difference between average Jew and non-Jewish white.

Also, the effect of a mean difference becomes more pronounced as you move away from the mean (in both directions).

[/ QUOTE ]

according to this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations), average Israeli IQ is below that of many european nations. Is the book inaccurate? Where is your data from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have specified Ashkenazi Jews. Israel has huge numbers of Arabs and non-Ashkenazi Jews. Most Jews in western countries are Ashkenazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

I generally don't like to cite wiki for this type of stuff but I don't feel like surfing the web to find more reliable stuff, you can do that on your own time if you are interested.

Daddys_Visa

11-24-2007, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This subject might be relevant if there was a significant difference between an IQ of 95 and 115.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not significant at all really, just double the difference between average Jew and non-Jewish white.

Also, the effect of a mean difference becomes more pronounced as you move away from the mean (in both directions).

[/ QUOTE ]

according to this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations), average Israeli IQ is below that of many european nations. Is the book inaccurate? Where is your data from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have specified Ashkenazi Jews. Israel has huge numbers of Arabs and non-Ashkenazi Jews. Most Jews in western countries are Ashkenazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

I generally don't like to cite wiki for this type of stuff but I don't feel like surfing the web to find more reliable stuff, you can do that on your own time if you are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ashkenazi Jews may be statistical outliers because they have one of the strongest founder effects of any population out there. Their gene pool is so small they are the basis for many studies on rare genetic conditions.

Inbreeding FTW imo.

West

11-24-2007, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the work that is cited in that Slate article has been shown to be flawed methodologically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn near every bit of social science has warts or worse. Some is fraudulent, some skewed by agenda. Some is withheld since it doesn't confirm (or rejects) the beloved PC hypothesis, as in the recent revelations regarding Robert Putman.

So when I look at any race/IQ research from the last 40 years I assume there exists pressure to conform, as academia rewards the small players when they do. I think that older research might sometimes include a racist taint as well. But so many trends have occured over and over, a critically thinking observer is going to reach similar conclusions to Saletan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Afraid not. You should read that earlier link (http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_saletans_scandalous_source) and move on from there. This (http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html) link is not specifically about the precise paper referenced by Saletan, but you should see the relevance.

More (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/541.html) , more (http://radicalnegative.blogspot.com/2007/11/j-rushton-arthur-jensen-and-william.html) , more (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/11/surgin-with-bill-saletan.html)

Might want to check this out (Caste) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Caste)

Another perspective (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-and-iq/)

SBR

11-24-2007, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes.

Still waiting for why this isn't statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are examining the wrong population.

JammyDodga

11-24-2007, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This subject might be relevant if there was a significant difference between an IQ of 95 and 115.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice, but let's take it a bit further.

Imagine there are two groups with a billion people each. One group has 10,000,000 people with IQs above 130. The other group has 100,000 people with IQs above 130. Does the subject become relevant?

Now go to 150. One group has 1,000,000 people with IQs above 150. The other group has 1000 people with IQs above 150. Relevant?

Go the other way. One group has 500 million people with IQs below 75. The other group has 20 million people with IQs below 75. Relevant?

If I was to put these two groups in identical starting conditions at the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, what do you think their respective societies, technologies, literature & philosophies would look like today?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read a book called guns germs and steal, I think you'd like it. Would give you a better picture of human history too, and realise that there was a lot more important stuff than race going on.

West

11-24-2007, 07:42 PM

another good one

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/race_science.php

InTheDark

11-24-2007, 07:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This subject might be relevant if there was a significant difference between an IQ of 95 and 115.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice, but let's take it a bit further.

Imagine there are two groups with a billion people each. One group has 10,000,000 people with IQs above 130. The other group has 100,000 people with IQs above 130. Does the subject become relevant?

Now go to 150. One group has 1,000,000 people with IQs above 150. The other group has 1000 people with IQs above 150. Relevant?

Go the other way. One group has 500 million people with IQs below 75. The other group has 20 million people with IQs below 75. Relevant?

If I was to put these two groups in identical starting conditions at the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, what do you think their respective societies, technologies, literature & philosophies would look like today?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read a book called guns germs and steal, I think you'd like it. Would give you a better picture of human history too, and realise that there was a lot more important stuff than race going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read 'Steal This Book' and 'Guns, Germs and Steel' but not the above.

Diamond lays out a multi-hundred page alibi concocted of just so stories to get from his PC hypothesis to his PC conclusion. I find every motive of his suspect and obvious if one is to read only the introduction. I want that portion of my life wasted reading it refunded.

InTheDark

11-24-2007, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the work that is cited in that Slate article has been shown to be flawed methodologically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn near every bit of social science has warts or worse. Some is fraudulent, some skewed by agenda. Some is withheld since it doesn't confirm (or rejects) the beloved PC hypothesis, as in the recent revelations regarding Robert Putman.

So when I look at any race/IQ research from the last 40 years I assume there exists pressure to conform, as academia rewards the small players when they do. I think that older research might sometimes include a racist taint as well. But so many trends have occured over and over, a critically thinking observer is going to reach similar conclusions to Saletan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Afraid not. You should read that earlier link (http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_saletans_scandalous_source) and move on from there. This (http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html) link is not specifically about the precise paper referenced by Saletan, but you should see the relevance.

More (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/541.html) , more (http://radicalnegative.blogspot.com/2007/11/j-rushton-arthur-jensen-and-william.html) , more (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/11/surgin-with-bill-saletan.html)

Might want to check this out (Caste) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Caste)

Another perspective (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-and-iq/)

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that this is an intellectual shooting war. The concept of a black/white intelligence difference wasn't even argued in the negative until maybe 50 years ago.

Good news for your side. IQ is being deconstructed. Race is being deconstructed. All associated discussion is nearly a firing offense. Bravo.

Taraz

11-24-2007, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You do understand that this is an intellectual shooting war. The concept of a black/white intelligence difference wasn't even argued in the negative until maybe 50 years ago.

Good news for your side. IQ is being deconstructed. Race is being deconstructed. All associated discussion is nearly a firing offense. Bravo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why people think that it is so much of a taboo to talk about these things. Obviously a lot of work in this area is being published and discussed.

Obviously whenever someone claims to have proof that one race is "better" than another in some sense or another people are skeptical of their motives. Historically speaking there is good reason for this since we have a long history of prejudice and racism.

There is also a reason that race and IQ are being deconstructed. Namely, the fact that neither of them are accurate measures of what we commonly think they are.

Subfallen

11-24-2007, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes.

Still waiting for why this isn't statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are examining the wrong population.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean that I should be examining the academic elite, but that merely reframes the question. 0.2% of the population, 25+% of the academic elite.

Why?

Splendour

11-24-2007, 09:08 PM

hmmm...seems I've heard this somewhere's else before...

InTheDark

11-24-2007, 09:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why people think that it is so much of a taboo to talk about these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you cloistered? Larry Summers took a boot up the ass for saying only the mildest of unPC heresy. Academia is unforgiving and dogmatic in the extreme.

Subfallen

11-24-2007, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
hmmm...seems I've heard this somewhere's else before...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not Jewish, fwiw ( /images/graemlins/frown.gif ), I just fail to see why these statistics don't astound anyone but me.

tame_deuces

11-24-2007, 10:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here we go again . . .

Most of the work that is cited in that Slate article has been shown to be flawed methodologically.

To sum up the argument that has been made on this issue several times:

- What IQ tests measure and what the general intelligence factor (g) means is highly debated

- There is probably some genetic component to intelligence

- Environmental factors >>>>>>> Genetic factors

- The evidence that the IQ difference between races is genetic is tenuous at best

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems people want to look at the intelligence measure aximotatically, when the sad truth is that it is more like a 1930s hubble constant.

Splendour

11-24-2007, 10:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmmm...seems I've heard this somewhere's else before...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not Jewish, fwiw ( /images/graemlins/frown.gif ), I just fail to see why these statistics don't astound anyone but me.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW they are remarkable stats Albinus. Seems to indicate that someone put a little something extra into them.

tame_deuces

11-24-2007, 10:48 PM

Personally I can't wait until we toss the damn useless intelligence measure out the window and start doing what humans have done with all other tools since the dawn of time - judge them by their usefulness.

Besides its moot. In wouldn't be an extreme prediction to say that in a 100 years we are symbosing with machines who excels us beyond current imagination in efficiency, capability and speed in the the mental faculties these silly articles refer to as intelligence.

For the author to hint at genetic modification as a future solution is retarded.

Subfallen

11-24-2007, 10:48 PM

Albinus? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clodius_Albinus)

Splendour

11-24-2007, 10:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Albinus? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clodius_Albinus)

[/ QUOTE ]

See Nabokov. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Subfallen

11-24-2007, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Albinus? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clodius_Albinus)

[/ QUOTE ]

See Nabokov. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, we do have stuff in common, although apparently you know your Nabokov better than I do (still don't get the reference.) Love him soooo much tho.

Splendour

11-24-2007, 10:58 PM

jk....wouldn't dare call you Humbert Humbert.

Subfallen

11-24-2007, 11:03 PM

Ok, that I do get. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Jack10

11-25-2007, 03:46 AM

What is race?

vhawk01

11-25-2007, 03:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You do understand that this is an intellectual shooting war. The concept of a black/white intelligence difference wasn't even argued in the negative until maybe 50 years ago.

Good news for your side. IQ is being deconstructed. Race is being deconstructed. All associated discussion is nearly a firing offense. Bravo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why people think that it is so much of a taboo to talk about these things. Obviously a lot of work in this area is being published and discussed.

Obviously whenever someone claims to have proof that one race is "better" than another in some sense or another people are skeptical of their motives. Historically speaking there is good reason for this since we have a long history of prejudice and racism.

There is also a reason that race and IQ are being deconstructed. Namely, the fact that neither of them are accurate measures of what we commonly think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

InTheDark has crafted himself a nice little cocoon so that he need never be contradicted on any of his beliefs. If something is published that discredits his ideas, it is simply a vehicle of the PC machine. If people like you admit they are willing to talk about race and IQ in an honest manner, it is some sort of trap/the second you disagree you are just another PC drone. This is his MO. His armor is impenetrable. I'm trying to figure out what possible argument or evidence could be presented that would make him reconsider his position but I'm now certain that no such thing could ever exist.

Fly

11-25-2007, 04:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I can't wait until we toss the damn useless intelligence measure out the window and start doing what humans have done with all other tools since the dawn of time - judge them by their usefulness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think intelligence tests measure nothing at all? If not, what do you think they measure and why is it useless?

Taraz

11-25-2007, 05:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why people think that it is so much of a taboo to talk about these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you cloistered? Larry Summers took a boot up the ass for saying only the mildest of unPC heresy. Academia is unforgiving and dogmatic in the extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly claim that these things aren't discussed? The article that was linked to cited several recent papers and books. These things are very much discussed in the academic community. In fact, several people have made careers out of studying just these issues.

If people do good research, it will get published. Believe it or not, it is in the best interests of an academic to publish controversial results. They will get attention and attention = money. There is no problem so long as you don't make offhanded comments like Watson's "if you've ever worked with a black man you know what I'm talking about."

Taraz

11-25-2007, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

InTheDark has crafted himself a nice little cocoon so that he need never be contradicted on any of his beliefs. If something is published that discredits his ideas, it is simply a vehicle of the PC machine. If people like you admit they are willing to talk about race and IQ in an honest manner, it is some sort of trap/the second you disagree you are just another PC drone. This is his MO. His armor is impenetrable. I'm trying to figure out what possible argument or evidence could be presented that would make him reconsider his position but I'm now certain that no such thing could ever exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always hold out hope that I can change someone's mind when I think they they aren't fully informed. As long as you can show them why their position is unsupported or incorrect. Maybe I'm just naive though . . .

Phil153

11-25-2007, 05:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What is race?

[/ QUOTE ]
Race as applied in this discussion refers to the separate population groups that were reproductively isolated from one another for thousands of generations in very different environments. It's a shorthand term for ethnic origin.

InTheDark

11-25-2007, 09:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I always hold out hope that I can change someone's mind when I think they they aren't fully informed. As long as you can show them why their position is unsupported or incorrect. Maybe I'm just naive though . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that every possible position to this debate is supported with science, yes? My position is also supported with 400 years of observational and anecdotal evidence that formed the common wisdom of its day. It will require extraordinary evidence to overturn that, at least for me. It will require only hope and good intentions for your side to feel supported.

Taraz

11-25-2007, 04:58 PM

vhawk01

11-25-2007, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always hold out hope that I can change someone's mind when I think they they aren't fully informed. As long as you can show them why their position is unsupported or incorrect. Maybe I'm just naive though . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that every possible position to this debate is supported with science, yes? My position is also supported with 400 years of observational and anecdotal evidence that formed the common wisdom of its day. It will require extraordinary evidence to overturn that, at least for me. It will require only hope and good intentions for your side to feel supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

The following things are not in dispute in the scientific community:

- IQ doesn't measure what the general population thinks it measures. In fact, it's not clear what exactly is being measured other than performance on certain classes of problems.

- Race is an extremely fuzzy thing and the evidence that the IQ gap is genetic is not conclusive.

- It is ok to discuss these topics as long as you have good science to back up your claims. I don't think you realize how much research is currently being done on this very topic.

- Anecdotal evidence and "common wisdom" counts for very, very little in science

I know that you think "my side" is just feel-good handwaving. But there are quite powerful methodological objections that need to be dealt with before "your side" can claim to have proven anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is pretty comical that he claims there is an insurmountable PC bias that basically invalidates most of the science you are talking about, and in the same breath he relies on "400 years" of observations as if the last 400 years of human history have had less bias on this topic than the current climate.

West

11-26-2007, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always hold out hope that I can change someone's mind when I think they they aren't fully informed. As long as you can show them why their position is unsupported or incorrect. Maybe I'm just naive though . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that every possible position to this debate is supported with science, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the links that have been posted here have shown that the science supporting your position is shakier than Katherine Hepburn in a helicopter (I say it only to make the point).

[ QUOTE ]
My position is also supported with 400 years of observational and anecdotal evidence that formed the common wisdom of its day. It will require extraordinary evidence to overturn that, at least for me. It will require only hope and good intentions for your side to feel supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

400 years of racism would be a more accurate statement. Does that 400 years represent personal experience? Are you the Highlander or something? That would be pretty damn impressive if you, personally, could filter out cultural, historical and other environmental influences from your observations of individuals to determine an accurate 'innate' genetic basis of "intelligence" (which you of course can precisely define) for a large, also difficult to precisely define, group of people.

Your references as to what was believed 50 years ago along with the "common wisdom" of the day are so ignorant as to be both laugh out loud funny and depressing at the same time.

To quote from Eric Turkheimer (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-and-iq/) :

If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while. The history of Africans in the modern West is roughly as follows: Millennia of minding their own business in Africa, followed by 200 years of enslavement by a foreign civilization, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow oppression, followed by fifty years of very incomplete equality and freedom. And now the scientific establishment, apparently even the progressive scientific establishment, is impatient enough with Africans’ social development that it seems reasonable to ask whether the problem is in the descendants of our former slaves’ genes. If that isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.

thesnowman22

11-26-2007, 02:55 AM

I think IQ tests can give you a good, general idea on how smart someone is, but it is only one tool. That they alone determine intellignece is stupid.

If there are differences betweeen groups shown to be genetic, the idea that IQ could differ from group to group because of genetic differences in certainly plausible.

HOWEVER, just because there is a difference is not always because of skin color or race. The differences could be environment, life experiences, blah blah blah. How and to what extent to measure this is probably unanswerable.

For example, if u think 'blacks run faster than whites"- even if u could prove this, it doesnt prove its because they are black. It could be environmental factors that cause it. Who is to say what % of blame is to be placed on genetics and how much on environment?

That being said, as Ive said on other posts about similar subjects, I think genetics gives you a range, and environment and your actions determine where you fall on that range.

InTheDark

11-26-2007, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I'm waiting for, what would convince me the differences are tiny indeed. Get the differential rate of violent crime down to 2 - 1 from the present 5+ - 1. This would signal to me a degree of social equality and that is much more important than intellectual equality. Unfortunately, it's very likely the two are linked and I'll see little change in my lifetime.

vhawk01

11-26-2007, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I'm waiting for, what would convince me the differences are tiny indeed. Get the differential rate of violent crime down to 2 - 1 from the present 5+ - 1. This would signal to me a degree of social equality and that is much more important than intellectual equality. Unfortunately, it's very likely the two are linked and I'll see little change in my lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? This doesnt answer his question at all, and certainly has absolutely nothing to do with a genetic basis for IQ disparity.

Phil153

11-26-2007, 03:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To quote from Eric Turkheimer :If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while. The history of Africans in the modern West is roughly as follows: Millennia of minding their own business in Africa, followed by 200 years of enslavement by a foreign civilization, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow oppression, followed by fifty years of very incomplete equality and freedom. And now the scientific establishment, apparently even the progressive scientific establishment, is impatient enough with Africans’ social development that it seems reasonable to ask whether the problem is in the descendants of our former slaves’ genes. If that isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is classic douchebaggery from the PC establishment.

1. Africa scores far worse than US blacks. Western "oppression" has nothing to do with anything.
2. I have previously posted SAT breakdowns offset against a number of socioeconomic characteristics for the four main racial groups. They alone debunk a lot of the author's claims.
3. Many of the author's excuses for poor African results work EXACTLY IN REVERSE when applied to the Asian-White differential, including both Asian homelands and immigrants. Either blacks are being massively held back by their circumstances to the tune of 30 IQ points, or Asians are massively smarter than Whites. You choose. I mentioned this above but no one has commented on this elephant in the room.

4. Indirect evidence is overwhelming, and needs to be adequately explained by any environment-only theory.

5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

- Intelligence doesn't inately differ between races, or, if it does
- Environment >>>>>> Genes. I don't know exactly how Taraz is quantifying his >>>>>>, but it looks a like a lot. Perhaps he gives a few percent to genes. Thing is, this statement is a lot more contrary to the evidence than the one that genes may play a significant part.

Phil153

11-26-2007, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. You'd need a very powerful theory to explain the direct and indirect evidence that's been outlined in other threads.

Evidence that would be interesting:

- Black adoptees into the US consistently scoring at white levels by the second generation
- The wealthiest black kids with college educated black parents outdoing the poorest Asian kids with uneducated parents (hint: they don't, which is shocking and instantly debunks a lot of proposed mechanisms for the gap).
- Any black country doing as well as white
- Any poor East Asian country scoring on par with black.
- Poor, malnourished rural Asian groups scoring on par with poor, malnourished blacks in their home countries (hint: they don't. The poorest East Asians even outdo whites)

I mean come on, there's a crapload of things which could throw a spanner in the works of the gene theory and add a heap of credibility to the pure environment theory. The thing is, none of these things exist. This is huge.

DLKeeper1

11-26-2007, 03:34 PM

This is obviously a highly polarizing subject, but get your heads out of the sand...Ashkenazi Jews have been persecuted throughout history way more than current US Blacks. Sixty years ago the Ashkenazi Jews were pretty much robbed of everything, and had to start over again as poor immigrants. They've done ok since then.

Ashkenazi Jews FTW:

.2% of world population
25% of science Nobel Prize winners
27% of Ivy League students
16% of Time's Most Important 25 People

...and Albert Einstein

luckyme

11-26-2007, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while. The history of Africans in the modern West is roughly as follows: Millennia of minding their own business in Africa, followed by 200 years of enslavement by a foreign civilization, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow oppression, followed by fifty years of very incomplete equality and freedom. And now the scientific establishment, apparently even the progressive scientific establishment, is impatient enough with Africans’ social development that it seems reasonable to ask whether the problem is in the descendants of our former slaves’ genes. If that isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever ones opinion may be on innate intelligence or racial contributions to it, this comment is an embarrassment to our species, I hope he is a martian.

luckyme

Taraz

11-26-2007, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

2. I have previously posted SAT breakdowns offset against a number of socioeconomic characteristics for the four main racial groups. They alone debunk a lot of the author's claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, because we all know the only non-genetic difference between the four main racial groups is income and parental education level (amount of education not quality) . . .

[ QUOTE ]

3. Many of the author's excuses for poor African results work EXACTLY IN REVERSE when applied to the Asian-White differential, including both Asian homelands and immigrants. Either blacks are being massively held back by their circumstances to the tune of 30 IQ points, or Asians are massively smarter than Whites. You choose. I mentioned this above but no one has commented on this elephant in the room.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the author's entire position, but you are misrepresenting things. He was talking about blacks in the Western world, not Sub Saharan Africans. The IQ difference is only 15 points in the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]

4. Indirect evidence is overwhelming, and needs to be adequately explained by any environment-only theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see how you can claim this. Every time an environmental factor is controlled for, the gap diminishes by some amount. Why would you assume that we can control for every factor and that we know everything that goes into intelligence? For example, how do you control for societal expectations?

[ QUOTE ]

5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

- Intelligence doesn't inately differ between races, or, if it does
- Environment >>>>>> Genes. I don't know exactly how Taraz is quantifying his >>>>>>, but it looks a like a lot. Perhaps he gives a few percent to genes. Thing is, this statement is a lot more contrary to the evidence than the one that genes may play a significant part.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I am claiming that environment is more important than genes is because I can name off at least 20 factors that wildly affect IQ score that have nothing to do with genetics. If you take people with the exact same genes, you can vary their IQ score by an insane amount simply by raising them in different environments. If I could choose the best possible genes or the best possible environment, it's no contest.

I have never once claimed that genes play no role in intelligence. What I have claimed is that the evidence for a genetic difference in intelligence between races is not conclusive at all and is, IMO, pretty weak.

West

11-27-2007, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To quote from Eric Turkheimer :If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while. The history of Africans in the modern West is roughly as follows: Millennia of minding their own business in Africa, followed by 200 years of enslavement by a foreign civilization, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow oppression, followed by fifty years of very incomplete equality and freedom. And now the scientific establishment, apparently even the progressive scientific establishment, is impatient enough with Africans’ social development that it seems reasonable to ask whether the problem is in the descendants of our former slaves’ genes. If that isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Africa scores far worse than US blacks. Western "oppression" has nothing to do with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone as smart as you ought to be able to figure out possible reasons why African IQ scores might be lower than those of African-Americans, even if the scores of African-Americans have been negatively affected by "environmental" factors specific to the U.S.

Would you mind posting a link to your information on African IQ scores?

[ QUOTE ]
2. I have previously posted SAT breakdowns offset against a number of socioeconomic characteristics for the four main racial groups. They alone debunk a lot of the author's claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect Taraz's reply covered this, but would you care to post this information again?

[ QUOTE ]
3. Many of the author's excuses for poor African results work EXACTLY IN REVERSE when applied to the Asian-White differential, including both Asian homelands and immigrants. Either blacks are being massively held back by their circumstances to the tune of 30 IQ points, or Asians are massively smarter than Whites. You choose. I mentioned this above but no one has commented on this elephant in the room.

[/ QUOTE ]

The author (http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_saletans_scandalous_source) you are referring to makes no such "excuses" for "poor African results" which makes me wonder if you bothered to read the article at all. Again, would you care to post sources for these statements you are making?

[ QUOTE ]
4. Indirect evidence is overwhelming, and needs to be adequately explained by any environment-only theory.

5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

- Intelligence doesn't inately differ between races, or, if it does
- Environment >>>>>> Genes. I don't know exactly how Taraz is quantifying his >>>>>>, but it looks a like a lot. Perhaps he gives a few percent to genes. Thing is, this statement is a lot more contrary to the evidence than the one that genes may play a significant part.

[/ QUOTE ]

What 'evidence' are you referring to?

West

11-27-2007, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is obviously a highly polarizing subject, but get your heads out of the sand...Ashkenazi Jews have been persecuted throughout history way more than current US Blacks. Sixty years ago the Ashkenazi Jews were pretty much robbed of everything, and had to start over again as poor immigrants. They've done ok since then.

Ashkenazi Jews FTW:

.2% of world population
25% of science Nobel Prize winners
27% of Ivy League students
16% of Time's Most Important 25 People

...and Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Einstein once said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

You are making quite a few assumptions in your comparison of Ashkenazi Jews to Black Americans.

West

11-27-2007, 01:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One man's response to Saletan: No, Blacks are not Dumber than Whites (http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_saletans_scandalous_source)

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this about Whites and Blacks? Why aren't these intellectual luminaries debunking the notion that Whites are dumber than Asians???

Perhaps it's because just about every one of their retarded scapegoats (culture/repression/minority status/socioeconomic status/educational attainment/nutrition) proves exactly the opposite when you look at the White/Asian differential?

[/ QUOTE ]

One guy debunks (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aamodel.htm)

Also: How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black Racism (http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/confusionethic.html)

WhiteKnight

11-27-2007, 01:45 AM

Somewhat grunching, InTheDark and Phil153 win the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
This subject might be relevant if there was a significant difference between an IQ of 95 and 115.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe Sklansky actually said this, for obvious reasons stated by others.

DLKeeper1

11-27-2007, 01:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is obviously a highly polarizing subject, but get your heads out of the sand...Ashkenazi Jews have been persecuted throughout history way more than current US Blacks. Sixty years ago the Ashkenazi Jews were pretty much robbed of everything, and had to start over again as poor immigrants. They've done ok since then.

Ashkenazi Jews FTW:

.2% of world population
25% of science Nobel Prize winners
27% of Ivy League students
16% of Time's Most Important 25 People

...and Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Einstein once said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

You are making quite a few assumptions in your comparison of Ashkenazi Jews to Black Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thnk that's a great quote and very applicable to this conversation. However, I think my argument still holds true. Of course, "race facts" do not define individuals, nor should they ever. What assumptions am I making?

WhiteKnight

11-27-2007, 02:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "race" facts do not define individuals, nor should they ever. What assumptions am I making?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are assuming nurture over nature to the tune of 100%.

Is it really so hard to believe the obvious intellectual discrepancies between races, in light of the fact that professional sports are dominated by Blacks (i.e. racial differences clearly exist)?

[X] Racist ban imo.

DLKeeper1

11-27-2007, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "race facts" do not define individuals, nor should they ever. What assumptions am I making?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are assuming nurture over nature to the tune of 100%.

Is it really so hard to believe the obvious intellectual discrepancies between races, in light of the fact that professional sports are dominated by Blacks (i.e. racial differences clearly exist)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming the opposite of what you say I'm assuming; that is that nature is more important than nurture. It seems as if you're agreeing with me in the second part of your statement?

WhiteKnight

11-27-2007, 02:35 AM

Like I said, I didn't really read the thread (too long + too much BS to filter) and for some odd reason had you labeled in contrast to me. Clearly I need to work on my reading comprehension. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it appears we are in agreement /images/graemlins/smile.gif

West

11-27-2007, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

- Intelligence doesn't inately differ between races, or, if it does
- Environment >>>>>> Genes. I don't know exactly how Taraz is quantifying his >>>>>>, but it looks a like a lot. Perhaps he gives a few percent to genes. Thing is, this statement is a lot more contrary to the evidence than the one that genes may play a significant part.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you explain the Flynn Effect? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)

West

11-27-2007, 03:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, I didn't really read the thread

[/ QUOTE ]

that much is obvious

[ QUOTE ]
Is it really so hard to believe the obvious intellectual discrepancies between races, in light of the fact that professional sports are dominated by Blacks (i.e. racial differences clearly exist)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing that discrepencies between races exist, and that they are innate and immutable, are two different things.

tame_deuces

11-27-2007, 03:56 AM

I think we went over this before in another thread and Taraz and other posters, myself included, posted around 10 points where it is shown through research that cultural factors have a great impact on intelligence scores. We also showed that in the field itself there is no consensus on what intelligence is.

In the very least this points towards an interactional effect and that we as of yet have too little academic consensus in the field to state absolutes.

That we get written of as politically correct dummies is really of no concern. This isn't a political discussion beyond some people taking academic results out of context and presenting them as such.

WhiteKnight

11-27-2007, 04:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
that much is obvious

[/ QUOTE ]
Is only a good burn if we take this thread to be the be-all and end-all of information / wisdom pertaining to this debate. Suffice it to say I've conducted a fair amount of independent research which correlates nicely with my life experiences to date.

[ QUOTE ]
Believing that discrepancies between races exist, and that they are innate and immutable, are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]
My BS detector is going off in a major way...

Based on the wording and context of your post, we are in agreement that discrepancies exist between Whites, Blacks, Asians, Ashkhenazi Jews, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a fair statement to make, otherwise you wouldn't even be trying to argue the difference in semantics.

So, what differences are there in all the groups I mentioned above? Clearly the answer is race/genetic lineage/ethnic origin/whatever. How is it wrong to say that these RACIAL DISCREPANCIES are INNATE to the RACES from which we are drawing our comparisons? I mean, it's not like the discrepancies are conjured out of thin air and bear no relation to race, right?

As for immutable, I'm no biologist, but if memory serves, there exists some difference in the tendon structure of Blacks, which, among other things, enables them to perform better in activities requiring running, jumping, and other forms of physical performance. Explain to me how this difference is "mutable," short of some sort of surgical procedure.

So I reiterate my original post with some paraphrasing. There exist some racial differences which are not mutable (skeletal/musculature structure, as outlined above). Is it really so hard to believe that intellectual capacity could be like this as well?

Seriously, every single study (academic, government, private, military) conducted on this topic in the history of ever has resulted in a material IQ discrepancy between races. Don't even bother with the "define IQ or it's meaningless" drivel. It's like pornography, I may not be able to clearly define it, but it's pretty apparent when I see it. The fact of the matter is that Blacks (mean IQ 70-85), who have been given every opportunity for success over the past 2 generations consistently perform 2-3 standard deviations less than the group that has been discriminated against more than any other group in world history (Jews, mean IQ = 110-115).

Immutable? I think so.

Edited for link: http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/10/race-difference.html

Taraz

11-27-2007, 04:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that much is obvious

[/ QUOTE ]
Is only a good burn if we take this thread to be the be-all and end-all of information / wisdom pertaining to this debate. Suffice it to say I've conducted a fair amount of independent research which correlates nicely with my life experiences to date.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we're supposed to trust your independent research? Cite your sources like the rest of us. I'm studying psychology and neuroscience right now, so forgive me if I trust my reading of the literature more than yours.

[ QUOTE ]

Based on the wording and context of your post, we are in agreement that discrepancies exist between Whites, Blacks, Asians, Ashkhenazi Jews, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a fair statement to make, otherwise you wouldn't even be trying to argue the difference in semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

[ QUOTE ]

So, what differences are there in all the groups I mentioned above? Clearly the answer is race/genetic lineage/ethnic origin/whatever. How is it wrong to say that these RACIAL DISCREPANCIES are INNATE to the RACES from which we are drawing our comparisons? I mean, it's not like the discrepancies are conjured out of thin air and bear no relation to race, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Innate means inborn and hereditary. There are countless other factors that could be at work: culture, social class, societal expectations, discrimination, nutrition, education, etc.

[ QUOTE ]

So I reiterate my original post with some paraphrasing. There exist some racial differences which are not mutable (skeletal/musculature structure, as outlined above). Is it really so hard to believe that intellectual capacity could be like this as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be like this, but we don't have good reason to believe that it actually is like this in light of everything else we know about intelligence. I will not dispute the muscular argument here. But even if that were 100% true, intelligence is almost infinitely more complex than simple muscle structure and we wouldn't expect the difference to be so simple.

[ QUOTE ]

Seriously, every single study (academic, government, private, military) conducted on this topic in the history of ever has resulted in a material IQ discrepancy between races. Don't even bother with the "define IQ or it's meaningless" drivel. It's like pornography, I may not be able to clearly define it, but it's pretty apparent when I see it. The fact of the matter is that Blacks (mean IQ 70-85), who have been given every opportunity for success over the past 2 generations consistently perform 2-3 standard deviations less than the group that has been discriminated against more than any other group in world history (Jews, mean IQ = 110-115).

[/ QUOTE ]

I really can't tell if you're leveling us all or not. Are you serious? Are you really trying to say that the situations of Jews and blacks now and throughout history are so similar that the only explanation for differences between the two groups are genetic? I don't even know where to begin with that.

DougShrapnel

11-27-2007, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One man's response to Saletan: No, Blacks are not Dumber than Whites (http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_saletans_scandalous_source)

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this about Whites and Blacks? Why aren't these intellectual luminaries debunking the notion that Whites are dumber than Asians???

Perhaps it's because just about every one of their retarded scapegoats (culture/repression/minority status/socioeconomic status/educational attainment/nutrition) proves exactly the opposite when you look at the White/Asian differential?

[/ QUOTE ]Are you serious? Asians typical place more value on education then whites.

Before I get in to this. What's the point? Even if you could show some superiority, would it still not be best to judge the individual?

InTheDark

11-27-2007, 10:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm studying psychology and neuroscience right now, so forgive me if I trust my reading of the literature more than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very much explained in one sentence. My hope is that in less than 20 years you discover exactly how much garbage you've been shoveled under the banner of academic literature. Best luck.

tame_deuces

11-27-2007, 10:37 AM

Since essentially you are saying you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is deluded, I'll go out on a limb and saying attacking others for a lack of critical thinking is probably not the best position to hold.

You might want to consider laying out your case without rhetorics.

Rduke55

11-27-2007, 10:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's a shorthand term for ethnic origin.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Haven't you been paying attention in all the threads where we've had the exact same discussion? When we are talking about heredity, ethnicity certainly does not equal race.
"Ashkenazi jew" = ethnicity; "white" = race. People seem to confuse (whether intentionally or not) these all the time in these threads.

If anyone from the other side used some kind of "shorthand" in this apparently scientific debate you would probably jump all over them. The debate over a biological notion of race is a major point in this discussion.

Rduke55

11-27-2007, 10:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The wealthiest black kids with college educated black parents outdoing the poorest Asian kids with uneducated parents (hint: they don't, which is shocking and instantly debunks a lot of proposed mechanisms for the gap).

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation?

[ QUOTE ]
Poor, malnourished rural Asian groups scoring on par with poor, malnourished blacks in their home countries (hint: they don't. The poorest East Asians even outdo whites)

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations?

West

11-27-2007, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the wording and context of your post, we are in agreement that discrepancies exist between Whites, Blacks, Asians, Ashkhenazi Jews, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a fair statement to make, otherwise you wouldn't even be trying to argue the difference in semantics.

So, what differences are there in all the groups I mentioned above? Clearly the answer is race/genetic lineage/ethnic origin/whatever. How is it wrong to say that these RACIAL DISCREPANCIES are INNATE to the RACES from which we are drawing our comparisons? I mean, it's not like the discrepancies are conjured out of thin air and bear no relation to race, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's also different between "races" (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm) is their environmental history. In addition to the Flynn effect, how do you explain this (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm) ?

[ QUOTE ]
As for immutable, I'm no biologist, but if memory serves, there exists some difference in the tendon structure of Blacks, which, among other things, enables them to perform better in activities requiring running, jumping, and other forms of physical performance. Explain to me how this difference is "mutable," short of some sort of surgical procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way it's always been mutable, evolution?

Could 200 years of slavery have had an impact? I don't know the answer, I'm asking the question.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, every single study (academic, government, private, military) conducted on this topic in the history of ever has resulted in a material IQ discrepancy between races. Don't even bother with the "define IQ or it's meaningless" drivel. It's like pornography, I may not be able to clearly define it, but it's pretty apparent when I see it. The fact of the matter is that Blacks (mean IQ 70-85), who have been given every opportunity for success over the past 2 generations consistently perform 2-3 standard deviations less than the group that has been discriminated against more than any other group in world history (Jews, mean IQ = 110-115).

Immutable? I think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

You talk about meaningless drivel even as you're spewing it out. As Taraz indicated it's difficult to know where to start with so many fallacious arguments all at once.

[ QUOTE ]
Edited for link: http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/10/race-difference.html

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easier to seperate the speculation out from the link you provided if you follow the links he provides:

link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm) ; link (http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html)

kurto

11-27-2007, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm studying psychology and neuroscience right now, so forgive me if I trust my reading of the literature more than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very much explained in one sentence. My hope is that in less than 20 years you discover exactly how much garbage you've been shoveled under the banner of academic literature. Best luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this compare to the garbage you regularly shovel in this forum?

kurto

11-27-2007, 01:23 PM

I thought this part was funny enough...

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that Blacks (mean IQ 70-85), who have been given every opportunity for success over the past 2 generations consistently perform 2-3 standard deviations less than the group that has been discriminated against more than any other group in world history (Jews, mean IQ = 110-115).

[/ QUOTE ]

blacks have been given every opportunity for success? Wow. I didn't realize that racism has been purged for 2 generations now.

I've been working in NYC for 15 years now. I've had instances where people have questioned hiring a black person because they're black. Oddly enough, I've NEVER heard anyone question whether they'd hire someone simply because they're Jewish.

I've also seen people cross the street to avoid having to pass by a group of blacks. Oddly enough, I've never heard of anyone crossing the street to avoid a jew.

I must be living in the only place where, for the last two generations, people are still racist. Obviously White Knight lives in a color blind community and sees things differently.

vhawk01

11-27-2007, 02:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that much is obvious

[/ QUOTE ]
Is only a good burn if we take this thread to be the be-all and end-all of information / wisdom pertaining to this debate. Suffice it to say I've conducted a fair amount of independent research which correlates nicely with my life experiences to date.

[ QUOTE ]
Believing that discrepancies between races exist, and that they are innate and immutable, are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]
My BS detector is going off in a major way...

Based on the wording and context of your post, we are in agreement that discrepancies exist between Whites, Blacks, Asians, Ashkhenazi Jews, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a fair statement to make, otherwise you wouldn't even be trying to argue the difference in semantics.

So, what differences are there in all the groups I mentioned above? Clearly the answer is race/genetic lineage/ethnic origin/whatever. How is it wrong to say that these RACIAL DISCREPANCIES are INNATE to the RACES from which we are drawing our comparisons? I mean, it's not like the discrepancies are conjured out of thin air and bear no relation to race, right?

As for immutable, I'm no biologist, but if memory serves, there exists some difference in the tendon structure of Blacks, which, among other things, enables them to perform better in activities requiring running, jumping, and other forms of physical performance. Explain to me how this difference is "mutable," short of some sort of surgical procedure.

So I reiterate my original post with some paraphrasing. There exist some racial differences which are not mutable (skeletal/musculature structure, as outlined above). Is it really so hard to believe that intellectual capacity could be like this as well?

Seriously, every single study (academic, government, private, military) conducted on this topic in the history of ever has resulted in a material IQ discrepancy between races. Don't even bother with the "define IQ or it's meaningless" drivel. It's like pornography, I may not be able to clearly define it, but it's pretty apparent when I see it. The fact of the matter is that Blacks (mean IQ 70-85), who have been given every opportunity for success over the past 2 generations consistently perform 2-3 standard deviations less than the group that has been discriminated against more than any other group in world history (Jews, mean IQ = 110-115).

Immutable? I think so.

Edited for link: http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/10/race-difference.html

[/ QUOTE ]

So your strategy is, get us to acknowledge discrepancies exist (LDO), point out the first discrepancy that comes to your mind, and then assert that that is the only relevant discrepancy. Clever.

Taraz

11-27-2007, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm studying psychology and neuroscience right now, so forgive me if I trust my reading of the literature more than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very much explained in one sentence. My hope is that in less than 20 years you discover exactly how much garbage you've been shoveled under the banner of academic literature. Best luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is baffling to me. "Ah, you're studying in the field, that explains why you don't get it."

I'm curious, where do you get your information on the subject if not from academic resources?

vhawk01

11-27-2007, 03:05 PM

kurto

11-27-2007, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The back of his napkin.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Ha.

Perhaps its time that we refer to Splendour's intuition thread? It seems InTheDark values his intuition more then research or reason.

vulturesrow

11-27-2007, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've also seen people cross the street to avoid having to pass by a group of blacks. Oddly enough, I've never heard of anyone crossing the street to avoid a jew

[/ QUOTE ]

Bayes, IMO.

kurto

11-27-2007, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've also seen people cross the street to avoid having to pass by a group of blacks. Oddly enough, I've never heard of anyone crossing the street to avoid a jew

[/ QUOTE ]

Bayes, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused by your reply. I assume you mean Bayes theorum but I'm not sure what you mean in this context.

regarding my thoughts... I'm of course only using my observational evidence but I feel pretty confident in saying that large parts of our society continues to treat people differently based on little more then skin color. (note for instance the repeated threads and postings by InTheDark with the seeming need to assert the inferiority of certain races). Every year they do tests and continue to find pervasive racism.

Things like:
If you have a 'black sounding name' you are less likely to get called into a job interview.

There are places that have no places available for rent when a black person inquires but magically have rooms available when whites inquire.

Things like taxis refusing to stop for black people.

I'm sure we could list numerous recent similar studies. The end point being that blacks are treated differently in our society and, with that difference in treatment, comes differences in ways they perform, learn, etc.

For anyone to assert that there are no differences and that jews are looked at the same in our society as blacks is ignoring plenty of evidence to the contrary.

vhawk01

11-27-2007, 05:14 PM

InTheDark

11-27-2007, 08:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm studying psychology and neuroscience right now, so forgive me if I trust my reading of the literature more than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very much explained in one sentence. My hope is that in less than 20 years you discover exactly how much garbage you've been shoveled under the banner of academic literature. Best luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is baffling to me. "Ah, you're studying in the field, that explains why you don't get it."

I'm curious, where do you get your information on the subject if not from academic resources?

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

vhawk01

11-27-2007, 09:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm studying psychology and neuroscience right now, so forgive me if I trust my reading of the literature more than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very much explained in one sentence. My hope is that in less than 20 years you discover exactly how much garbage you've been shoveled under the banner of academic literature. Best luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is baffling to me. "Ah, you're studying in the field, that explains why you don't get it."

I'm curious, where do you get your information on the subject if not from academic resources?

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is some wonderful narrative fallacy. Imagine a bunch of things that might be so that would be EXTREMELY convenient for me if they were!

Taraz

11-28-2007, 05:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered my question. What are your sources then if not from academia?

InTheDark

11-28-2007, 09:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered my question. What are your sources then if not from academia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sources from academia are still of some value, just less than they used to be. Hard leftist ideology gained status
in American colleges in the 70s. Unlike hard science, the research in the squishy science has less weight today than in the past. I discount accordingly.

Read up on Putnam and tell me I've got it wrong. You won't. Cocoon's too fragile.

vhawk01

11-28-2007, 10:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered my question. What are your sources then if not from academia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sources from academia are still of some value, just less than they used to be. Hard leftist ideology gained status
in American colleges in the 70s. Unlike hard science, the research in the squishy science has less weight today than in the past. I discount accordingly.

Read up on Putnam and tell me I've got it wrong. You won't. Cocoon's too fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]

So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

tame_deuces

11-28-2007, 10:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]

So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Vhawk, you know there is no reason to suspect biased research on race in the 30s.

madnak

11-28-2007, 11:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. We must also give great weight to any contemporary research supporting his position, because it bucks the trend and is therefore credible.

Similarly, we must acknowledge that creation scientists are much more likely to be correct than ordinary scientists - they're the ones who have the courage to go against the majority. It hardly matters that most scientists accept evolution - there's so much pressure in academia to accept evolution, how could they not? But even with all that pressure, some brave souls choose to seek the truth instead of worshipping political correctness.

And my friends - they should be applauded. They should be applauded.

kurto

11-28-2007, 01:19 PM

I like that inthedark doesn't really even bother to try to hide his bias.

If the science/academia/whatever reinforces his conservative ideology, then it probably has some value.

If the conclusion of an academic journal disagrees with his political wishes, then it should be discounted.

Its like Bush in 2000 who discounted any science which agreed with global warming. Oddly enough, he now apparently agrees with the science that he dismissed previously because he didn't like it politically.

InTheDark-- you will continue to appear as just a ridiculous partisan since you discount any sources which disagree with your politics.

Taraz

11-28-2007, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Sources from academia are still of some value, just less than they used to be. Hard leftist ideology gained status
in American colleges in the 70s. Unlike hard science, the research in the squishy science has less weight today than in the past. I discount accordingly.

Read up on Putnam and tell me I've got it wrong. You won't. Cocoon's too fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get it. What are your sources then? You keep saying academic sources are tainted, skewed, and flawed. So where else do you get your information?

madnak

11-28-2007, 03:55 PM

He cherry-picks. There's nothing more to it than that. Just as some social scientists cherry-pick their data to support the idea that everyone is equal, ITD cherry-picks his information to support the idea that races aren't equal. He should take a page from Phil, who almost has me convinced, instead of going on about academic conspiracies.

vhawk01

11-28-2007, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. We must also give great weight to any contemporary research supporting his position, because it bucks the trend and is therefore credible.

Similarly, we must acknowledge that creation scientists are much more likely to be correct than ordinary scientists - they're the ones who have the courage to go against the majority. It hardly matters that most scientists accept evolution - there's so much pressure in academia to accept evolution, how could they not? But even with all that pressure, some brave souls choose to seek the truth instead of worshipping political correctness.

And my friends - they should be applauded. They should be applauded.

[/ QUOTE ]

And accordingly, we must relax our standards when it comes to peer review and legitimate publication, verification and replication of results. I mean, obviously none of the biased journals (all of them LDO) would publish anything contradictory. And no one is going to replicate the experiments at the risk of their careers, or possibly just due to a crippling fear of uncovering the truth.

Taraz

11-28-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He cherry-picks. There's nothing more to it than that. Just as some social scientists cherry-pick their data to support the idea that everyone is equal, ITD cherry-picks his information to support the idea that races aren't equal. He should take a page from Phil, who almost has me convinced, instead of going on about academic conspiracies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really just want to hear him say it. The problem is that it will ruin his argument because he basically said academic sources are worthless. I said that I have training in this area, so I trust my reading of the journals more than his. He claimed the problem was the journals themselves.

West

11-29-2007, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Edited for link: http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/10/race-difference.html

[/ QUOTE ]

To follow up on this link that was posted, the title of which is, "Race difference in intelligence: does genetic proof already exist?", I asked someone knowledgeable on the subject about it. Not surprisingly, it's discussion of "high intelligence genes" and how they can even now be applied to "race" is completely fallacious, and this link here does a terrific job explaining why:

Brain Evolution, Population Genetics and Armchair Kookery (http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/09/brain_evolution.html)

Although this blog (being from 2005) was not written specifically in response to the quoted link, it might as well have been. For those not inclined to follow the link, I'll post a section of the text here:
<font color="brown">
"Before getting down to business, I'd like to start off with a brief discussion on some rudiments of population genetics and how it relates to the work done by actual biologists who spend their time sussing out the often extremely convoluted details of how genes are translated into all those proteins which govern how organisms function. A common misconception many people have of how things work is that there are one or a few genes "for" this trait or that one, the presence of absence of which determines whether an organism will or will not manifest a particular trait; a related misconception is that a gene which influences one particular trait will have an effect on that trait only or even primarily, and that therefore any allelic differences we notice must pertain to whatever phenotypical differences we think we already know they're responsible for. If both of these things were true, population genetics would be a much more tractable subject, but unfortunately, neither is even close to accurately describing reality.

The truth about the way genes work is that other than in the case of simple mendelian traits of the kind which geneticists have had most success studying during the last century, it is almost unheard of in genetics research to discover single genes which are able to account for more than a minute fraction of variation in any given trait; furthermore, the very reason why so many traits in any given population happen to abide by a normal distribution is because to the extent said traits aren't determined by environmental differences, they must be under the influence of very many genes, and the smoother the curve, the greater the number of underlying genes must be - this is nothing more than a generalization of the binomial theorem with which we are all familiar. In the case of the human brain, we know that about half of all genes - or some 15,000 of the total - are expressed in the brain during the course of development, and there is no a priori reason to believe that variations in any of them, or even in whatever regulatory regions might govern their behavior, will have no impact on how said organ functions. In light of all the foregoing, anybody who thinks we will find 20 or even 50 genes which rigorously account for, say, 90% of all "genetic" variation in "IQ" or whatever nebulous measure of intellect we decide upon is a fool at best.

Having discussed the "one trait -> one or a few genes" fallacy, let me turn now to its counterpart, namely the belief that a gene's only or main function must be to determine any single particular trait (hence all the idiotic talk of genes "for" IQ, homosexuality, jazz improvisation, etc.). Genes code for proteins, not explicit traits, and it is part of the blind genius of evolution that individual proteins are co-opted to serve multiple roles all the time, so much so that there is even a technical name for the phenomenon, to whit, pleiotropy. Underlying all the ignorant chatter about how the ASPM and microcephalin variants written about by Dr. Lahn must be genes "for" cognition is the assumption that because faults in both genes have been implicated in brain disorders, and because differences exist between humans and chimps in both genes, then "the" purpose of the existence of these new variants has to be to code for "IQ" or some such thing: but the reality is that with an organ as complex as the human brain, there are very many ways for a gene malfunction to lead to devastating consequences, often through causal chains nobody would have guessed beforehand.

To illustrate how things aren't always what they seem, and why it is important to understand the underlying biochemistry before jumping to conclusions, let us consider phenylketonuria: this is a genetic disorder which is characterised by mental retardation, and an uninformed observer might easily jump to the conclusion that this means defects in the gene implicated in it must result in some crucial feature of the brain being wired wrongly, leading to lower IQ scores. And yet, as we now know, the depressed IQ which accompanies phenylketonuria has nothing to do with brain wiring, but is the result of an inability of the sufferers' metabolic systems to produce sufficient levels of phenylalanine hydroxylase: in the presence of a diet which makes up for this deficiency, the IQ scores of the genes carriers turn out to be normal, and what might have been ascribed to an "IQ gene" is in fact just one particularly visible manifestation of an enzyme deficiency which has several other side-effects.

The misconceptions about how genes work extend beyond these two errors, however, and there's a third issue I'd like to discuss which goes by the technical name epistasis. The basic idea behind this term is that if genes at more than one locus govern the expression of a trait, they need not do so in a straightforward, additive fashion like so many dollars which can be netted against each other - even if a gene happens to code for a particular phenotype, it could well be that the trait will not be expressed in the slightest if the allele at some other gene locus isn't the right one. To give an example, suppose there are two genes which govern hair color in mice, with gene A coding for an enzyme which produces the melanin which makes hair black, and gene B coding for another enzyme which modifies the product of gene A so that the resulting hairs are grey (agouti): if a mouse happens to be carrying two broken copies of A, then that mouse is destined to an albino, regardless of how well its copies of B might function, as the enzymes which the products of B alter simply won't be produced. The point here is that an error or variation at some step in a multistep biochemical pathway can suffice to alter the rest of the successive steps in such a way that simplistic totalling of the presence or absence of alleles "for" this or that leads to completely wrong results: genetic background matters, and even if a gene can be shown to affect the expression of a trait in a particular population, there's no reason to believe it will also do so in a different population, even if we are able to adequately control environmental variation (this isn't merely theoretical - see, for instance, this paper, which finds that APoE, although repeatedly implicated as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease amongst white Americans, is not associated with elevated risk in either African-Americans or Hispanics)." </font>

The rest of the blog is well worth reading, see the link.