there are racial and ethnic differences in IQ [Archive]

Jshuttlesworth

03-27-2006, 09:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a very good definition of intelligence but I have seen people I consider intelligent with very poor scores. I also happen to be good at IQ tests and get a high score - but I dont consider myself very intelligent.

Another telling point (I believe) is you can read a book on "How to improve your IQ" and boost your scores fairly substantially with minimal effort - I doubt many would say you have suddenly become more intelligent though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this definition of intelligence: "Intelligence is the ability to make and use tools to achieve one's desires" (interpreting "tools" to include reason, imagination, intuition, etc). IQ tests measure the ability to solve a few specific types of problems, and their results do not correlate well to the common notion of "success". What IQ tests measure best is the ability to score well on an IQ test, which is not a terribly useful skill in real life.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm sure you know, when you just change the meaning of a word to something that that word has never meant, then tests designed to measure the presence of that word based on established meanings will not do a good job of evaluating the qualities you have decided to attribute to that word.

Alex-db

03-27-2006, 09:47 AM

the best example I have heard to define intelligence and its correlation with IQ was a practical example that avoided the need to define it:

If a group of people that know each other fairly well, a 6th-form class for example, were to rank each other in terms of their opinion of intelligence, most of them would broadly agree on the rankings. If they then all did IQ test, the rankings would be incredibly accurate compared to their qualitive definitions.

In terms of employment, IQ tests are still the best indicator of professional performance in most lines of work.

For those who wanted a test, I think this one appeared professional: www.highIQsociety.com (http://www.highIQsociety.com) for people with above 120 IQ (presumably most people here).

They point out that for a test to be accurate it can't be separating people who score 99/100 and 98/100. A test has to be targeted so that those people need a test where one scores 45/100 and one scores 70/100 to make a meaningful distinction.

purnell

03-27-2006, 09:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like this definition of intelligence: "Intelligence is the ability to make and use tools to achieve one's desires" (interpreting "tools" to include reason, imagination, intuition, etc). IQ tests measure the ability to solve a few specific types of problems, and their results do not correlate well to the common notion of "success". What IQ tests measure best is the ability to score well on an IQ test, which is not a terribly useful skill in real life.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm sure you know, when you just change the meaning of a word to something that that word has never meant, then tests designed to measure the presence of that word based on established meanings will not do a good job of evaluating the qualities you have decided to attribute to that word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search Dictionary:

Houghton Mifflin

tool

NOUN:

1. A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
2.
1. A machine, such as a lathe, used to cut and shape machine parts or other objects.
2. The cutting part of such a machine.
3. Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession: Words are the tools of our trade.
4. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument: "Modern democracies have the fiscal and monetary tools . . . to end chronic slumps and galloping inflations" (Paul A. Samuelson).
5. Vulgar Slang: A penis.
6. A person used to carry out the designs of another; a dupe.
7.
1. A bookbinder's hand stamp.
2. A design impressed on a book cover by such a stamp.
8. Computer Science An application program, often one that creates, manipulates, modifies, or analyzes other programs.

evolvedForm

03-27-2006, 09:25 PM

Adding to your point about IQ tests being worthless, I think an important critique of them is that they are created by and for people in a particular discursive formation. Therefore, they shouldn't be expected to be useful for people outside of that discursive formation.

MrMon

03-27-2006, 09:46 PM

I think a large number of the arguements against The Bell Curve, IQ tests, etc. is the fact that people DON'T want them to be true. Face it, they are giving politically incorrect answers. If they argued the opposite, would there be this much denial?

Forget whether or not The Bell Curve is true for a moment and consider the implications if it were true. What would be the implications to society? It's a pretty uncomfortable thought, which is why people dismiss it rather than investigate it further.

AceofSpades

03-27-2006, 10:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a large number of the arguements against The Bell Curve, IQ tests, etc. is the fact that people DON'T want them to be true. Face it, they are giving politically incorrect answers. If they argued the opposite, would there be this much denial?

Forget whether or not The Bell Curve is true for a moment and consider the implications if it were true. What would be the implications to society? It's a pretty uncomfortable thought, which is why people dismiss it rather than investigate it further.

[/ QUOTE ]

There should be no implications to society. Slight differences in intelligence (or IQ tests) should bear absolutely nothing on status and treatment as a human being.

Race is also a social concept, and really probably a overgeneralization. The multitude of locations, and intellience differences in the group "whites" for example would depend greatly on who you sample.

Jshuttlesworth

03-27-2006, 10:21 PM

AoS,
I think he was talking about efficient allocation of education and welfare resources.

bunny

03-27-2006, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a large number of the arguements against The Bell Curve, IQ tests, etc. is the fact that people DON'T want them to be true. Face it, they are giving politically incorrect answers. If they argued the opposite, would there be this much denial?

Forget whether or not The Bell Curve is true for a moment and consider the implications if it were true. What would be the implications to society? It's a pretty uncomfortable thought, which is why people dismiss it rather than investigate it further.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree (in part anyhow). I think the idea that IQ corresponds with intelligence is incorrect based on what I see. Irrespective, I am uncomfortable with the possibility that a test with a strong correlation will one day be discovered. I expect this is due to not wanting to think about the logical consequences (I may be politically correct deep down, damn it!)

bunny

03-27-2006, 10:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I like this definition of intelligence: "Intelligence is the ability to make and use tools to achieve one's desires" (interpreting "tools" to include reason, imagination, intuition, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]
This feels a little inadequate (as you have assumed desires and include reason, imagination, intuition, etc within the definition). It seems to me that you may be assuming all the factors of intelligence without making them explicit which makes the definition unobjectionable but not particularly helpful in discriminating between two cases. If I asked you whether an ant is intelligent you'd need to know beforehand whether it had desires which would mean knowing if it was intelligent (perhaps - I'm just musing here)...I wonder if you've just moved the problem a little.

purnell

03-27-2006, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like this definition of intelligence: "Intelligence is the ability to make and use tools to achieve one's desires" (interpreting "tools" to include reason, imagination, intuition, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]
This feels a little inadequate (as you have assumed desires and include reason, imagination, intuition, etc within the definition). It seems to me that you may be assuming all the factors of intelligence without making them explicit which makes the definition unobjectionable but not particularly helpful in discriminating between two cases. If I asked you whether an ant is intelligent you'd need to know beforehand whether it had desires which would mean knowing if it was intelligent (perhaps - I'm just musing here)...I wonder if you've just moved the problem a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go along (Lord knows I've been wrong before /images/graemlins/laugh.gif). What factors of intelligence have I assumed?

Rduke55

03-27-2006, 11:35 PM

Good Lord, not this again.

This has been done to death in this forum recently. Here's three threads wih in the last few months where race and intelligence came up.

Linky 1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4238417&an=&page=&vc=1)

Linky 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4815874&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

Linky 3 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4885317&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

I don't know if I have the energy or patience to go through all this again. Search is your friend.

bunny

03-27-2006, 11:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like this definition of intelligence: "Intelligence is the ability to make and use tools to achieve one's desires" (interpreting "tools" to include reason, imagination, intuition, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]
This feels a little inadequate (as you have assumed desires and include reason, imagination, intuition, etc within the definition). It seems to me that you may be assuming all the factors of intelligence without making them explicit which makes the definition unobjectionable but not particularly helpful in discriminating between two cases. If I asked you whether an ant is intelligent you'd need to know beforehand whether it had desires which would mean knowing if it was intelligent (perhaps - I'm just musing here)...I wonder if you've just moved the problem a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go along (Lord knows I've been wrong before /images/graemlins/laugh.gif). What factors of intelligence have I assumed?

[/ QUOTE ]
What I meant is in order to answer the question "is so-and-so intelligent" using your definition, you need to know whether it has desires and whether it uses reason, imagination, intuition, etc. I dont think you can know that without knowing beforehand if it is intelligent or not.

Again, I dont think this is a failing on your part but an inherent problem in defining concepts like life, intelligence, consciousness, etc. I use the words and have an understanding of what I mean but I cant define them

purnell

03-28-2006, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant is in order to answer the question "is so-and-so intelligent" using your definition, you need to know whether it has desires and whether it uses reason, imagination, intuition, etc. I dont think you can know that without knowing beforehand if it is intelligent or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

All forms of animal life have (at the very least) the desire to remain alive. I'll go out on a limb and say that because of that desire all forms of animal life possess intelligence. I don't think my dog is capable of using reason, but he is capable of using his senses, limbs, claws, and teeth to get food. Reason, imagination, etc are not required for intelligence, but advanced forms of intelligence can use these very powerful tools to get what they want.

edit: Maybe the most basic desire is to avoid or alleviate pain, rather than to remain alive. In order to desire survival, a being must be aware of death, and that's not something I'm willing to attribute to all forms of animal life.

purnell

03-28-2006, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Good Lord, not this again.

This has been done to death in this forum recently. Here's three threads wih in the last few months where race and intelligence came up.

Linky 1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4238417&an=&page=&vc=1)

Linky 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4815874&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

Linky 3 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4885317&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

I don't know if I have the energy or patience to go through all this again. Search is your friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I have no problem hijacking this thread. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

moorobot

03-28-2006, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]

As outlined in the book "The Bell Curve" there are racial and ethnic differences in IQ that cannot be sufficiently explained by environmental factors such as nutrition, social policy, or racism.

I havent read this monster of a book (yet), but does anyone care on elaborating a little more on this?

[/ QUOTE ] As has been mentioned before, this book is not scientifically credible. For an almost comprehensive demonstration of why it is a ridiculous piece of literature, See the book by one of the most distinguished thinkers of our time, Stephen Jay Gould, entitled "The Mismeasure of Man".

Secondly,as has already been mentioned, race is not a biological fact. It does not really exist except in our minds, much like god (an atheist like myself would say). However, because it is real in our minds it has real consequences for us and hence is important: falsehoods can be as pragmatic as truths.

moorobot

03-28-2006, 05:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All forms of animal life have (at the very least) the desire to remain alive. I'll go out on a limb and say that because of that desire all forms of animal life possess intelligence. I don't think my dog is capable of using reason, but he is capable of using his senses, limbs, claws, and teeth to get food. Reason, imagination, etc are not required for intelligence, but advanced forms of intelligence can use these very powerful tools to get what they want.

edit: Maybe the most basic desire is to avoid or alleviate pain, rather than to remain alive. In order to desire survival, a being must be aware of death, and that's not something I'm willing to attribute to all forms of animal life.

[/ QUOTE ] The most basic desire is to ensure the survival and fitness of our genes, hence Richard Dawkins called his book 'the selfish gene': humans are not self-interested in terms of themselves as an individual, they are self-interested in terms of ensuring the existensce and success of the genes in their body.

They aren't usually conscious of this e.g. a man doesn't realize that why he is attracted to a beautiful woman is because beauty is a sign of genetic fitness and hence children they have together would tend to be evolutionarily sucessful, also we might say that we have sex because it is pleasurable, but it is pleasurable because that is how our genes replicate themselves, so we can more accurately say that the cause of sex amongst humans is the fact that natural selection would pick a creature who enjoyed engaging in potentially reproductive activities.

MidGe

03-28-2006, 05:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly,as has already been mentioned, race is not a biological fact. It does not really exist except in our minds, much like god (an atheist like myself would say). However, because it is real in our minds it has real consequences for us and hence is important: falsehoods can be as pragmatic as truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

OTOH, I would not rate SJ Gould as highly as you do, not that I would diminish the value of "The Mismeasure of Man" in particular. Ah well! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

moorobot

03-28-2006, 05:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They've already shown that IQ doesn't mean much. It's not at all a determinant to success, happiness, achievement,academic achievement , anything, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely you are joking

[/ QUOTE ] IQ is not a good determinant/predictor of the things you two are talking about, it is correlated with those things but seems not to be the cause. See the paper by Sam Bowles and Herbert Gintis called the 'Inheritance of Inequality' as well as a recent book they wrote on the determinants of economic success in a capitialistic economy for more but here is a quote of myself from the politics forum:

[ QUOTE ]

Recent studies have shown IQ to be a poor predictor of future economic 'success'; I think the following is the main reason, even though it is somewhat correlated (remember, correlation is not causation or a predictor in itself).

Because of luck in the natural and social lottery (better schooling, more and better time spent with parents, better genes, don't have to work etc.) people who are born to wealthy parents are more likely to have a high IQ than people born to poor parents

People with a high IQ who are born to wealthy parents tend to be wealthy. People born to a wealthy family who have a low IQ tend to be wealthy as well.

However, people born to poor parents tend to be poor regardless of their IQ; A person with a high IQ born to impoverished parents is less likely to be productive or wealthy, in the U.S., then someone with a low IQ born to wealthy families.

So in other words, parents economic status is an intervening variable that explains away most of the correlation between IQ and economic sucess/productivity. People tend to be wealthy if their parents were wealthy; the single best predictor of one's sucess in the economic realm in the United States is socioeconomic status of one's parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

purnell

03-28-2006, 07:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The most basic desire is to ensure the survival and fitness of our genes, hence Richard Dawkins called his book 'the selfish gene': humans are not self-interested in terms of themselves as an individual, they are self-interested in terms of ensuring the existensce and success of the genes in their body.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid (and Dawkins' book is well worth reading), but we were talking about the definition of intelligence. The existence of motivation is all that is required.

jason_t

03-28-2006, 10:06 AM

Just read Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.

MrMon

03-28-2006, 02:24 PM

I think the idea that race does not exist is a bunch of feel-good politically correct nonsense and a deliberate misstating of the data. If by the idea of "race" we mean that people who look alike are of the same race, that pretty much is a social construct. But if we take the idea of "race" to mean any group of people who have been geographically or culturally isolated for a long period of time, long enough to create a genetic subtype, then the concept of "race" certainly exists biologically. And any given individual can belong to more than one genetic subtype.

If each of these subtypes can possess certain genetic characteristics in the negative, e.g. Tay-Sachs, sickle cell Anemia, or cystic fibrosis, why cannot these same subgroups also possess positive characteristics as well? Inconvenient question, and certainly controversial, but I think everyday experience tells us that there are bound to be some characteristics for which it is true.

The real key is realizing that just because someone belongs to a group that has a tendency to have this or that trait is to realize that it is not an indicator that any given individual actually has this or that trait. There is variation within the group. But fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the trait, the dice are loaded, and you get one roll. The result is called a person. And we should judge people on who they are as individuals, not what group they belong to.

Rduke55

03-28-2006, 04:41 PM

Why am I too weak to resist these threads?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea that race does not exist is a bunch of feel-good politically correct nonsense and a deliberate misstating of the data.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because of the data it's thought to be a social construct.

[ QUOTE ]
If by the idea of "race" we mean that people who look alike are of the same race, that pretty much is a social construct. But if we take the idea of "race" to mean any group of people who have been geographically or culturally isolated for a long period of time,long enough to create a genetic subtype, then the concept of "race" certainly exists biologically.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to realize that a given race is made up of a large number of these groups. That's where a huge problem with race is. Besides it being a continuum, genetic differences between populations within a race is often greater than differences between races.

Also, most of these threads start by talking about MASSIVELY complex traits like intelligence, which is the result of a shitload of genes, environment, etc. rather than something like variation in a certain protein.

guesswest

03-28-2006, 06:09 PM

I read about that marshmallow test too - I'm not surprised by the result. Deferred gratification is a skill possessed by almost every successful person I've ever met (and is very useful in poker). It's also unfortunately a skill I'm totally lacking in /images/graemlins/frown.gif - I'd have taken the single marshmallow even if the alternative was 100 of them 30 seconds later.

You can't take a valid IQ test online.

RE: the race thing. There was a thread going on here a while ago about race and IQ - it does turn out that there are significant physiological differences in brain structures and weight (both of which are indicators of IQ) throughout different parts of the world, notably Africa which records lower IQs, and in proportion to brain physiology (ie higher IQ's in the North). So whether IQ tests are racially biased in a cultural sense, of whether certain racial groups just have lower IQs due to hardwiring, I don't know. I was intuitively opposed to the idea that a particularly racial group could be inherently 'smarter' but it seems theres a lot of compelling evidence out there to that effect. And yes race is a continuum, so's aging, the fact that there's crossover doesn't mean it's non-existant.

Rduke55

03-28-2006, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

RE: the race thing. There was a thread going on here a while ago about race and IQ - it does turn out that there are significant physiological differences in brain structures and weight (both of which are indicators of IQ) throughout different parts of the world, notably Africa which records lower IQs, and in proportion to brain physiology (ie higher IQ's in the North). So whether IQ tests are racially biased in a cultural sense, of whether certain racial groups just have lower IQs due to hardwiring, I don't know. I was intuitively opposed to the idea that a particularly racial group could be inherently 'smarter' but it seems theres a lot of compelling evidence out there to that effect. And yes race is a continuum, so's aging, the fact that there's crossover doesn't mean it's non-existant.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a lot of discussion on the serious flaws in the concept, design, methodology, and interpretation of those studies as well. Most people in those fields doo not see those studies as accurate.

And the continuum is only one reason of the trouble with race as I and others have stated before.

FlFishOn

03-28-2006, 07:54 PM

"The problem is that racial identification is a MODERN fiction."

In the not too distant past everyone had a solid mental image to go along with any racial identifier. I still do. An awful lot of the old time racial prejudices/stereotypes were well correlated. Some still are.

FlFishOn

03-28-2006, 08:15 PM

"Forget whether or not The Bell Curve is true for a moment and consider the implications if it were true. What would be the implications to society? "

This is what rocked the world. If they are at all close then so many social programs as now constructed are simply pissing into the wind. This was a concept that could not stand.

I've read the book twice and about 10 other works in the same area. I find it plausable and that convinces me that we have little hope of successfully addressing many current social problems. I'm certain that today any Bell Curve ideas can not be implemented under any circumstances here in the US, they are too hot. If you mention Blacks in any way that is unflattering and you hold any public position you will be signing your own professional death warrant (Jimmy the Greek, Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott). Even Bill Cosby ran into resistance.

Utah

03-28-2006, 09:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You need to realize that a given race is made up of a large number of these groups. That's where a huge problem with race is. Besides it being a continuum, genetic differences between populations within a race is often greater than differences between races.

Also, most of these threads start by talking about MASSIVELY complex traits like intelligence, which is the result of a shitload of genes, environment, etc. rather than something like variation in a certain protein.

[/ QUOTE ]What is wrong with talking about massively complex traits like intelligence? Also, how can you be sure that it isnt a certain protein?? We can measure athletic differences by something as simple as fast twitch muscles. What on earth outlaws a simple solution for differences in intelligence?

moorobot

03-28-2006, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

RE: the race thing. There was a thread going on here a while ago about race and IQ - it does turn out that there are significant physiological differences in brain structures and weight (both of which are indicators of IQ) throughout different parts of the world, notably Africa which records lower IQs, and in proportion to brain physiology (ie higher IQ's in the North). So whether IQ tests are racially biased in a cultural sense, of whether certain racial groups just have lower IQs due to hardwiring, I don't know. I was intuitively opposed to the idea that a particularly racial group could be inherently 'smarter' but it seems theres a lot of compelling evidence out there to that effect. And yes race is a continuum, so's aging, the fact that there's crossover doesn't mean it's non-existant.

[/ QUOTE ] These studies were flawed:

[ QUOTE ]
Just read Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.

[/ QUOTE ]

moorobot

03-28-2006, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

"The problem is that racial identification is a MODERN fiction."

In the not too distant past everyone had a solid mental image to go along with any racial identifier. I still do. An awful lot of the old time racial prejudices/stereotypes were well correlated. Some still are.

[/ QUOTE ] No, race is not a biological fact, it is only real in our minds period.

The reason these prejudices/ stereotypes were well correlated, if they indeed were, was because of environmental differences, not genetics; it was luck in the social lottery and not the natural lottery that lead to any differences.

moorobot

03-28-2006, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I find it plausable and that convinces me that we have little hope of successfully addressing many current social problems.

[/ QUOTE ] Please, read Gould's book Mismeasure of man which quite clearly shows it is not plausible.

and it is unlikely that if it were true it would mean social problems are unsolvable, it would just change how we would have to go about solving them.

MrMon

03-28-2006, 09:57 PM

I don't think we need to go far to see that clearly some groups adapt and hyperdevelop certain traits in superiority to other groups. Let's take poker for example. Anyone ever notice how among pros, Jews are disproportionately represented? Anyone ever wonder why? Is there a poker gene? Do they teach poker in Hebrew school? Something cultural?

Here's my theory. For hundreds of years, European Jews were prohibited from owning land and entering many professions. The ones they could enter, like moneylending, were math intensive. Culturally isolated, they of course tended to breed within their group, those best at math tended to do best, had bigger families, etc. Over a period as short as 1000 years, this development of a math "brain" had a telling effect. When math suddenly became important to society in general, who dominated? Those who were math oriented, of course. Those traits are present in other groups, of course, but they are more prevalant in a population that's been forced to develop that skill for a long period. Poker comes along, also math oriented, and they are disproprtionately there as well.

Can't prove my theory other than through anecdotal evidence, and I'd love to see a study on it, but if the theory held, it would show that reardless of the skill or "intelligence", it is possible that certain groups do possess an advantage, and it can develop over a relatively short period of time.

Copernicus

03-28-2006, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we need to go far to see that clearly some groups adapt and hyperdevelop certain traits in superiority to other groups. Let's take poker for example. Anyone ever notice how among pros, Jews are disproportionately represented? Anyone ever wonder why? Is there a poker gene? Do they teach poker in Hebrew school? Something cultural?

Here's my theory. For hundreds of years, European Jews were prohibited from owning land and entering many professions. The ones they could enter, like moneylending, were math intensive. Culturally isolated, they of course tended to breed within their group, those best at math tended to do best, had bigger families, etc . Over a period as short as 1000 years, this development of a math "brain" had a telling effect. When math suddenly became important to society in general, who dominated? Those who were math oriented, of course. Those traits are present in other groups, of course, but they are more prevalant in a population that's been forced to develop that skill for a long period. Poker comes along, also math oriented, and they are disproprtionately there as well.

Can't prove my theory other than through anecdotal evidence, and I'd love to see a study on it, but if the theory held, it would show that reardless of the skill or "intelligence", it is possible that certain groups do possess an advantage, and it can develop over a relatively short period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cultural immersion is sufficient, without isolation and without breeding.

FlFishOn

03-28-2006, 10:22 PM

"These studies were flawed:"

All studies are flawed. I can find a social 'scientist' to attest to anything. Used to be snake oil, today it's social science.

FlFishOn

03-28-2006, 10:27 PM

"...it is possible that certain groups do possess an advantage, and it can develop over a relatively short period of time."

Now please explain Hip Hop.

Honestly, I'm with you on this. It's just non-PC dynamite and that will cause the students in the group to, at a minimum, squirm in their chairs. You can't say these things on campus today. You'd go straight to re-education camp or worse. Thinking them is also prohibited, a clear thought crime.

MidGe

03-28-2006, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Cultural immersion is sufficient, without isolation and without breeding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right! And more, to expect physiological evolution over a few hundred years within a species that has such a long generational period, is really believing in evolution, LOL. It borders on fanaticism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

FlFishOn

03-28-2006, 10:47 PM

"and it is unlikely that if it were true (Bell Curve) it would mean social problems are unsolvable, it would just change how we would have to go about solving them. "

No, their solution is impossible given common (and likely wrong) assumptions built up over the past 40 years. Tell me how, as a politician, you could propose any social change predicated on the idea that maybe US Blacks don't have a fully developed view of the future and future consequences, as compared to US Whites. This is suicide. This will not be incorporated into any social policy.

guesswest

03-29-2006, 03:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

RE: the race thing. There was a thread going on here a while ago about race and IQ - it does turn out that there are significant physiological differences in brain structures (both of which are indicators of IQ) throughout different parts of the world, notably Africa which records lower IQs, and in proportion to brain physiology (ie higher IQ's in the North). So whether IQ tests are racially biased in a cultural sense, of whether certain racial groups just have lower IQs due to hardwiring, I don't know. I was intuitively opposed to the idea that a particularly racial group could be inherently 'smarter' but it seems theres a lot of compelling evidence out there to that effect. And yes race is a continuum, so's aging, the fact that there's crossover doesn't mean it's non-existant.

[/ QUOTE ] These studies were flawed:

[ QUOTE ]
Just read Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read Gould's book quite some time ago, and I agree it's got a lot to offer, but you should remember it was very controversial at the time - many of his peers accused him of inaccuracies and bad science, and of misrepresenting their own work to further his own political agenda. Not to mention the fact that a whole lot of new research has been done in this area since he wrote it.

I remember when this thread came up last time I instinctively and vocally argued that there were no physiological factors accounting for IQ differences between races (and that they differ in all societies is fact), and automatically jumped on the idea of cultural and other biases in the tests themselves. As a liberal I'm programmed to do that. But I sort of regretted doing so afterwards because the evidence for genetic explanations is actually quite considerable, it's not a few studies it's numerous studies. Many of them hypothesising and looking for the exact opposite.

And as for the consensus view of experts in that field, I couldn't find a consensus view on this issue, I didn't read of many people willing to take a stand on it either way. I guess primarily because so many would use that information for distasteful and bigoted purposes if it was validated. But truth-seeking should be independent, whether it's convenient to a social view or not, and I found such a wealth of information on this when I looked about that I'm hard pressed to say there's nothing to it.

A good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Warren Whitmore

03-29-2006, 06:54 AM

The bell curve was a fun book to read. It costed $50 bucks when I bought it. You can get it on ebay these days for 50 cents. It had very little on race in it although oddly enough race issues became its biggest selling point.

The two most interesting things in it in my opinion where.

1) Men have an IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15 and woman have a mean IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 13.

2) IQ and income correlate tightly.

FlFishOn

03-29-2006, 11:13 AM

"2) IQ and income correlate tightly. "

It's a bit more than that. They detail many life outcomes that correlate with IQ, income being only one.

My favorite piece of research was the comparison of income between Whites and Blacks when you control for IQ. It was almost equal.

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 11:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I've read the book twice and about 10 other works in the same area.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you list those 10?

P.S. The Turner Diaries doesn't count.

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What is wrong with talking about massively complex traits like intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing by itself. In fact a thread talking about the nature of intelligence (as where Purnell started pushing this thread. Nice try /images/graemlins/smile.gif but these people are tough to dislodge.) However people in these idiotic threads are ascribing changes in a certain trait - one that is the product of the interaction to a ton of different genes and environmental influences - to relatively small genetic differences.
Also - and this is a big problem - in regards to this trait they are separating people into categories where real scientific distinctions are not made.

[ QUOTE ]
We can measure athletic differences by something as simple as fast twitch muscles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the difference between the two (actually more than that - some say 3) types of skeletal muscle fibers are larger than a difference in a single protein.

[ QUOTE ]
What on earth outlaws a simple solution for differences in intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Decades of research.

guesswest

03-29-2006, 01:28 PM

I certainly wouldn't argue that the two main concepts involved in this discussion are elusive - namely race and intelligence. It's also true that both of these areas have massively complex internal variables and that there's huge crossover between classes. But the fact that this subject is murky doesn't mean that there's insufficient information to identify any kind of statistically valid pattern.

Yes the IQ test is limited and very specific, but it's still very useful as a predictive test for various purposes. Yes, race is scientifically intangible - but it clearly exists, and there are definitely various physical traits that have developed (skin color for one) as a result of breeding in isolation for millenia. With the advance of globalization these distinctions are undoubtably being eroded, but they're still here in some measure for now.

There's strong evidence of a correllation between different physical brain characteristics and IQ, and strong evidence that certain characteristics occur with more or less frequency within certain races. It's therefore entirely reasonable to suggest that a pattern emerges, albeit it a cloudy one, suggesting different average intelligences due to physiology - or at the very least different kinds of intelligence predominating, amongst different races.

The problem as I see it is this - I've brought up this subject with friends of mine, who are almost exclusively lefty academic types. And though they're open to the most outlandish theories of all kinds and with few taboos, they argue against this suggestion with a sort of knee-jerk reaction. I'm not suggesting anyone specifically here is doing this, but surely any intellectually honest person has to admit that there's at least enough evidence in support of such a view that it's worthy of study and consideration.

FlFishOn

03-29-2006, 01:42 PM

Ask me that 8 years ago.

FlFishOn

03-29-2006, 01:50 PM

"I'm not suggesting anyone specifically here is doing this, but surely any intellectually honest person has to admit that there's at least enough evidence in support of such a view that it's worthy of study and consideration. "

Intellectual honesty is in very short supply when a subject like this is on the radar. The enlightened left can accept none of these conclusions so ever study is flawed, every researcher has a racist agenda etc. It won't be changing anytime soon, in fact the movement is against any potential race based differentiation. Sad indeed.

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
they argue against this suggestion with a sort of knee-jerk reaction. I'm not suggesting anyone specifically here is doing this, but surely any intellectually honest person has to admit that there's at least enough evidence in support of such a view that it's worthy of study and consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in the other threads, I study brain evolution. That's my profession. I've been doing it for years and I can say I've probably read every peer-reviewed word on it as well as the popular science books on it. Also, many of my colleagues are cognitive scientists. This is a subject we research, study, and have meetings on.
My posts in these threads are in no way due to a "knee-jerk reaction" or political correctness (I'm to the right of most academics) but the result of years of work in the field.

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ask me that 8 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't remember any of them?

FlFishOn

03-29-2006, 03:00 PM

I don't remember the title of the book I read last week.

I remember one author, Phillip Rushton or Rushdon from Canada. He became a target of presecution but I liked his work. Also Jared Taylor, a clear racist. My kinda guy.

Sharkey

03-29-2006, 03:36 PM

IQ is yet another “scientific” charlatanry. In this case it’s misapplied culturally biased measurements and racist propaganda.

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 03:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
IQ is yet another “scientific” charlatanry. In this case it’s misapplied culturally biased measurements and racist propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey, please don't hijack and try to disprove evolution in every thread where where it's mentioned. While it's fine in threads about whether or not evolution happened, creationism, etc. in this thread a bunch of people that pretty much believe in certain evolutionary processes (whether or not they believe in Evolution with a capital E) are discussing some of its aspects and interpretations. Most of the people are starting from a point of agreement and we are going from there in our discussion.
In threads not about creationism, ID, and evolution, pretend we're all gamers talking details about a game. The game is "Evolution" and we are discussing strategy and hand histories. Whether or not this game is applicable to the real world is not up for debate in this thread. Please humor us.

Sharkey

03-29-2006, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IQ is yet another “scientific” charlatanry. In this case it’s misapplied culturally biased measurements and racist propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey, please don't hijack and try to disprove evolution in every thread where where it's mentioned. While it's fine in threads about whether or not evolution happened, creationism, etc. in this thread a bunch of people that pretty much believe in certain evolutionary processes (whether or not they believe in Evolution with a capital E) are discussing some of its aspects and interpretations. Most of the people are starting from a point of agreement and we are going from there in our discussion.
In threads not about creationism, ID, and evolution, pretend we're all gamers talking details about a game. The game is "Evolution" and we are discussing strategy and hand histories. Whether or not this game is applicable to the real world is not up for debate in this thread. Please humor us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why are you bringing up evolution in an unrelated thread?

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why are you bringing up evolution in an unrelated thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm psychic.
Sorry if I offended you. Please continue.

Sharkey

03-29-2006, 04:08 PM

Not offended.

guesswest

03-29-2006, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they argue against this suggestion with a sort of knee-jerk reaction. I'm not suggesting anyone specifically here is doing this, but surely any intellectually honest person has to admit that there's at least enough evidence in support of such a view that it's worthy of study and consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in the other threads, I study brain evolution. That's my profession. I've been doing it for years and I can say I've probably read every peer-reviewed word on it as well as the popular science books on it. Also, many of my colleagues are cognitive scientists. This is a subject we research, study, and have meetings on.
My posts in these threads are in no way due to a "knee-jerk reaction" or political correctness (I'm to the right of most academics) but the result of years of work in the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're reacting to charge I didn't level here. I said I didn't think anyone in this thread was doing that, and certainly not yourself - your posts have all been well thought out and reasonable. There was no hidden accusation there, I meant what I said as I said it. And the lefty liberal thing was primarily self-defacing/humorous - I consider myself one on the most part.

I was really just getting at the idea that this subject is so charged it's hard to objectively discuss. I'm by no means an expert in this field or claiming to be one, but I feel like if I was I'd be terrified of making any kind of public pronoucement in defence of this argument. So I have to infer that those who are in a position to do so must feel that weight also. I think much more consideration would be given to the race side of this discussion if it was a totally emotionally/socially neutral subject, like the cognitive functioning of different species of goldfish for example.

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 04:46 PM

Sorry, it's just that I've been through this subject a few times with people that are more ignorant than you and it may have sensitized me /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

MidGe

03-29-2006, 06:23 PM

Here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18622995-13762,00.html) is a today's news article that may fuel the debate. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Chez, I know you will love this. You are better than the french! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chezlaw

03-29-2006, 06:31 PM

MidGe

03-29-2006, 06:36 PM

It is the bloody diet. Boiled meat and overcooked vegetables must be good for you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18622995-13762,00.html) is a today's news article that may fuel the debate. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Chez, I know you will love this. You are better than the french! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly Britons and French are stooopid. That's been accepted in most scientific circles for centuries and has no bearing on the matter at hand.

Seriously though, I doubt the differences Lynn cites are significant.
Also, we haven't heard much from him in a long time. He's coming out wiht a book? This should be interesting.

Rduke55

03-29-2006, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember the title of the book I read last week.

I remember one author, Phillip Rushton or Rushdon from Canada. He became a target of presecution but I liked his work. Also Jared Taylor, a clear racist. My kinda guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. You're using Taylor's work as evidence you're educated on the subject?

I'm assuming that you're talking about J.P. Rushton, specifically Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History.
Many excellent critiques of this book are available with some searching.

Sharkey

03-29-2006, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is variation within the group. But fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the trait, the dice are loaded, and you get one roll. The result is called a person. And we should judge people on who they are as individuals, not what group they belong to.

[/ QUOTE ]

An important consideration is the difference between what a test is claimed to measure and what it actually measures. That is where actual science, as opposed to scientism, is necessary.

Another factor is that much of what is evaluated by IQ is a function of the cultural setting that created the concept, a context that may be here today and gone tomorrow.

FlFishOn

03-29-2006, 08:07 PM

"I'm confused. You're using Taylor's work as evidence you're educated on the subject?"

My bona fides are not on trial here. You wanted to know what I read. I read Taylor for sure.

Taylor is way, way fringe, a racist. He takes 'Bell Curve' as gospel and extrapolates from there, more or less the exact opposite of conventional academia. I'm a racist but not quite so extreme.

laurentia

03-29-2006, 10:20 PM

[/ QUOTE ] As has been mentioned before, this book is not scientifically credible. For an almost comprehensive demonstration of why it is a ridiculous piece of literature, See the book by one of the most distinguished thinkers of our time, Stephen Jay Gould, entitled "The Mismeasure of Man".

Secondly,as has already been mentioned, race is not a biological fact. It does not really exist except in our minds, much like god (an atheist like myself would say). However, because it is real in our minds it has real consequences for us and hence is important: falsehoods can be as pragmatic as truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gould was not "one of the most distinguished thinkers" but only a failed scientist and one the worst activists "of our time" and if you don't believe me check it with Richard Dawkins or Arthur Jensen.

If it was true that race didn't exist or with other words if science couldn't see what a three year old can than we could throw out science. Fortunately that is not true either.

MrMon

03-30-2006, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cultural immersion is sufficient, without isolation and without breeding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right! And more, to expect physiological evolution over a few hundred years within a species that has such a long generational period, is really believing in evolution, LOL. It borders on fanaticism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are going to have to do better than that, just wave the cultural immersion wand around. What is it in Judaism that would make poker prodigies? And we're talking all stripes of the religion, from non-religious to Orthodox. We may even be talking about people who's families haven't practiced Judaism in a generation or two. Pretty hard to culturally pass on something when there's no culture.

As for there not being time to develop math gene, we're talking 40-50 generations here. Are you telling me you really can't develop traits in 40-50 generations? I think breeders of fruit flies and dogs would disagree with you.

sawseech

03-30-2006, 01:55 AM

classical iq tests don't include running fast, jumping high, singing, and rapping

joejoejoe

03-30-2006, 03:31 AM

blacks and gays are stupid people for sure

guesswest

03-30-2006, 05:13 AM

siegfriedandroy

03-30-2006, 06:00 AM

Sometimes I feel that if I was white, my IQ would be like 15 points higher.

siegfriedandroy

03-30-2006, 06:04 AM

Could any of you please provide some obvious examples of racial bias in these tests (in addition to the ones sawseech so elouently mentioned /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

siegfriedandroy

03-30-2006, 06:05 AM

punctuated e rules

siegfriedandroy

03-30-2006, 06:08 AM

For example, a good friend of mine is black, yet he has a small penis. (He is good at basketball, though.)

guesswest

03-30-2006, 08:50 AM

There's two ways to approach this, one is to say IQ tests are inherently biased because what they measure is in large part what is packaged with the traditionally white european education model.

The other way is to accept the underlying intention of the IQ test as valid, but point to biases in it's application. It used to be the case that language and question choice were a problem with IQ tests. For instance you'd see questions which referenced national holidays, particular sports. In those examples an immigrant or foreigner who might otherwise understand the underlying math or logic question, would get the answer wrong because they weren't familiar with the premise. But most IQ tests have now removed those kind of questions and replaced them with terms as univerally understandable as is possible. And the removal of non-neutral language in these tests did see a small adjustment in IQ scores.

After these adjustments there are still differences in IQ accross different race groups, and they're present when all kinds of factors are adjusted for. For instance restricting the cross-race sample group to persons all living in the same neighbourhood/going to the same school etc. Or on the other side of things, comparing samples that have been completely isolated from the western cultural/educational model - for instance sub-Saharan Africa vs rural Bangladesh. It's far from conclusive at this point, but it's a pattern that pops up again and again in all kinds of studies, and IQ scores are remarkably consistent when factoring for race - regardless of culture and education levels.

Edit: And a gaping hole in the IQ testing as a product of the white European education model theory is that asians outperform whites in IQ tests.

FlFishOn

03-30-2006, 01:26 PM

"What is it in Judaism that would make poker prodigies?"

Not a Jew but here goes. For a few thousand years the rabbis have tended to have the largest number of offspring. They also tend to be above (jewish) average intelligence. It won't take too many dozen generations for this selection scheme to bear fruit.

Want to be amazed? Check out the percentage of Jews winning Nobel science prizes. Then check out the number of women.

MrMon

03-30-2006, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"What is it in Judaism that would make poker prodigies?"

Not a Jew but here goes. For a few thousand years the rabbis have tended to have the largest number of offspring. They also tend to be above (jewish) average intelligence. It won't take too many dozen generations for this selection scheme to bear fruit.

Want to be amazed? Check out the percentage of Jews winning Nobel science prizes. Then check out the number of women.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would tend to prove my point, not disprove it. You're saying it the genetics of the parent, not their culture that produces the result, which is not what others are arguing. Not that I totally agree with your example, I think the phenomenon of rabbis with tons of kids is a more modern trend than historial, but it's possible. And yes, rabbis have to be pretty intelligent. But I think their kind of intelligence breeds lawyers, not scientists.

Sharkey

03-30-2006, 04:01 PM

The racial bias is built into the culture that produced the test. And not necessarily a bias against anyone else, but an unconscious bias in favour of itself.

guesswest

03-30-2006, 05:12 PM

Except as I mentioned the white europeans who invented the first IQ tests, and compiled all the modern ones, aren't the ones that record the highest scores.

Edit: and furthermore IQ scores have been shown to be remarkably consistent accross cultures and education levels - there's numerous studies on identical twins to this effect.

Sharkey

03-30-2006, 05:26 PM

That’s true. Generally speaking, IQ rises as you go further east, with Chinese, Japanese and Koreans having the highest scores.

Nevertheless, it’s western European culture that has set the standard for the last few centuries.

cambraceres

03-30-2006, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That’s true. Generally speaking, IQ rises as you go further east, with Chinese, Japanese and Koreans having the highest scores.

Nevertheless, it’s western European culture that has set the standard for the last few centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

several studies have put the Ashkenazi Jews at the top of the IQ food chain, I hope I spelled that right. The link is in an old post of mine about the hungarian/martian theory.

Cambraceres

Sharkey

03-30-2006, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s true. Generally speaking, IQ rises as you go further east, with Chinese, Japanese and Koreans having the highest scores.

Nevertheless, it’s western European culture that has set the standard for the last few centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

several studies have put the Ashkenazi Jews at the top of the IQ food chain, I hope I spelled that right. The link is in an old post of mine about the hungarian/martian theory.

Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I meant in broad contours.

When the Asians assume a greater influence in the world, they might decide to invent their own measure, call it EQ, corresponding to the intellectual qualities they impose as a new standard.

Utah

03-31-2006, 05:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What on earth outlaws a simple solution for differences in intelligence?....Decades of research.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, but that is absolutely incorrect and there is nothing that suggests there is a definitive answer to the question. For you to think that the possibility has been outlawed is the classic mistake, hubris, so often made by experts on a subject.

Heck, I can think of a simple example that might show the contrary: My dad and mom are wicked smart, my sister is wicked smart, my brother is wicked smart, and I do pretty well myself. Occam's razor would lead us to the simple explanation that my brother and sister's intelligence is a simple genetic trait based down from my mother and/or father just like height, facial features, etc are based down. One does not need some wildly complex theory to explain it.

MidGe

03-31-2006, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the simple explanation that my brother and sister's intelligence is a simple genetic trait based down from my mother and/or father just like height, facial features, etc are based down.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP was about IQ not intelligence. IMO, those are two different things regardless of what IQ purports to measure. Secondly, taking about genetic traits in your family and comparing "smartness" whatver that is, to physical features, I know that two ugly parents can have a beautiful child and vice-versa. That is the extend of your argument, I am afraid. Don't confuse Occam razor with over simplification or over generalisations. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

guesswest

03-31-2006, 06:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What on earth outlaws a simple solution for differences in intelligence?....Decades of research.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, but that is absolutely incorrect and there is nothing that suggests there is a definitive answer to the question. For you to think that the possibility has been outlawed is the classic mistake, hubris, so often made by experts on a subject.

Heck, I can think of a simple example that might show the contrary: My dad and mom are wicked smart, my sister is wicked smart, my brother is wicked smart, and I do pretty well myself. Occam's razor would lead us to the simple explanation that my brother and sister's intelligence is a simple genetic trait based down from my mother and/or father just like height, facial features, etc are based down. One does not need some wildly complex theory to explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want anecdotal evidence the other way. I have a pretty high IQ - I score a 143 on WAIS II, which is equivalent to a 168 on Cattell B and represents the 99.8th percentile (classification = poetic genius) and significantly above the average phd IQ. I feel like an @ss shouting out my IQ, but it's to make a point......

My mother, who is an awesome person, probably has an IQ of about 80. Which is classified by that same criteria as 'dull' and just above 'borderline retard'. Since I was a little kid I had to read through bills, bank statements and letters and explain to her what they meant. She struggles with basic arithmetic when shopping, and myself or my sister have to do her taxes every year because she doesn't understand them. As for my dad's IQ, I don't really know, but I'd guess at 100-110, certainly nothing special.

It's true that genetic inheritance has been identified as the single most significant factor in IQ scores, but it is far from the only one. Do you really think lively discussion would have been going on in academic circles for decades if it was?

Utah

03-31-2006, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you want anecdotal evidence the other way...

[/ QUOTE ]Please note that I am not arguing it is simple. I am simply saying a simple solution cannot be outlawed by current research. A theory or solution only works if it can explain away the apparent contradictions. I wouldnt say the solution is simple simply because you can counter that argument quite easily - like you did.

That being said, I am guessing there are some very simple mechanisms at play. About 2 million years ago the brain went through rapid expansion. This was likely caused by female sexual selection. It would have been extremely difficult to have seen that rapid growth under a "complex intelligence" argument. Rather, it was likely the result simple mutations and simple selection/adaption.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think lively discussion would have been going on in academic circles for decades if it was?

[/ QUOTE ]Sure. Why not? Also, scientists have been constantly shown to be wrong on key issues for many reasons - bad arguments, bias, cultural norms, new data and approaches, hubris, etc. Look at the situation with black athletes. There is a simple answer - fast twitch muscle fiber. Yet, at one point it time Jimmy the Greek was fired and called a racist for pointing out the answer.

Again, I am not arguing a particular point other than the jury is not even close to an answer and to outlaw something simple is plain wrong.

Rduke55

03-31-2006, 07:52 PM

Lord, please let this thread die. The ridiculousness of it is killing me.

Crap, I jsut bumped it.

MidGe

03-31-2006, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lord, please let this thread die. The ridiculousness of it is killing me.

Crap, I jsut bumped it.

[/ QUOTE ]
We don't know what IQ mesures, we can'rt come to a definition of intelligence and races are not definable! Yey... it gets discussed! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Ah well, no wonder there is no agreement. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

PS: you should not have invoked the lord. Prayer doesn't work.. see other thread. lol.

Utah

03-31-2006, 10:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lord, please let this thread die. The ridiculousness of it is killing me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is is easy for you to type or does your over inflated ego get in the way of the keyboard? No worries - your over inflated ego is probably just a temporary problem and will likely shrink back to a normal size when all you ill conceived notions are blown out of the water and laid to waste like the ideas of so many smug "experts" before you.

Of course - it didnt escape me that you had no rebuttal for my argument..hmmmmm. I guess you simply had nothing smart or valuable to say.

Rduke55

04-01-2006, 01:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lord, please let this thread die. The ridiculousness of it is killing me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is is easy for you to type or does your over inflated ego get in the way of the keyboard? No worries - your over inflated ego is probably just a temporary problem and will likely shrink back to a normal size when all you ill conceived notions are blown out of the water and laid to waste like the ideas of so many smug "experts" before you.

Of course - it didnt escape me that you had no rebuttal for my argument..hmmmmm. I guess you simply had nothing smart or valuable to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right! Education, training, and experience clearly are inferior to the ignorant ramblings of a jackass that whores out his wife on the internet and has seen Point Break 50x.

guesswest

04-01-2006, 06:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Why not? Also, scientists have been constantly shown to be wrong on key issues for many reasons - bad arguments, bias, cultural norms, new data and approaches, hubris, etc. Look at the situation with black athletes. There is a simple answer - fast twitch muscle fiber. Yet, at one point it time Jimmy the Greek was fired and called a racist for pointing out the answer.

Again, I am not arguing a particular point other than the jury is not even close to an answer and to outlaw something simple is plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not ruling out the possibility that there is some simple solution to this that has been thus far unimagined. Although that possibility seems incredibly unlikely to me on an issue involving such a huge amount of variables, it has to be entertained, because that's the scientific principle.

But I am ruling out the particular simple solution you gave, because it's demonstrably wrong.

Utah

04-01-2006, 08:18 AM

Ah...you keep responding yet never provide any arguments to counter mine. Of course, one must logically you dont have any effective counter argument to make.

[ QUOTE ]
Education, training, and experience clearly are inferior to the ignorant ramblings of a jackass that whores out his wife on the internet and has seen Point Break 50x.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, your eduction, training, and experience are clearly no match for me. I think your simple failure to respond with a counter argument is clear evidence of that.

Of course, there arent many things more dangerous and stifling to ideas than someone who thinks their education, training, and experience make them smarter than others because such idiots so often insulate themselves from new ideas. Case in point - I am just a stupid little city college boy but this morning I need to go try and save a 40 year old company that is on the brink after being run by a couple of Wharton asses who thought their educaction, training, and experience made them better than everyone else and who refused to listen to others. It took them less than a year at the helm to screw the company up.

So, super smart boy with such great training and eduction - Come on. Prove me wrong. Make me look like a fool and make me slither back into the hole from which I come with my tail between my legs. I dare you because I know you cant. Show me a counter argument. You said a simple solution to intelligence was not possible because of decades or research. Post the research, make a argument, do something....

Or are you simply incapable of doing so because you assertion is 100% dead wrong? Come on super smart well educated trained boy.....make me see the light of your superior knowledge.

My guess - just to egg you on a bit more - is that you wont. I have seen it played out a 1000 times before. Some ass like you makes a statement, I counter it, and they simply have no capacity to respond so they simply attack like a little child. You remind me of the idiot on OOT who said that congnitive therapy worked and that there were tons of studies proving so. I told him he was wrong. He called me an idiot. I said post a single study proving his point..more attacks. But, in the end of the day he posted exactly zero studies. Show me that you are not like all those little kids who have no arguments to offer.

Come little boy - engage in a real argument. Fight for your idea. What are you arraid of?

Utah

04-01-2006, 08:41 AM

Why do think my solution it is demonstrably wrong? My solution very well may be wrong but you can't demostrate that it is. Please explain why you think so.

[ QUOTE ]
Although that possibility seems incredibly unlikely to me on an issue involving such a huge amount of variables, it has to be entertained, because that's the scientific principle.

[/ QUOTE ]How do you see a complex solution in light of evolution and the rapid increase in brain size starting about 2 million years ago? Genetic traits were either selected for or selected against. I would think that a simple solution fits evolution better:

a) simple genetic change makes male more intelligent
b) Female chooses smarter male in sexual selection process
c) Pair bond produces smarter offspring

I have a bit of trouble trying to think of complex intelligence model fitting into the known pattern of human evolution. Can you draw out a simple model showing how a complex model would explain the rapid growth of the brain?

guesswest

04-01-2006, 08:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah...you keep responding yet never provide any arguments to counter mine. Of course, one must logically you dont have any effective counter argument to make.

[ QUOTE ]
Education, training, and experience clearly are inferior to the ignorant ramblings of a jackass that whores out his wife on the internet and has seen Point Break 50x.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, your eduction, training, and experience are clearly no match for me. I think your simple failure to respond with a counter argument is clear evidence of that.

Of course, there arent many things more dangerous and stifling to ideas than someone who thinks their education, training, and experience make them smarter than others because such idiots so often insulate themselves from new ideas. Case in point - I am just a stupid little city college boy but this morning I need to go try and save a 40 year old company that is on the brink after being run by a couple of Wharton asses who thought their educaction, training, and experience made them better than everyone else and who refused to listen to others. It took them less than a year at the helm to screw the company up.

So, super smart boy with such great training and eduction - Come on. Prove me wrong. Make me look like a fool and make me slither back into the hole from which I come with my tail between my legs. I dare you because I know you cant. Show me a counter argument. You said a simple solution to intelligence was not possible because of decades or research. Post the research, make a argument, do something....

Or are you simply incapable of doing so because you assertion is 100% dead wrong? Come on super smart well educated trained boy.....make me see the light of your superior knowledge.

My guess - just to egg you on a bit more - is that you wont. I have seen it played out a 1000 times before. Some ass like you makes a statement, I counter it, and they simply have no capacity to respond so they simply attack like a little child. You remind me of the idiot on OOT who said that congnitive therapy worked and that there were tons of studies proving so. I told him he was wrong. He called me an idiot. I said post a single study proving his point..more attacks. But, in the end of the day he posted exactly zero studies. Show me that you are not like all those little kids who have no arguments to offer.

Come little boy - engage in a real argument. Fight for your idea. What are you arraid of?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not normally one to attack others, especially in the context of academic debate, but this post is profoundly childish.

The point of these debates is to try and expand your own view, learn something by interaction with others, not to 'win'. Academia is not meant to be a pissing match. If you're not open to changing your mind in equal measure to retaining your original view then you're not being intellectually honest. Learning is 100% of what this kind of exchange should be about - winning 0% of it. And if you view winning a debate as a victory, or losing a debate as a defeat, then you're in the wrong place.

guesswest

04-01-2006, 09:05 AM

And in response to your subsequent post, which wasn't up when I wrote the above. I said 'demonstrably' because your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you're smart because your parents are smart, that IQ is inherited that way as your simple solution. I gave you an example 'demonstrating' that's not always the case, and there are countless such examples. There's a strong correlation between IQ and genetic inheritance no doubt, that's well established in the field, but it is not the simple solution you're looking for because there are plenty of exceptions, thus it is not the whole story. IQ is undoubtably being selected for yes, and yes changes in brain physiology over time fit with that idea, but there are numerous other factors shown to impact IQ development to varying degrees, such as socialisation, nutrition, personality type - even the weather. As far as brain evolution goes I'm by no means an expert - rduke is though, perhaps he'll weigh in on this.

Utah

04-01-2006, 09:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not normally one to attack others, especially in the context of academic debate, but this post is profoundly childish.

The point of these debates is to try and expand your own view, learn something by interaction with others, not to 'win'. Academia is not meant to be a pissing match. If you're not open to changing your mind in equal measure to retaining your original view then you're not being intellectually honest. Learning is 100% of what this kind of exchange should be about - winning 0% of it. And if you view winning a debate as a victory, or losing a debate as a defeat, then you're in the wrong place.

[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point completely. He made a proclamation, I challenged it, and he went on to attack while providing no counter to my challenge.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you view winning a debate as a victory, or losing a debate as a defeat, then you're in the wrong place.

[/ QUOTE ]Where did I say I needed to win? I have been posting here since 1999 and I have said many many times that I was dead wrong on something. My problem isnt with being right or wrong. Rather, it is simply the fact that there have been many occassions where I challenged someone's ideas and instead of debating in the arena of ideas they simply go on an assault - like rduke55 did, or the congnitive therapy guy did, or Blarg did in the spanking thread, etc. I challenge you to find a single thread that I have ever posted in where I wasnt open to an honest exchange of ideas. Heck, even in this thread I am not even defending any point of view. Rather, I am simply saying that something can't be ruled out.

So, where do you see winning and losing in my post? I am simply trying to get rduke55 to engage and I am having a bit of fun with him given his unwarranted assault on me. Where do you see the problem with that?

Rduke55

04-01-2006, 11:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not normally one to attack others, especially in the context of academic debate, but this post is profoundly childish.

The point of these debates is to try and expand your own view, learn something by interaction with others, not to 'win'. Academia is not meant to be a pissing match. If you're not open to changing your mind in equal measure to retaining your original view then you're not being intellectually honest. Learning is 100% of what this kind of exchange should be about - winning 0% of it. And if you view winning a debate as a victory, or losing a debate as a defeat, then you're in the wrong place.

[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point completely. He made a proclamation, I challenged it, and he went on to attack while providing no counter to my challenge.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you view winning a debate as a victory, or losing a debate as a defeat, then you're in the wrong place.

[/ QUOTE ]Where did I say I needed to win? I have been posting here since 1999 and I have said many many times that I was dead wrong on something. My problem isnt with being right or wrong. Rather, it is simply the fact that there have been many occassions where I challenged someone's ideas and instead of debating in the arena of ideas they simply go on an assault - like rduke55 did, or the congnitive therapy guy did, or Blarg did in the spanking thread, etc. I challenge you to find a single thread that I have ever posted in where I wasnt open to an honest exchange of ideas. Heck, even in this thread I am not even defending any point of view. Rather, I am simply saying that something can't be ruled out.

So, where do you see winning and losing in my post? I am simply trying to get rduke55 to engage and I am having a bit of fun with him given his unwarranted assault on me. Where do you see the problem with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, did I strike a nerve or what? Get that chip off your shoulder Utah, I know it's tough those damn big college kids are your superiors but keep it at work, OK?

OK, I'll bite. I called you a jackass because these arguments are often filled with people arguing a point of view that has poor scientific backing, yet they have convinced themselves that that's the truth and anyone who argues against that is called intellectually dishonest and has other motivations. They (you) start calling them this instead of actually taking into account what the other person said. The very thing that you are accusing others (me) of !!!!

The reason I haven't been responding in detail is that it's already been hashed out by me and others in the other threads on this exact same subject . Should I repeat myself every time someone starts the same thread again?

I'll summarize my view again - genetics does play a large role in intelligence (for Christ's sake I did a post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4845788&an=&page=&vc=1) on a specific gene's influence on intelligence not too long ago). But dozens of genes have already been implicated in intelligence and many more will probably be implicated before we even begin having a grasp of what's going on in detail.
In spite of the excellent work being done with genetics of intelligence, intelligence does have a large environmental component as well. Things like make-up of the prenatal environment, enrichment, nutrition, etc. have been demonstrated to affect intelligence to a large degree.
Besides that, intelligence is a very complex trait, as evidenced by the large amount of literature that is trying to define it. It's not cut and dried. It's not something that can be weighed easily.

And many of the people in these threads are trying to take this very complicated trait, which is the result of a the complicated interaction of a large number of genes and environmental influences and apply it to race - which does not have a scientific basis - at least when you are talking about defining it using genetic variability.

If you cannot accept that intelligence is the result of many genes and the environment I don't know what to say. As I said before, decades of research have demonstrated it.

If you can't accept that genetic variability betwen "races" is often less than the variability between populations within one "race" then I don't know how we can continue.

These two ideas are accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. If you're constantly taking anecdotes from your personal experiences (A great example of this is your example of you and your parents. Wow, fantastic data set there.) and by what you feel should be true and don't believe any of the "experts'" POV on these subjects (experts who actually use the scientific method and gather data) how can any serious scientific debate happen with you?

Utah

04-01-2006, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
how can any serious scientific debate happen with you?

[/ QUOTE ]Well, you can start by doing what you exactly did in this response - by actually posting something of value. Instead of smarting off originally, you could have simply provided a link.

First, my smart ass reply and then I'll get to an answer -
[ QUOTE ]
I know it's tough those damn big college kids are your superiors but keep it at work, OK?

[/ QUOTE ]Ha....funny. I dont work for them...I often consultant to turn around companies others have f'ed up. I am being brought it by the previous owner to consultant and help run the company with 3 goals: 1) Get rid of the Wharton guys, 2) Stabilize the company and 3) set up a long term vision and plan.

So, do you want to discuss the topic or not? I would be happy to and I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I think you draw conclusions that can't yet be drawn and you certainly haven't painted anything that is in line with evolution.

2 quick counters:
I could easily say that athletic ability is driven by a huge host of genes and capabilities - many linking to the mind: drive, practice, upbringing, training as a youth, great coaches, hand-eye coordination, vision, intelligence, parent's genetics, height, strength, speed, etc.

Someone could easily make the same argument about athletic skill as you are making about intelligence. However, the reality is that much of the difference in skill and the reason that so many African Americans dominate sports boils down to a simple factor - superior amounts of fast twitch muscle fiber. Why on earth do you not think there can be a similar thing happening with intelligence? Sure, there may be a 1000s factors at play. I dont dispute that. I dont dispute that environment plays a role. However, how do you know that at the core it doesnt boil down to some simple superior and simple genetic trait? Nothing you said prevents the existence of such a solution?

Second, your between races and within a race argument is non-sensical or incomplete and it is easy to refute.
Lets say two races exist each with 3 subgroups. The numbers represent an intelligence score:
A1, A2, A3 - 4,8,12
B1, B2, B3 - 2,6,10
Avg Intelligence Race A = 8
Avg Intelligence Race B = 6
Inter group avg difference = 2
Intrargroup range = 12
intragroup avg from mean = 2.66

This is consistent with your argument that the race differences are less than the intragroup differences. So, what? Clearly, there is something going on in Race A that is making them smarter than those in Race B. Now, it might be something simple or something super complex. However, you cannot dismiss the difference on the basis that the intragroup differences are higher than the between races difference.

Now, if you would like to discuss further I would be happy to. If you want to throw barbs we both have something better to do.

MrMon

04-01-2006, 12:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't accept that genetic variability betwen "races" is often less than the variability between populations within one "race" then I don't know how we can continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can accept that answer, yet also can say that the mean of the two population group can be different, i.e. one has a superior trait to the other as a group, but that any given individual is not guaranteed to be superior to any other given individual.

Let's eliminate race altogether and talk dogs. All dogs are dogs and can interbreed, but within the dog species there are breeds, some with traits different than others. Some breeds are better at smelling that other breeds, so lets say beagles are better at smelling on average than Yorkies. Does this mean that all beagles are better than all Yorkies at smelling? No. The spectrum of smelling of the two breeds is a bell curve, with the mean of one shifted higher than the other. Doesn't mean a Yorkie couldn't do the smelling job, but on average, a beagle is more likely to be superior at it.

Why can we accept this argument when talking about dogs but not humans? Because we don't want the argument to be true in humans even when it's clearly true in other species.

guesswest

04-01-2006, 12:48 PM

I think anyone on either side of this argument that doesn't have their hands over their ears accepts the following:

1. IQ is not a perfect or universally accepted measurement of intelligence.
2. Race (although it clearly exists) is scientifically difficult to identify and in terms of genetics, intangible.
3. Environmental and other factors play a part in IQ development along with genes.

But all that tells me is it's murky water - it doesn't necessarily tell me it's murky enough that it'd be useless attempting to find some statistically significant pattern. Maybe it is and I'm missing something, and I remain open to that idea - but there seems to be considerable evidence to the effect that these patterns do occur in ways that are significant.

I've heard rduke and others point out, and MrM just quoted it, that the genetic variability within races is often greater than the genetic variability between races. Which is a valid point I'm sure, but it also tells me social scientists have means of identifying racial groupings in a scientifically meaningful way - that must be the case if we know this. So if that can be achieved, we can sample and make statistically valid conclusions based on distributions. Am I missing something?

Rduke55

04-01-2006, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say two races exist each with 3 subgroups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you even paying attention???
One of my major points is that you cannot classify race on a genetic level so your argument is screwed form the beginning b/c of the sentence I quoted.

Rduke55

04-01-2006, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]

but it also tells me social scientists have means of identifying racial groupings in a scientifically meaningful way

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a reason I put "race" in quotes.

Utah

04-01-2006, 02:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you even paying attention???

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmm....this isnt your quote below???? Maybe you forgot that you posted it during your angry little tantrum. No worries. I tried to engage you but you were simply unwilling. Thanks for the fun but I think we are done here. I have you to see you post anything of value on any thread. I have my first person on my ignore list. How exciting /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
...genetic variability betwen "races" is often less than the variability between populations within one "race" then I don't know how we can continue....

[/ QUOTE ]

Rduke55

04-01-2006, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you even paying attention???

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmm....this isnt your quote below???? Maybe you forgot that you posted it during your angry little tantrum. No worries. I tried to engage you but you were simply unwilling. Thanks for the fun but I think we are done here. I have you to see you post anything of value on any thread. I have my first person on my ignore list. How exciting /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
...genetic variability betwen "races" is often less than the variability between populations within one "race" then I don't know how we can continue....

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay! I'm ignored!
Nice cop out though. You made my point about you not understanding.
You're...not intelligent. That I'm sure of.

Utah

04-01-2006, 03:52 PM

Again, I am not saying the solution is simple and I am not arguing that angle. I am just saying that there might be a very basic answer to why my sister is smart and if the solution is complex then it must explain almost all cases including her. Additionally, I think if you took her at birth, threw her into a terrible environment, and gave her no eduction, and didnt let her talk to anyone she would still be pretty smart.

I dont think you example of smart kids with dumb parents neccessarily breaks the mold. Reason: lets say a dumb parent has a high percentage chance of producing a dumb child. However, a small percentage of time they produce a brilliant child through genetics traits or through mutation. That it no way invalidates a simple solution. However, lets say that the solution was complex and there are a million factors. Would you not tend to find a low correlation between parent and child intelligence since the child's intelligence is affected by things now outside the parent's control? And, if all these external complex factors are critical, would they not have put a break on the speed that the human brain grew from 2 million years ago til about 50,000 years ago?

Did you read my argument on athletic ability and fast twitch muscle fiber? why cannot the same logic apply to intelligence differences?

MrMon

04-01-2006, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One of my major points is that you cannot classify race on a genetic level so your argument is screwed form the beginning b/c of the sentence I quoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Can genetic information be used to distinguish human groups having a common heritage and to assign individuals to particular ones? Do such groups correspond well to predefined descriptions now widely used to specify race? And, more practically, does dividing people by familiar racial definitions or by genetic similarities say anything useful about how members of those groups experience disease or respond to drug treatment?

In general, we would answer the first question yes, the second no, and offer a qualified yes to the third. Our answers rest on several generalizations about race and genetics. Some groups do differ genetically from others, but how groups are divided depends on which genes are examined; simplistically put, you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic. Many studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations. In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished.

[/ QUOTE ]

From:
Does Race Exist? (Scientific American - Dec 2003) (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00055DC 8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000)

guesswest

04-01-2006, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I am not saying the solution is simple and I am not arguing that angle. I am just saying that there might be a very basic answer to why my sister is smart and if the solution is complex then it must explain almost all cases including her. Additionally, I think if you took her at birth, threw her into a terrible environment, and gave her no eduction, and didnt let her talk to anyone she would still be pretty smart.

I dont think you example of smart kids with dumb parents neccessarily breaks the mold. Reason: lets say a dumb parent has a high percentage chance of producing a dumb child. However, a small percentage of time they produce a brilliant child through genetics traits or through mutation. That it no way invalidates a simple solution. However, lets say that the solution was complex and there are a million factors. Would you not tend to find a low correlation between parent and child intelligence since the child's intelligence is affected by things now outside the parent's control? And, if all these external complex factors are critical, would they not have put a break on the speed that the human brain grew from 2 million years ago til about 50,000 years ago?

Did you read my argument on athletic ability and fast twitch muscle fiber? why cannot the same logic apply to intelligence differences?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say a simple solution couldn't apply. I said that in referencing the multitude of internally complex variables involved in intelligence it seems highly unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that you'll find a singular and simple explanation. But sure, it's possible, that's the scientific principle - you can only disprove. It's possible that god will reveal himself to us all tomorrow by means of a booming psa from the heavens - but I certainly wouldn't want to use that possibility as a form guide.

MrMon

04-01-2006, 04:09 PM

As far as "dumb" parents producing "smart" children, you would need to examine why the parents are "dumb". It's quite possible to be smart genetically and to suffer a birth or developmental injury that impares the inherant smartness. In cases like this, or the opposite of smart parents producing dumb kids, environment certainly plays a factor and you would be better off looking at family history rather than any given individual. Whoever gave the case of being smart, yet having a mom with an 80 IQ, I'd be willing to be she had some sort of injury that made her that way. Genetically, she's probably very smart, and you can find smart family members, but something happened to her that prevented her from developing to her full potential.

Rduke55

04-01-2006, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of my major points is that you cannot classify race on a genetic level so your argument is screwed form the beginning b/c of the sentence I quoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Can genetic information be used to distinguish human groups having a common heritage and to assign individuals to particular ones? Do such groups correspond well to predefined descriptions now widely used to specify race? And, more practically, does dividing people by familiar racial definitions or by genetic similarities say anything useful about how members of those groups experience disease or respond to drug treatment?

In general, we would answer the first question yes, the second no, and offer a qualified yes to the third. Our answers rest on several generalizations about race and genetics. Some groups do differ genetically from others, but how groups are divided depends on which genes are examined; simplistically put, you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic. Many studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations. In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished.

[/ QUOTE ]

From:
Does Race Exist? (Scientific American - Dec 2003) (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00055DC 8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000)

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember when that article came out. It was that very article that spurred my interest in these questions and that eventually changed my views on this subject.
Ironic that you use it here.
Did you bother finishing the article?

[ QUOTE ]
Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not. For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

In contrast, two groups that are genetically similar to each other might be exposed to different selective forces. In this case, natural selection can exaggerate some of the differences between groups, making them appear more dissimilar on the surface than they are underneath. Because traits such as skin color have been strongly affected by natural selection, they do not necessarily reflect the population processes that have shaped the distribution of neutral polymorphisms such as Alus or short tandem repeats. Therefore, traits or polymorphisms affected by natural selection may be poor predictors of group membership and may imply genetic relatedness where, in fact, little exists.

Another example of how difficult it is to categorize people involves populations in the U.S. Most people who describe themselves as African-American have relatively recent ancestors from West Africa, and West Africans generally have polymorphism frequencies that can be distinguished from those of Europeans, Asians and Native Americans. The fraction of gene variations that African-Americans share with West Africans, however, is far from uniform, because over the centuries African-Americans have mixed extensively with groups originating from elsewhere in Africa and beyond.
Over the past several years, Mark D. Shriver of Pennsylvania State University and Rick A. Kittles of Howard University have defined a set of polymorphisms that they have used to estimate the fraction of a person's genes originating from each continental region. They found that the West African contribution to the genes of individual African-Americans averages about 80 percent, although it ranges from 20 to 100 percent. Mixing of groups is also apparent in many individuals who believe they have only European ancestors. According to Shriver's analyses, approximately 30 percent of Americans who consider themselves "white" have less than 90 percent European ancestry. Thus, self-reported ancestry is not necessarily a good predictor of the genetic composition of a large number of Americans. Accordingly, common notions of race do not always reflect a person's genetic background.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bolded some interesting sentences.
And before you go on, in another race thread I talked about how aspects of ethnicity and familial background are incredibly useful in medical treatments.
We're talking race here. That's the difference.

MidGe

04-01-2006, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And before you go on, in another race thread I talked about how aspects of ethnicity and familial background are incredibly useful in medical treatments.
We're talking race here. That's the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point that most people who believe in race are missing out, for sure. I just re-read a lot of these posts. They seem completely oblivious to the distinction.

guesswest

04-01-2006, 04:46 PM

Very interesting article - certainly taught me a few things I didn't know. I will say this though: granted by all means self-reported ancestory is fallible, and it doesn't surprise me it would be. But surely it's a lot less fallible than randomly attributing race, so surely we can adjust for this and use it to spot statistically significant patterns?

And that was me MrM. I'd tend to agree with you that something probably interfered with the process in my mum's case. I have no thoughts on what, but the discrepancy is so great it seems probable - it's the reason I became interested in psychometrics. It was a poor idea on my part to use anecdotal evidence anyway, I was really mentioning it only to refute Utah on his own terms, but that was probably a mistake. Certainly though the larger point stands - there are numerous examples of IQ discrepancies between parent and child which can't be readily accounted for by physiological damage.

Edit: and Midge, what do you mean 'believe' in race? Race clearly exists, we see it every day, groups of people having reproduced in isolation over extended periods of time who share (or are more likely to share) certain physiological traits - one of which is skin colour. The fact that science has a hard time quantifying or delineating that process does not make it non-existant.

Utah

04-01-2006, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say a simple solution couldn't apply. I said that in referencing the multitude of internally complex variables involved in intelligence it seems highly unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that you'll find a singular and simple explanation. But sure, it's possible, that's the scientific principle - you can only disprove. It's possible that god will reveal himself to us all tomorrow by means of a booming psa from the heavens - but I certainly wouldn't want to use that possibility as a form guide.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay - we are just arguing degrees of likelihood /images/graemlins/smile.gif I would still like to hear your thoughts on the athletic ability argument where we found it highly coorelated to a single factor.

guesswest

04-01-2006, 05:41 PM

I don't have many thoughts, I know next to nothing about the subject you're referencing. Most importantly I'd suggest that intelligence is an enormously more complicated trait than athletic ability.

I'm also not sure I buy the singular simple solution thing anyway, like I say it's not my area of expertise or close to it - but I'd be surprised if there weren't additional factors significant in athletic ability.

Utah

04-01-2006, 06:56 PM

I found this link interesting. Note: I am not advocating what is said so dont bash me for the contents /images/graemlins/smile.gif There is also a bit of a destruction of man angle - although it could be correct.

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/brain.html

I bet at the end of the day we will find that people we deem as intelligent (by whatever standard) will have a straight forward solution like - they have more neurons or their neurons fire faster.

purnell

04-01-2006, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say two races exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so fast, pilgrim. Please provide an objective measure by which I can determine who belongs to what race.

purnell

04-01-2006, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that science has a hard time quantifying or delineating that process does not make it non-existant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology.

NewbieStyle

04-01-2006, 09:20 PM

Guess I would have to see the test used, how they were served, what kind of sample size, etc before making any judgement on the merits of it. That being said there are alot of ways to make a test even a math test better or worse for anygroup of people... Iq test where social factors play a bigger role is that much easier.

guesswest

04-02-2006, 05:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that science has a hard time quantifying or delineating that process does not make it non-existant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem isn't that there are no biological indicators for race, they are numerous, it's that there are none that specifically in and of themselves attribute race. And to that end I fully accept that the concept of race isn't very useful in many instances.

But this idea, that certain physical traits occur with greater frequency within specific 'race' groups is fact, and it's also factual to say we can correllate a number of these to certain genetic markers. So yes I agree that identifying exactly what constitutes a racial group is blurry and probably the job of social scientists, but once those distinctions have been made (with whatever accuracy) there is still a job for the 'real' scientists - namely telling us what characteristics are found and with what frequency within those groups.

MidGe

04-02-2006, 06:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
there are no biological indicators for race, they are numerous, it's that there are none that specifically in and of themselves attribute race.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
that certain physical traits occur with greater frequency within specific 'race' groups is fact

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Warren Whitmore

04-02-2006, 07:11 AM

That is correct. It reminds me of a couple more things I really like about the bell curve. The apendix gives a better overview of statistical terms than any I have read. I teach organic Chemistry at a community college and sometimes use it for that purpose.

As an aside as it has nothing to do with the origional post I should mention a couple of other things.

Warren Buffett was asked about IQ as it is more tightly correlated with investing than anything else. He said its way more important to get the most horse power out of a motor than it is to have a larger motor. "I know lots of people with an IQ of 140 who beat people with an IQ of 160 in this game. Its not the horse power of the motor that matters its how much you can get out of it."

My sister in effect said the same thing. She asked me to come up and kill some chickens for her. One of them was unusually large and I was curious as to its weight.

Warren: How much does this one weigh?
Linda: Why do you care?
Warren: Just curious, do you have a scale?
Linda: No.
Warren: Just use a bathroom scale, weigh yourself first then with the bird.
Linda: I don't have any scale, thermometer or any other measuring devices.
Warren: why not.
Linda measuring a thing does not change the thing you are measuring unless you want to get into quantum mechanics which I dont.
Warren: When was the last time you weighed youself?
Linda: 20 years ago.
Warren: Why
Linda: Time spent running, bailing hay, and studying nutrition will produce far better results than standing on a scale will.

As an aside my sister is in perfect shape and physical condition. If more people shared her philosophy there would be a whole lot less bad beat stories.

guesswest

04-02-2006, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there are no biological indicators for race, they are numerous, it's that there are none that specifically in and of themselves attribute race.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
that certain physical traits occur with greater frequency within specific 'race' groups is fact

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I'm making is that race classification is an issue for social scientists, certainly there is no 'race' gene, there's just a series of characteristics which to varying degrees occur more frequently within notions of race classification. That does not mean race does not exist, it clearly does, and that does not mean you can't then collate information and discover statistically significant patterns as to the distribution of physiological traits within those groups. And you missed out 'it's not that there are' at the front of that sentence, which kinda changes it meaning /images/graemlins/smile.gif

MidGe

04-02-2006, 07:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The point I'm making is that race classification is an issue for social scientists

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
occur more frequently within notions of race classification.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
That does not mean race does not exist, it clearly does, and that does not mean you can't then collate information and discover statistically significant patterns as to the distribution of physiological traits within those groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the point if you haven't a way to meaningfully define the groups. If you have, do, and don't call them "race" which is as good as saying nothing.

guesswest

04-02-2006, 07:52 AM

But that's where we disagree, I do think there are meaningful ways of classifying race. Perhaps the problem is that I view social science as 'real' science, whereas a great many scientists aren't as charitable to their fluffy relatives. And I do also think the ability to do so is decreasing rapidly with the advance of globalization.

We classify race all the time for a whole host of practical purposes, medical screening for one. Granted it's generally based on self-reporting which is quite fallible, but we're playing the numbers when we do this. It's nowhere near as fallible as randomly assigning race and thus the biological characteristics that are more likely to be associated with it - so I conclude from that it's statistically valuable.

Utah

04-02-2006, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology.

[/ QUOTE ]So, medicine should never look at race specificity because race does not exist? For example, modern medicine is just plain stupid to think that sickle cell occurs in african americans more that whites? How could medicine have gotten it so wrong?

Also, since race does not exist, does that make it not 100% impossible for police to profile a given race? Should we never look at crime statistics based on race?

Because race does not exist, is it impossible to discriminate on race?

Is is so damn silly to think that race doesnt exist, even if it cannot be exactly defined. The "race doesnt exist" argument is a red herring intended to deflect the fact that there are true difference between races.

We use race all the time in life, government, medicine, etc. Why are we going to outlaw its use in intelligence studies? Silly

purnell

04-02-2006, 11:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology.

[/ QUOTE ]So, medicine should never look at race specificity because race does not exist? For example, modern medicine is just plain stupid to think that sickle cell occurs in african americans more that whites? How could medicine have gotten it so wrong?

Also, since race does not exist, does that make it not 100% impossible for police to profile a given race? Should we never look at crime statistics based on race?

Because race does not exist, is it impossible to discriminate on race?

Is is so damn silly to think that race doesnt exist, even if it cannot be exactly defined. The "race doesnt exist" argument is a red herring intended to deflect the fact that there are true difference between races.

We use race all the time in life, government, medicine, etc. Why are we going to outlaw its use in intelligence studies? Silly

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read again carefully. Your rebuttal is in no way related to my statement.

Utah

04-02-2006, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Please read again carefully. Your rebuttal is in no way related to my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]Respectfully, it is 100% directly related to your statement.

The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology......then we shouldnt use race in medicine

The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology....then we shouldnt use race in criminal justice

The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology.....then we shouldnt use it for employment

What part do you think is not directly related to your argument?

purnell

04-02-2006, 11:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology......then we shouldnt use race in medicine

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Assessment of disease risk can be done on the basis of genetic profile (which is not "race"), and on the basis of behavioral indicators (which is sociology).

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology....then we shouldnt use race in criminal justice

[/ QUOTE ]

Criminal justice is sociology.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is no biological justification for the concept of race makes it a superficial and arbitrary distinction with no merit outside the subject of sociology.....then we shouldnt use it for employment

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, sociology, and misapplied sociology at that.

Utah

04-02-2006, 01:27 PM

First, your entire argument falls down on a general level. You cant say there is no biological basis for race but then turn around and say you can use race in sociology . Because, if race doesnt exist it doesnt exist. You cant have it both ways. It cant exist in one place, sociology, and not exist in another, biology.

[ QUOTE ]
Correct. Assessment of disease risk can be done on the basis of genetic profile (which is not "race"), and on the basis of behavioral indicators (which is sociology).

[/ QUOTE ]Nice slight of hand - call it genetic profile or call it race. That is simply semantics. You are still grouping people. And, of course, medicine today does target on race. Certainly, I will agree that if you could get to some super detailed singular genetic profile of someone AND you could target medicine on a singular level then there would be no need to classify someone in a group or race. However, it simply doesnt work that way.

I used to be on the board of directors of a large African American non-profit. There was a push to make the african american community aware of the dangers of glaucoma so we could improve prevention. Now, are you saying that we were wrong to have all those posters printed out with african americans on them and placed them around the community? Would it have looked better to show whites and latinos on the posters (since of course there is no biological difference according to you)? Show we have instead said something like, "everyone with genetic profile 15.4.6666.3a-96 should get checked?"

[ QUOTE ]
Criminal justice is sociology

[/ QUOTE ]Well, we could argue semantics. However, sociology is a study of behavior. Criminal justice is a real world application where people are thrown in prison, made to pay restitution, etc. There is a world of difference between the study of group and executing justice.

Again, regardless of the semantics - why should I be able to use race in criminal justice? Couldnt one just as easily argue that races dont exist and thus have no place in criminal justice or anything for that matter? And, if you assume you can create groups ad-hoc since there is no genetic basis anymore for such groups, couldnt I start writing a multitude of laws classifying people any way I want?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, sociology, and misapplied sociology at that.

[/ QUOTE ]Same argument as above. I, as an employer, simply cannot discriminate on race because race doesnt exist. Again, ignoring your logical contradiction, if you can classify on race for employment what is the basis to determine the race? What are the laws that govern the determination of race? How is the employer to know what "race" an application belongs to or what "races" are protected? For example, can I not hire someone because they are stupid or would that discriminate against the application because I excluded him from employment because he belonged to the "race" of stupid people?

purnell

04-03-2006, 05:06 AM

Race exists. It is a superficial and arbitrary method of dividing humans into groups, for which there is no biological justification.

[ QUOTE ]
if you can classify on race for employment what is the basis to determine the race?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Indeed, that is the question.

guesswest

04-03-2006, 05:17 AM

I kinda gave up on this thread because Utah is arguing the same position as me, but bringing in a lot of extraneous and shaky arguments that I can't sanction either, and I'm struggling to maintain coherence.

Clearly there is SOME biological justification for race, by which I mean individuals identified as being of x race by social science are then more likely to possess certain physiological traits which have a biological and genetic basis. Race as classified by social science is certainly not a reliable indicator of these characteristics, but it has some kind of strike rate, better than randomness. If you're identified by sociologists as being African-American you most certainly are statistically more likely to have sickle cell.

To that end I feel like hard science has thrown out the baby with the bathwater in terms of disregarding race simply on the grounds that the job of classifying it is not theirs. You can still play the numbers with social classifications of race and you can still look for distributions of certain biological characteristics and extrapoloate statistically valuable conclusions.

MidGe

04-03-2006, 05:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly there is SOME biological justification for race

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly? Which ones?

guesswest

04-03-2006, 05:29 AM

Goddamn it, would you stop quoting half of one of my sentences, that's the third time in this thread. The answer to your question is the remainder of the sentence.

MidGe

04-03-2006, 06:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly there is SOME biological justification for race

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly? Which ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Goddamn it, would you stop quoting half of one of my sentences, that's the third time in this thread. The answer to your question is the remainder of the sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the rest of the sentence:

[ QUOTE ]
by which I mean individuals identified as being of x race by social science

[/ QUOTE ]

How does social science identify race biologically specifically?

guesswest

04-03-2006, 06:25 AM

That's NOT the rest of the sentence, I'm not sure if you're doing it just to wind me up - the sentence is:

'Clearly there is SOME biological justification for race, by which I mean individuals identified as being of x race by social science are then more likely to possess certain physiological traits which have a biological and genetic basis.'

Social science classifies race by self-reporting - and as I've stated several times already, I'm the first to admit the fallibility of that method. The point I'm making is that there are clearly certain genetic and biological factors underlying those classifications - which is why x race as classified by sociology is statistically more likely to have x medical condition as classified by hard science. Which tells me, though far from perfect, that social classifications hold some statistical significance in terms of identifying trends towards biological indicators.

And I'm sorry if I'm jumping down your throat on the quotes issue, but it's clearly quoting out of context when you don't at the very least finish the sentence you're quoting. And quite often that's not enough either. Last time you quoted me as saying:

'there are no biological indicators for race, they are numerous, it's that there are none that specifically in and of themselves attribute race. '

When I said:

'It's not that there are no biological indicators for race, they are numerous, it's that there are none that specifically in and of themselves attribute race.

Which means the exact opposite!

MidGe

04-03-2006, 06:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's NOT the rest of the sentence, I'm not sure if you're doing it just to wind me up - the sentence is:

[/ QUOTE ]
And then you quote a series of paragraphs!

[ QUOTE ]
'It's not that there are no biological indicators for race, they are numerous, it's that there are none that specifically in and of themselves attribute race.

[/ QUOTE ]
This tops it all, dude. Enough said... LOL

guesswest

04-03-2006, 06:37 AM

Are you high???? A sentence starts with a capital letter and ends with a period/full stop! I can't tell if you're messing with me or if you actually don't know that.

And I see zero contradiction in the second statement, I mean there is no 'race' gene, but there are numerous genes which culminate in our conception of race - ie skin color, hair type, bone structure etc.

MidGe

04-03-2006, 06:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
in our conception of race

[/ QUOTE ]

Our?? You mean yours, surely. And that is insignificant.

guesswest

04-03-2006, 06:45 AM

Ok - change our to 'popular'. And for the purpose of this argument it makes absolutely no difference what the criteria is for those designations, it just matters if they're statistically significant in terms of identifying biological trends. Which they demonstrably are.

MidGe

04-03-2006, 06:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok - change our to 'popular'. And for the purpose of this argument it makes absolutely no difference what the criteria is for those designations, it just matters if they're statistically significant in terms of identifying biological trends. Which they demonstrably are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Popular is to to be measured by the social sciences, and may indicate a prejudiced or racist society. This is quite different from your claim of biological race identification.

Statiscal valid inferences are only attributable to the grouping and the makers used for those groupings, nothing with such a conception of race, that you and many seem to have. I am just saying there is absolutely NO more scientific evidence of race than of god. Of course, if you define it on your terms, it can mean anything.

guesswest

04-03-2006, 06:58 AM

I didn't claim that race could be biologically identified!! I said the exact opposite, I stated very lucidly and directly that it couldn't be. I said that race identification is a social science, and it's identification is the domain of sociologists.

But what I also said is that underlying those classifications there are identifiable biological trends, which anyone surely has to accept is the case - eg caucasian men are more likely to go bald than cherokee indians. And the fact that sociologically identified race produces valid patterns in biological indicators, means that it is (to some extent) useful as a designation, and (to some extent) can be considered to have an overlying relation to biological phenomena.

MidGe

04-03-2006, 07:11 AM

And I only asked you what your criteria for race was, rather than just assuming we all agree and go on from there.

guesswest

04-03-2006, 07:41 AM

Self-reporting, which I'm aware is fuzzy and imprecise. But I don't think it's anywhere close to imprecise enough that it'd be redundant, it's still way more accurate than randomness in terms of it's likelihood to correlate to certain biological trends, so I conclude it's statistically useful.

All that matters, at least with regards to this particular debate, is that the resulting classifications demonstrate statistical significance in terms of an increased (above random) likelihood or a relationship to factors which can be measured and for which a biological basis can be discovered - such as certain medical conditions, height, IQ, whatever.

MidGe

04-03-2006, 07:53 AM

Sure dude... It is like saying that obese people don't live as long as others, therefore they are a race... and that race doesn't live as long as other as is proven...

Wake up!

guesswest

04-03-2006, 08:12 AM

That analogy doesn't make any sense at all, it's a complete misrepresentation of what I'm saying and I think you know it.

Race exists, sure it's a social concept, but it exists, to suggest that race does not already exist as a sociological entity is patently absurd.

It's just then a case of looking at whether these social conceptions of race correlate in statistically useful ways to biological factors (or any other quantifiable factors), and they do, accross the board at levels nowhere close to accountable for by chance, so they're statistically valid concepts. Which is why we urge people to get certain specific kinds of medical testing based on racial classifications!

Utah

04-03-2006, 08:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda gave up on this thread because Utah is arguing the same position as me, but bringing in a lot of extraneous and shaky arguments that I can't sanction either

[/ QUOTE ] If you think they are shaky then refute them or show why they are shaky. But, of course, they are not shaky at all. It is quite worthless of you to say they are shaky but to provide zero basis for your assertion.

guesswest

04-03-2006, 08:52 AM

Utah - I didn't mean that as any kind of personal attack. I just meant that arguments about using race in employment, school admissions etc are entirely the realm of sociology, ie there's no crossover into biology/genetics.

Your point about medical testing is a fair one though, as it demonstrates some correlation between socially defined notions of race and biology.

Utah

04-03-2006, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I just meant that arguments about using race in employment, school admissions etc are entirely the realm of sociology, ie there's no crossover into biology/genetics.

[/ QUOTE ]That is my whole point. if there is no crossover into biology or genetics then race is an entirely worthless concept in employment, school admissions, etc.

If you disagree, then please tell me how race can be used in hiring without a biological basis.

guesswest

04-03-2006, 09:19 AM

Well, it could be argued that race exists entirely as a social classification and bears no relationship to any biological events, but that wouldn't preclude it from being a socially actionable phenomenom, like political leaning for example. I don't think that's the case, I think although the task of defining race is fuzzy and the job of social science, that there are many biological correlations. But if you don't already believe that, there's nothing in the issue of racial profiling for jobs, schools etc that would change your mind.

Utah

04-03-2006, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it could be argued that race exists entirely as a social classification and bears no relationship to any biological events

[/ QUOTE ]I understand the argument. I am just saying that it runs into all kinds of problems.

Lets take a really simple example. I refuse to hire someone because their skin color is black. If there is no biological basis for race then I can not ever be accused of refusing to hire african americans because skin color is a biological trait and there is no relationship between biological traits and race. Of course, about everyone would agree that I was discriminating against african americans. Therefore, the argument that you can use race as a social construct for actionable events (like employment and criminal justice) is faulty if race isnt tied to biology.

You can come up with countless problems of trying to use race without a biological link.

purnell

04-03-2006, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lets take a really simple example. I refuse to hire someone because their skin color is black. If there is no biological basis for race then I can not ever be accused of refusing to hire african americans because skin color is a biological trait and there is no relationship between biological traits and race. Of course, about everyone would agree that I was discriminating against african americans. Therefore, the argument that you can use race as a social construct for actionable events (like employment and criminal justice) is faulty if race isnt tied to biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense.

You would be discriminating against people with dark skin, a superficial trait, and since you refer to the color as "black" (surely you aren't claiming that the color of his skin is literally black) you have drawn a line arbitrarily somewhere on the continuum of human skin color and called that color and anything darker "black". If you wished to discriminate against "African-Americans", you would need more information than skin color to do so.

Utah

04-03-2006, 07:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you wished to discriminate against "African-Americans", you would need more information than skin color to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]Ah....see, here is where you start tripping over your own argument. You say "need more information than skin color". However, you had previously said that I couldn't use skin color at all as there is NO biological basis for race and thus skin color cannot be used as a trait of African Americans.

And, since skin color cannot be used since it is a biological trait then it is quite possible for someone white (or anyone for that matter) to sue for being discriminated against for being african american. Can you see a court ever taking seriously a man with strong Irish Heritage suing for being discriminated for being an african american. Strip biology from race and you have nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
people with dark skin

[/ QUOTE ]Call them "people with dark skin", African Americans, etc. You are still classifying on a biological basis. And, of course from your argument about race and biology, that simply cant be done.

[ QUOTE ]
a superficial trait

[/ QUOTE ]Says who? If there are no races where is the list of superficial versus acceptable traits? Please provide the list versus job type.

[ QUOTE ]
nd since you refer to the color as "black" (surely you aren't claiming that the color of his skin is literally black) you have drawn a line arbitrarily somewhere on the continuum of human skin color and called that color and anything darker "black"

[/ QUOTE ]That is exactly what I am doing. I am classifying and grouping based on color - i.e., I am assigning people to a race /images/graemlins/smile.gif Of course, I could never be held liable in court because we know there is no such distinctions that can be drawn and no such groupings can occur based on skin color as that is a biological trait.

purnell

04-03-2006, 07:46 PM

Utah, your argument is absurd, and I am now convinced that you lack the requisite intelligence to recognize your error, so...

**you are ignoring this user**

BeerMoney

04-03-2006, 07:49 PM

I'd like to make 1 point.

Person A scored a 135 on an IQ Test.

Person B scored a 125 on an IQ Test.

Is person A smarter than person A?? Well, based on the information, I would say "probably".

Now, consider two samples of 1000 people each.

Sample of 1000 from Population X had an average of 135.

Sample of 1000 from Population Y had an average of 125.

Is population X smarter overall than population Y? Absolutely.

purnell

04-03-2006, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to make 1 point.

Person A scored a 135 on an IQ Test.

Person B scored a 125 on an IQ Test.

Is person A smarter than person A?? Well, based on the information, I would say "probably".

Now, consider two samples of 1000 people each.

Sample of 1000 from Population X had an average of 135.

Sample of 1000 from Population Y had an average of 125.

Is population X smarter overall than population Y? Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Population X scores higher on the given IQ test. The point has been driven home already that "IQ test result" does not equal "intelligence".

BeerMoney

04-03-2006, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to make 1 point.

Person A scored a 135 on an IQ Test.

Person B scored a 125 on an IQ Test.

Is person A smarter than person A?? Well, based on the information, I would say "probably".

Now, consider two samples of 1000 people each.

Sample of 1000 from Population X had an average of 135.

Sample of 1000 from Population Y had an average of 125.

Is population X smarter overall than population Y? Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Population X scores higher on the given IQ test. The point has been driven home already that "IQ test result" does not equal "intelligence".

[/ QUOTE ]

What would lead you to believe the group with the higher score isn't smarter?

Choose a random test: Quantitative, verbal, analytical, spacial awareness, written essay, any sort of task, what makes you think the population with the higher IQ is not going to do better?

Utah

04-03-2006, 08:16 PM

No worries. I understand why people like you get mad when they have no reply when they are proven wrong and thus respond with an ad hominem attack. Because, of course, someone with a real argument would point out why something is absurd as opposed to just saying so.

I do feel bad though that you got so twisted up in your little fallacy that race and biology are not connected. Better luck next time.

[ QUOTE ]
and I am now convinced that you lack the requisite intelligence to recognize your error

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, I will offer you a challenge since you obviously think I am not smart. I will bet you $500 that I can score higher than you on an IQ test. And if you think that is a poor indicator I will bet you $500 that I can come up with more examples of developing real world applications or solutions that demonstrated brilliance - cutting edge finance, neural net design, radical process reengineering, IT system design, strategic intitiatives, turning around failing businesses, etc. If you dont like those then give me another test.

Come on smart boy - it is an easy $1000 for you /images/graemlins/smile.gif Heck, if you think you are so smart list of some of your brilliant accomplishments.

purnell

04-03-2006, 08:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What would lead you to believe the group with the higher score isn't smarter?

Choose a random test: Quantitative, verbal, analytical, spacial awareness, written essay, any sort of task, what makes you think the population with the higher IQ is not going to do better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid, but we don't interact with populations, we interact with individuals, and the fact that population X has a higher average IQ than population Y does not preclude a member of population Y having the highest IQ of all, nor a member of population X having the lowest.

Sharkey

04-03-2006, 08:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Choose a random test: Quantitative, verbal, analytical, spacial awareness, written essay, any sort of task, what makes you think the population with the higher IQ is not going to do better?

[/ QUOTE ]

So two social constructs correlate with each other. You are still in virtual reality and missing the full nature of the person.

BeerMoney

04-03-2006, 08:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would lead you to believe the group with the higher score isn't smarter?

Choose a random test: Quantitative, verbal, analytical, spacial awareness, written essay, any sort of task, what makes you think the population with the higher IQ is not going to do better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid, but we don't interact with populations, we interact with individuals, and the fact that population X has a higher average IQ than population Y does not preclude a member of population Y having the highest IQ of all, nor a member of population X having the lowest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, that's why I included the point about the individual with 135 vs. the person with 125.. On a case by case basis, I agree, the IQ tests don't mean everything.

purnell

04-05-2006, 11:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
***You are no longer ignoring this user.***

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No worries. I understand why people like you get mad when they have no reply when they are proven wrong and thus respond with an ad hominem attack. Because, of course, someone with a real argument would point out why something is absurd as opposed to just saying so.

I do feel bad though that you got so twisted up in your little fallacy that race and biology are not connected. Better luck next time.

Hey, I will offer you a challenge since you obviously think I am not smart. I will bet you $500 that I can score higher than you on an IQ test. And if you think that is a poor indicator I will bet you $500 that I can come up with more examples of developing real world applications or solutions that demonstrated brilliance - cutting edge finance, neural net design, radical process reengineering, IT system design, strategic intitiatives, turning around failing businesses, etc. If you dont like those then give me another test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Utah. I apologize for the ad hominem.

I only gamble at the poker table, so I won't take your bet. Approximately one person in 1200 produces a higher score than mine on the Stanford-Binet, and I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that you are one of them. This forum seems to be a magnet for such people, as I run into far more of them here than in my "real" life.

It is also possible that I am incorrect on the point of biological justification, but I am still waiting for an objective measure by which one can determine who belongs to what race. You seem to be claiming biological justification without providing any objective criteria, and that, IMO, is the absurdity of your argument.

vhawk01

04-06-2006, 01:59 AM

Since you are so open to accepting other views, how many different people must come to the same conclusions and criticisms about your "debating" style for you to consider that, egads!, it might be you and not them?

Add me to the list.

Yes, this post is entirely without substance. But consider it constructive criticism, rather than ad hom. Or don't, whatever.

Utah

04-06-2006, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this post is entirely without substance. But consider it constructive criticism, rather than ad hom. Or don't, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, then I wont consider it an ad hom attack. I will simply consider it the weakest and laziest form of argument possible - "your argument is without substance but I will not tell you why I think so"

I find it especially funny that you would take the time to make negative comments but to not engage in the discussion. Why did you even post at all?

Also, if you read the 2000+ posts I have made you will see that I always try to address every point and question directed at me. I dont think it is unfair to ask for the same intellectual honesty of those who reply to me.

Maybe my arguments are without basis - but you simply saying so doesnt give one once of credence that my arguments are wrong.

Also, I can't tell you how many times I have argued and debated in my career where people that my ideas and arguments were crazy and off only to get these people to change their minds AND to build something practical and useful with my crazy and meritless arguments. If you want examples I would be happy to provide them.

Utah

04-06-2006, 10:21 PM

I appreciate you comments and I apologize for my smart ass rebuttal /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
but I am still waiting for an objective measure by which one can determine who belongs to what race.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, that is a much different question than whether biology ties to race. Classification is often very very difficult. Just because the waters are murky doesnt mean that one must give up hope of classifying things.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be claiming biological justification without providing any objective criteria, and that, IMO, is the absurdity of your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]Respectively, I dont think that is my argument at all. I am simply saying that there are noticable genetic and biological differences in people that can be classified in broad groups, even if those groups arent cleanly defined. Also, I am arguing that if you take away biology from race then you open the door for all kinds of abuse in employment, law, etc.

I apologize that I cant reply more or form a stronger argument at the moment but I am tied up with work stuff right now.

bunny

04-09-2006, 12:32 AM

I'm interested in how the people who claim there is no biological justification for race came to that conclusion. It seems to me "obvious" that Nancy Reagan is a good example of a white woman and Mohammed Ali is a good example of a black man. It doesnt matter to me that there are some people hard to classify by race (or even by gender) - it is still a meaningful and objective classification.

In a similar way - in Australia April is a warmer month than July - there are exceptionally warm july days and cold april days, it doesnt mean that the distinction is meaningless, though.

I have seen race defined as (something like) "A biologically distinct subdivision of a species possessing certain gene frequencies" in evolutionary biology textbooks. Under this definition it is incorrect to consider a race as a bunch of creatures all approximating some sort of "platonic ideal". It is also incorrect to state that all members of a particular racial group have certain characteristics. The definition is more probabilistic.

Would this sort of definition be useful in generating an objective measure?