Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is race?

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

To quote from Eric Turkheimer :

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

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

5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

Evidence that would be interesting:

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Ashkenazi Jews FTW:

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


...and Albert Einstein

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

luckyme

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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


[/ QUOTE ]

The author you are referring to makes no such "excuses" for "poor African results" which makes me wonder if you bothered to read the article at all. Again, would you care to post sources for these statements you are making?

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

5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

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

[/ QUOTE ]

What 'evidence' are you referring to?

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Ashkenazi Jews FTW:

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


...and Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One man's response to Saletan: No, Blacks are not Dumber than Whites

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

One guy debunks

Also: How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black Racism

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

Somewhat grunching, InTheDark and Phil153 win the thread.

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Ashkenazi Jews FTW:

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


...and Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

[X] Racist ban imo.

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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




[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you explain the Flynn Effect?

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

that much is obvious

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
that much is obvious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immutable? I think so.

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that much is obvious

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One man's response to Saletan: No, Blacks are not Dumber than Whites

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

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations?

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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


[/ QUOTE ]

What's also different between "races" is their environmental history. In addition to the Flynn effect, how do you explain this ?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

Immutable? I think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

link ; link

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

I thought this part was funny enough...

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that much is obvious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immutable? I think so.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The back of his napkin.

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]


The back of his napkin.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Ha.

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Bayes, IMO.