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.