Slate.com on race and IQ
 

I could just tell everyone wants to jump into this issue yet again. I will make no comments in this thread that go beyond the author's presentation of the subject.

William Saletan writes 3 pieces in Slate here, here, and here. I don't read Slate but have heard through secondary sources that they are left of center. If that's true then they should be commended for the evenhanded presentation.

To read all three will require some investment in time but you'll be paid off in the end.

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

The third last paragraph of the final article made me smile, and it's a sign of things to come.

I can't wait till all harmful do-gooders get shown up as intellectual frauds.

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
This subject might be relevant if there was an accurate way to measure IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ 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?

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Still waiting for why this isn't statistically significant.

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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



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

link

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

Here we go again . . .

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

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

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

- There is probably some genetic component to intelligence

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Inbreeding FTW imo.

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Afraid not. You should read that earlier link and move on from there. This link is not specifically about the precise paper referenced by Saletan, but you should see the relevance.

More , more , more

Might want to check this out (Caste)

Another perspective

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Still waiting for why this isn't statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are examining the wrong population.

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

another good one

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c...ce_science.php

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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


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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Afraid not. You should read that earlier link and move on from there. This link is not specifically about the precise paper referenced by Saletan, but you should see the relevance.

More , more , more

Might want to check this out (Caste)

Another perspective

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Still waiting for why this isn't statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are examining the wrong population.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Why?

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here we go again . . .

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

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

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

- There is probably some genetic component to intelligence

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

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

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
Albinus?

[/ QUOTE ]

See Nabokov. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Albinus?

[/ QUOTE ]

See Nabokov. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

What is race?

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Slate.com on race and IQ
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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