Slate.com on race and IQ

[WhiteKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
that much is obvious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immutable? I think so.

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

[Taraz]

[ 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.

[InTheDark]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[tame_deuces]

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.

[kurto]

[ 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?

[Taraz]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[kurto]

[ 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.

[InTheDark]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe

[vhawk01]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe

[/ QUOTE ]

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