Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The Danger of Being Right (Knowing Science)

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 12:10:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Heritage scholar Jason Richwine actually knows the science of race and IQ. He doesn't engage in anti scientific egalitarian fantasies.

http://news.yahoo.com...

To be clear, Richwine is 100% correct in everything he says. The science is crystal clear here and anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest or ignorant. The only reason people think otherwise is the fact that most "academics" would rather engage in egalitarian fantasies than actually look at the evidence.

Apparently, being right is not okay when it steps on PC sensibilities. Scary how far egalitarians (evolution deniers or race deniers) will go to hide the truth.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 4:17:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 12:10:53 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Heritage scholar Jason Richwine actually knows the science of race and IQ. He doesn't engage in anti scientific egalitarian fantasies.

http://news.yahoo.com...

To be clear, Richwine is 100% correct in everything he says. The science is crystal clear here and anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest or ignorant. The only reason people think otherwise is the fact that most "academics" would rather engage in egalitarian fantasies than actually look at the evidence.

Apparently, being right is not okay when it steps on PC sensibilities. Scary how far egalitarians (evolution deniers or race deniers) will go to hide the truth.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Correlation =/= causation. Have you ever considered the possibility that these people are trying to move here because they haven't had the opportunity to get a decent education or a decent income in their home country, or do you think they are moving here just for the hell of it?

Now, let's review the scientific method (which you should have learned in some form or another every year from third grade to ninth):
1. Observe a problem (in your case, intelligence of immigrants)
2. Perform research (in your case, acquire studies that satisfy your cognitive biases)
3. Form a hypothesis (in your case, "race is a factor in determining intelligence")
4. Create and perform an experiment
This step is where things go wrong. The most important thing in a good scientific test is to only change one variable. However, by changing race, a lot of variables are changed. For example, African Americans and Hispanics tend to come from poor backgrounds. This means their children won't get nearly the same education as someone from a family with a rich background, since the rich family would likely have more time to spend with their children - helping them understand difficult concepts, helping them make responsible choices, etc. Guess what happens to kids with a low-quality education? They become poor, and the cycle repeats. Even if you choose two people from the same economic background, there will still be too much outside influence - think about what kind of people that they'd tend to hang out with. Probably people of the same race. If they come from a race that tends to come from poor backgrounds, their first choice of conversation topics probably won't be the upcoming precalculus exam. Hell, I bet I could show that cliques influence intelligence more than anything else. Or at least more easily than you can prove what you're trying to prove.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 4:19:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 12:10:53 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Heritage scholar Jason Richwine actually knows the science of race and IQ. He doesn't engage in anti scientific egalitarian fantasies.

http://news.yahoo.com...

To be clear, Richwine is 100% correct in everything he says. The science is crystal clear here and anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest or ignorant. The only reason people think otherwise is the fact that most "academics" would rather engage in egalitarian fantasies than actually look at the evidence.

Apparently, being right is not okay when it steps on PC sensibilities. Scary how far egalitarians (evolution deniers or race deniers) will go to hide the truth.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

If you need anything else, let me know. I wrote a long reply to this which went into detail about the flaws of this particular line of thinking, but unfortunately I lost it. I'll be happy to do it again if you request it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh... well, apparently it did work. Whatever.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 4:45:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 12:10:53 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Heritage scholar Jason Richwine actually knows the science of race and IQ. He doesn't engage in anti scientific egalitarian fantasies.

http://news.yahoo.com...

To be clear, Richwine is 100% correct in everything he says. The science is crystal clear here and anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest or ignorant. The only reason people think otherwise is the fact that most "academics" would rather engage in egalitarian fantasies than actually look at the evidence.

Apparently, being right is not okay when it steps on PC sensibilities. Scary how far egalitarians (evolution deniers or race deniers) will go to hide the truth.
Well, I don't agree with all of the stuff he wrote because there are some points which I think he's wrong on. I think his main point is that the IQ of the grand majority of Hispanic immigrants is below that of the domestic white population. This is not to say that ALL Hispanics that come here have sub-par IQs, but most do. I think that he extends the point to say that "that being the case" (ie low IQ Hispanic immigration) then we need to be more selective with our immigration policy. I agree: we need to be much more selective of our immigration policy and we also need to do a much better job of controlling the borders.

My objections come to his use of race as the forefront of the issue when it isn't nor does it need to be in order to make the important point of immigration reform. This can be made without having to bring up race as the main point of the issue.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 5:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Race is real. Race has consequences in the real world. Loving your race is healthy and normal. So if that is the definition of racism"which I would think of as nationalism, or you could say racialism"then yes, that is what I believe

This is what is wrong with the world. People put artificial importance on insignificant stuff. Putting artificial importance on something that is "normal" human behavior, does not mean that it is good.

For example, it is "normal" to want revenge when someone does you wrong, There are still societies where that is the prevailing method of justice and they are not the most successful societies. It is better to withhold taking action on those feelings and letting the rule of law and judicial system handle dealing with someone who has committed a crime or civil neglect against you dispite your "normal" inclinations.

In short, when someone brings up the word "normal" as an argument that is an immediate red flag when you should question whether you are dealing with a person with intellectual inferiority.

That then leads us to the last point. It is a broad swipe to placing a stereo type that one should prefer and love his race over other races. Each race is made up of a wide collection of individuals. People should be judged based upon their actions and abilities.

I don't have a problem with creating various restrictions on immigration, but if you use race you then are admitting that you don't care about ability, schooling, and future contributions to our country.

Hey, if he wants to delude himself that it would be better to allow immigration from a bunch of white meth heads from Europe than white collar professionals from africa (blacks) then it just exposes that he really is intellectually inferior and himself should be deported based upon stupidity.

We do need all types as well from low skill labor to high skill labor. We need smart immigration policy, not race based policy.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 6:17:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 4:17:53 PM, drhead wrote:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Correlation =/= causation. Have you ever considered the possibility that these people are trying to move here because they haven't had the opportunity to get a decent education or a decent income in their home country, or do you think they are moving here just for the hell of it?

Totally useless and irrelevant statement.


Now, let's review the scientific method (which you should have learned in some form or another every year from third grade to ninth):
1. Observe a problem (in your case, intelligence of immigrants)
2. Perform research (in your case, acquire studies that satisfy your cognitive biases)
3. Form a hypothesis (in your case, "race is a factor in determining intelligence")
4. Create and perform an experiment
This step is where things go wrong. The most important thing in a good scientific test is to only change one variable. However, by changing race, a lot of variables are changed. For example, African Americans and Hispanics tend to come from poor backgrounds. This means their children won't get nearly the same education as someone from a family with a rich background, since the rich family would likely have more time to spend with their children - helping them understand difficult concepts, helping them make responsible choices, etc. Guess what happens to kids with a low-quality education? They become poor, and the cycle repeats. Even if you choose two people from the same economic background, there will still be too much outside influence - think about what kind of people that they'd tend to hang out with. Probably people of the same race. If they come from a race that tends to come from poor backgrounds, their first choice of conversation topics probably won't be the upcoming precalculus exam. Hell, I bet I could show that cliques influence intelligence more than anything else. Or at least more easily than you can prove what you're trying to prove.

Okay. Here is what your method is:

1.) Create a strawman (which you seem to do quite often)

2.) Make a bunch of baseless, evidence free assertions.

First, I didn't say race was a factor in IQ. This is a very common straw man. What I said was that on average, different racial groups had different IQs. It is not that race played a role in their IQ. It is just that they belong to a group that, on average, has lower IQs.

Okay, second, we actually do have pretty good experiments. They're called twin studies.

Identical twins have nearly identical genes (there is a very small difference). Now, if identical twins are raised apart, we can see how much role genetics and environment play. It turns out that genetics win.

Likewise, we have studies showing that adopted children have IQs that match their biological parents and not their adoptive parents. There is a ton of evidence about this, but apparently you would rather pretend it doesn't exist.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 6:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 5:09:12 PM, slo1 wrote:
"Race is real. Race has consequences in the real world. Loving your race is healthy and normal. So if that is the definition of racism"which I would think of as nationalism, or you could say racialism"then yes, that is what I believe

This is what is wrong with the world. People put artificial importance on insignificant stuff. Putting artificial importance on something that is "normal" human behavior, does not mean that it is good.

For example, it is "normal" to want revenge when someone does you wrong, There are still societies where that is the prevailing method of justice and they are not the most successful societies. It is better to withhold taking action on those feelings and letting the rule of law and judicial system handle dealing with someone who has committed a crime or civil neglect against you dispite your "normal" inclinations.

In short, when someone brings up the word "normal" as an argument that is an immediate red flag when you should question whether you are dealing with a person with intellectual inferiority.

That then leads us to the last point. It is a broad swipe to placing a stereo type that one should prefer and love his race over other races. Each race is made up of a wide collection of individuals. People should be judged based upon their actions and abilities.

I don't have a problem with creating various restrictions on immigration, but if you use race you then are admitting that you don't care about ability, schooling, and future contributions to our country.

Hey, if he wants to delude himself that it would be better to allow immigration from a bunch of white meth heads from Europe than white collar professionals from africa (blacks) then it just exposes that he really is intellectually inferior and himself should be deported based upon stupidity.

We do need all types as well from low skill labor to high skill labor. We need smart immigration policy, not race based policy.

Ya, this is just total BS. Just a PC rant full of blatantly wrong statements and strawmen. I'm not gonna waste my time refuting.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 6:23:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find it interesting his conclusion is to keep out low IQ groups yet he does not even casually mention immigrants from any of the hundred of so other countries out there. I suppose Europe has no low IQ individuals.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 7:24:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 6:17:32 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/15/2013 4:17:53 PM, drhead wrote:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Correlation =/= causation. Have you ever considered the possibility that these people are trying to move here because they haven't had the opportunity to get a decent education or a decent income in their home country, or do you think they are moving here just for the hell of it?

Totally useless and irrelevant statement.

Yes, dismiss this clear logical fallacy.

Now, let's review the scientific method (which you should have learned in some form or another every year from third grade to ninth):
1. Observe a problem (in your case, intelligence of immigrants)
2. Perform research (in your case, acquire studies that satisfy your cognitive biases)
3. Form a hypothesis (in your case, "race is a factor in determining intelligence")
4. Create and perform an experiment
This step is where things go wrong. The most important thing in a good scientific test is to only change one variable. However, by changing race, a lot of variables are changed. For example, African Americans and Hispanics tend to come from poor backgrounds. This means their children won't get nearly the same education as someone from a family with a rich background, since the rich family would likely have more time to spend with their children - helping them understand difficult concepts, helping them make responsible choices, etc. Guess what happens to kids with a low-quality education? They become poor, and the cycle repeats. Even if you choose two people from the same economic background, there will still be too much outside influence - think about what kind of people that they'd tend to hang out with. Probably people of the same race. If they come from a race that tends to come from poor backgrounds, their first choice of conversation topics probably won't be the upcoming precalculus exam. Hell, I bet I could show that cliques influence intelligence more than anything else. Or at least more easily than you can prove what you're trying to prove.

Okay. Here is what your method is:

1.) Create a strawman (which you seem to do quite often)

2.) Make a bunch of baseless, evidence free assertions.

First, I didn't say race was a factor in IQ. This is a very common straw man. What I said was that on average, different racial groups had different IQs. It is not that race played a role in their IQ. It is just that they belong to a group that, on average, has lower IQs.

Okay, second, we actually do have pretty good experiments. They're called twin studies.

Identical twins have nearly identical genes (there is a very small difference). Now, if identical twins are raised apart, we can see how much role genetics and environment play. It turns out that genetics win.

Likewise, we have studies showing that adopted children have IQs that match their biological parents and not their adoptive parents. There is a ton of evidence about this, but apparently you would rather pretend it doesn't exist.

This controls for the family environment, but not the social environment. Here's a few examples of possible statistical skewing:
- The children in the tests would still interact with people similar to them, since it is easier to relate to people who show obvious outward similarities to you.
- In addition, the children in the tests would obviously face challenges relating to the fact that it is extremely obvious to anyone that they are adopted.
- Asians showed significantly lower IQs, even though Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests by about 5 points according to other studies. Care to explain this?

The least biased test possible would be to give the children a private homeschooling as opposed to a public education. In addition, skip history class. This, of course, presents its own ethical and practical problems.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 7:30:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 6:23:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
I find it interesting his conclusion is to keep out low IQ groups yet he does not even casually mention immigrants from any of the hundred of so other countries out there. I suppose Europe has no low IQ individuals.

I love how supposedly "intelligent" DDO members like yourself engage in the same strawmen that Drhead has.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 7:40:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 7:24:21 PM, drhead wrote:

Yes, dismiss this clear logical fallacy.

Because there is no logical fallacy here. There just isn't. Pretending there is doesn't help anyone.



This controls for the family environment, but not the social environment. Here's a few examples of possible statistical skewing:
- The children in the tests would still interact with people similar to them, since it is easier to relate to people who show obvious outward similarities to you.

Are you joking here?

Basically what happens is that two individuals with almost identical genetics grow up in different environments. If these two individuals have almost identical IQ, then this can be traced back to genetics.

If these two don't have similar IQ, IQ isn't all that genetic.

If you have to make up an explanation this stupid (and it is really bad) to try to explain away twin studies, it shows how little evidence your side of this argument has.

- In addition, the children in the tests would obviously face challenges relating to the fact that it is extremely obvious to anyone that they are adopted.

Any evidence here???????? I guess not.

- Asians showed significantly lower IQs, even though Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests by about 5 points according to other studies. Care to explain this?

Um. You didn't even mention which study you are talking about. Come on.


The least biased test possible would be to give the children a private homeschooling as opposed to a public education. In addition, skip history class. This, of course, presents its own ethical and practical problems.

What does this even mean?

Sorry to be harsh, but this response by you was all in all one of the worst (as in failing to refute anything) responses I have ever seen. You should be embarrassed.

You seem like a smart guy, and you should be able to do better than this.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 12:00:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 7:40:22 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/15/2013 7:24:21 PM, drhead wrote:

Yes, dismiss this clear logical fallacy.

Because there is no logical fallacy here. There just isn't. Pretending there is doesn't help anyone.

You assumed correlation = causation without eliminating all other possible factors. That's a fallacy.

If you still think there is no fallacy, please show me what you have to back up your claim that isn't just a correlation.

This controls for the family environment, but not the social environment. Here's a few examples of possible statistical skewing:
- The children in the tests would still interact with people similar to them, since it is easier to relate to people who show obvious outward similarities to you.

Are you joking here?

Basically what happens is that two individuals with almost identical genetics grow up in different environments. If these two individuals have almost identical IQ, then this can be traced back to genetics.

If these two don't have similar IQ, IQ isn't all that genetic.

If you have to make up an explanation this stupid (and it is really bad) to try to explain away twin studies, it shows how little evidence your side of this argument has.

Yes. And they go to public schools. In public schools, people tend to associate in cliques, often of people of the same race, who would probably come from backgrounds common for that race. Meaning, a black child raised by white parents would go to school and hang out with other black children who are likely being raised in lower-income households. There's more of an environment to be isolated from than the studies did, since our environments are often pretty similar.

- In addition, the children in the tests would obviously face challenges relating to the fact that it is extremely obvious to anyone that they are adopted.

Any evidence here???????? I guess not.

Hmm, I don't know. Do you think that people would not notice something odd if they saw that a black child somehow had white parents?

- Asians showed significantly lower IQs, even though Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests by about 5 points according to other studies. Care to explain this?

Um. You didn't even mention which study you are talking about. Come on.

Average IQs of people of different races in the US. It should be from "The Bell Curve". This quote from Wikipedia is as close as I'll get:
"The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113."

Your study (I'm assuming Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study) shows Asians scoring much lower than whites, when the data suggests it should be the other way around. And 16 is a pretty big margin of error.

The least biased test possible would be to give the children a private homeschooling as opposed to a public education. In addition, skip history class. This, of course, presents its own ethical and practical problems.

What does this even mean?

Isolating any social influences. For there to be science, only one variable can change. This would prove that genetics is at fault, as opposed to preconceived notions of other individuals.

Sorry to be harsh, but this response by you was all in all one of the worst (as in failing to refute anything) responses I have ever seen. You should be embarrassed.

You seem like a smart guy, and you should be able to do better than this.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:29:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 12:00:14 AM, drhead wrote:
You assumed correlation = causation without eliminating all other possible factors. That's a fallacy.

If you still think there is no fallacy, please show me what you have to back up your claim that isn't just a correlation.

I never assumed that at all. Explain how anything I said assumed correlation equals causation.



Yes. And they go to public schools. In public schools, people tend to associate in cliques, often of people of the same race, who would probably come from backgrounds common for that race. Meaning, a black child raised by white parents would go to school and hang out with other black children who are likely being raised in lower-income households. There's more of an environment to be isolated from than the studies did, since our environments are often pretty similar.

But, if that were true, we should think that all members of these cliques should have near identical IQ... but they don't. Identical twins do.

Also, identical twins raised apart have more alike IQs than fraternal twins raised together. If that doesn't convince you that IQ is genetic, I don't know what will.

Look, if you are trying to argue that IQ is not mostly genetic, you are going against the entire scientific community. I bet you believe in global warming because of scientific consensus. Well, there is also a consensus here. But, i guess science becomes irrelevant if the conclusions are politically incorrect.

And, anyways, the fact that races tend towards each other, which you have stated to be true, just tells us that, indeed, races tend towards their own kind.



Hmm, I don't know. Do you think that people would not notice something odd if they saw that a black child somehow had white parents?

In other words, no evidence at all. Your arguments are quite pathetic.



Average IQs of people of different races in the US. It should be from "The Bell Curve". This quote from Wikipedia is as close as I'll get:
"The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113."

Your study (I'm assuming Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study) shows Asians scoring much lower than whites, when the data suggests it should be the other way around. And 16 is a pretty big margin of error.

First off, there are different definitions of asian. The bell curve just looks at east asians, who do have higher IQs.

Second, I never mentioned the MTAS. It is a good study that tells us a lot about IQ heritablity. But, the groups within the study are not representative of the larger population. Don't misinterpret this (and i'm sure you will) as me saying that there are no implications. The implications are huge. They suggest a major genetic component to racial IQ differences.

However, the fact that the asian population in this study does not match the east asian population in terms of average IQ is 100% meaningless.



Isolating any social influences. For there to be science, only one variable can change. This would prove that genetics is at fault, as opposed to preconceived notions of other individuals.

You have a poor understanding of science. Science involves evidence. You need to provide some evidence other than just assuming your conclusions are true

You have done very little here to recover from your last response. Doubling down on really bad, really stupid arguments will not help your cause, but you seem determined to do so anyways.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:05:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:29:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 12:00:14 AM, drhead wrote:
You assumed correlation = causation without eliminating all other possible factors. That's a fallacy.

If you still think there is no fallacy, please show me what you have to back up your claim that isn't just a correlation.

I never assumed that at all. Explain how anything I said assumed correlation equals causation.

"Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on Richwine's 2009 Harvard University dissertation, which examined whether the United States should exclude immigrants with low IQs and argued that 'the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population.'" -- from the article you posted a link to. Is he trying to imply that immigrants have lower IQs because they are immigrants? If that's not what he's trying to argue, then his argument isn't helping his side.

Yes. And they go to public schools. In public schools, people tend to associate in cliques, often of people of the same race, who would probably come from backgrounds common for that race. Meaning, a black child raised by white parents would go to school and hang out with other black children who are likely being raised in lower-income households. There's more of an environment to be isolated from than the studies did, since our environments are often pretty similar.

But, if that were true, we should think that all members of these cliques should have near identical IQ... but they don't. Identical twins do.

They'd be generally more similar than random samplings, on average. People get into cliques because they have much in common.

Also, identical twins raised apart have more alike IQs than fraternal twins raised together. If that doesn't convince you that IQ is genetic, I don't know what will.

IQ is affected by more than just genetics, though. Music lessons have been shown to increase IQ. That's not genetic.

Look, if you are trying to argue that IQ is not mostly genetic, you are going against the entire scientific community. I bet you believe in global warming because of scientific consensus. Well, there is also a consensus here. But, i guess science becomes irrelevant if the conclusions are politically incorrect.

I'm trying to argue that it is not exclusively genetic. Of course it's affected in part by genetics, otherwise a dog would have the same IQ as me. Furthermore, IQ is not a direct measure of how much someone knows. It only relates to ability to learn (or the rate at which you can learn). This can be affected by environmental factors. It has been shown that children from poor households have a dropout rate 5 times higher than average. It has been shown that excessive amounts of stress tend to decrease IQ. Some studies have also shown that having less than 20-60 vision lowers IQ quite dramatically (which makes perfect sense, it's rather hard to learn when you can't see. It could be argued that sometimes this is genetic, but often vision problems can be non-genetic).

My main problem is the fact that this data gets used to make generalizations about groups, saying that we should target one group because of observed tendencies. There are always outliers, and because of that, we must treat each person as an individual. We must give them a chance to prove themselves. If some people have natural advantages over eachother, then there's no need to be selective if nature will do it for you. Give people an equal opportunity.

And, anyways, the fact that races tend towards each other, which you have stated to be true, just tells us that, indeed, races tend towards their own kind.

Meaning that they share common cultural bonds, and would be more influenced by others of their own kind. Meaning that even if isolated in terms of where they are raised, they will pick up on common cultural bonds.

Hmm, I don't know. Do you think that people would not notice something odd if they saw that a black child somehow had white parents?

In other words, no evidence at all. Your arguments are quite pathetic.

Because it makes so much sense to believe that someone would not notice something a bit off if they saw that someone's parents were of a different race. Seriously, what would I have to do to prove that whites don't naturally have black biological children?

Average IQs of people of different races in the US. It should be from "The Bell Curve". This quote from Wikipedia is as close as I'll get:
"The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113."

Your study (I'm assuming Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study) shows Asians scoring much lower than whites, when the data suggests it should be the other way around. And 16 is a pretty big margin of error.

First off, there are different definitions of asian. The bell curve just looks at east asians, who do have higher IQs.

Second, I never mentioned the MTAS. It is a good study that tells us a lot about IQ heritablity. But, the groups within the study are not representative of the larger population. Don't misinterpret this (and i'm sure you will) as me saying that there are no implications. The implications are huge. They suggest a major genetic component to racial IQ differences.

However, the fact that the asian population in this study does not match the east asian population in terms of average IQ is 100% meaningless.

Could you link me to the study you are referring to, then?

Isolating any social influences. For there to be science, only one variable can change. This would prove that genetics is at fault, as opposed to preconceived notions of other individuals.

You have a poor understanding of science. Science involves evidence. You need to provide some evidence other than just assuming your conclusions are true

I've already pointed out that there are other, completely non-genetic factors that influence IQ. That's enough to show that genetics isn't the only factor that influences IQ, which is enough to prove my point. That there's more to intelligence than just race.

You have done very little here to recover from your last response. Doubling down on really bad, really stupid arguments will not help your cause, but you seem determined to do so anyways.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:11:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 9:05:23 AM, drhead wrote:

"Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on Richwine's 2009 Harvard University dissertation, which examined whether the United States should exclude immigrants with low IQs and argued that 'the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population.'" -- from the article you posted a link to. Is he trying to imply that immigrants have lower IQs because they are immigrants? If that's not what he's trying to argue, then his argument isn't helping his side.

That is not what he is arguing. The fact that you assume that shows how little you know about this topic.



They'd be generally more similar than random samplings, on average. People get into cliques because they have much in common.

Right. And, the traits they have in common have genetic basis.

Again, that IQ is highly genetic is not in dispute among scientists.



IQ is affected by more than just genetics, though. Music lessons have been shown to increase IQ. That's not genetic.


I'm trying to argue that it is not exclusively genetic. Of course it's affected in part by genetics, otherwise a dog would have the same IQ as me. Furthermore, IQ is not a direct measure of how much someone knows. It only relates to ability to learn (or the rate at which you can learn). This can be affected by environmental factors. It has been shown that children from poor households have a dropout rate 5 times higher than average. It has been shown that excessive amounts of stress tend to decrease IQ. Some studies have also shown that having less than 20-60 vision lowers IQ quite dramatically (which makes perfect sense, it's rather hard to learn when you can't see. It could be argued that sometimes this is genetic, but often vision problems can be non-genetic).

My main problem is the fact that this data gets used to make generalizations about groups, saying that we should target one group because of observed tendencies. There are always outliers, and because of that, we must treat each person as an individual. We must give them a chance to prove themselves. If some people have natural advantages over eachother, then there's no need to be selective if nature will do it for you. Give people an equal opportunity.

Again, the science is very clear that about 75 to 85% of variation in IQ in adults is attributable to genetics.

Now, to be clear, in younger children, the percentage is lower. For example, head start has initially positive impacts on IQ that totally fade out over time.

All these studies that show music or whatever having huge effects on IQ just look at children. Whenever they followup in adults, they find the effect on IQ is negligable.

Anyways, nobody is arguing IQ is 100% genetic.


Meaning that they share common cultural bonds, and would be more influenced by others of their own kind. Meaning that even if isolated in terms of where they are raised, they will pick up on common cultural bonds.

So, in other words, members of the same race tend towards each other because they have things in common. Sounds a lot like what Richwine is saying.



Because it makes so much sense to believe that someone would not notice something a bit off if they saw that someone's parents were of a different race. Seriously, what would I have to do to prove that whites don't naturally have black biological children?

Pathetic.

Do you seriously think that I am disputing that white parents don't have black children or that people don't notice this?

What I am disputing is that this is the cause of IQ differences or that this somehow explains twin studies. You would be laughed out of a room of scientists if you made these arguments to them, especially with the 0 evidence you have presented.



Could you link me to the study you are referring to, then?

It is not one study. It is the conclusion of numerous studies and reseach over the years. Again, mainstream science is very supportive of my view here.



I've already pointed out that there are other, completely non-genetic factors that influence IQ. That's enough to show that genetics isn't the only factor that influences IQ, which is enough to prove my point. That there's more to intelligence than just race.


Wow. You seriously think that I am arguing that race determines intelligence. There is no point even arguing if you have misunderstood my argument so severely.

Instead, I have argued that IQ is heabily genetic (and it is) and that races have difference average IQs (which they do). Logic and evidence suggest a genetic component.

This does not mean that race determines IQ. Not at all. All it means is that the average IQ of different races just happens to be different.

For instance, if two races had different average heights, we would say that there is probably a genetic component. However, it is not as if race determines height.

And, I am tired of this "you haven't taken into account etc".

If you are going to put forward hypothetical explanations that you think explain away racial IQ gaps or the heritability of IQ, we need more than just possible explanations. You need evidence to actually show that this explains these things.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:11:05 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 9:05:23 AM, drhead wrote:

"Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on Richwine's 2009 Harvard University dissertation, which examined whether the United States should exclude immigrants with low IQs and argued that 'the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population.'" -- from the article you posted a link to. Is he trying to imply that immigrants have lower IQs because they are immigrants? If that's not what he's trying to argue, then his argument isn't helping his side.

That is not what he is arguing. The fact that you assume that shows how little you know about this topic.

Then please make it clear what he is trying to argue, where his argument that immigrants have a lower average IQ than natives would support his side given that the topic is whether or not we should exclude immigrants with low IQs.

IQ is affected by more than just genetics, though. Music lessons have been shown to increase IQ. That's not genetic.

I'm trying to argue that it is not exclusively genetic. Of course it's affected in part by genetics, otherwise a dog would have the same IQ as me. Furthermore, IQ is not a direct measure of how much someone knows. It only relates to ability to learn (or the rate at which you can learn). This can be affected by environmental factors. It has been shown that children from poor households have a dropout rate 5 times higher than average. It has been shown that excessive amounts of stress tend to decrease IQ. Some studies have also shown that having less than 20-60 vision lowers IQ quite dramatically (which makes perfect sense, it's rather hard to learn when you can't see. It could be argued that sometimes this is genetic, but often vision problems can be non-genetic).

My main problem is the fact that this data gets used to make generalizations about groups, saying that we should target one group because of observed tendencies. There are always outliers, and because of that, we must treat each person as an individual. We must give them a chance to prove themselves. If some people have natural advantages over eachother, then there's no need to be selective if nature will do it for you. Give people an equal opportunity.

Again, the science is very clear that about 75 to 85% of variation in IQ in adults is attributable to genetics.

Now, to be clear, in younger children, the percentage is lower. For example, head start has initially positive impacts on IQ that totally fade out over time.

All these studies that show music or whatever having huge effects on IQ just look at children. Whenever they followup in adults, they find the effect on IQ is negligable.

Anyways, nobody is arguing IQ is 100% genetic.

I should remind you once again that IQ is essentially the RATE at which one can learn. It is a measure of cognitive ability, but not of quantity of knowledge. In head start programs, the positive impact on IQs is extremely beneficial when they are learning the concepts that they will be using for the rest of their lives, since they will have a very firm grasp on it. Even if the IQ drops back down later in life, it's better than it not happening at all, since it gives a firm foundation for knowledge in the future.

However, my point stands that it is important to be careful about where this data is applied. For example, with the above about whether or not we should exclude immigrants with low IQs, is it even necessary to bring average IQs into it at all? Excluding immigrants with low IQs would deal strictly with individuals, therefore it is absolutely pointless to look at averages when making this decision.

If you are going to put forward hypothetical explanations that you think explain away racial IQ gaps or the heritability of IQ, we need more than just possible explanations. You need evidence to actually show that this explains these things.

How about this?
http://www.nytimes.com...

These studies found that while the average IQ of children whose biological parents were wealthy was 16 points higher on average than the average IQ of children of working-class families, placing these children in poor families resulted in IQs being 12 points lower anyway. Both are about a standard deviation, and this doesn't exactly help the conclusion of 75% of variation being caused by genes. Instead, it would appear that sometimes, environmental factors have influence that can override genes.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:25:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:19:21 PM, drhead wrote:
Then please make it clear what he is trying to argue, where his argument that immigrants have a lower average IQ than natives would support his side given that the topic is whether or not we should exclude immigrants with low IQs.

I'm not talking about the policy conclusions, a very different topic for a very different time that. I am talking about the science.

Reasonable people can disagree about policy implications. But, the science is clear and Richwine is correct on that.



I should remind you once again that IQ is essentially the RATE at which one can learn. It is a measure of cognitive ability, but not of quantity of knowledge. In head start programs, the positive impact on IQs is extremely beneficial when they are learning the concepts that they will be using for the rest of their lives, since they will have a very firm grasp on it. Even if the IQ drops back down later in life, it's better than it not happening at all, since it gives a firm foundation for knowledge in the future.

However, my point stands that it is important to be careful about where this data is applied. For example, with the above about whether or not we should exclude immigrants with low IQs, is it even necessary to bring average IQs into it at all? Excluding immigrants with low IQs would deal strictly with individuals, therefore it is absolutely pointless to look at averages when making this decision.

It is absolutely relevant that head start does not raise long term IQ. Again, you don't seem to know very much about this topic.



How about this?
http://www.nytimes.com...

These studies found that while the average IQ of children whose biological parents were wealthy was 16 points higher on average than the average IQ of children of working-class families, placing these children in poor families resulted in IQs being 12 points lower anyway. Both are about a standard deviation, and this doesn't exactly help the conclusion of 75% of variation being caused by genes. Instead, it would appear that sometimes, environmental factors have influence that can override genes.

None of this challenges the high heritability of IQ.

Do you even know what heritability is or how it works?

You don't seem to. Your just throwing out these articles that you seem to have found on google that don't support your conclusion at all.

This is a topic I have spent a lot of time researching and I can tell when I am arguing with someone who has done very little research. And, unfortunately, you obviously fit in this category.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:27:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Drhead,

You really do seem like a smart guy. But, this is a topic I have spent a lot of time researching and is kind of an area of expertise.

I don't think you have put the same kind of time into this as evidenced by your extremely weak arguments ridden with fallacies, unsupported claims, and poltically correct but scientifically incorrect declarations.

We can certainly argue this, but you'll need to do a bit more research before I spend my time arguing.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:47:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you even know what heritability is or how it works?

It's a number with limited but important uses as far as actually understanding an incredibly complex issue like genetics, ESPECIALLY when there's a nature vs nurture argument involved as well. It's also the favorite figure of people who don't understand the various intricacies and caveats of biology and genetics because it is easy to understand, and so is seized upon by media and talking heads. I don't know the extent of your knowledge when it comes to the subject matter that you've extensively studied, but you can read all of the epidemiological studies in the world and still come to false conclusions without fully understanding the biology of the issue.

To put things in perspective, in my field we have to breed plants through several generations, meticulously documenting the crosses and controlling potentially confounding variables in order to figure out the mechanism by which something simple and readily observable like floral color is inherited. You're acting as if you have an ironclad case for a very difficult to measure trait which is not exclusively controlled by genetics in a population (humans) for which actual controlled breeding experiments are not feasible due to obvious ethical reasons. To put it simply, this sort of thing constitutes cargo cult science, where all of the trappings of genuine science are adopted without any of the necessary rigor. This is unavoidable, but we should be careful not to put the results of such studies on a pedestal with actually rigorous research, as it stands on relatively shaky ground as far as evidence is concerned. By saying that we should adopt it as a foundation for immigration policy (because it's SCIENCE!) you are putting it on that pedestal.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:25:46 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:19:21 PM, drhead wrote:
Then please make it clear what he is trying to argue, where his argument that immigrants have a lower average IQ than natives would support his side given that the topic is whether or not we should exclude immigrants with low IQs.

I'm not talking about the policy conclusions, a very different topic for a very different time that. I am talking about the science.

Reasonable people can disagree about policy implications. But, the science is clear and Richwine is correct on that.

I should remind you once again that IQ is essentially the RATE at which one can learn. It is a measure of cognitive ability, but not of quantity of knowledge. In head start programs, the positive impact on IQs is extremely beneficial when they are learning the concepts that they will be using for the rest of their lives, since they will have a very firm grasp on it. Even if the IQ drops back down later in life, it's better than it not happening at all, since it gives a firm foundation for knowledge in the future.

However, my point stands that it is important to be careful about where this data is applied. For example, with the above about whether or not we should exclude immigrants with low IQs, is it even necessary to bring average IQs into it at all? Excluding immigrants with low IQs would deal strictly with individuals, therefore it is absolutely pointless to look at averages when making this decision.

It is absolutely relevant that head start does not raise long term IQ. Again, you don't seem to know very much about this topic.

Tell me where I said it was irrelevant. Oh, wait, you can't.

I was arguing for head start programs having longer-lasting impacts.

How about this?
http://www.nytimes.com...

These studies found that while the average IQ of children whose biological parents were wealthy was 16 points higher on average than the average IQ of children of working-class families, placing these children in poor families resulted in IQs being 12 points lower anyway. Both are about a standard deviation, and this doesn't exactly help the conclusion of 75% of variation being caused by genes. Instead, it would appear that sometimes, environmental factors have influence that can override genes.

None of this challenges the high heritability of IQ.

Do you even know what heritability is or how it works?

You don't seem to. Your just throwing out these articles that you seem to have found on google that don't support your conclusion at all.

This is a topic I have spent a lot of time researching and I can tell when I am arguing with someone who has done very little research. And, unfortunately, you obviously fit in this category.

It isn't supposed to challenge heritability of IQ, it challenges how it EXPRESSES itself. As in, how it is manifested depending on the environment. Just because you have the code for something doesn't mean that the code will ever run. That's the entire point of the article. Gene expression is a very important part of genetics, and this should be acknowledged when discussing this subject, especially when evaluating studies which show genetics as a major cause for something.

I'll say this once more: I'm not trying to prove that heritability has no influence, I'm trying to show that environmental factors have a very significant amount of influence, too. I'd say that 12 points is pretty damn significant, as well as the 21 point difference shown in the other study noted in that article.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:24:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:49:07 PM, drhead wrote:

Tell me where I said it was irrelevant. Oh, wait, you can't.

I was arguing for head start programs having longer-lasting impacts.

Well, then you are arguing for an incorrect conclusion. Evidence is clear that HS effects on IQ totally fade out.



It isn't supposed to challenge heritability of IQ, it challenges how it EXPRESSES itself. As in, how it is manifested depending on the environment. Just because you have the code for something doesn't mean that the code will ever run. That's the entire point of the article. Gene expression is a very important part of genetics, and this should be acknowledged when discussing this subject, especially when evaluating studies which show genetics as a major cause for something.

I'll say this once more: I'm not trying to prove that heritability has no influence, I'm trying to show that environmental factors have a very significant amount of influence, too. I'd say that 12 points is pretty damn significant, as well as the 21 point difference shown in the other study noted in that article.

Okay, we agree that genes and environment both play a role.

However, the fact that IQ can be lowered for any given reason does not mean observed differences in IQ are environmental.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:54:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:24:54 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:49:07 PM, drhead wrote:
Tell me where I said it was irrelevant. Oh, wait, you can't.

I was arguing for head start programs having longer-lasting impacts.

Well, then you are arguing for an incorrect conclusion. Evidence is clear that HS effects on IQ totally fade out.

If you actually read my post, you would have seen that I did not say anything about IQ effects lasting, I only said that it helped them master concepts early on, which would help them later on by giving them a more solid foundation to build on, and possibly having them more interested in academia in the future, giving them motivation to carry on no matter what their IQ is. This is a long-term effect.

It isn't supposed to challenge heritability of IQ, it challenges how it EXPRESSES itself. As in, how it is manifested depending on the environment. Just because you have the code for something doesn't mean that the code will ever run. That's the entire point of the article. Gene expression is a very important part of genetics, and this should be acknowledged when discussing this subject, especially when evaluating studies which show genetics as a major cause for something.

I'll say this once more: I'm not trying to prove that heritability has no influence, I'm trying to show that environmental factors have a very significant amount of influence, too. I'd say that 12 points is pretty damn significant, as well as the 21 point difference shown in the other study noted in that article.

Okay, we agree that genes and environment both play a role.

However, the fact that IQ can be lowered for any given reason does not mean observed differences in IQ are environmental.

It at least shows that the impacts are significant enough to the point where they should be accounted for to ensure an accurate conclusion, instead of assuming that 75-85% of variance is genetic, when a large portion of that could very well be environmental.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian