Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Race and Intelligence (IQ)

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 5:30:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As many of you may know, different races have different IQs.

Some people say that these differences are a result of environment, but they are not.

Why?

The evidence is overhwhelming... I was going to write all the reasons here... But there is no need. Rushton and Jensen summarized here:

"1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict. "

http://www.rense.com......

Before anyone resorts to Ad Hominem on Rushton and Jensen, this research is just a compilation of research and findings by other scientists...

And, I would gladly debate this topic with anyomne...
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 5:47:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So how many topics have you made on this subject?

You must really be itchin' to keep a brotha down.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 5:55:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 5:47:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So how many topics have you made on this subject?

You must really be itchin' to keep a brotha down.

Interesting topic... and a lot of people (particularly atheists on the left) who consider themselves "smart" and "scientific" (people who call Creationists names) are quite unscientific on this topic, as it goes against their egalitarian dogma
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:34:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Phillip Emeagwali, an African Black man, is the third smartest man on the planet:

"Emeagwali was born in Akure, Nigeria on 23 August 1954. He dropped out of school in 1967 because of the Nigerian-Biafran war. He became an engineer and computer scientist/geologist who was one of two winners of the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize, a prize from the IEEE, for his use of a Connection Machine supercomputer to help analyze petroleum fields. in 1991, He was studying for his PhD degree, but his thesis was rejected by committee of internal and external examiners and thus he was not awarded the degree."

http://palscience.com...

So much for your little attempt at a tour de force, there. ^_^
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 12:34:16 AM, Ren wrote:
Phillip Emeagwali, an African Black man, is the third smartest man on the planet:

"Emeagwali was born in Akure, Nigeria on 23 August 1954. He dropped out of school in 1967 because of the Nigerian-Biafran war. He became an engineer and computer scientist/geologist who was one of two winners of the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize, a prize from the IEEE, for his use of a Connection Machine supercomputer to help analyze petroleum fields. in 1991, He was studying for his PhD degree, but his thesis was rejected by committee of internal and external examiners and thus he was not awarded the degree."

http://palscience.com...

So much for your little attempt at a tour de force, there. ^_^

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.

So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:26:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)

There's your problem. He doesn't represent a percent of the entire world black population. He represents 1 of around 2 billion, or 5e-8%,
.00000005% of the black population.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:28:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)

I was going to respond to this... But, I decided against it... This is literally such a stupid argument that it should not dignify a response... Any person with an IQ high enough to operate a computer should be able to see how stupid this really is...
i
If you have any better arguments, then maybe I will respond to those... This piece of shiit is not worth my time and, to me, shows how awful race denial arguments are
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:29:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:26:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)

There's your problem. He doesn't represent a percent of the entire world black population. He represents 1 of around 2 billion, or 5e-8%,
.00000005% of the black population.

Don't even bother responding to this stupid argument... Ren lost all credibility with this post
President of DDO
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:45:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem is that 'race' as a clearly defined concept doesn't exist. People fall along a distribution of racial characteristics. The world isn't divided into Black people, White people and Asian people. It isn't that simple.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:51:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:26:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)

There's your problem. He doesn't represent a percent of the entire world black population. He represents 1 of around 2 billion, or 5e-8%,
.00000005% of the black population.

2 billion is almost 30 percent of the world population. I'm pretty sure that no single ethnicity represents such a large proportion of humanity.

But, your (repeated) conjecture notwithstanding, check out what I bolded.

My point wasn't to suggest that Mr. Emeagwali represents such a large proportion of the population. It was to indicate that for one end of the bell curve to be so high, the other end would have to be very low to reach an average of 80. Given that 80 is significantly less than half of 190, then that lower margin would have to be significantly less than 80, and the majority of the overall figures would be heavily weighted in that direction.

In other words, statistically speaking, Mr. Emeagwali would represent a very small handful of the Black population, whereas the rest would effectively be "stupid."

The problem with that is that it contradicts the tenets of genetics. There should be a consistent bell curve, with equal representation on both sides. Therefore, with such a high upper-margin comparable to other ethnicities, the lower margin would need to be higher, as well.

Nice try.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:52:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:29:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:26:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)

There's your problem. He doesn't represent a percent of the entire world black population. He represents 1 of around 2 billion, or 5e-8%,
.00000005% of the black population.

Don't even bother responding to this stupid argument... Ren lost all credibility with this post

In other words, your argument has completely fallen apart and you can't come up with anything to say.

It's alright. Open your mind. It's the only academically honest thing you can do.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:53:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:45:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The problem is that 'race' as a clearly defined concept doesn't exist. People fall along a distribution of racial characteristics. The world isn't divided into Black people, White people and Asian people. It isn't that simple.

My interpretation of his argument was genetic inclinations based on social designations. It is an argument that exists, and simply denying terms won't suffice for them. Instead, you must point out the weakness in their argument first to help open their mind to the realities of global society.

Walk before you can run, in other words.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:54:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:45:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The problem is that 'race' as a clearly defined concept doesn't exist. People fall along a distribution of racial characteristics. The world isn't divided into Black people, White people and Asian people. It isn't that simple.

Ya, and this doesnt matter.

Nothing can be defined neatly...

I drive a car.

But, what makes this a car and not a truck?

Well, you could make a definition of each and categorize. But, really both a car and a truck are social constructs...

Now, we take different populations, with different features, histories, and genes, and choose to categorize them in races.... You can call these races if you want, but, like all things, we choose to categorize...

Race exists in the same way cars and trucks exist... We choose to categorize different things
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:57:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:54:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:45:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The problem is that 'race' as a clearly defined concept doesn't exist. People fall along a distribution of racial characteristics. The world isn't divided into Black people, White people and Asian people. It isn't that simple.

Ya, and this doesnt matter.

Nothing can be defined neatly...

I drive a car.

But, what makes this a car and not a truck?

Well, you could make a definition of each and categorize. But, really both a car and a truck are social constructs...

Now, we take different populations, with different features, histories, and genes, and choose to categorize them in races.... You can call these races if you want, but, like all things, we choose to categorize...

Race exists in the same way cars and trucks exist... We choose to categorize different things

truck1   [truhk] Show IPA
noun
1.
any of various forms of vehicle for carrying goods and materials, usually consisting of a single self-propelled unit but also often composed of a trailer vehicle hauled by a tractor unit.

car1   [kahr] Show IPA
noun
1.
an automobile.
2.
a vehicle running on rails, as a streetcar or railroad car.

Generally speaking, a truck is a car. However, a car is not a truck.

In any case, both a car and a truck are manufactured, whereas people and their phenotypes are not. We fully and thoroughly understand automobiles, but we do not completely, or even mostly, understand genetics.

You cannot displace your lack of understanding for proof of a disparity.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:58:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:51:14 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:26:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)

There's your problem. He doesn't represent a percent of the entire world black population. He represents 1 of around 2 billion, or 5e-8%,
.00000005% of the black population.

2 billion is almost 30 percent of the world population. I'm pretty sure that no single ethnicity represents such a large proportion of humanity.

But, your (repeated) conjecture notwithstanding, check out what I bolded.

My point wasn't to suggest that Mr. Emeagwali represents such a large proportion of the population. It was to indicate that for one end of the bell curve to be so high, the other end would have to be very low to reach an average of 80. Given that 80 is significantly less than half of 190, then that lower margin would have to be significantly less than 80, and the majority of the overall figures would be heavily weighted in that direction.

In other words, statistically speaking, Mr. Emeagwali would represent a very small handful of the Black population, whereas the rest would effectively be "stupid."

The problem with that is that it contradicts the tenets of genetics. There should be a consistent bell curve, with equal representation on both sides. Therefore, with such a high upper-margin comparable to other ethnicities, the lower margin would need to be higher, as well.

Nice try.

You assume perfect Gaussian distribution, which isn't necessarily a good assumption.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:00:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:58:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You assume perfect Gaussian distribution, which isn't necessarily a good assumption.

Lol.

I assume a bell curve, which is a normal genetic distribution, and more relevant to this thread, the only distribution purported to apply to IQ.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:04:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:52:20 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:29:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:26:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:10:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:23:57 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ren, a Race Denier, has no idea what an average is.


So much for your little attempt at "proof" there...

Ah, Jimmytimmy, the question is, what does that prove?

First, let's explore the concept of average -- statistically speaking, it is the mean of set of numbers. If we assume that Mr. Emeagwali reflects an entire percent of the world Black population -- which, based on your perspectives, is a tremendously inflated number -- then the other 90 percent of the entire population has less than a 70 IQ -- 70 * 9 + 190 (Emeagwali's IQ) = 820/10 = 82.

An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation.

So, essentially, what you're alleging is that the majority of African Americans are near-retarded or retarded, while the rest are super geniuses.

Hereditarily speaking, that is impossible.

Jimmytimmy, those who are superior in any way do not need designations or labels to prove it. Instead, such things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you, for example, would outsmart anyone I know, despite their ethnic background. ;)

There's your problem. He doesn't represent a percent of the entire world black population. He represents 1 of around 2 billion, or 5e-8%,
.00000005% of the black population.

Don't even bother responding to this stupid argument... Ren lost all credibility with this post

In other words, your argument has completely fallen apart and you can't come up with anything to say.

It's alright. Open your mind. It's the only academically honest thing you can do.

Lol, ya your little anecdotal evidence completely destroyed my argument.... Haha

Seriously, though, I am talking about averages.... the fact that really smart black people exist does not contradict this in any way. There is a white guy in America with an IQ of 195... They are freaks of nature and outliers and don't really say anything about averages...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:05:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:57:58 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:54:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:45:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The problem is that 'race' as a clearly defined concept doesn't exist. People fall along a distribution of racial characteristics. The world isn't divided into Black people, White people and Asian people. It isn't that simple.

Ya, and this doesnt matter.

Nothing can be defined neatly...

I drive a car.

But, what makes this a car and not a truck?

Well, you could make a definition of each and categorize. But, really both a car and a truck are social constructs...

Now, we take different populations, with different features, histories, and genes, and choose to categorize them in races.... You can call these races if you want, but, like all things, we choose to categorize...

Race exists in the same way cars and trucks exist... We choose to categorize different things

truck1   [truhk] Show IPA
noun
1.
any of various forms of vehicle for carrying goods and materials, usually consisting of a single self-propelled unit but also often composed of a trailer vehicle hauled by a tractor unit.

car1   [kahr] Show IPA
noun
1.
an automobile.
2.
a vehicle running on rails, as a streetcar or railroad car.

Generally speaking, a truck is a car. However, a car is not a truck.

In any case, both a car and a truck are manufactured, whereas people and their phenotypes are not. We fully and thoroughly understand automobiles, but we do not completely, or even mostly, understand genetics.

You cannot displace your lack of understanding for proof of a disparity.

Ya, a truck is a social construct. Cars and trucks are the same innatley...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:10:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 2:00:40 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:58:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You assume perfect Gaussian distribution, which isn't necessarily a good assumption.

Lol.

I assume a bell curve, which is a normal genetic distribution, and more relevant to this thread, the only distribution purported to apply to IQ.

Gaussian distribution is normal distribution. Anyways, the IQ is based on the normal distribution for the entire human species, but not necessarily for group.

A group can have an IQ of 70,75, 72, 71, and 140. That's an IQ average of 85.6. However, that does not mean there needs to be an IQ of 31.2 in the group.

Keep trolling.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:35:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 2:10:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 2:00:40 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:58:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You assume perfect Gaussian distribution, which isn't necessarily a good assumption.

Lol.

I assume a bell curve, which is a normal genetic distribution, and more relevant to this thread, the only distribution purported to apply to IQ.

Gaussian distribution is normal distribution. Anyways, the IQ is based on the normal distribution for the entire human species, but not necessarily for group.

A group can have an IQ of 70,75, 72, 71, and 140. That's an IQ average of 85.6. However, that does not mean there needs to be an IQ of 31.2 in the group.

Keep trolling.

Why do you continue to use concepts in your arguments that you don't understand?

A Gaussian distribution is a comparative distribution based on a series of sets of figures that comprise other related distributions.

A bell curve, on the other hand, is the specific distribution that genetic phenotypes usually exhibit. IQ studies always use figures that fall along this distribution:

http://www.google.com...

So, don't call me a troll, you effing moron. Both of you sound ridiculously stupid -- this is the third time I'm explaining such a simple concept.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:51:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 2:35:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 2:10:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 2:00:40 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:58:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You assume perfect Gaussian distribution, which isn't necessarily a good assumption.

Lol.

I assume a bell curve, which is a normal genetic distribution, and more relevant to this thread, the only distribution purported to apply to IQ.

Gaussian distribution is normal distribution. Anyways, the IQ is based on the normal distribution for the entire human species, but not necessarily for group.

A group can have an IQ of 70,75, 72, 71, and 140. That's an IQ average of 85.6. However, that does not mean there needs to be an IQ of 31.2 in the group.

Keep trolling.

Why do you continue to use concepts in your arguments that you don't understand?

A Gaussian distribution is a comparative distribution based on a series of sets of figures that comprise other related distributions.

A bell curve, on the other hand, is the specific distribution that genetic phenotypes usually exhibit. IQ studies always use figures that fall along this distribution:

http://www.google.com...

So, don't call me a troll, you effing moron. Both of you sound ridiculously stupid -- this is the third time I'm explaining such a simple concept.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

"The Gaussian distribution is also commonly called the "normal distribution" and is often described as a "bell-shaped curve". "

But hyperphysics is a bad sources isn't :p. Also, a bell curve has nothing to do with genetic phenotypes.

It's just a probability distribution that is normalized. The IQ of the entire population is normalized, the GROUPS ARE NOT. I just demonstrated an example that demonstrates this.

Lulz, nice try dumb dumb.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 3:05:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 2:51:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 2:35:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 2:10:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 2:00:40 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:58:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You assume perfect Gaussian distribution, which isn't necessarily a good assumption.

Lol.

I assume a bell curve, which is a normal genetic distribution, and more relevant to this thread, the only distribution purported to apply to IQ.

Gaussian distribution is normal distribution. Anyways, the IQ is based on the normal distribution for the entire human species, but not necessarily for group.

A group can have an IQ of 70,75, 72, 71, and 140. That's an IQ average of 85.6. However, that does not mean there needs to be an IQ of 31.2 in the group.

Keep trolling.

Why do you continue to use concepts in your arguments that you don't understand?

A Gaussian distribution is a comparative distribution based on a series of sets of figures that comprise other related distributions.

A bell curve, on the other hand, is the specific distribution that genetic phenotypes usually exhibit. IQ studies always use figures that fall along this distribution:

http://www.google.com...

So, don't call me a troll, you effing moron. Both of you sound ridiculously stupid -- this is the third time I'm explaining such a simple concept.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

"The Gaussian distribution is also commonly called the "normal distribution" and is often described as a "bell-shaped curve". "

But hyperphysics is a bad sources isn't :p. Also, a bell curve has nothing to do with genetic phenotypes.

It's just a probability distribution that is normalized. The IQ of the entire population is normalized, the GROUPS ARE NOT. I just demonstrated an example that demonstrates this.

Lulz, nice try dumb dumb.

There are two different types of Gaussian distributions, and one of them is not a bell curve.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com...

It just so happens to take on that shape when used to normalize certain binomial functions. However, I'm pretty sure binomial functions are used to analyze Bernoulli Trials, which are essentially "yes or no" questions, to attempt to adequately simplify it. So, binomial functions are an analysis of these yes or no answers, and a Gaussian distribution is the normalization of this analysis for predictive measures.

However, this isn't the only instance of a bell curve and an analysis of IQ leaves open-ended variables, rather than an option between one and the other. Therefore, you would not use a binomial function to analyze IQ distribution, and accordingly, you would not apply a Gaussian distribution to it, either.

Instead, you would simply analyze it and observe that the distribution manifests as a bell-shaped curve, which is the case within groups as well as between them, according to those who report them:

http://www.indiana.edu...

...on another note, wasn't it you who said that ad hominem attacks are an indication of a weak argument?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 3:37:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 3:05:33 PM, Ren wrote:

There are two different types of Gaussian distributions, and one of them is not a bell curve.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com...

It just so happens to take on that shape when used to normalize certain binomial functions. However, I'm pretty sure binomial functions are used to analyze Bernoulli Trials, which are essentially "yes or no" questions, to attempt to adequately simplify it. So, binomial functions are an analysis of these yes or no answers, and a Gaussian distribution is the normalization of this analysis for predictive measures.

However, this isn't the only instance of a bell curve and an analysis of IQ leaves open-ended variables, rather than an option between one and the other. Therefore, you would not use a binomial function to analyze IQ distribution, and accordingly, you would not apply a Gaussian distribution to it, either.

The Gaussian distribution describes what the curve looks with. It does not have to be a Bernoulli trial.


Instead, you would simply analyze it and observe that the distribution manifests as a bell-shaped curve, which is the case within groups as well as between them, according to those who report them:

http://www.indiana.edu...

Please actually quote the material that supports that, rather than give me a big link to look at, which will likely give me no information. The test based on the percentile, and then IQ is normalized based on the percentile, not the other way around.

"". To do this, the percentiles are converted to IQs by projecting them onto the Gaussian distribution."

http://www.michna.com...

However, these normalizations are based on the entire population, not differences between groups.

...on another note, wasn't it you who said that ad hominem attacks are an indication of a weak argument?

When members are disrespectful, I don't exactly respect them back.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 5:30:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 3:37:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/23/2011 3:05:33 PM, Ren wrote:

There are two different types of Gaussian distributions, and one of them is not a bell curve.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com...

It just so happens to take on that shape when used to normalize certain binomial functions. However, I'm pretty sure binomial functions are used to analyze Bernoulli Trials, which are essentially "yes or no" questions, to attempt to adequately simplify it. So, binomial functions are an analysis of these yes or no answers, and a Gaussian distribution is the normalization of this analysis for predictive measures.

However, this isn't the only instance of a bell curve and an analysis of IQ leaves open-ended variables, rather than an option between one and the other. Therefore, you would not use a binomial function to analyze IQ distribution, and accordingly, you would not apply a Gaussian distribution to it, either.

The Gaussian distribution describes what the curve looks with. It does not have to be a Bernoulli trial.


Instead, you would simply analyze it and observe that the distribution manifests as a bell-shaped curve, which is the case within groups as well as between them, according to those who report them:

http://www.indiana.edu...

Please actually quote the material that supports that, rather than give me a big link to look at, which will likely give me no information. The test based on the percentile, and then IQ is normalized based on the percentile, not the other way around.

"". To do this, the percentiles are converted to IQs by projecting them onto the Gaussian distribution."


http://www.michna.com...

However, these normalizations are based on the entire population, not differences between groups.


...on another note, wasn't it you who said that ad hominem attacks are an indication of a weak argument?

When members are disrespectful, I don't exactly respect them back.

Why aren't you approaching the point of my argument?