Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Racial differences correlates to I.Q.

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:56:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are several tangled logical threads upon which Saletan's argument precariously hangs, including a barely questioned assumption that IQ is a reasonable approximation of intelligence, a related and similarly barely questioned assumption that there is a general intelligence factor (g) that standardized tests can measure, several rather hopelessly contorted interpretations of contradictory studies, and a seeming utter ignorance of the significance of intra-group changes in IQ scores over the last hundred years. I'll come back to all these points and more momentarily; but I feel it's my journalistic duty not to bury the lede, which so far none of Saletan's blogospheric critics seem to have noticed. Namely, the principal study on which Saletan rests his case is a two-year old paper by J. Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen.

To put this as fairly as it can be put: Rushton and Jensen are anything but a new wave of scholars come to shed light on a heretofore intractable problem, as Saletan presents them. On the contrary, they have spent nearly a century combined harping on the same theme again and again, in paper after paper, and that theme is black racial inferiority. (Care for a taste of just how old-fashioned they are? They group human beings into a tripartite classificatory scheme of "Caucasoids," "Mongoloids," and "Negroids." It's in the 2005 paper, and it's roughly as credible as the Shem/Ham/Japheth theory of race.)

Jensen, as Melvin Konner noted in The Tangled Wing, has been tossing up one-sided hypotheses about the relationship between race and IQ since the 1960s that have consistently been swatted away by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others, but the fact that Jensen's findings have since been debunked did not prevent them from seeping into The Bell Curve. (Thus Saletan's articles come full circle, to say nothing of the geometric configuration of the chain of research supporting the hereditarian position.)

As for Jensen's co-author, in the excellent book Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, Jonathan Marks described the nature and integrity of Rushton's scholarly puruits as follows:

J. Phillipe Rushton calculated, on the basis of crude skull measurements of army inductees, that the average brain size of Asian males was 1403, of whites 1361, and of blacks 1346 cubic centimeters"

Have we thus discovered the biological basis for the differences in intelligence that previous generations have always assumed were there?"[T]he scientific issues and assumptions are as false as they have always been. First, we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.

Meanwhile, in his review of Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior in the Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, neuroscientist Douglas Wahlstein maintains an air of scholarly understatement, writing "I believe that great harm could be done to both the social and natural sciences if the standards for evidence and proof advocated in this book were to gain wider acceptance." Wahlstein further quotes Rushton replying to his critics to the effect that they "have failed to show an opposite predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint.' Apropos of that last point, Marks is delicate enough not to mention Rushton's companion studies of average penis size by race"and there, as the saying goes, you have it.


- See more at: http://jewcy.com...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 2:29:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 11:56:31 PM, dee-em wrote:
There are several tangled logical threads upon which Saletan's argument precariously hangs, including a barely questioned assumption that IQ is a reasonable approximation of intelligence,

What is the errancy implicit within Raven's Progressive Matrices? I understand that accuracy will not be 100% (due to variables, such as mood of the person, time of the day etc.), yet how does the conclusion 'IQ is not a reasonable approximation of intelligence' follow?

a related and similarly barely questioned assumption that there is a general intelligence factor (g) that standardized tests can measure, several rather hopelessly contorted interpretations of contradictory studies,

I'm not versed sufficiently in this; I'll return to it later.

and a seeming utter ignorance of the significance of intra-group changes in IQ scores over the last hundred years.

Is this in reference to The Flynn Effect? If so, considering all IQs are shifting upward, would not the gap persist?

I'll come back to all these points and more momentarily; but I feel it's my journalistic duty not to bury the lede, which so far none of Saletan's blogospheric critics seem to have noticed. Namely, the principal study on which Saletan rests his case is a two-year old paper by J. Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen.

To put this as fairly as it can be put: Rushton and Jensen are anything but a new wave of scholars come to shed light on a heretofore intractable problem, as Saletan presents them. On the contrary, they have spent nearly a century combined harping on the same theme again and again, in paper after paper, and that theme is black racial inferiority. (Care for a taste of just how old-fashioned they are? They group human beings into a tripartite classificatory scheme of "Caucasoids," "Mongoloids," and "Negroids." It's in the 2005 paper, and it's roughly as credible as the Shem/Ham/Japheth theory of race.)

Jensen, as Melvin Konner noted in The Tangled Wing, has been tossing up one-sided hypotheses about the relationship between race and IQ since the 1960s that have consistently been swatted away by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others, but the fact that Jensen's findings have since been debunked did not prevent them from seeping into The Bell Curve. (Thus Saletan's articles come full circle, to say nothing of the geometric configuration of the chain of research supporting the hereditarian position.)

As for Jensen's co-author, in the excellent book Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, Jonathan Marks described the nature and integrity of Rushton's scholarly puruits as follows:

J. Phillipe Rushton calculated, on the basis of crude skull measurements of army inductees, that the average brain size of Asian males was 1403, of whites 1361, and of blacks 1346 cubic centimeters"

I would like to see this assertion justified.


Have we thus discovered the biological basis for the differences in intelligence that previous generations have always assumed were there?"[T]he scientific issues and assumptions are as false as they have always been. First, we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.

Again, if the expansion is relatively similar due to all races experiencing this expansion, would not their relative positions, comparable to each other, stay the same?


Meanwhile, in his review of Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior in the Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, neuroscientist Douglas Wahlstein maintains an air of scholarly understatement, writing "I believe that great harm could be done to both the social and natural sciences if the standards for evidence and proof advocated in this book were to gain wider acceptance." Wahlstein further quotes Rushton replying to his critics to the effect that they "have failed to show an opposite predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint.' Apropos of that last point, Marks is delicate enough not to mention Rushton's companion studies of average penis size by race"and there, as the saying goes, you have it.


All I'm really seeing in this article is snark.


- See more at: http://jewcy.com...
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 3:24:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 2:29:19 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:56:31 PM, dee-em wrote:
There are several tangled logical threads upon which Saletan's argument precariously hangs, including a barely questioned assumption that IQ is a reasonable approximation of intelligence,

What is the errancy implicit within Raven's Progressive Matrices? I understand that accuracy will not be 100% (due to variables, such as mood of the person, time of the day etc.), yet how does the conclusion 'IQ is not a reasonable approximation of intelligence' follow?

a related and similarly barely questioned assumption that there is a general intelligence factor (g) that standardized tests can measure, several rather hopelessly contorted interpretations of contradictory studies,

I'm not versed sufficiently in this; I'll return to it later.

and a seeming utter ignorance of the significance of intra-group changes in IQ scores over the last hundred years.

Is this in reference to The Flynn Effect? If so, considering all IQs are shifting upward, would not the gap persist?

I'll come back to all these points and more momentarily; but I feel it's my journalistic duty not to bury the lede, which so far none of Saletan's blogospheric critics seem to have noticed. Namely, the principal study on which Saletan rests his case is a two-year old paper by J. Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen.

To put this as fairly as it can be put: Rushton and Jensen are anything but a new wave of scholars come to shed light on a heretofore intractable problem, as Saletan presents them. On the contrary, they have spent nearly a century combined harping on the same theme again and again, in paper after paper, and that theme is black racial inferiority. (Care for a taste of just how old-fashioned they are? They group human beings into a tripartite classificatory scheme of "Caucasoids," "Mongoloids," and "Negroids." It's in the 2005 paper, and it's roughly as credible as the Shem/Ham/Japheth theory of race.)

Jensen, as Melvin Konner noted in The Tangled Wing, has been tossing up one-sided hypotheses about the relationship between race and IQ since the 1960s that have consistently been swatted away by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others, but the fact that Jensen's findings have since been debunked did not prevent them from seeping into The Bell Curve. (Thus Saletan's articles come full circle, to say nothing of the geometric configuration of the chain of research supporting the hereditarian position.)

As for Jensen's co-author, in the excellent book Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, Jonathan Marks described the nature and integrity of Rushton's scholarly puruits as follows:

J. Phillipe Rushton calculated, on the basis of crude skull measurements of army inductees, that the average brain size of Asian males was 1403, of whites 1361, and of blacks 1346 cubic centimeters"

I would like to see this assertion justified.


Have we thus discovered the biological basis for the differences in intelligence that previous generations have always assumed were there?"[T]he scientific issues and assumptions are as false as they have always been. First, we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.

Again, if the expansion is relatively similar due to all races experiencing this expansion, would not their relative positions, comparable to each other, stay the same?


Meanwhile, in his review of Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior in the Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, neuroscientist Douglas Wahlstein maintains an air of scholarly understatement, writing "I believe that great harm could be done to both the social and natural sciences if the standards for evidence and proof advocated in this book were to gain wider acceptance." Wahlstein further quotes Rushton replying to his critics to the effect that they "have failed to show an opposite predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint.' Apropos of that last point, Marks is delicate enough not to mention Rushton's companion studies of average penis size by race"and there, as the saying goes, you have it.


All I'm really seeing in this article is snark.


- See more at: http://jewcy.com...

Hi Zarro. There may be a misunderstanding here. I posted the excerpt from that blog only to demonstrate that there are dissenting views to the research conducted by Rushton and Jensen. The author(s) of the Jewcy article can defend their own remarks. It's not my job, as I don't particularly have a horse in this race although I find the claims about IQ differences to be dubious on a personal level. The impression I get from a quick search is that these guys aren't held in high regard. Their individual and collective work has been consistently debunked by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others as mentioned in the article.

This might be food for thought: http://www.ferris.edu...

VO) - This mailbox service in Manhattan is the official address for the Pioneer Fund. There is no office. The fund's president and four directors avoid publicity and rarely talk to journalists. Ever since 1937, the Pioneer Fund has promoted the study of racial purity as a an ideal. Over the past 10 years, according to public documents, the Pioneer Fund contributed $3.5 million to researchers cited in The Bell Curve.

Psychologist Arthur Jensen received $1.1 million from the Pioneer Fund. Twenty five years ago, he started writing that blacks may be genetically less intelligent than whites. Psychologist Philippe Rushton received $656,000. He says his researchers show small genitalia may be a sign of superior intelligence.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 3:55:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does it matter?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 4:07:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 3:24:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/27/2015 2:29:19 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:56:31 PM, dee-em wrote:
There are several tangled logical threads upon which Saletan's argument precariously hangs, including a barely questioned assumption that IQ is a reasonable approximation of intelligence,

What is the errancy implicit within Raven's Progressive Matrices? I understand that accuracy will not be 100% (due to variables, such as mood of the person, time of the day etc.), yet how does the conclusion 'IQ is not a reasonable approximation of intelligence' follow?

a related and similarly barely questioned assumption that there is a general intelligence factor (g) that standardized tests can measure, several rather hopelessly contorted interpretations of contradictory studies,

I'm not versed sufficiently in this; I'll return to it later.

and a seeming utter ignorance of the significance of intra-group changes in IQ scores over the last hundred years.

Is this in reference to The Flynn Effect? If so, considering all IQs are shifting upward, would not the gap persist?

I'll come back to all these points and more momentarily; but I feel it's my journalistic duty not to bury the lede, which so far none of Saletan's blogospheric critics seem to have noticed. Namely, the principal study on which Saletan rests his case is a two-year old paper by J. Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen.

To put this as fairly as it can be put: Rushton and Jensen are anything but a new wave of scholars come to shed light on a heretofore intractable problem, as Saletan presents them. On the contrary, they have spent nearly a century combined harping on the same theme again and again, in paper after paper, and that theme is black racial inferiority. (Care for a taste of just how old-fashioned they are? They group human beings into a tripartite classificatory scheme of "Caucasoids," "Mongoloids," and "Negroids." It's in the 2005 paper, and it's roughly as credible as the Shem/Ham/Japheth theory of race.)

Jensen, as Melvin Konner noted in The Tangled Wing, has been tossing up one-sided hypotheses about the relationship between race and IQ since the 1960s that have consistently been swatted away by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others, but the fact that Jensen's findings have since been debunked did not prevent them from seeping into The Bell Curve. (Thus Saletan's articles come full circle, to say nothing of the geometric configuration of the chain of research supporting the hereditarian position.)

As for Jensen's co-author, in the excellent book Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, Jonathan Marks described the nature and integrity of Rushton's scholarly puruits as follows:

J. Phillipe Rushton calculated, on the basis of crude skull measurements of army inductees, that the average brain size of Asian males was 1403, of whites 1361, and of blacks 1346 cubic centimeters"

I would like to see this assertion justified.


Have we thus discovered the biological basis for the differences in intelligence that previous generations have always assumed were there?"[T]he scientific issues and assumptions are as false as they have always been. First, we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.

Again, if the expansion is relatively similar due to all races experiencing this expansion, would not their relative positions, comparable to each other, stay the same?


Meanwhile, in his review of Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior in the Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, neuroscientist Douglas Wahlstein maintains an air of scholarly understatement, writing "I believe that great harm could be done to both the social and natural sciences if the standards for evidence and proof advocated in this book were to gain wider acceptance." Wahlstein further quotes Rushton replying to his critics to the effect that they "have failed to show an opposite predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint.' Apropos of that last point, Marks is delicate enough not to mention Rushton's companion studies of average penis size by race"and there, as the saying goes, you have it.


All I'm really seeing in this article is snark.


- See more at: http://jewcy.com...

Hi Zarro. There may be a misunderstanding here. I posted the excerpt from that blog only to demonstrate that there are dissenting views to the research conducted by Rushton and Jensen. The author(s) of the Jewcy article can defend their own remarks. It's not my job, as I don't particularly have a horse in this race although I find the claims about IQ differences to be dubious on a personal level. The impression I get from a quick search is that these guys aren't held in high regard. Their individual and collective work has been consistently debunked by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others as mentioned in the article.


It's highly questionable whether Gould himself can be trusted. http://www.nytimes.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 4:25:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"They group human beings into a tripartite classificatory scheme of "Caucasoids," "Mongoloids," and "Negroids." It's in the 2005 paper, and it's roughly as credible as the Shem/Ham/Japheth theory of race.)"

Just because they are very broad categories doesn't make them entirely meaningless. I mean, they're really only inadequate in the sense that they can be broken down into the sub-groups they contain e.g., East Asians and South East Asians (whose IQs, incidentally, Rushton claims differ quite substantially, which shows that he acknowledges that the racial classification "Mongoloid" is at best incomplete).

"First, we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high."

This is almost certainly due to better nutrition i.e., not starving to death. Since citizens of first world countries no longer have to worry about starving to death, we shouldn't expect any gains, because they're probably not coming.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:49:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

Assuming IQ actually reflects intelligence and that this study is more correct than other studies disproving racism... This would mean that Whites are inferior to Asians, considering their IQ is on average lower. So do you believe that your race is only the 2nd smartest?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:17:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 3:24:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/27/2015 2:29:19 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:56:31 PM, dee-em wrote:
There are several tangled logical threads upon which Saletan's argument precariously hangs, including a barely questioned assumption that IQ is a reasonable approximation of intelligence,

What is the errancy implicit within Raven's Progressive Matrices? I understand that accuracy will not be 100% (due to variables, such as mood of the person, time of the day etc.), yet how does the conclusion 'IQ is not a reasonable approximation of intelligence' follow?

a related and similarly barely questioned assumption that there is a general intelligence factor (g) that standardized tests can measure, several rather hopelessly contorted interpretations of contradictory studies,

I'm not versed sufficiently in this; I'll return to it later.

and a seeming utter ignorance of the significance of intra-group changes in IQ scores over the last hundred years.

Is this in reference to The Flynn Effect? If so, considering all IQs are shifting upward, would not the gap persist?

I'll come back to all these points and more momentarily; but I feel it's my journalistic duty not to bury the lede, which so far none of Saletan's blogospheric critics seem to have noticed. Namely, the principal study on which Saletan rests his case is a two-year old paper by J. Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen.

To put this as fairly as it can be put: Rushton and Jensen are anything but a new wave of scholars come to shed light on a heretofore intractable problem, as Saletan presents them. On the contrary, they have spent nearly a century combined harping on the same theme again and again, in paper after paper, and that theme is black racial inferiority. (Care for a taste of just how old-fashioned they are? They group human beings into a tripartite classificatory scheme of "Caucasoids," "Mongoloids," and "Negroids." It's in the 2005 paper, and it's roughly as credible as the Shem/Ham/Japheth theory of race.)

Jensen, as Melvin Konner noted in The Tangled Wing, has been tossing up one-sided hypotheses about the relationship between race and IQ since the 1960s that have consistently been swatted away by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others, but the fact that Jensen's findings have since been debunked did not prevent them from seeping into The Bell Curve. (Thus Saletan's articles come full circle, to say nothing of the geometric configuration of the chain of research supporting the hereditarian position.)

As for Jensen's co-author, in the excellent book Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, Jonathan Marks described the nature and integrity of Rushton's scholarly puruits as follows:

J. Phillipe Rushton calculated, on the basis of crude skull measurements of army inductees, that the average brain size of Asian males was 1403, of whites 1361, and of blacks 1346 cubic centimeters"

I would like to see this assertion justified.


Have we thus discovered the biological basis for the differences in intelligence that previous generations have always assumed were there?"[T]he scientific issues and assumptions are as false as they have always been. First, we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.

Again, if the expansion is relatively similar due to all races experiencing this expansion, would not their relative positions, comparable to each other, stay the same?


Meanwhile, in his review of Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior in the Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, neuroscientist Douglas Wahlstein maintains an air of scholarly understatement, writing "I believe that great harm could be done to both the social and natural sciences if the standards for evidence and proof advocated in this book were to gain wider acceptance." Wahlstein further quotes Rushton replying to his critics to the effect that they "have failed to show an opposite predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint.' Apropos of that last point, Marks is delicate enough not to mention Rushton's companion studies of average penis size by race"and there, as the saying goes, you have it.


All I'm really seeing in this article is snark.


- See more at: http://jewcy.com...

Hi Zarro. There may be a misunderstanding here. I posted the excerpt from that blog only to demonstrate that there are dissenting views to the research conducted by Rushton and Jensen. The author(s) of the Jewcy article can defend their own remarks. It's not my job, as I don't particularly have a horse in this race although I find the claims about IQ differences to be dubious on a personal level. The impression I get from a quick search is that these guys aren't held in high regard. Their individual and collective work has been consistently debunked by Gould, Howard Gardner, and others as mentioned in the article.

If you're merely posting "dissenting views", then how do you reach a personal conclusion on the subject?


This might be food for thought: http://www.ferris.edu...

VO) - This mailbox service in Manhattan is the official address for the Pioneer Fund. There is no office. The fund's president and four directors avoid publicity and rarely talk to journalists. Ever since 1937, the Pioneer Fund has promoted the study of racial purity as a an ideal. Over the past 10 years, according to public documents, the Pioneer Fund contributed $3.5 million to researchers cited in The Bell Curve.

Psychologist Arthur Jensen received $1.1 million from the Pioneer Fund. Twenty five years ago, he started writing that blacks may be genetically less intelligent than whites. Psychologist Philippe Rushton received $656,000. He says his researchers show small genitalia may be a sign of superior intelligence.


Interesting. I'll have a look. Thank you.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:23:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:49:46 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

Assuming IQ actually reflects intelligence and that this study is more correct than other studies disproving racism... This would mean that Whites are inferior to Asians, considering their IQ is on average lower. So do you believe that your race is only the 2nd smartest?

In actuality, the Ashkenazi Jews were recorded to have a higher I.Q. (112) than both East Asians and Caucasians. Besides, to answer your question, I have no qualms with being part of an "inferior" race. My pursuit is only the truth.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:31:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 7:23:21 AM, Zarroette wrote:

In actuality, the Ashkenazi Jews were recorded to have a higher I.Q. (112) than both East Asians and Caucasians. Besides, to answer your question, I have no qualms with being part of an "inferior" race. My pursuit is only the truth.

Yeah, this is why I'm conflicted by these discussions. On the one hand I think it's mostly nonsense and I don't understand the point of any of this (I'll echo Shab's post). On the other hand, I'd kind of like to support any line of argumentation that states I'm inherently smarter than everyone else...
Debate.org Moderator
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:41:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 7:31:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:23:21 AM, Zarroette wrote:

In actuality, the Ashkenazi Jews were recorded to have a higher I.Q. (112) than both East Asians and Caucasians. Besides, to answer your question, I have no qualms with being part of an "inferior" race. My pursuit is only the truth.

Yeah, this is why I'm conflicted by these discussions. On the one hand I think it's mostly nonsense and I don't understand the point of any of this (I'll echo Shab's post).

There are numerous results which can eventuate from a conclusive answer.

(1) More beneficial immigration (i.e. only letting smarter groups in)

(2) Better gene pool

(3) Greater understanding of the alleles which generate higher I.Qs

Albeit, these will appear radical to some. However, they are merely suggestions.

On the other hand, I'd kind of like to support any line of argumentation that states I'm inherently smarter than everyone else...

Not necessarily. You, personally, could be on the extreme left of the bell-curve, and thus be significantly less intelligent than even an average negroid. Of course, we all know that you're not, and that you're 3 standard deviations towards the right.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:07:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 7:41:09 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:31:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:23:21 AM, Zarroette wrote:

In actuality, the Ashkenazi Jews were recorded to have a higher I.Q. (112) than both East Asians and Caucasians. Besides, to answer your question, I have no qualms with being part of an "inferior" race. My pursuit is only the truth.

Yeah, this is why I'm conflicted by these discussions. On the one hand I think it's mostly nonsense and I don't understand the point of any of this (I'll echo Shab's post).

There are numerous results which can eventuate from a conclusive answer.

(1) More beneficial immigration (i.e. only letting smarter groups in)

(2) Better gene pool

(3) Greater understanding of the alleles which generate higher I.Qs

Albeit, these will appear radical to some. However, they are merely suggestions.

I don't think you could argue for conclusion (2) or (3) on the basis of race. There are some stupid Asians, and there are some smart African-Americans. I do think that averages conceal as much as they reveal. I've seen studies showing that Asians, on average, have smaller penises than Whites. And since there are many more Asians than whites, does that mean smaller penises are more efficient? Not a theory I'm here to defend.

I think differences in value are what is creates this inequality. Society and their social status might also effect it. (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...)

On the other hand, I'd kind of like to support any line of argumentation that states I'm inherently smarter than everyone else...

lord airmax, please fix the forfeit glitch.


Not necessarily. You, personally, could be on the extreme left of the bell-curve, and thus be significantly less intelligent than even an average negroid. Of course, we all know that you're not, and that you're 3 standard deviations towards the right.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:08:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:07:46 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:41:09 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:31:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:23:21 AM, Zarroette wrote:

In actuality, the Ashkenazi Jews were recorded to have a higher I.Q. (112) than both East Asians and Caucasians. Besides, to answer your question, I have no qualms with being part of an "inferior" race. My pursuit is only the truth.

Yeah, this is why I'm conflicted by these discussions. On the one hand I think it's mostly nonsense and I don't understand the point of any of this (I'll echo Shab's post).

There are numerous results which can eventuate from a conclusive answer.

(1) More beneficial immigration (i.e. only letting smarter groups in)

(2) Better gene pool

(3) Greater understanding of the alleles which generate higher I.Qs

Albeit, these will appear radical to some. However, they are merely suggestions.

I don't think you could argue for conclusion (2) or (3) on the basis of race. There are some stupid Asians, and there are some smart African-Americans. I do think that averages conceal as much as they reveal. I've seen studies showing that Asians, on average, have smaller penises than Whites. And since there are many more Asians than whites, does that mean smaller penises are more efficient? Not a theory I'm here to defend.

Arguments (2) and (3) are, at least in my view, normative, rather than applicable to every situation. All things equal, understanding and quantifying I.Q. is more beneficial (and, as you unfortunately wrote, so is a larger penis), due to facilitating a better gene pool and allowing greater understanding of I.Q. In other words, whilst the best genes may not necessarily generate the most (for example) wealth, they're most likely to.


I think differences in value are what is creates this inequality. Society and their social status might also effect it. (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...)

What exactly are these "values" you type of? Values as in: 'what is worthy of intellectual merit'?

As for the other statement, yes, I concur that society and social status can influence I.Q. However, as to the severity of this influence, there is some speculation.


On the other hand, I'd kind of like to support any line of argumentation that states I'm inherently smarter than everyone else...

lord airmax, please fix the forfeit glitch.

Yes, Lord Airmax -- I have been a good goyim.



Not necessarily. You, personally, could be on the extreme left of the bell-curve, and thus be significantly less intelligent than even an average negroid. Of course, we all know that you're not, and that you're 3 standard deviations towards the right.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 11:07:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

Just look at Obama.. He couldn't stand his white mother at a young age which may be because he knew he'd never be as smart as her. :)

Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 2:07:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

Interesting find...
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 2:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 9:08:57 AM, Zarroette wrote:
I don't think you could argue for conclusion (2) or (3) on the basis of race. There are some stupid Asians, and there are some smart African-Americans. I do think that averages conceal as much as they reveal. I've seen studies showing that Asians, on average, have smaller penises than Whites. And since there are many more Asians than whites, does that mean smaller penises are more efficient? Not a theory I'm here to defend.

Arguments (2) and (3) are, at least in my view, normative, rather than applicable to every situation. All things equal, understanding and quantifying I.Q. is more beneficial (and, as you unfortunately wrote, so is a larger penis), due to facilitating a better gene pool and allowing greater understanding of I.Q. In other words, whilst the best genes may not necessarily generate the most (for example) wealth, they're most likely to.
Which is exactly the problem. A rule which can be broken can never be trusted - fuzzy "guidelines" are definitely not conducive to truth. There's no point saying "some x are y" when "some x aren't y" - nothing can be known about a particular x just from that statement alone.

Imagine a physicist saying "Most times, procedure x produces result y, so I don't need to redo it every time to make sure the values of my variables are accurate." It's complete nonsense.

If you argue that these are just "guiding principles" and that "individual people must be investigated on their own merits," then you're saying "These are generalizations which may not apply, but I'm still going to posit them - I'm going to rely on more accurate experimentation, though," which cannot be said to be better than just relying on those more accurate methods in the first place, cutting out the generalizations from the start.

See, this is why I like Rationalists and Logical Positivists so much.

http://www.californiachaparral.com...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:07:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 2:18:35 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/27/2015 9:08:57 AM, Zarroette wrote:
I don't think you could argue for conclusion (2) or (3) on the basis of race. There are some stupid Asians, and there are some smart African-Americans. I do think that averages conceal as much as they reveal. I've seen studies showing that Asians, on average, have smaller penises than Whites. And since there are many more Asians than whites, does that mean smaller penises are more efficient? Not a theory I'm here to defend.

Arguments (2) and (3) are, at least in my view, normative, rather than applicable to every situation. All things equal, understanding and quantifying I.Q. is more beneficial (and, as you unfortunately wrote, so is a larger penis), due to facilitating a better gene pool and allowing greater understanding of I.Q. In other words, whilst the best genes may not necessarily generate the most (for example) wealth, they're most likely to.
Which is exactly the problem. A rule which can be broken can never be trusted - fuzzy "guidelines" are definitely not conducive to truth. There's no point saying "some x are y" when "some x aren't y" - nothing can be known about a particular x just from that statement alone.

Imagine a physicist saying "Most times, procedure x produces result y, so I don't need to redo it every time to make sure the values of my variables are accurate." It's complete nonsense.

If you argue that these are just "guiding principles" and that "individual people must be investigated on their own merits," then you're saying "These are generalizations which may not apply, but I'm still going to posit them - I'm going to rely on more accurate experimentation, though," which cannot be said to be better than just relying on those more accurate methods in the first place, cutting out the generalizations from the start.

See, this is why I like Rationalists and Logical Positivists so much.

http://www.californiachaparral.com...

Statistical norms lack absolute force with respect to single individuals, who may be exceptions to the rule. That's why you can't make hard assumptions about someone on the basis of their gender, race, etc. But you can make tentative assumptions based on it, which is what we do all the time. For instance, if you needed help lifting something, and you had your choice between a male and a female, who are you going to pick? If you're serious about getting the job done, probably the male, not because males are always stronger than females, but because they usually are. In applying statistical norms to real world situations, one need not assume that the situation always reflects one's statistical assumptions. Much of the time, we're forced to operate with limited knowledge; certainty is a luxury which we can't always afford.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:12:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/27/2015 2:18:35 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/27/2015 9:08:57 AM, Zarroette wrote:
I don't think you could argue for conclusion (2) or (3) on the basis of race. There are some stupid Asians, and there are some smart African-Americans. I do think that averages conceal as much as they reveal. I've seen studies showing that Asians, on average, have smaller penises than Whites. And since there are many more Asians than whites, does that mean smaller penises are more efficient? Not a theory I'm here to defend.

Arguments (2) and (3) are, at least in my view, normative, rather than applicable to every situation. All things equal, understanding and quantifying I.Q. is more beneficial (and, as you unfortunately wrote, so is a larger penis), due to facilitating a better gene pool and allowing greater understanding of I.Q. In other words, whilst the best genes may not necessarily generate the most (for example) wealth, they're most likely to.
Which is exactly the problem. A rule which can be broken can never be trusted - fuzzy "guidelines" are definitely not conducive to truth. There's no point saying "some x are y" when "some x aren't y" - nothing can be known about a particular x just from that statement alone.

Imagine a physicist saying "Most times, procedure x produces result y, so I don't need to redo it every time to make sure the values of my variables are accurate." It's complete nonsense.

If you argue that these are just "guiding principles" and that "individual people must be investigated on their own merits," then you're saying "These are generalizations which may not apply, but I'm still going to posit them - I'm going to rely on more accurate experimentation, though," which cannot be said to be better than just relying on those more accurate methods in the first place, cutting out the generalizations from the start.

See, this is why I like Rationalists and Logical Positivists so much.

http://www.californiachaparral.com...

Philosophy does not need to be bastardized for the sake of "practicality." You are making certain epistemic claims, and you have to come to terms with how flimsy they really are.

Certainty will always trump probability.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:38:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:07:17 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

Just look at Obama.. He couldn't stand his white mother at a young age which may be because he knew he'd never be as smart as her. :)

Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

Lol.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:58:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 2:18:35 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/27/2015 9:08:57 AM, Zarroette wrote:
I don't think you could argue for conclusion (2) or (3) on the basis of race. There are some stupid Asians, and there are some smart African-Americans. I do think that averages conceal as much as they reveal. I've seen studies showing that Asians, on average, have smaller penises than Whites. And since there are many more Asians than whites, does that mean smaller penises are more efficient? Not a theory I'm here to defend.

Arguments (2) and (3) are, at least in my view, normative, rather than applicable to every situation. All things equal, understanding and quantifying I.Q. is more beneficial (and, as you unfortunately wrote, so is a larger penis), due to facilitating a better gene pool and allowing greater understanding of I.Q. In other words, whilst the best genes may not necessarily generate the most (for example) wealth, they're most likely to.
Which is exactly the problem. A rule which can be broken can never be trusted - fuzzy "guidelines" are definitely not conducive to truth. There's no point saying "some x are y" when "some x aren't y" - nothing can be known about a particular x just from that statement alone.

The point, as I see it, is an efficient way in dealing with masses, wherein catering to individual needs is beyond the realms of even the most loosely defined pragmatism. As a thought-experiment: say there are 1,000,000 people who are required to be governed by your wisdom and beneficence. A vast majority of this group, say 999,997, are known to have in excess of 115 I.Q., whilst the remaining 3 have vastly lower I.Q. At this time, there is a beneficial policy (which would save the tax-payer's money) which, in order to be effective, requires the governed people to have at least 115 I.Q (having lower means the person misses-out on the benefits), in order to understand its ramifications and obey it. Would you not, in this circumstance, implement the policy, due to *the vast majority* of the people being able to comprehend and follow it? Or would you forgo the policy, due to the 3 who do not understand?


Imagine a physicist saying "Most times, procedure x produces result y, so I don't need to redo it every time to make sure the values of my variables are accurate." It's complete nonsense.

If you begin with the known premise 'procedure x produces result y', then what necessitates a re-doing? Haven't the variables been accounted for, elsewise, there wouldn't exist that premise?


If you argue that these are just "guiding principles" and that "individual people must be investigated on their own merits," then you're saying "These are generalizations which may not apply, but I'm still going to posit them - I'm going to rely on more accurate experimentation, though," which cannot be said to be better than just relying on those more accurate methods in the first place, cutting out the generalizations from the start.

Due to the constraints of time and effort, we cannot always extract sufficient information in order to make a near-concrete conclusion. Surely, you do not sincerely think that life is possible without generalisations? Do you never form opinions of people you've just met? If you saw someone taking your belongings, would you not conclude that the person is a thief, despite not knowing for sure, due to that being vastly more likely than a person who is merely inspecting your wallet so that he/she may compliment it? Or is that the iniquity of a "generalisation?"


See, this is why I like Rationalists and Logical Positivists so much.

http://www.californiachaparral.com...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 10:22:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

- There are endless factors in play here. IQ tests on 3 yo children from extremely diversified regions in, historically, extremely short periods of time, are extremely unreliable to make any general statements about Race & Intelligence. I am getting tired of these stupid sociological "research". Basically, I have three remarks:

1. Claiming Race has nothing to do with Intelligence is, at best, dubious. This we can safely deduce from design, that is genetics.
2. Claiming I.Q. represents Intelligence, in any actual way, is also dubious. It's ultimately meaningless in the real scale of things. In that case, why should I.Q. matter anyways!!
3. Claiming we know the link between Race & Intelligence is downright delusional.

- To solve the problem of relying on these types of research, either:
1. The system of authority & education of soft sciences (sociology & psychology & so on) must change to accommodate great flexibility in research & worldview, & thus a normative subjectivity.
2. These findings should be ignored or just frozen until enough data & sufficient understanding is in place, then we can talk. Otherwise, opinions based on such research might as well be only that, opinions.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 7:56:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:12:15 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/27/2015 6:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/27/2015 2:18:35 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/27/2015 9:08:57 AM, Zarroette wrote:
I don't think you could argue for conclusion (2) or (3) on the basis of race. There are some stupid Asians, and there are some smart African-Americans. I do think that averages conceal as much as they reveal. I've seen studies showing that Asians, on average, have smaller penises than Whites. And since there are many more Asians than whites, does that mean smaller penises are more efficient? Not a theory I'm here to defend.

Arguments (2) and (3) are, at least in my view, normative, rather than applicable to every situation. All things equal, understanding and quantifying I.Q. is more beneficial (and, as you unfortunately wrote, so is a larger penis), due to facilitating a better gene pool and allowing greater understanding of I.Q. In other words, whilst the best genes may not necessarily generate the most (for example) wealth, they're most likely to.
Which is exactly the problem. A rule which can be broken can never be trusted - fuzzy "guidelines" are definitely not conducive to truth. There's no point saying "some x are y" when "some x aren't y" - nothing can be known about a particular x just from that statement alone.

Imagine a physicist saying "Most times, procedure x produces result y, so I don't need to redo it every time to make sure the values of my variables are accurate." It's complete nonsense.

If you argue that these are just "guiding principles" and that "individual people must be investigated on their own merits," then you're saying "These are generalizations which may not apply, but I'm still going to posit them - I'm going to rely on more accurate experimentation, though," which cannot be said to be better than just relying on those more accurate methods in the first place, cutting out the generalizations from the start.

See, this is why I like Rationalists and Logical Positivists so much.

http://www.californiachaparral.com...

Philosophy does not need to be bastardized for the sake of "practicality." You are making certain epistemic claims, and you have to come to terms with how flimsy they really are.

Certainty will always trump probability.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to argue. My point was simply that the situations we find ourselves in sometimes demand that we act on generalizations. We don't need to regard these generalizations as anything but flimsy approximations in the course of being "practical". Whether you like it or not, practical constraints require us to act on limited knowledge constantly.
Socraticdeathwish
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:03:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 10:22:30 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

- There are endless factors in play here. IQ tests on 3 yo children from extremely diversified regions in, historically, extremely short periods of time, are extremely unreliable to make any general statements about Race & Intelligence. I am getting tired of these stupid sociological "research". Basically, I have three remarks:

1. Claiming Race has nothing to do with Intelligence is, at best, dubious. This we can safely deduce from design, that is genetics.
2. Claiming I.Q. represents Intelligence, in any actual way, is also dubious. It's ultimately meaningless in the real scale of things. In that case, why should I.Q. matter anyways!!
3. Claiming we know the link between Race & Intelligence is downright delusional.

- To solve the problem of relying on these types of research, either:
1. The system of authority & education of soft sciences (sociology & psychology & so on) must change to accommodate great flexibility in research & worldview, & thus a normative subjectivity.
2. These findings should be ignored or just frozen until enough data & sufficient understanding is in place, then we can talk. Otherwise, opinions based on such research might as well be only that, opinions.

I agree, it would very surprising if regional genetic differences did not have an effect on intelligence, since seem to affect most other attributes.

However, this is unlikely to correspond neatly to the races that everyone is thinking of. Since there is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world. it would not be surprising if there was more genetic diversity when it comes to the genes that contribute to intelligence too. So, if East Asians have an increased number of the genes that contribute for general intellgence when compared to Caucausians, how do South-East Asians or Native Americans compare? And within East Asia, is the incidence increased in the North or South? What about "racially mixed" populations, such as the Somalis? Could it be that they have inherited alleles that contribute to intelligence from both Africa and the Middle East? Could that make them smarter than anyone, even though, statistically, those two continents have the least intelligent people (according to the research quoted above?).

If you look at the research into Jewish intelligence, you will see that it is going to be much more complicated than "asians smart, europeans less smart, africans dumb." The ashkenazi Jews are a mixed population, in that they have genetic contributions from both the Middle East and Europe, and they score much higher, on average, than Sephardi Jews, despite those two groups being quite closely related genetically.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 11:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

To be honest, if IQ is a matter of gentics, why would it be surprising if there was a difference between the mean IQ when looking at racial groups? The races were split long enough to have genetic difference.

With that said, the variability of intelligence of individuals in one racial group is much larger than the difference between the mean variability between racial groups, so it really is not much of an interesting topic. Plus it is very clear that the lower performing racial groups in schools has much more to do with socio-economic factors than genetic predispositions.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 9:40:58 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 11:11:33 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:35:58 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

Of recent, I read many sources of work claiming that race determines I.Q, at least to a significant extent. To cite an example:

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect..."

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."

http://www.news-medical.net...

NB: this is a medical news document, not an extremist fringe group.

To be honest, if IQ is a matter of gentics, why would it be surprising if there was a difference between the mean IQ when looking at racial groups? The races were split long enough to have genetic difference.

Agreed.


With that said, the variability of intelligence of individuals in one racial group is much larger than the difference between the mean variability between racial groups, so it really is not much of an interesting topic.

I don't agree. What you're essentially saying is that despite the white average being ~100 and the Australian Aborigine being about 62~, just because there is an I.Q. gap of 80 between Bobby Fischer (160 I.Q) and an unintelligent white person (80 I.Q.), this precludes the fact that there is 38 I.Q. gap, between these two racial groups, from being "interesting?" I find it to be interesting that there is such a stark difference between the I.Qs, and that, in a sense, one group's I.Q. is superior to the others.

Plus it is very clear that the lower performing racial groups in schools has much more to do with socio-economic factors than genetic predispositions.

Do you have a source to support this claim?