Let's Talk About Race

In the Africa topic, things kind of went haywire a little and became a discussion about blacks in America. So let's make this a separate topic. It is long overdue.

This is going to be a long post, but please bear with me. Read it all.

As some of you know, I spent some time on the Stormfront forum, debating White Nationalists under extremely disadvantageous conditions. I beseeched folks from here to come over to help me out, to no avail.

Non-racists are called "antis" over there, and their posts are put on a time-delay. Your post does not appear until a moderator reads it and determines it is not too inflammatory, and then the moderator posts it for you. This process can take anywhere from minutes to hours. Meanwhile, the WN's can post at will.

Antis are also restricted to the "Opposing Views" section of the forum and not allowed to stray into any other sections or they are immediately banned. So you have to wait for people to come to you. And very few do. Mostly the moderators. And the others who come to debate antis are a cut above the average WN's on the rest of the site. Very smart guys.

After an anti has established himself not to be a foaming-at-the-mouth kind of person, he may appeal to a moderator to remove the time delay. After I had been there a while, I did so. Several times. But they never even responded to my requests, much less remove the time delay. There were other long-term antis, though, who had no time delay. But they were still prevented from wandering outside the "Opposing Views" section.

I was accused of being black, a Jew, a left wing extremist marxist, and all kinds of other things. They absolutely refused to believe I was a white, conservative Republican male with blond hair and blue eyes.

I say all this so you can understand what kind of situation I was in in trying to fight the good fight.

Okay. So one of the first topics I engaged in had to do with a U.S. Census result which showed that the top 10 safest states, crime-wise, had the smallest percentage of blacks living in them, and the worst 10 states had the highest percentage of blacks living in them. I copied a zillion links that they and I used at the time to my Favorites, but I no longer have access to the computer I was using, so those are lost to me forever, I guess. But the fact is, the U.S. Census data supported their claims.

I know a little about a lot, but not a lot about this kind of stuff. But just for fun, I looked up nuclear reactors and how many each state had, and found just by coincidence, that those states that had the most reactors also had the higher crime rates. And those states that had the least reactors had the lowest crime rates. There were two exceptions out of the 50 states, but still not bad. :)

It wasn't until months after I had left Stormfront that I learned I had proven "correlation does not imply causation." I never heard that expression until hanging out in the Science section here.

There were other debates on Stormfront about IQs, and how blacks score lower. I don't remember details, but it certainly didn't look good for blacks.

Anyway, what say you all? How would you fight this fight, as far as IQ tests and crime rates and AIDS rates?

[Michael Redman]

If you haven't read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, you need to do so. He thoroughly refutes IQ testing, and give a great basis for understanding much of the problems with racist thought.

[Baker]

The time-delay was one of the reason I didn’t stay over there very long if you are still posting over there all drop by again and see if I can give you a hand you made some very good points do you have the url to the thread I would love to see what the response you got where?

[Victor Danilchenko]

You fight by pointing out that there are a lot of auxilliary factors involved, such as economic and social status, cultural background, location, test design, etc. In statistics, you can do two things about those: you can do something called "partial correlation", where you correlate X and Y (race and crime rate for example) against the third factor in question (say, poverty level or degree of urbanization). The other thing to do is to actually select a sample that is not susceptible to the biases in question. Either first or second method, or both, can be used depending on what is being studied; and unless a good job is done of controlling for auxilliary factors, the correlation proves diddly squat.

With IQ, there is one factor that's basically impossible to control in USA -- the popular perception of black culture. Even if an adopted black child is raised in white family in a totally non-racist white neighborhood, they will still be subject to the cultural bombardment from the media about what it means to be black.

In effect, there's very little we can do about precisely studying the effect of race on intelligence in USA. There have been some studies of black kids raised in cultures without the race thing going (there was a study on children of WWII black GIs' in Germany), but those have their own problem (that specific study showed no correlation between race and intelligence).

In conclusion, two anecdotes.

Nose length is correlated with math ability (because adults both have longer noses and are better at math)

Eating ice-cream is correlated with drowning (because people both eat icecream and swim more in the summer).

[Clancie]

Actually, according to many biologists, race is a scientifically outmoded concept anyway, left over from the 19th century.

I've read recommendations that it would be more meaningful to classify humans by blood type or fingerprint patterns, since there are so few categories and they apply throughout the world.

Of course, many people like to feel "race" is real and enjoy feeling better than others. (And perhaps getting people away from that specious basis for judgment is even more of a reason to use blood type or fingerprint for categorizing humans).

[Victor Danilchenko]

Clancy

Actually, according to many biologists, race is a scientifically outmoded concept anyway, left over from the 19th century.This is true, but not relevant in this context because race has become a solid cultural concept. Yes, classification of races by skin color is as arbitrary as classification of races by hair color of fingernail type.

Of course, many people like to feel "race" is realOh, it's real -- but culturally rather than biologically.

[Jeff]

Test

[Denise]

Sorry, Luke, I'm afraid that I'm not brave enough to post at a place like stormfront.

The race issue....

Well, I don't think that blacks or any other non white ethnic group are inferior in any way to whites, but I do think there are some differences. Are the differences cultural or genetic? All the information I have seen point to cultural.

A problem I see is that many black leaders are not addressing some of the real problems in the black community. Let's talk about out of wedlock births. Over half of the black children in the United States are born to single mothers. No matter what you think aoout marraige, it has been proven that children born to single mothers are much more likely to be in poverty than those who are with two parents. Now is bringing up this issue racist? Some might say yes, but I don't think talking about an obvious problem(to me) is racist.

I personally think the old welfare system helped create some of the problem- with all ethnic groups. Women were allowed to have as many kids as they wanted with benefits increasing according to how many children they had. Married couples could not receive the same benefits as single parents, nor could a woman receive benefits if she was living with the father. A young single mother saw the obvious truth(to me) that it was better for her to not marry the father of her child or children because her benefits such as food stamps and healthcare would be cut. I understand that decision. Thus, the children grew up not knowing their fathers(usually fathers) and that is not a good thing especially for the male children.

Flame away!

[hgc]

Clancy:
Actually, according to many biologists, race is a scientifically outmoded concept anyway, left over from the 19th century.

I've read recommendations that it would be more meaningful to classify humans by blood type or fingerprint patterns, since there are so few categories and they apply throughout the world.

Of course, many people like to feel "race" is real and enjoy feeling better than others. (And perhaps getting people away from that specious basis for judgment is even more of a reason to use blood type or fingerprint for categorizing humans).
Well, there's race, and then there's race. It's true that distinctly definable racial groupings are outmoded thinking (ie., the caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid races) -- except at Bob Jones University. But then there's also the concept of genetically connected communities being known as racially connected, which is obvious and banal. Of course skin color and other visually noticable characteristics are just scratching the surface of physical characteristics that correlate to groups of related people. I think it's also obvious that people who feel racially superior are badly misinformed. Superiority is very hard to define and test for (like for instance the case of "IQ" as mentioned above), but I think is also more distinct on an individual basis than on a "racial" basis anyway.

Some of you guys are way smarter than me. I sure wish you had been on Stormfront when I was there.

Michael, one of the antis mentioned The Mismeasure of Man somewhere during the IQ debate.

Baker, I'll wander over there in a few minutes and see if I can find the topic(s). It was a long time ago, and I don't even know if my account is still active.

Wow! My account is still active, and I found the crime rate topic easily.

The title of the topic is:Argue these stats. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26354)

I think you will see my appearance on page 2 of the topic under a not-so-veiled name. :)

Look for the guy talking about nuclear reactors.

I am very interested in a critique of my arguments in the "Argue these stats" topic. All input is welcome.

[hgc]

LukeT:
Some of you guys are way smarter than me. I sure wish you had been on Stormfront when I was there.

Michael, one of the antis mentioned The Mismeasure of Man somewhere during the IQ debate.

Baker, I'll wander over there in a few minutes and see if I can find the topic(s). It was a long time ago, and I don't even know if my account is still active.
By the way, The Mismeasure of Man is a great refutation of The Bell Curve (Hernnstein, Murray), even though it is written prior. Gould did write an essay directly attacking Bell Curve for various mistakes, from building on the foundation of "IQ" to all manner of statistical shannanigans, but it's incidentally a summary of Mismeasure.

Keeping in mind the disadvantageous conditions I outlined in my OP, doesn't this complaint from a WN crack you up?

Where have all the mouthpieces gone that used to bray and howl against some of the ideas spoken here? I rarely see any of those individuals speak out anymore.....have they realized the futility of arguing here? Or is there something else being prepared for us?
I have personally tried to raise the ire of some of those individuals, without success. I don't believe we have won the war of words...or have we?
Any of those antis or jews reading this are more than welcome to challenge some of my views.....all they need to do is a search and read some of my stuff. Then they can debunk my ignorant chattering.

bu bye

Fromhere. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26830)

[Dancing David]

race is a perception based upon culture what I find interesting is how English/Germanic culture tends to do something interesting, they type people into 'races' when all the effects can pretty much be accounted for by socio-economics. But then there are many cultures of superiority, take the Chinese they are way xeno-phobic and feel about thier culture the way that white supremists do about thier culture.

English views on the Irish(18-19th century):
They are inferior
They aren't as smart but are crafty
They like music
They like sex
They are emotional

Americans view on ethnic africans:
They are inferior
They aren't as smart but are crafty
They like music
They like sex
They are emotional

From what I can tell all people belong to the same race, we all came from the same place, culture originated in India and Africa but they never get credit for it! The north africans had agriculture long before the middle east and the indians had advanced mathematics while the europeans were still figuring out how to make bronze. There is a tremendous biasis in the way we white folk present history.

Peace
dancing David

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Denise


A problem I see is that many black leaders are not addressing some of the real problems in the black community. Let's talk about out of wedlock births. Over half of the black children in the United States are born to single mothers. No matter what you think aoout marraige, it has been proven that children born to single mothers are much more likely to be in poverty than those who are with two parents. Now is bringing up this issue racist? Some might say yes, but I don't think talking about an obvious problem(to me) is racist.

I personally think the old welfare system helped create some of the problem- with all ethnic groups. Women were allowed to have as many kids as they wanted with benefits increasing according to how many children they had. Married couples could not receive the same benefits as single parents, nor could a woman receive benefits if she was living with the father. A young single mother saw the obvious truth(to me) that it was better for her to not marry the father of her child or children because her benefits such as food stamps and healthcare would be cut. I understand that decision. Thus, the children grew up not knowing their fathers(usually fathers) and that is not a good thing especially for the male children.

Flame away!

Its all how you analyze the stats. For example one can saythat black culture does not put that much an emphasis on marraige. Marriage in general has been on the decline. Unlike some ethinic groups where there is a gretaer pressure to marry if the women is knocked up. Plus, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean they are on welfare. Its just so easy to fallinto stereotypical thinking.

Many people say there are more balck baaasketbal players because genetically blacks make better athletes. The cultural aspects tend to eb ignored. Maybe theres a high % of balck athletes because more black youth particpiate in playing basketball.

Vollyball is a sport that an athlete would need similar skills as basketball (speed, hight, jumping abliity). Yet the % of blacks in pro v-ball and olympics is much smaller than in basketball. Its the environment baby!

Canada has a very high % of world class hockey players. Is that because Canadians are genetically superior when it comes to hockey skills?

[Denise]

Originally posted by Tmy


Its all how you analyze the stats. For example one can saythat black culture does not put that much an emphasis on marraige. Marriage in general has been on the decline. Unlike some ethinic groups where there is a gretaer pressure to marry if the women is knocked up. Plus, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean they are on welfare. Its just so easy to fallinto stereotypical thinking.



But if you look at the fifties etc. children born out of wedlock has increased more substantially in the black community than the white. As the white community is catching up so to speak, they are starting to experience the same sort of economic problems. I don't see that as a stereotype. I see that as a fact. I never said that all black children born our of wedlock have parents on welfare.

[Tmy]

Denise,

I'm not calling you a bigot or racist or anything. I like when people can bring up topics wh/o having to worry about name calling or emotional replies.

We all use stereoptypes, its human nature.


As for welfare, I know in my parts the system has changed considerable in the last 10+ years. Its no longer a perpetutal free ride and deadbeat dads are hunted down by the state lawyers.

Originally posted by Tmy


Its all how you analyze the stats. For example one can saythat black culture does not put that much an emphasis on marraige. Marriage in general has been on the decline. Unlike some ethinic groups where there is a gretaer pressure to marry if the women is knocked up. Plus, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean they are on welfare. Its just so easy to fallinto stereotypical thinking.



Here (http://childstats.gov/ac2002/pdf/econ.pdf) is a link to a government site which shows children born out of wedlock don't fare as well economically and are more likely to be on welfare. There is plenty of support data on the internet. It isn't a stereotype. It is common sense.

A single parent isn't going to be able to provide for her children as well as two parents.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Tmy
Denise,

I'm not calling you a bigot or racist or anything. I like when people can bring up topics wh/o having to worry about name calling or emotional replies.

We all use stereoptypes, its human nature.


As for welfare, I know in my parts the system has changed considerable in the last 10+ years. Its no longer a perpetutal free ride and deadbeat dads are hunted down by the state lawyers.

They are?:eek:

My exhusband owes me over 50 grand.

[DanishDynamite]

Why do people insist that races are just social/cultural constructs? According to Merriam-Webster race is the same as breed or sub-species. Is the differentiation between a Saint Bernard and a Poodle a cultural construct?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tmy


Canada has a very high % of world class hockey players. Is that because Canadians are genetically superior when it comes to hockey skills?

Uh.. Yes. Sorry, but its just a fact. :D

Just ask Don Cherry.

[Thanz]

Actually, you know who we need to clear up all this race nonsense?

Sylvester McMonkey McBean.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Thanz


Uh.. Yes. Sorry, but its just a fact. :D

Just ask Don Cherry.

All that snow must have caused a genetic mutation in Canadians!

Or maybe it was that "Canadian bacon" aka HAM!

[Smalso]

I believe that anyone who believes that one race is superior to another is an ignorant, bigoted, certifiable a**h*l*. I guess some people have be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Smalso
I believe that anyone who believes that one race is superior to another is an ignorant, bigoted, certifiable a**h*l*. I guess some people have be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Stop beating around the bush, and say what you really think! ;)

In any case, I agree. What pisses me off is the attempt by the PC crowd to fight racism by simply declaring that races don't exist.

Originally posted by Smalso
I believe that anyone who believes that one race is superior to another is an ignorant, bigoted, certifiable a**h*l*.

I believe the same thing, Smalso, but around here, we have to prove they are. :)

[Baker]

Everyone has made very good points but I noticed that no one has took Luke’s offer to debate the facts on the Stormfront forum.
Is any one considering giving it a try?

[corplinx]

I hate to whack you with the cluebat here, buttttt ARGUEING WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS IS FUTILE.

Argueing with people at places like stormfront is like argueing with creationists at one of their web sites. its entirely futile.

Originally posted by corplinx
I hate to whack you with the cluebat here, buttttt ARGUEING WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS IS FUTILE.

Argueing with people at places like stormfront is like argueing with creationists at one of their web sites. its entirely futile.

No. It is not futile. There are a lot of fencesitters over there. And a lot of lurkers. That sight is far more popular than this one!

And if you read the the crime statistics topic I linked, you will find I received a pretty high compliment from one of the moderators (Admin, maybe) about my approach. And I just noticed he mentioned the "correlation does not prove causation" statement in response to my nuclear reactor example and applauded me. I did not notice that before.

They really respect people who can argue from intellect instead of emotion. Give it a try.

[Clancie]

Danish Dynamite,

Its not so-called "PC" to point out that race is an obsolete, false construct that arose from the biases of the 19th century. Read any good recent biology on the subject.

Dancing David,

I just can't let this pass.
Take the Chinese they are way xeno-phobic and feel about thier culture the way that white supremists do about thier culture
And your evidence for that sweeping generality is....?

As for why people are loathe to give up the notion that "race" is meaningful, I think some people will always want to cling to an outmoded, scientifically unsubstantiated idea so they can continue to rationalize stereotyping.

At one point, we got into an argument on Stormfront about whether or not WNs advocate violence. The vehemently denied it. And they are extremely careful to avoid what they perceive would be criminal incitement to violence. When I pointed out a poem someone had written elsewhere on their forum that praised Timothy McVeigh's actions, they took immediate action.

Once you accept their ground rules, those guys are pretty fair. A lot more fair than most woo-woo sites are.

They do not tolerate emotional outbursts on the part of antis. That will get you banned.

Read my posts. I think I scored a few points. Got my tail whipped most of the time, but it was worth the effort. Just very fatiguing. I've been thinking about going back.

edited for typos

[DanishDynamite]

Clancy:Its not "PC" to say race is an obsolete and false construct that arose from the biases of the 19th century.Are you making a statement or asking a question?
Read any good biologists on the subject lately?Nope. Have you?
I think some people like to cling to an outmoded, scientifically unsubstantiated idea--like race--in order to rationalize stereotypes. I'd hate to speculate as to the reasons why people acknowledge the obvious existence of races. Personally, I just adhere to the definition of same.

[corplinx]

Okay, Storm Front is dedicated to "white pride". I just find the whole thing to be a sham. White is a collection of very different cultural minorities and a hodge podge of American mixed whites. I don't get the whole "white race" thing.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
... Is the differentiation between a Saint Bernard and a Poodle a cultural construct?

Would dna analysis differentiate between them? Chihuahua to St. Bernard to wolf?

Would anyone like to take the stand that all dog breeds are equally intelligent? Or that the difference, if any, is only genetic?

[Smalso]

take the Chinese they are way xeno-phobic and feel about thier culture the way that white supremists do about thier culture.

Clancy: And your evidence for that sweeping generality is....?

Sweeping generality indeed. We have an acquaintance from China. She was an English teacher and acted as interpreter at a furniture exhibition where she met and later married a gentleman from Argentina who has a business in the United States. She was somewhat privileged in China because of her education and her profession. She loves the U.S. and the plentiful supplies of food, clothing and other goods and services available here. I have noticed none of the above-mentioned traits in her.

[Clancie]

Smalso,
Yes, I wonder how someone can so confidentally make such a sweeping statement.


originally posted by Clancy

It's not "PC" to say race is an obsolete and false construct that arose from the biases of the 19th century.

originally posted by Danish Dynamite

Are you making a statement or asking a question?

It was a statement.


originally posted by Clancy

Read any good biologists on the subject lately?

originally posted by Danish Dynamite

Nope. Have you?

Here's a link for you:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

originally posted by Danish Dynamite

I'd hate to speculate as to the reasons why people acknowledge the obvious existence of races. Personally, I just adhere to the definition of same.

Well, some people value scientific analysis, and some just like to stick to their old ideas, regardless. (shrugs)

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
In any case, I agree. What pisses me off is the attempt by the PC crowd to fight racism by simply declaring that races don't exist.

Well, the problem is that race != skin color. Australian Aboriginies and Africans are both black, but about as racially distinct as they can get.

Originally posted by corplinx
Okay, Storm Front is dedicated to "white pride". I just find the whole thing to be a sham. White is a collection of very different cultural minorities and a hodge podge of American mixed whites. I don't get the whole "white race" thing.

Yeah. I have the same problem. What they accept as "white" is very confusing over there. And there is a pecking order of acceptance for all other races. They seem to accept Asians better than blacks, for example. Some hate Jews the most. Others hate blacks the most.

They like Palistinians just because Palistinians hate Jews, too. :)

As far as "races" go, they talk a lot about genetics. You can distinguish races by DNA and even bone structures.

[DanishDynamite]

Clancy:It was a statement. In which case I disagree.
Here's a link for you:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm Interesting attempt to combat racism by declaring that races don't exist. Before I quote from the paper itself, let me just quote part of the introduction concerning its validity:
It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.
Now, to the meat. An excerpt:
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. The page doesn't state what is understood by the "so-called racial groups". I wonder if this grouping consists of the completely outdated Caucasion, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc, division. In any case, the above result is immaterial. The determination of sub-species doesn't rely on genetic differences. The Northern White Rhino and the Southern White Rhino have, to my knowledge, NO genetic differences, and yet they are classified as distinct sub-species.
Well, some people value scientific analysis, and some just like to stick to their old ideas, regardless. (shrugs) I agree.

aerosolben:Well, the problem is that race != skin color. Australian Aboriginies and Africans are both black, but about as racially distinct as they can get. I agree completely. Abos and "Africans" are certainly not the same race.

[Dancing David]

My sweeping statement was made on the bssis of most sweeping statement: ignorance! I regreted it as soon as I posted it.I I for the sake of my learning curve don't edit my posts)
Thank You for calling me on my ignorance.
(I think it was based on some false perceptions in anthroplogy books that I had read)
Peace
dancing david

[Clancie]

Danish Dynamite,

Funny that you didn't continue the quote you chose to include the sentence that followed it:

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them

Dancing David,

Someone who admits they're wrong so forthrightly and corrects it quickly is always, imo, deserving of respect. :)

Originally posted by Clancy
Dancing David,

Someone who admits they're wrong so forthrightly and corrects it quickly is always, imo, deserving of respect. :)

Ditto.

[DanishDynamite]

Clancy:Funny that you didn't continue the quote you chose to include the sentence that followed it:

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. Why is that funny? I didn't include it because it makes no difference to what I said.

[Clancie]

Well, it should make a big difference to what you want to believe, since it renders the so-called concept of "race" scientifically meaningless.

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them

[JeffR]

Shouldn't we be able to list the races by name along with the characteristics that distinguish one from the other? I can't do this, but then I'm one of those dopey white guys who's an argument against white supremacy.

Once we've defined the races, we ought to be able to show that the differences in characteristics is biological and not cultural.

Sure we can do and have done this based on superficial traits like skin and hair color, but what good is it? Knowing someone's race only tells you what they probably look like, but nothing more. It just isn't a very useful concept.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Clancy
Well, it should make a big difference to what you want to believe, since it renders the so-called concept of "race" scientifically meaningless.

It's entirely irrelevant to whether the concept of race is scientifically meaningless. I could say that there is more genetic variation within blondes than there is between blondes and brunettes, but that doesn't mean hair color is a myth.

Race classifies groups of humans by isolated regional ancestry (genetic pools that were entirely or almost entirely isolated from the remainder of humanity for signifigant periods of history). You could fairly say it is geographical and has no particular genetic root itself, though it may yield distinctive phenotypes. You could also say its impractical to use as any sort of classification system, but it is not "scientifically meaningless".

[Fade]

I am pretty sure nobody would deny that some dogs are more intelligent than others, or more loving, or more hostile.

However, humans don't breed like that. We looked for specific traits in dogs, and bred them to intensify them. Often, intelligence was a factor. For some things, a smart dog was great, for other things a smart dog was not great. So, you get what amounts to huge families of dogs. One family is going to be a little smarter, one family is going to be a little more hostile, one family is going to be a little faster, one is going to be taller, etc.

I am sure if we started breeding people like that, we'd end up with the same types of differences. We'd end up with people with exaggerated traits. Human breeding has always been more or less random, so I don't believe for a minute that there are significant mental or athletic differences between the "races" at all.

Anyway, I find the concept of race to be outmoded, for reasons stated here. What does it mean to be "black" exactly? What does it mean to be "white?" If you can't think of the answer, then isn't worth considering that these concepts are meaningless outside of the pure aesthetic values of them? I only use the concept of race when I am describing a person, simply because it's the most obvious feature anyone has. In a description, skin tone is the first thing I mention. It's like the background.

Originally posted by JeffR
Shouldn't we be able to list the races by name along with the characteristics that distinguish one from the other? I can't do this, but then I'm one of those dopey white guys who's an argument against white supremacy.

Once we've defined the races, we ought to be able to show that the differences in characteristics is biological and not cultural.

Sure we can do and have done this based on superficial traits like skin and hair color, but what good is it? Knowing someone's race only tells you what they probably look like, but nothing more. It just isn't a very useful concept.

The White Nationalists use more mundane applications of race. What did you mark on the Census? Black, white, hispanic.

From the census data, crime rates and correlations to race are made.

You see what I mean? These are the kinds of arguments that need to be discussed.

So these must be handled on a macroscopic scale. Demographics, socio-economic factors, nutrition, urban rot, etc.

The only time that they get into the real nitty gritty scientific definitions of race seems to be in discussions about IQ.

edited to add: and those IQ debates is where I was the most clueless. Things like the size of brainpans and crap like that came up.

[Fade]

The White Nationalists use more mundane applications of race. What did you mark on the Census? Black, white, hispanic.

This makes me want to run over to stormfront and say people aren't being racist enough! I mean, we mix in the aryans in with all those whites in south africa or Israel or Austrlia :D

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Fade
Human breeding has always been more or less random, so I don't believe for a minute that there are significant mental or athletic differences between the "races" at all. Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?

Could it be that the 'more or less random' human breeding has been more or less between people from the same 'race' and hence not so random after all? :confused:

I've seen people claiming that 'Asians' in the US are consistently scoring higher than 'whites' on University admission tests. If it is correct, how come? :confused:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?


There is some tribe in east africa I believe that has a very high average height. I would have to look in my old atlas which lists the "races" of man to find the exact name.

[Denise]

Originally posted by corplinx


There is some tribe in east africa I believe that has a very high average height. I would have to look in my old atlas which lists the "races" of man to find the exact name.

Is it the Tsusis? Spelling?

[Denise]

Watusi's?

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
If you haven't read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, you need to do so. He thoroughly refutes IQ testing, and give a great basis for understanding much of the problems with racist thought.

C'mon.

Citing mismeasure to "discredit" modern IQ science is like comparing someone to Hitler in an internet argument.

Why do skeptics defend this book so?

It really does suck

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Denise


Is it the Tsusis? Spelling? I don't know.

Pygmies are smaller than masais. There seem to be physical differences between human 'races', and few have problems aknowledging it.

What about other differences? Why should it be difficult to imagine it could be differences in the size of the outer ears, or the lenght of the feet, the colour of the eyes or the capacities of the brains?

I am not claiming that 'my' breed is more intelligent than others (in fact asians score higher than europeans in intelligence tests as far as I know) - I'm just surprised that it seems to be so very politically incorrect to even suggest it. :(

[bpesta22]

Is anyone familiar with the hick paradigm?

It involves looking at a bunch of light bulbs.

In one version of the task, three light bulbs turn on, and the subject has to touch the one lit bulb that's furthest away from the other two lit bulbs.

On each trial, you start with your finger resting on a home key. When the bulbs light, you remove your finger from the home key and touch the correct bulb.

Two Reaction Times are measured: 1) the time from the three bulbs going on, til you take your finger off the home key (considered to measure cognitive speed-- how long it takes to figure out which bulb to select).

2) the time from your finger leaving the home key til it hits the bulb (considered to be a measure of motor speed-- the decision is made, your arm/finger just needs to execute it).

Cognitive speed correlates strongly with two hour paper and pencil IQ tests (which include vastly different measures from the Hick task, like vocabuary and world knowledge / trivia).

Motor speed shows zero correlation with IQ.

Whites are faster than blacks on cognitive speed.

Blacks are faster than whites on motor speed (which is consistent with my observation that blacks on average are better athletes, but we can save this for another thread).

My Challenge to the IQ bashers (and to those who think mismeasure of man was an actual contribution to the science in this area), answer these questions:

1) If traditional paper and pencil IQ tests dont really measure IQ, why do they correlate with basic information processing speed, as shown in the Hick task (indeed why do the correlate with every important social variable as well, and why do they correlate with the speed wich which a single neuron in the brain fires)?

2) How can the hick task be culturally biased?

3) What is it about black culture or enviornment that makes them fast motor-wise, but slow cognitive-wise. Why does this flip flop in white culture.

4) why is it that for all the social variables IQ predicts (income; gpa, social status, job performance, etc) there is NO differential prediction for blacks (though on average they score lower than whites, predicting for black subjects is just as accurate as it is for white subjects).

5) How is anything Gould wrote in mismeasure even remotely relevant to the modern, cognitive psych approach to intelligence (e.g., looking at the speed of neutral transmission as a candidate for "what iq is").

[Bjorn]

2) How can the hick task be culturally biased? I have no idea. Can it? :confused:

Could it be that 'more intelligent' people move their finger from the 'home button' faster, but they are in fact still wondering where to put it next?

Whereas 'less intelligent' people wait, and move their finger at a faster speed because they are sure where to move it to?

Could this be a cultural difference?

[JeffR]

Originally posted by bpesta22
1) If traditional paper and pencil IQ tests dont really measure IQ, why do they correlate with basic information processing speed, as shown in the Hick task (indeed why do the correlate with every important social variable as well, and why do they correlate with the speed wich which a single neuron in the brain fires)?
Just out of curiosity, has a good argument been made that fast neurons are "better" when there is no time limit? In other words, what if the time limit on IQ tests was removed so that intelligence was measured based on whether or not the test subject can get the right answer rather than how long it takes to get it?

Also, has it been proved that neuron reaction time is genetic or is it possible that it is learned or trained over time and therefore could be effected by cultural influences?

Just asking. I haven't read the materials you are referring to but these are some of the questions that come to mind.

BTW, I work as an engineer and have several co-workers who are much faster on the uptake than I am, but in the end the work they produce is no better than mine (as near as I can tell, anyway). We all have a similar amount and type of experience doing our jobs. I know that they are faster at processing some information than I am, but are they really smarter? I don't know.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by bpesta22
Blacks are faster than whites on motor speed

This explains why I could never beat this little black kid at Mortal Kombat at the arcade. He could just hit those buttons faster.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by corplinx


This explains why I could never beat this little black kid at Mortal Kombat at the arcade. No, it doesn't.

Based on the posts here, you should have been faster deciding what button to hit (getting a head start), while he should have been able to move his hand faster once he finally decided where to move it.

Sorry - if you lost, he was just better! :p

[Bjorn]

JeffR
Just out of curiosity, has a good argument been made that fast neurons are "better" when there is no time limit? In other words, what if the time limit on IQ tests was removed so that intelligence was measured based on whether or not the test subject can get the right answer rather than how long it takes to get it? 'I'm just as intelligent, but need more time'?

I don't know, it is (I think) part of the IQ game to be able to solve problems fast, not just solve them. If we try to train monkeys to open a padlock to get some bananas, I think we view the fastest one to understand it as more intelligent than the slowest one.

Is the slow one getting less bananas in the end? Well, the early bird gets the worm (for mice however, it is the second one that gets the cheese). :p

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by bpesta22

3) What is it about black culture or enviornment that makes them fast motor-wise, but slow cognitive-wise. Why does this flip flop in white culture.


First, let me preface this my saying I don't buy the results or validity of this test.

That said, if the test is valid and the results are as you have stated, I would think the answer would be to look at our comparitive culutral history.

Up until very recently, blacks have survived primarily based on their motor skills. First in Africa, where tribal warfare and a hunter/gatherer lifestyle favored the strong and agile. Next in the New World, where slaves were chosen based on strength and stamina, not intellect.

White culture on the other hand, has been domestic long enough that natural selection would favor higher cognitive abilities.

Or something like that.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


White culture on the other hand, has been domestic long enough that natural selection would favor higher cognitive abilities.

Or something like that.

Are you saying we've been domesticated? :D

The whole idea of ignoring background, nutrition, training, etc, for these tests won't be addressed. Again.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are both genetic and developmental differences, and that the best anyone has managed to do, even with a wild reach, is account for 25% of the difference by race. And that's not controlling for correlated things like prenatal nutrition, etc, even.

But we've seen this discussion once, and it's rather obvious we have a couple of people here with an axe that needs some dulling.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by JeffR

Just out of curiosity, has a good argument been made that fast neurons are "better" when there is no time limit? In other words, what if the time limit on IQ tests was removed so that intelligence was measured based on whether or not the test subject can get the right answer rather than how long it takes to get it?

Also, has it been proved that neuron reaction time is genetic or is it possible that it is learned or trained over time and therefore could be effected by cultural influences?

Just asking. I haven't read the materials you are referring to but these are some of the questions that come to mind.

BTW, I work as an engineer and have several co-workers who are much faster on the uptake than I am, but in the end the work they produce is no better than mine (as near as I can tell, anyway). We all have a similar amount and type of experience doing our jobs. I know that they are faster at processing some information than I am, but are they really smarter? I don't know.

Well, many of the subtests on the WAIS
are untimed-- vocabulary, for example, correlates with scores on this light bulb task.

However, if one were to partial out the contribution cognitive speed makes to scores on traditional IQ tests, the validites of the IQ tests would crash. IQ tests predict because they measure general intelligence (g) which is correlated strongly with-- and may indeed be-- cognitive speed.

Based on some of the replies, I need to clarify: I'm not claiming all blacks are sub par in intelligence, and that all whites are smarter. There are millions of black people who are smarter than 10s of millions of white people.

However, there is a mean difference favoring whites of about 1 standard deviation. This means that the average white person is in about the 83rd% of the IQ distribution for blacks.

Finally, your job anecdote is entirely consistent with the IQ lit: The relationship between IQ and job performance is non linear. Having the minimum amount of iq needed to be an engineer is critical to success as an engineer (no one with a 90 IQ will ever be a chemical engineer, for example).

Once you have the minimum level of IQ needed to do the job, having more than that does not help.

You may work with enigineers who are smarter than you, but their job performance is the same as yours because all the engineers are smart enough to be engineers!

Originally posted by Bjorn
Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?

Could it be that the 'more or less random' human breeding has been more or less between people from the same 'race' and hence not so random after all? :confused:

I've seen people claiming that 'Asians' in the US are consistently scoring higher than 'whites' on University admission tests. If it is correct, how come? :confused:

And how come those dang Kenyans keep winning the Boston marathon? Like 12 out of the last 13, or something....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


I think it's pretty obvious that there are both genetic and developmental differences, and that the best anyone has managed to do, even with a wild reach, is account for 25% of the difference by race. And that's not controlling for correlated things like prenatal nutrition, etc, even.


I think it's pretty obvious that you have no trouble with data analysis to get whatever result you want. ;)

What citations would you provide that gets your "25%" under 50%, with actual best estimates at 75%? Also I notice your use of the term "race"; how are you defining it?

Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australian perhaps?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by LukeT


And how come those dang Kenyans keep winning the Boston marathon? Like 12 out of the last 13, or something.... They live and train in high altitudes, 'forcing' the body to produce more red blood cells (which again transport more oxygen to the muscles).

Since it was discovered that living in high altitudes for a long time made wonders for some athletes, it has become quite common to move to such areas for extended periods before important competitions.

It has even been experimented with houses with artificially 'thin' air to get the same effect while staying 'at home'. :cool:

[JeffR]

Originally posted by bpesta22
Finally, your job anecdote is entirely consistent with the IQ lit: The relationship between IQ and job performance is non linear. Having the minimum amount of iq needed to be an engineer is critical to success as an engineer (no one with a 90 IQ will ever be a chemical engineer, for example).My anecdote was a bad example and I wish I hadn't brought it up. I am well aware of factors other than level of intelligence that explain why some of my co-workers seem faster on the uptake than I am, so that part of my post was way off topic.

[Clancie]

I'm puzzled by the discussion. I don't understand making generalizations about (inaccurately called) "races", since

1. There seems to be no universally agreed upon definition of "intelligence" in any case;

2. What would be the reason for trying to generalize about the intelligence of people in groups (what some want to continue, inaccurately, to call "races")?

Since we know nothing we say will be true for all members of the group (even if we could adequately define the "group" and define "intelligence", which no one has) what's the point?

3. I notice none of the generalizations offered here about groups/"races" are backed up by any scientific studies. Seems generalizations like that should be supported by lots of evidence, if they're going to have any meaning at all.

4. Personally, I prefer Howard Gardner's theory of (12) "Multiple Intelligences".

And I think the idea of intelligence, however its defined or "measured", is only of interest when applied to individuals. (Though, again, in the real world, all I can see that matters in terms of intelligence is what you do with it).

[JeffR]

Originally posted by Bjorn
They live and train in high altitudes, 'forcing' the body to produce more red blood cells (which again transport more oxygen to the muscles).There's more to it I think. If generation after generation lives in the same environment, you'd expect that natural selection would work to make the population genetically adapted to those conditions. So Kenyans may indeed be genetically superior when it comes to long distance running.

This was explored in the book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158648026X/qid=1051373528/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-4095622-3600113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) a couple of years ago. I have not read it so I'm not endorsing it. I did hear the author interviewed a couple of times and he seemed rational and without an axe to grind other than trying to break the taboo against discussing this stuff.

If I recall correctly, the title is a bit misleading as the book is not about black atheletes specifically. For example (he says) northern Europeans dominate some of the strength sports.

[Smalso]

I'm still not sure of what we mean when we say "intelligence." We were sitting in a bar one day watching Jeopardy on the teevee. They hit the right catagories and I was answering almost every question correctly...or providing the right question for the answers they gave.:rolleyes: Anthoo, some guy piped up with, "Damn, man, you're smart. What's your I.Q.?" Damned if I know; and what's that got to do with it? Jeopardy once defined its concept as not a measure of the intelligence of the players, but the quick recall of specific facts. So, what makes a person "smart"? Is it having a good memory? Is it the ability quickly to recall specific information? Is it the ability to use information in practical applications? Certainly, it would seem that a person with a good memory would be a good speller, but some of the "smartest" people I know can't spell for poot. Somebody help me out, here.

Originally posted by Clancy
I'm puzzled by the discussion. I don't understand making generalizations about (inaccurately called) "races", since

1. There seems to be no universally agreed upon definition of "intelligence" in any case;

2. What would be the reason for trying to generalize about the intelligence of people in groups (what some want to continue, inaccurately, to call "races")?

Since we know nothing we say will be true for all members of the group (even if we could adequately define the "group" and define "intelligence", which no one has) what's the point?

3. I notice none of the generalizations offered here about groups/"races" are backed up by any scientific studies. Seems generalizations like that should be supported by lots of evidence, if they're going to have any meaning at all.

4. Personally, I prefer Howard Gardner's theory of (12) "Multiple Intelligences".

And I think the idea of intelligence, however its defined or "measured", is only of interest when applied to individuals. (Though, again, in the real world, all I can see that matters in terms of intelligence is what you do with it).

Clancy, a favorite tactic at Stormfront is to talk about what inventions and discoveries each "race" has contributed to mankind. This is supposedly an indication of intelligence. No matter how hard I tried, the WNs would not acknowledge a single accomplishment or invention by a "black." They claimed each accomplishment or invention was based on the previous work of a white man, or was not a significant contribution.
:rolleyes:

Seriously, if all of you guys went to Stormfront, I think we could wipe the floor with them. It seems whenever there is a drive to go to a paranormal site, like survivalscience, a lot of people are happy to jump on the bandwagon. Exercise in futility or not. Yet when there are matters far more threatening to critical thinking and our society, folks seem to get intimidated by the swastikas and automatic weapons.

[bpesta22]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clancy
[B]I'm puzzled by the discussion. I don't understand making generalizations about (inaccurately called) "races", since

1. There seems to be no universally agreed upon definition of "intelligence" in any case;


we might not agree on the definition of intelligence, but that doesn't mean we can't measure it. I don't think a more valid measure of many important life outcomes exists than the GOF IQ test.


2. What would be the reason for trying to generalize about the intelligence of people in groups (what some want to continue, inaccurately, to call "races")?

Since we know nothing we say will be true for all members of the group (even if we could adequately define the "group" and define "intelligence", which no one has) what's the point?


Geez. Group level prediction-- even with errors at the individual level--has tons of practical applications. This whole race difference on IQ tests has shaped US discrimination law (for example-- see the issue of adverse impact and job relatedness)



3. I notice none of the generalizations offered here about groups/"races" are backed up by any scientific studies. Seems generalizations like that should be supported by lots of evidence, if they're going to have any meaning at all.

I could cite gobs of them-- in fact I already have. Please do a search if interested in the cites.



4. Personally, I prefer Howard Gardner's theory of (12) "Multiple Intelligences".

It's a nice theory for sure, but until Howard can devise separate (valid and reliable) tests of each type of intelligence, AND do it so these tests dont also measure (just) g, AND show that these non-g measures of "iq" predict anything important, the theory is worthless.

Good luck, considering the positive manifold!



And I think the idea of intelligence, however its defined or "measured", is only of interest when applied to individuals. (Though, again, in the real world, all I can see that matters in terms of intelligence is what you do with it).

The validity between IQ and job performance-- as just one example-- save companies millions if not billions of dollars by increasing selection accuracy. Plug the numbers into any utility formula and the benefits of using IQ are amazing!

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Smalso
I'm still not sure of what we mean when we say "intelligence." We were sitting in a bar one day watching Jeopardy on the teevee. They hit the right catagories and I was answering almost every question correctly...or providing the right question for the answers they gave.:rolleyes: Anthoo, some guy piped up with, "Damn, man, you're smart. What's your I.Q.?" Damned if I know; and what's that got to do with it? Jeopardy once defined its concept as not a measure of the intelligence of the players, but the quick recall of specific facts. So, what makes a person "smart"? Is it having a good memory? Is it the ability quickly to recall specific information? Is it the ability to use information in practical applications? Certainly, it would seem that a person with a good memory would be a good speller, but some of the "smartest" people I know can't spell for poot. Somebody help me out, here.

Intelligence is Spearman's g, which seems to be some combination of information processing speed and working memory capacity.

It increases from birth to maturity; decreases in old age; shows large individual differences; predicts important social outcomes; and has a large genetic component.

So, all of your examples-- except spelling-- are reasonable definitions of IQ (spelling, as it turns out, is one of the few mental measures that does not correlate with g).

[Clancie]

originally posted by bpesta

"...the validity between IQ and job performance...."

bpesta,

Do you have studies you can reference that correlate IQ and job performance? I've never seen one and my (admittedly limited) real-life experience suggests otherwise.


originally posted by LukeT
Clancy, a favorite tactic at Stormfront is to talk about what inventions and discoveries each "race" has contributed to mankind. This is supposedly an indication of intelligence. No matter how hard I tried, the WNs would not acknowledge a single accomplishment or invention by a "black." They claimed each accomplishment or invention was based on the previous work of a white man, or was not a significant contribution.

Thanks for the explanation. I've never heard of Stormfront. I'm sure its good for them to be exposed to another viewpoint, but it sounds like a rather hopeless fight, if they're as "out there" and irrational as it sounds.

Exercise in futility or not. Yet when there are matters far more threatening to critical thinking and our society, folks seem to get intimidated by the swastikas and automatic weapons.

Well, it does certainly sound like an exercise in futility, but good not to let their statements go unchallenged if you've got the energy for it.

It must be frustrating though, knowing there's absolutely nothing you can say that will change any of their ideas, since they're not based on reason of any kind to begin with.

But, then again, maybe your arguments reach some lurkers. You never know....

[Clancie]

Re: intelligence. Here's a little quiz about it that might be of interest:

http://www.alleydog.com/quizzes/intelligencequiz.asp

Originally posted by Clancy


Well, it does certainly sound like an exercise in futility, but good not to let their statements go unchallenged if you've got the energy for it.

It must be frustrating though, knowing there's absolutely nothing you can say that will change any of their ideas, since they're not based on reason of any kind to begin with.

But, then again, maybe your arguments reach some lurkers. You never know....

Lurkers are one reason I went there. And there were a lot of fence-sitters, too. But I also think the WNs need to hear other white people, and not just representatives of the "races" they don't like, tell them they are full of crap. Especially right-wing white people.

In fact, the hardest thing to do over there was to convince them that I really am as white as they are. And a conservative Republican. With blond hair and blue eyes. They refused to believe it.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by LukeT
In fact, the hardest thing to do over there was to convince them that I really am as white as they are. And a conservative Republican. With blond hair and blue eyes. They refused to believe it.

Maybe I should go post a picture of myself, then. I also have blonde hair and blue eyes, and I'm tall and have distinct German facial features; I was once called the "poster child for the Aryan race" as a nickname.

:D

[bpesta22]

Here are some Good cites-- the last two deal specifically with job performance (so too does the 1995 Hunt article, and the Barrett article)

American Psychological Association (1997). Comments on Neisser et al. (1996). American Psychologist, 52, 69-81.

Barrett, G., & Depinet, R. (1991). A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than
intelligence. American Psychologist, 1012-1021.

Halpern, D. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist, 52, 1091-1102.

Hunt, E. (2000). Let?s hear it for crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 123-130.

Hunt, E. (1995). The role of intelligence in modern society. American Scientist, 83, 356-368.

Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2000). Racial and gender bias in ability and achievement tests: Resolving the apparent paradox. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 151-158.

Jensen, A. (2000). Testing: The dilemma of group differences. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 121-127.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, W., Brody, N., Ceci, S., Halpern, D., Loehlin, J., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.

Reynolds, C. (2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 144-150.

**Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

**Wagner, R. (1997). Intelligence, training and employment. American Psychologist, 52, 1059-1069.

[Earthborn]

Re: intelligence. Here's a little quiz about it that might be of interest:

http://www.alleydog.com/quizzes/intelligencequiz.aspWoohoo! 80%!

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy

It must be frustrating though, knowing there's absolutely nothing you can say that will change any of their ideas, since they're not based on reason of any kind to begin with.

But, then again, maybe your arguments reach some lurkers. You never know....

The lurkers should be the main motivation behind challenging their views other wise they will just continue to just go there and only see one side of the arguments.
That will give them the impression that it’s the only view.

Originally posted by Clancy
Re: intelligence. Here's a little quiz about it that might be of interest:

http://www.alleydog.com/quizzes/intelligencequiz.asp

An intelligence test about intelligence tests. :eek:

I got one question correct. :mad:

[bpesta22]

Regarding the Barrett article cited above:

Which do you think would be a better predictor of job performance for a truck driver: An actual driving test, or a g-loaded attention (i.e. IQ) test?

[Baker]

Originally posted by LukeT


An intelligence test about intelligence tests. :eek:

I got one question correct. :mad:

I didn’t want to post my score but since you, where brave enough to admit only getting one right all give mine.
I only got three correct answers.
:(

[Clancie]

from bpesta

"...the validity between IQ and job performance...."

Thanks for the bibliography, but since none of them link, I can't see what any of the authors say. :(

Is your point that there's agreement that there's a correlation between IQ and job performance (specifically, the higher the IQ, the better the job performance?)

If that's your claim, could you post an excerpt from one of these articles in support of it and which IQ tests they're using? If that's the claim it just seems a little ironic (as well as, imo, unsupported), considering how IQ testing started in the U.S.

[Earthborn]

2) How can the hick task be culturally biased?I can easily imagine how such a test is culturally biased. It is easy to see if you take do extreme thought experiment.

Suppose you take a bushman directly from the Kalahari to do a Hicks test, because if you assume the test is not culturally biased in any way, it should not make any difference from which culture the test subject is. We explain to him what he's supposed to do, he thinks "W!hat the Fuk! I di!dn't un!derstand a word of t!hat." and see how he performs.

His failure shows that the test is biased on language. The test can only be used if:
- all test subjects have English as their first language or
- there is an equal percentage of african immigrants (with another language then English as their first language) as 'white' immigrants with another language then English as their first language (and a language equally distinct from English as the languages of the African immigrants)

Of course this is an extreme example. A weaker, but more common bias is against people:
- who speak a different dialect or 'slang' than the people who give them the instructions
- who have a lower social status or are economically disadvantaged, since people like that tend to have lower language skills.

There are other factors too:
- Blacks tend to be (on average) poorer than whites. This means that white people have (on average) more electronic equipment in their home, making them perhaps more 'button-confident'.
- This is especially true of computergames: whites are more likely to play computergames, making them more trained in tests involving buttons.
- A very important factor is that blacks are more conscious of the way IQ tests have been abused to discriminate against them. This makes them more nervous about tests that are claimed to be designed to test a part of their intelligence. Whites see an intelligence test as an objective test, while blacks tend to be more paranoid about the motives of the researchers. Nervousness can influence the result of the test too.
I've heard once about an experiment in which blacks were asked to do IQ tests, but the researchers didn't tell it was an IQ test. Instead they said it was a game, and it was just for fun. The result was that the difference between black and white perfomance disappeared. Would be difficult to find a reference about it though...3) What is it about black culture or enviornment that makes them fast motor-wise, but slow cognitive-wise. Why does this flip flop in white culture.While the white kids sit at home playing with their playstation, the black kids are shootin' some b-ball on the street. Okay, oversimplification. But don't you think it might cause a difference in average skills of large groups, if individuals in one group are on average more likely to do certain things than individuals in the other group?

[Earthborn]

LukeT:I got one question correct. :mad:I sure hope it was 8 or 6... :)

[bpesta22]

Clancy.

Here's some abstracts from a quick library search. The last one deals with the issue of race differences:


Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life.
Appears In
Intelligence. Vol 24(1), Jan-Feb 1997, 79-132

Personnel selection research provides much evidence that intelligence (g) is an important predictor of performance in training and on the job, especially in higher level work. This article provides evidence that g has pervasive utility in work settings because it is essentially the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, in particular, with complex information processing. The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g confers in performing it well. Everyday tasks, like job duties, also differ in their level of complexity. The importance of intelligence therefore differs systematically across different arenas of social life as well as economic endeavor. Data from the National Adult Literacy Survey are used to show how higher levels of cognitive ability systematically improve individuals' odds of dealing successfully with the ordinary demands of modern life (such as banking, using maps, reading and understanding forms, interpreting news articles). These and other data are summarized to illustrate how the advantages of higher g, even when they are small, cumulate to affect the overall life chances of individuals at different ranges of the IQ bell curve.



Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications.
Appears In
Psychology, Public Policy, &Law. Vol 2(3-4), Sep-Dec 1996, 447-472.

General mental ability (intelligence) is the dominant determinant of the large individual differences in work output on the job revealed by research, but highly visible individual differences in citizenship behavior on the job make the intelligence-performance relationship harder to observe in everyday life. Over time, the validity of job experience for predicting performance declines, while that of ability remains constant or increases. Path analyses indicate that the major reason ability predicts performance so well is that higher ability individuals learn relevant job knowledge more quickly and learn more of it. The current social policy that strongly discourages use of mental ability in hiring is counterproductive and has produced severe performance decrements. This policy should be changed to encourage the use of ability measures. However, it should also encourage the use of personality measures that increase overall predictive validity while simultaneously reducing differences in minority-majority hiring rates



Reconsidering fairness: A matter of social and ethical priorities.
Appears In
Journal of Vocational Behavior. Vol 33(3), Dec 1988, 293-319.

Publisher Info
Elsevier Science, US. 1988.
Abstract
Reviews evidence that it is primarily the g (intelligence) factor among mental tests that accounts for their validity in predicting job performance, and that Black-White differences in g are real, large, and stubborn and thus can be expected to lead to especially high levels of adverse impact in mid- and high-level jobs. Examples are provided of how race norming and other forms of preferential treatment designed to prevent adverse impact are counterproductive in the long run, perhaps especially if practiced covertly. Strategies are reviewed by which organizations may cultivate the appearance of having avoided adverse impact while simultaneously maintaining or improving the efficiency and equity of personnel systems, without actually having accomplished that feat. Finally, it is argued that the newer conceptions of fairness, which emphasize group parity rather than individual merit, may consign Blacks and other favored groups to 2nd-class citizenship. (PsycINFO

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I can easily imagine how such a test is culturally biased. It is easy to see if you take do extreme thought experiment.

Suppose you take a bushman directly from the Kalahari to do a Hicks test, because if you assume the test is not culturally biased in any way, it should not make any difference from which culture the test subject is. We explain to him what he's supposed to do, he thinks "W!hat the Fuk! I di!dn't un!derstand a word of t!hat." and see how he performs.

His failure shows that the test is biased on language. The test can only be used if:
- all test subjects have English as their first language or
- there is an equal percentage of african immigrants (with another language then English as their first language) as 'white' immigrants with another language then English as their first language (and a language equally distinct from English as the languages of the African immigrants)

r?

Anyone who'd give IQ test instructions in english to a non-english speaker is a moron. You don't see many morons in this field.

I'd bet if the Bushman had the task explained to him in his native language, and if he were allowed some practice time to familiarize himself with the completely novel task, that his score on the task would predict important things in his culture (e.g., his status).

I'd bet also that if you take bunch of bushmen and have them do this task, then correlate the results with the bushman's own ratings of who in their tribe is smart / stupid, you'd get a significant correlation.

[Earthborn]

Anyone who'd give IQ test instructions in english to a non-english speaker is a moron.I guess the people in the 1920s who advocated immigration control based on such intelligence tests were morons then.You don't see many morons in this field.I tend to disagree. I am always surprised about the number of reseachers who claim to be able to measure IQs above 150, even above 200. Its ridiculous...I'd bet if the Bushman had the task explained to him in his native language, and if he were allowed some practice time to familiarize himself with the completely novel task, that his score on the task would predict important things in his culture (e.g., his status).I doubt it. It would probably be more of a test of how much you allow the test subject to be prepared for the task. I'm sure you can increase the score of anyone if only you give them more attention.

It's nice to see how you avoided my points though. My extreme example of the bushman was to show that differences in language can cause a bias. Something that should also have an effect (albeit smaller) on smaller differences of language ability. But you avoided that.

You also avoided my points about how differences in training in 'test-like' tasks and differences in how subjects perceive such testing can skew the results.

Originally posted by Earthborn
LukeT:I sure hope it was 8 or 6... :)

Well, I don't know. I didn't look to see which one I got right. But it sure would explain why I had a hard time arguing about races and IQs at Stormfront. :rolleyes:

So what would it take for everybody to give debating some White Nationalists a shot?

For a long time, I imagined a bunch of iron-pumping skinheads packing automatic weapons, but every once in a while, one of them posts a picture of themselves. It turns out they are just a bunch of scrawny losers packing automatic weapons.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Earthborn
It's nice to see how you avoided my points though. My extreme example of the bushman was to show that differences in language can cause a bias. Something that should also have an effect (albeit smaller) on smaller differences of language ability. But you avoided that.


I guess I avoided it because I don't see how the language argument applies in the hick task, which involves touching light bulbs.

Assuming the instructions are given in one's native language, I can't see how this test could be biased.

and, as to the unfamiliarity of the task to a bushman, we have the added complication that IQ strongly predicts how well people learn novel tasks.

The irony being that the bushman who took the least amount of time adjusting to the bulb task is also the smartest.


You also avoided my points about how differences in training in 'test-like' tasks and differences in how subjects perceive such testing can skew the results.

Sorry, I avoided them because I didn't find them very compelling.

There's a rich literature on controlling for everything environmental, and the kitchen sink, yet still finding race differences.

I'm not claiming the race difference is genetic, but if it is environmental, it sure is illusive.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Earthborn
...I've heard once about an experiment in which blacks were asked to do IQ tests, but the researchers didn't tell it was an IQ test. Instead they said it was a game, and it was just for fun. The result was that the difference between black and white perfomance disappeared. Would be difficult to find a reference about it though......

Try snopes for "urban legends". If this could be documented, it would be being broadcast from the rooftops.

85 vs 103 is the latest I've seen.

[Earthborn]

So if you don't think it is mostly environmental, how do you explain the Flynn effect?
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.html

IQ scores have been rising globally, and the current theory of this is is because people are getting more trained at IQ tests and test-like tasks. There are some other ideas, all of them environmental.

If the environment can cause such dramatic increases, it no hard to imagine that people who are in an underprivileged environment are falling behind.

[Earthborn]

Here's another short article on the Flynn Effect that specifically mentions the gap betwen black and white:
http://www.americanscientist.org/articles/97articles/nflynn.html

Perhaps the black IQ is just 50 years behind?

[Fade]

Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?

Nope. Tall doesn't mean athletic, it just means tall.

Could it be that the 'more or less random' human breeding has been more or less between people from the same 'race' and hence not so random after all?

I have no idea if you are being obtuse, or playing the devils advocate, or I am not being clear enough.

So i'll try again.

We all come from the same genetic stock. Literally. All people on earth, with exception of many parts of Africa descend from the same group of people that left Africa many thousands of years ago. In order for any of these people to be bred more or less intelligent, selective breeding, such as we do with dogs and horses, would have to have taken place. It never did.

I've seen people claiming that 'Asians' in the US are consistently scoring higher than 'whites' on University admission tests. If it is correct, how come?

Throw the Jews in there too. It's cultural.

I am going to make a statement here that is somewhat of a stereotype, but nonetheless remains true in many cases: Blacks in the US have a culture which does -not-, in general, promote scholastic achievement. Popular urban culture is sometimes flat out anti-intellectual. This holds more true for that minority in the US than for any other.

The reverse is true for Asian-American and Jewish culture. Both of these peoples, so to speak, put heavy emphasis on education. This most likely means these people will simply be better educated, as education isn't a one way thing. The person has to want to learn, and apply him or herself. You don't stick a person in school and have them just soak up knowledge.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Here's another short article on the Flynn Effect that specifically mentions the gap betwen black and white:
http://www.americanscientist.org/articles/97articles/nflynn.html

Perhaps the black IQ is just 50 years behind?

Could be.

But, there are other explanations for the Flynn effect in the articles you link to, including better technology, and nuitrition.

I think it's fair to say: The Flynn effect is real, we don't yet know what causes it.

Just as it's fair to say: Race differences on IQ tests are real, we just don't know yet what causes them.

For the later, we have the added proviso that we've ruled out many (all?) simple environmental explanations for the differences.

I don't think IQ bashers can have their cake and eat it too. If IQ tests are culturally biased (i.e., measure something besides IQ) then why do tests scores predict equally well for whites and blacks?

Why do smart black people achieve more than less smart black or less smart white people?

At the individual level, the iq test is race blind. At the group level, large differences exist.

So, how come the regression equation based on white subjects works just as well for predicting social outcomes with black subjects???

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Fade


Nope. Tall doesn't mean athletic, it just means tall.
Although every basketball coach will agree it's difficult to teach a guy how to be 7' tall.

We all come from the same genetic stock. Literally. All people on earth, with exception of many parts of Africa descend from the same group of people that left Africa many thousands of years ago. In order for any of these people to be bred more or less intelligent, selective breeding, such as we do with dogs and horses, would have to have taken place. It never did.
Sounds like an interesting study. When will you publish to back up your intelligence assertion?

Throw the Jews in there too. It's cultural.
Too bad the data doesn't agree with you. Care to cite something?

I am going to make a statement here that is somewhat of a stereotype, but nonetheless remains true in many cases: Blacks in the US have a culture which does -not-, in general, promote scholastic achievement. Popular urban culture is sometimes flat out anti-intellectual. This holds more true for that minority in the US than for any other.

The reverse is true for Asian-American and Jewish culture. Both of these peoples, so to speak, put heavy emphasis on education. This most likely means these people will simply be better educated, as education isn't a one way thing. The person has to want to learn, and apply him or herself. You don't stick a person in school and have them just soak up knowledge.
More doctoral level studies. When will you find the time to do them?

BTW, blacks in Africa do even worse. See, crossbreeding maybe does help. (DNA analysis could possibly be used to make such a study, but PC'libness would never allow it to be done imhsho.)

[bpesta22]

The reverse is true for Asian-American and Jewish culture. Both of these peoples, so to speak, put heavy emphasis on education. This most likely means these people will simply be better educated, as education isn't a one way thing. The person has to want to learn, and apply him or herself. You don't stick a person in school and have them just soak up knowledge. [/B]

Which direction does the causality go?

Does education make one smart, or do smart people get educated?

Are Ivy League schools so impressive because they make people smart, or because smart people go there?

B

[Earthborn]

I don't think IQ bashers can have their cake and eat it too. If IQ tests are culturally biased (i.e., measure something besides IQ) then why do tests scores predict equally well for whites and blacks?Assuming for a moment that it is true: perhaps because society is also culturally biased?

You could assume that not only are qualities that some cultures have not measured by IQ tests, they are also not valued by society.

However I don't believe IQ is such a good measure of future success

[Victor Danilchenko]

DD,

You are missing the point.

The point ios that the concept of race is based on the assumption that there are distinct, clearly demarkated groups, distinguished by grouped multiple characteristics; blacks for example are supposed to have darker skin, different nose shape and hair texture, muscle composition and tendon structure, etc.

The problem is that while those individual characteristics do vary regionally and ethnically, they don't generally vary together. They happen to mostly vary in group in USA (yes, I know you are not american) because USA's predominant ethnic groups include europeans and central africans. However, if you look at the world population, using that specific group of features to delineate races, makes no sense.

Skin color and muscle composition vary largely independently of each other; so do skin color and facial features or (to a lesser extent) hair texture.

Central africans and australian aborigines are a perfect example why the morphological delineation of races based on arbitrary grouping of characteristics is a totally stupid thing.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Assuming for a moment that it is true: perhaps because society is also culturally biased?

You could assume that not only are qualities that some cultures have not measured by IQ tests, they are also not valued by society.



No offense, but your arguments remind me of a creationist trying to explain the fossil record.

I'm not a big fan of parsimony, but how bad would your world view be shattered if indeed the race difference was real, and was caused by biology or genetics?


However I don't believe IQ is such a good measure of future success

That's like saying "I don't believe in evolution"-- as if your belief on the subject had any affect on its truth or falsity.

Just to review, the correlation between iq and:

1) grade point average = .50

2) years education = .55

3) Socioeconomic status (i.e., income) = .33

4) Job performance .3 to .5 (few others do as well, none as cheaply)

5) teenage pregnancy and juvenile delinquency rates, -.19

Odds the average Ph.D. has a lower IQ than the average high school grad-- 100:1.

Find any other single measure of anything ever tested for that predicts so much and so well as IQ does.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?

Could it be that the 'more or less random' human breeding has been more or less between people from the same 'race' and hence not so random after all? :confused:

I've seen people claiming that 'Asians' in the US are consistently scoring higher than 'whites' on University admission tests. If it is correct, how come? :confused:

I have data on gmat scores and gpas
in our mba program. The asians by far kick butt on the gmat, especially the math section. And, this is with a relatively small sample.

When it comes to visuo-spatial IQ, the Asian race is tops.

[Clancie]

There are quite a few studies that conclude emotional intelligence is far more important for most career achievement than IQ is. Here's one link:

http://sq.4mg.com/r_iq_ei.htm

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Fade


This makes me want to run over to stormfront and say people aren't being racist enough! I mean, we mix in the aryans in with all those whites in south africa or Israel or Austrlia :D

What exactly do you mean?

[Earthborn]

No offense, but your arguments remind me of a creationist trying to explain the fossil record.Oh? I don't see the similarity.I'm not a big fan of parsimony, but how bad would your world view be shattered if indeed the race difference was real, and was caused by biology or genetics?Not much, I think. I would still believe that people should be judged as individuals and not based on their 'race'. If they are judged equally/objectively and people in one group tends to make on average different decisions in their life than another, I would think it is irrelevant that they do.That's like saying "I don't believe in evolution"-- as if your belief on the subject had any affect on its truth or falsity.Is 'I am not convinced' a more acceptable formulation?Just to review, the correlation between iq and:

1) grade point average = .50

2) years education = .55

3) Socioeconomic status (i.e., income) = .33

4) Job performance .3 to .5 (few others do as well, none as cheaply)

5) teenage pregnancy and juvenile delinquency rates, -.19

Odds the average Ph.D. has a lower IQ than the average high school grad-- 100:1.Nice figures. Where did you get them? And how exactly do they show that IQ isn't largely environmental?

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by bpesta22
Regarding the Barrett article cited above:

Which do you think would be a better predictor of job performance for a truck driver: An actual driving test, or a g-loaded attention (i.e. IQ) test?

Yes, but ... all other factors being equal, would you hire a person with a 90 IQ or one withh a 110 IQ?

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Clancy
There are quite a few studies that conclude emotional intelligence is far more important for most career achievement than IQ is. Here's one link:

http://sq.4mg.com/r_iq_ei.htm


Eeeek. Emotional IQ is wrong on so many levels.

Junk science.

Let's see a top tier journal article showing emotional IQ explains unique variance in job performance-- i.e., variance not already predicted by IQ or any of the big 5 personality traits (esp. conscientiousness).

With regard to the stats in your link, the glass is half full or it's half empty.

If iq correlates only .4 (e.g.) with job performance, then indeed it's true that 84% of the variance in job performance is *not* explained by one's intelligence.

However, tell that to any corporation looking to save a ton of money by hiring qualified people / not hiring unqualified people.

The utility of a .40 correlation for selection, combined with the relative inexpense of an IQ test, can save an organization gobs of money in the long run.

g makes Bill Gates drool-- the selection criterion at microsoft is select for general mental ability above all other things.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Incitatus


Yes, but ... all other factors being equal, would you hire a person with a 90 IQ or one withh a 110 IQ?

Depends on the job. I'd probably want the 90 for a janitor and the 110 for say a cop (though 110 may be at the high end for cops).

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Oh? I don't see the similarity.Not much, I think. I would still believe that people should be judged as individuals and not based on their 'race'. If they are judged equally/objectively and people in one group tends to make on average different decisions in their life than another, I would think it is irrelevant that they do.Is 'I am not convinced' a more acceptable formulation?Nice figures. Where did you get them? And how exactly do they show that IQ isn't largely environmental?

I agree too-- judge people as individuals, without regard to race color national origin gender religion disability sexual preference, etc.

But, I think it's ostrich-like to ignore good scientific data, even when it suggests something politically incorrect.

With regard to my correlations, I posted them only to counter your belief that IQ does not predict future success.

Assuming my correlations are accurate, how can you not be convinced (esp. considering no other single measure predicts like IQ does)?

See the Neisser article above for the cite on these correlations.

[Earthborn]

I agree too-- judge people as individuals, without regard to race color national origin gender religion disability sexual preference, etc.Hurray, we agree on something.But, I think it's ostrich-like to ignore good scientific data, even when it suggests something politically incorrect.Again, I agree! However, I think not considering changeable enviromental factors, or not considering the invalidity of a test that shows something 'politically incorrect' is equally dangerous. It could mean that policies are made on the wrong assumptions.
Assuming my correlations are accurate, how can you not be convinced (esp. considering no other single measure predicts like IQ does)?Assuming they are correct, it still leaves a few questions: were the tests done while these people were still in school and later compared to their careers: if so it is a predictor.

If the tests are done when these people already made their careers, it may very well be a test of the qualities these people learned during their career and may be influenced by the confidence they have because of their position.

Something can only 'predict' something if it gives the right answer before it happened.See the Neisser article above for the cite on these correlations.I think it is very cheap of you to only cite magazine articles, when you know full well we aren't going to dash over to the library to check them out. More importantly, when you know full well that most of us across various oceans will have difficulty even getting access to them.

I suggest you show a website accessible to us all that supports your position.

[bpesta22]

[/B]

The Neisser article is on line-- I've posted a link to it here before.

For a topic this controversial and important, I think links to info on the net are not the best source.

Everything I cited above, for example, is published in a top tier peer reviewed journal.

And, American Psycholigist is a journal-- not a magainze-- with the Neisser article having the full support of the APA.

I'll be gone all day, so til tomorrow!

Best

B

[Earthborn]

The Neisser article is on line-- I've posted a link to it here before.Oh? Anyone who noticed it? I can't find any link by bpesta22... Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I'm pretty sure I looked carefully.For a topic this controversial and important, I think links to info on the net are not the best source.Depends on the site.And, American Psycholigist is a journal-- not a magainzeI suppose it is printed on paper and has a few staples in the middle. For someone who isn't 'moedertalig' English and doesn't know all the subtle differences in meaning in the English language, it is pretty much the same thing.

[DanishDynamite]

Victor Danilchenko:The point ios that the concept of race is based on the assumption that there are distinct, clearly demarkated groups, distinguished by grouped multiple characteristics; blacks for example are supposed to have darker skin, different nose shape and hair texture, muscle composition and tendon structure, etc.I don't consider "blacks" a race. A best, it could be considered a superset of races with dark skin.
The problem is that while those individual characteristics do vary regionally and ethnically, they don't generally vary together. They happen to mostly vary in group in USA (yes, I know you are not american) because USA's predominant ethnic groups include europeans and central africans. However, if you look at the world population, using that specific group of features to delineate races, makes no sense.I agree that with the increased interbreeding between previously geographically seperated groups, the term "race", as applied to the human species, is slowly loosing its usefulness.
Skin color and muscle composition vary largely independently of each other; so do skin color and facial features or (to a lesser extent) hair texture.What is the relevance of this observation? A Collie and a Labrador Retriever probably weigh about the same and have similar color of fur, but are nevertheless seperate subspecies.
Central africans and australian aborigines are a perfect example why the morphological delineation of races based on arbitrary grouping of characteristics is a totally stupid thing. I don't see why it is a "totally stupid thing". Can you expand on that?

[Tmy]

Race isnt always such a constant.

For example if you have one white parent and one black parent you are of mixed race. Yet society will most likely tag you as "black". So if you are taking an IQ test you will list yourself as black. How do you measure this persons score statistically? genetically he's 1/2 white. If he does poorly on the IQ test how can you claim its because he's black.

Id argue that AMerican Blacks are a separate race all together due to years of cross breeding wh other races. Just compare your average US black wh a black person from Africa. There are noticable differences.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Incitatus


Yes, but ... all other factors being equal, would you hire a person with a 90 IQ or one withh a 110 IQ?

Which one will:

Get the job done,
Understand that I am his boss,
Not be distracted, and
Score more "points" for my company in as many ways possible?

I don't know of a lot of employers who give IQ tests, or even care about their employee's IQ.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Fade


Nope. Tall doesn't mean athletic, it just means tall.Taller usually means heavier and stronger (and better basket player and boxers), but let's skip the definition of athletic..We all come from the same genetic stock. Literally. All people on earth, with exception of many parts of Africa descend from the same group of people that left Africa many thousands of years ago. In order for any of these people to be bred more or less intelligent, selective breeding, such as we do with dogs and horses, would have to have taken place. It never did. If that is true, how come masais are taller than pygmes? Where did all the other differences come from?

Aren't these differences proving just what you are claiming didn't happen - there was a selective breeding going on, based on things like the chances of survival or at least the chances of being able to reproduce if you were born with certain qualities. So, stronger people, or smarter people, or those with some other preferable ability, survived and had kids.

If breeding made differences between groups of people, as in taller/smaller, fairer/darker, stronger/weaker - why is it so f****** politically uncorrect to suggest that there might be differences also in that organ called a brain? :confused:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by bpesta22

1) If traditional paper and pencil IQ tests dont really measure IQ, why do they correlate with basic information processing speed, as shown in the Hick task (indeed why do the correlate with every important social variable as well, and why do they correlate with the speed wich which a single neuron in the brain fires)?


I have yet to see any proof that IQ tests are significant to anything other than IQ tests. They don't predict who will do well in school, they have zero social skills and are basicaly irrelevant to anything.
This hicks test you make reference to: did they test more than ten thousand people, when were the tests done and by whom?

Scientific testing has many inate biasis and should be takedn very carefully in the social sciences.

Peace
dancing David

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by bpesta22

There's a rich literature on controlling for everything environmental, and the kitchen sink, yet still finding race differences.


This is an interesting comment: how do you control for childhood? Say you have a one child family but both parents work two jobs and don't have time to do homework.
Or you live in a loud apartment building where the noise level is distracting and you can't sleep.
What if you have to raise your youinger sibling and have no time for homework?

These are all factors involving a single variable: ability to do homework, how are you going to control for that? (IE there sure are a lot of other variables)

Peace
dancing David

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I have yet to see any proof that IQ tests are significant to anything other than IQ tests. They don't predict who will do well in school, they have zero social skills and are basicaly irrelevant to anything.
This hicks test you make reference to: did they test more than ten thousand people, when were the tests done and by whom?

Scientific testing has many inate biasis and should be takedn very carefully in the social sciences.

Peace
dancing David

Uhm, I just cited the correlations above-- for example, they predict 25% of the variance in grades and slightly more than that in years education.

Why would one need to test 10,000 people? Statistical power's only a problem when you get null results.

The data in the hick task are pretty objective-- reaction time.

Regarding your next post, what if we compared only lower class single parent white and black kids yet still found the difference?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Why do people insist that races are just social/cultural constructs? According to Merriam-Webster race is the same as breed or sub-species. Is the differentiation between a Saint Bernard and a Poodle a cultural construct?

There ARE (small) genetic differences between humans. If you wish to divide humans to sub-species according to this, I suppose it is theoretically possible (if meaningless) and, to that respect, "objective".

But when people talk of "race", they mean SKIN COLOR. And the relation between skin color and genetic difference is extremely superficial. About 4/5th of the genetic difference in humans is between different groups of "blacks" from Africa, while everybody else--including many blacks and all orientals and whites--shares about 1/5th of the difference.

To use your dog analogy, if dogs were divided according to "races" on the same principle humans tend to divide themselves, it would be like putting a black dachshound, St. Bernard, Rottweiler, and labrador together in one "black" dog race, a yellow labrador into the "oriental" dog race, and a white labrador into the "white" dog race.

In this sense, "race" IS a social construct, since it doesn't correlate with anything in genetics or breeding except for superficial skin color.

[Dancing David]

I have yet to see you say how many people were in the Hicks test and wether or not they had a 'statistically significant' proportion of people to base these conclusions on. I am not asking you to cite the source I want to know how many people were in the trial and when it was preformed.
In the social sciences there is a lot of garbage, someone does a study on ten people and then reports it, then it gets dragged into a bunch of pop psychology and constantly repeated over and over. Then they never have the results replicated.

So how large was the sample size, how did they choose them, when was the test done, and was it replicated?

When you say 'lower class' how is it defined and say how it reflects the three variables I mentioned, parental involvement, sleep and caring for younger siblings? Do the studies in the meta analysis have any sort of protocol for deciding which studies they compare? Is it a straight correlation or it is forced through a 'chi table'? Did you know that generally in statistics anything less than a 63% correlation is concidered to be insignificant.

I am not disagreeing with your conclusions, I just want to make sure of the basis of the conclusion.

Peace
dancing david

[Fade]

If that is true, how come masais are taller than pygmes? Where did all the other differences come from?

This is part of that "most of africa" stuff. Much more varied genetic stock.
Aren't these differences proving just what you are claiming didn't happen -

Absolutely not. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I said "this type" of selective breeding didn't happen, referring to brain power. I am absolutely sure that the intelligence of a mate was unimportant to our ancestors. What would need to happen to make a given people smarter than the others, would be that people would have to be specifically looking for high intelligence as a trait for mating, and those people would have to mate more.

there was a selective breeding going on,

And it had nothing to do with brains.

based on things like the chances of survival or at least the chances of being able to reproduce if you were born with certain qualities. So, stronger people, or smarter people, or those with some other preferable ability, survived and had kids.


The thing about humans is that we're all smart enough to survive (except those with severe mental disabilities, of course), so I don't see how any primitive human could even BEGIN to distinguish between a smart person and a stupid person. That is why I am absolutely sure this type of selection never happened. Think very carefully about how/why you consider a person intelligent. It usually has to do with the way they speak, the things they are interested in, the way they have performed scholastically, etc. Language is much more sophisticated now than it was a long time ago, there were no schools tens of thousands of years ago, and true brilliance had no way to be applied. Caveman Einstein would have been just like every other caveman, because the basics of hunting were easily within the grasp of everyone.

If breeding made differences between groups of people, as in taller/smaller, fairer/darker, stronger/weaker - why is it so f****** politically uncorrect to suggest that there might be differences also in that organ called a brain?

Because the physical differences between the "races" came about for very specific reasons. In Africa, for instance, many of the animals humans would have hunted would run fairly fast. Long legs are a plus, same with running away. They are also built to be more lanky, and have more exposed skin, with less hair, so they disappate heat better. In Europe, people became white, and grew hair, and became more stalky in order to converse heat against the harsh winters.

All these differences came about for specific reasons. Intelligence, however, didn't come into play (in any major way) until perhaps 10,000 years ago. And, before a few centuries ago, people would have probably considered Africans, with their great kingdoms, to be the most intelligent people on earth.



Also, again referring to the tall comment:

Some of the most athletic people in the world would be olympic Gymnists. Gymnastics requires strength, control, balance.. everything "athletic" about the human body.

Gymnists are how tall again? :)

[Dancing David]

Why would the concept of race be useful? Can you come up with characteristics that indicate 'race' on this scale. I am sorry to the people who want to believe that they are superior. Race is a cultural belief, there are no human races. We are all one gene pool, that has intermingled wether you like it or not!
By the law of continuity(except in some states) I maintain that most people bred with people who were outside of thier local area, also called exogeny.
Twon A marries Town B , Town B marries both Town A and Town C, Town D marries Town D, therefore over time Town A. and Town D are likely to show some interbreeding.

Rant Rant Rant
The Africans invented agriculture, the Indians invented math and sewage systems and the human stock came to Africa by way of Asia before the radiation of homo spaiens 60,000 yers ago.!

Peace
dancing david

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Fade


Absolutely not. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I said "this type" of selective breeding didn't happen, referring to brain power. I am absolutely sure that the intelligence of a mate was unimportant to our ancestors.

In your case I'd agree. :rolleyes:

Other than "you", I strongly suspect you can't back up that assertion.

[hgc]

Fade:

The thing about humans is that we're all smart enough to survive (except those with severe mental disabilities, of course), so I don't see how any primitive human could even BEGIN to distinguish between a smart person and a stupid person. That is why I am absolutely sure this type of selection never happened. Think very carefully about how/why you consider a person intelligent. It usually has to do with the way they speak, the things they are interested in, the way they have performed scholastically, etc. Language is much more sophisticated now than it was a long time ago, there were no schools tens of thousands of years ago, and true brilliance had no way to be applied. Caveman Einstein would have been just like every other caveman, because the basics of hunting were easily within the grasp of everyone.
Hey, just because Gort the Caveman did not discourse on Susan Sontag doesn't mean there was no basis upon which a prospective mate could judge his intelligence. Depends on how you define intelligence. I define it as something along the lines of mental ability leading to success in the prevailing environment. Our ancestors used better brain power to be better hunters, root diggers, shelter builders, fruit pickers and whatever. Some better than others. Don't you think mate selection along these lines would have occurred?

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:There ARE (small) genetic differences between humans. If you wish to divide humans to sub-species according to this, I suppose it is theoretically possible (if meaningless) and, to that respect, "objective".It is possible, at least in some areas of the world. According to the Oxford Paperback Reference Concise Science Dictionary 1996, the definition of subspecies is: "A group of individuals within a species that breed more freely among themselves than with other member of the species and resemble each other in more characteristics. Reproductive isolation of a subspecies may become so extreme that a new species is formed (see speciation)." I'm not a taxonomist, but why wouldn't the Masai, the Pygmys, and the Aboriginals, to name three examples, qualify as races?
But when people talk of "race", they mean SKIN COLOR. And the relation between skin color and genetic difference is extremely superficial. About 4/5th of the genetic difference in humans is between different groups of "blacks" from Africa, while everybody else--including many blacks and all orientals and whites--shares about 1/5th of the difference. Well, as I said before, race means breed or subspecies. I agree that dividing humans into subspecies based exclusively on skin color isn't very useful.
To use your dog analogy, if dogs were divided according to "races" on the same principle humans tend to divide themselves, it would be like putting a black dachshound, St. Bernard, Rottweiler, and labrador together in one "black" dog race, a yellow labrador into the "oriental" dog race, and a white labrador into the "white" dog race. Certainly a fairly useless categorization.
In this sense, "race" IS a social construct, since it doesn't correlate with anything in genetics or breeding except for superficial skin color.Equating skin color with race isn't useful.

[DanishDynamite]

Fade:Absolutely not. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I said "this type" of selective breeding didn't happen, referring to brain power. I am absolutely sure that the intelligence of a mate was unimportant to our ancestors. What would need to happen to make a given people smarter than the others, would be that people would have to be specifically looking for high intelligence as a trait for mating, and those people would have to mate more.How in the world can you be sure that intelligence wasn't a selected trait? The one trait where humans excel wasn't a survival trait?
The thing about humans is that we're all smart enough to survive (except those with severe mental disabilities, of course), so I don't see how any primitive human could even BEGIN to distinguish between a smart person and a stupid person. That is why I am absolutely sure this type of selection never happened. Think very carefully about how/why you consider a person intelligent. It usually has to do with the way they speak, the things they are interested in, the way they have performed scholastically, etc. Language is much more sophisticated now than it was a long time ago, there were no schools tens of thousands of years ago, and true brilliance had no way to be applied. Caveman Einstein would have been just like every other caveman, because the basics of hunting were easily within the grasp of everyone.You must be joking. The ability to make tools, the ability to make better tools, the ability to plan, the ability to communicate detailed information, the ability to imagine, etc, etc, aren't signs of intelligence? Of course they are and they are also survival traits.
Because the physical differences between the "races" came about for very specific reasons. In Africa, for instance, many of the animals humans would have hunted would run fairly fast. Long legs are a plus, same with running away. They are also built to be more lanky, and have more exposed skin, with less hair, so they disappate heat better. In Europe, people became white, and grew hair, and became more stalky in order to converse heat against the harsh winters.Of course the differences came about for specific reasons. So what? BTW, "Africans" don't all have long legs (see Pygmy).
All these differences came about for specific reasons. Intelligence, however, didn't come into play (in any major way) until perhaps 10,000 years ago. And, before a few centuries ago, people would have probably considered Africans, with their great kingdoms, to be the most intelligent people on earth.Bollocks. Intelligence has been at play since the beginning of human evolution.

[DanishDynamite]

Dancing David:Why would the concept of race be useful? Why is any categorization scheme useful? Its useful because it allows one to ask questions such as "Why did the X race (say, Pygmy, if that was a race) arise?" "Why was it a survival trait to be small, tall, black, white, etc, in that environment". "Why didn't the Y race (say, Masai, if that was a race) invade their territory?". Etc, etc.
I am sorry to the people who want to believe that they are superior. Me too.
Race is a cultural belief, there are no human races. We are all one gene pool, that has intermingled wether you like it or not! Certainly we have intermingled. However, until recently, the intermingling has been minimal leading to the races evident today.

[LucyR]

Fade,

Sorry to nag but I'd appreciate an answer to my earlier question.

If the meaning of your statement was obvious I apologize for being slow.

Lucy.

[Fade]

Our ancestors used better brain power to be better hunters, root diggers, shelter builders, fruit pickers and whatever. Some better than others. Don't you think mate selection along these lines would have occurred?

Not at all.

Until the classical periods, I really don't see the higher forms of our intellect coming into play at all. Even the most average (great wording, I know) person would be more than capable of hunting, trapping, building shelter, etc. These things don't take much brain power, all they take is learning. Once you understand it, you can teach it to everyone, so everyone can take advantage of it.

Look at what the average human can do today as far as, say, math goes. I can perform nearly any tasks the ancient Greek or Arabian mathemeticians could, and can even show you for the most part how they arrived at them. Their intellect manifested in the sense of putting things together first, but it granted them not actual benefit, as once the one of them figured it out, it belonged to the entire human race.

To skip back a bit:
Depends on how you define intelligence. I define it as something along the lines of mental ability leading to success in the prevailing environment.

Intelligence is a funny thing. I don't think it's quite possible to give a definition that narrow. There is no question that the more capable people lived longer, but were those more capable people more intelligent by the standards we hold right now? I am firmly of the opinion that we did our evolving 150,000 years ago, and our evolution since then has been largely superficial changes to deal with weather.

How in the world can you be sure that intelligence wasn't a selected trait? The one trait where humans excel wasn't a survival trait?

Because after you get to human level intelligence, you don't need to go further to survive on this earth.

Here's a question that I have never heard an answer too:

How does Joe-Primitive Man know who is intelligent, and who is not? By what standards does he use?

The man who catches the most meat isn't necessarily the man who is most intelligent. What one lacks in intellect, one can make up for in physical strength, ability to work in a group, ability to give commands, ability to take commands, ability to learn, etc, etc. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a comparison of intellects would ever take place. The thing is, we are more intelligent than we need to be.

You must be joking. The ability to make tools, the ability to make better tools, the ability to plan, the ability to communicate detailed information, the ability to imagine, etc, etc, aren't signs of intelligence? Of course they are and they are also survival traits.

All of these things can be done by a mediocre human intellect.

Again, how being more intelligent than average be of any practical benefit?

Of course the differences came about for specific reasons. So what? BTW, "Africans" don't all have long legs (see Pygmy).

What -reason- would a European or Asian need to be more intelligent than an African?

Also, the pygmy's would fall under the category "exception" and not "rule" It would take too long to be too specific.

Bollocks. Intelligence has been at play since the beginning of human evolution.

Our intelligence likely came about as a means to use our hands. Once we were done evolving, we stopped. I don't believe I have ever seen evidence supporting the idea that we aren't almost exact duplicates of humans living 150,000 years ago. Perhaps in time, we'll need to get smarter to keep up with the ideas that come forth out of our brains, but there are very few concepts we have NOW that the average person can't understand given enough time, much less simple things such as tools and traps and communication.


Also, for the record, it is believed that Females developed better communication skills, and probably developed them first.

LucyR:

It was a very tongue in cheek comment. The people at stormfront seem to think only of actual skin colour when speaking about their own racism.

Hammy wrote:
Other than "you", I strongly suspect you can't back up that assertion.

Find me some reliable evidence stating that a white person is more intelligent then a black person, or whatever racist position you happen to hold. If my position is NOT correct, that evidence will exist, as humans will have bred using intelligence as a factor.

If I am correct, then all people of all "races" will have the same average intelligence level. This seems to be played out, given the ready ability of people from all "races" to hold jobs requiring consistent application of their intellect. Of course, this disregards cultural bias, something I am sure you are a fan of.

Ta.

Edit-

Perhaps I should have stated that I am of the opinion that we contain many different intelligences, such as interpersonal, intrapersonal, artistic, logical, etc. One can be deficient in one, or most, and make up for it with strength in another. A stupid person can still be brilliant in some respect, to wit, an idiot savant. However, that person would still be considered to posess a low intelligence.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Fade
If I am correct, then all people of all "races" will have the same average intelligence level. Which leads to the question: Why don't they?

Why do 'asians' consistently score better than 'whites' both in intelligence tests and at university admission tests?

I have far too little time to follow the forum these days, but feel free to check statistics on what I'm claiming. Please let me know if you find I'm wrong (I wish I were). :confused:

bpesta, you seem to have some numbers on this - care to share?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Fade


Not at all.

Until the classical periods, I really don't see the higher forms of our intellect coming into play at all. Even the most average (great wording, I know) person would be more than capable of hunting, trapping, building shelter, etc. These things don't take much brain power, all they take is learning. Once you understand it, you can teach it to everyone, so everyone can take advantage of it.

Look at what the average human can do today as far as, say, math goes. I can perform nearly any tasks the ancient Greek or Arabian mathemeticians could, and can even show you for the most part how they arrived at them. Their intellect manifested in the sense of putting things together first, but it granted them not actual benefit, as once the one of them figured it out, it belonged to the entire human race.



I think you underestimate the use of intelligence. If it was not useful, it would not have evolved. Certainly our collective body of knowledge, due to writing and computers is immense now compared to stoneage times. Our level of intelligence should be about the same, as you note. As humans, we have not changed much in the past hundred thousand years.

So what was our intelligence used for, if not fine arts and the invention of democracy.

Primitive societies used their brains for their day to day life, just as we do. Only, they used them in their life. So hunting and other pursuits, using just hand weapons, were possible.

The intelligence was necessary due to our slow speed, poor endurance and frailty.

For example, aboriginal trackers, whose skills are now dying out, can follow the tracks of people or animals over areas that we would consider impossible. They could memorise and pass on a vast verbal lore. This lore accurately recalls, for example, when Port Phillip bay in Victoria was dry, which was about 20,000 years ago.

The intelligence to create the flint tool and refine it required, I believe, every bit of intelligence that was required to invent the computer.

[Fade]

Which leads to the question: Why don't they?

What evidence states Asians are more intelligent than Whites?

IQ tests measure the ability of a person to take IQ tests. I consistently score 150+, but I am -not- as intelligent as an IQ test would peg me to be. Why? My mother played logic and word puzzles with me when I was a kid. I also never had any sort of text anxiety, and treat IQ tests as a challenge.

Seriously, read the Mismeasure of Man and you'll understand how these tests are fundamentally flawed. They don't establish any sort of objective metric with which to begin measuring! IQ tests rely only one how fast and how accurately the person answers a round of questions.

Here's an example for you:

Take Joe the Caveman from 140,00 years ago. Let's say we can invent technology which sticks the English language into his brain so that he understands what the IQ test questions mean. Other than learning the language, Joe has no other association with our society. His brain isn't used to distinguishing between the different types of shapes we are. His brain isn't used to thinking in terms of what is more like, and less like what. His brain isn't used to the things ours are.

Is Joe less intelligent?

No, he just doesn't know how to take an IQ test.


Now, take the Asian community, which puts heavy emphasis on science, mathematics, and logic. Their minds are trained from the beginning (speaking generally here) to do the exact things IQ tests asked. This is less prevalent in white society.

This is also the last time I will answer this exact question, as you have already asked it, and I have already answered it, without you even attempting to argue it.

Now, if you find fault in my logic, or have a source which has some sort of objective way of establishing intelligence, by all means i'll read it. If Asians are more intelligent then whites, then I am going to go out and breed with some asian women to make a few smart children!


Also, as an aside:

Can anyone define exactly what intelligence is?

I think you'll find that it's a combination of dozens of things, only a few of which are really ever measured :)

[Fade]

I think you underestimate the use of intelligence. If it was not useful, it would not have evolved.

Okay, I already answered this. Please go back and read everything I have written.

Certainly our collective body of knowledge, due to writing and computers is immense now compared to stoneage times. Our level of intelligence should be about the same, as you note. As humans, we have not changed much in the past hundred thousand years

Yes, exactly. Although, a lot of people confuse information with intelligence. I 'know' a little more about the universe than Einstein did. I know a LOT more about the universe than Newton did, but these two minds were far, far beyond me.

[...]

The intelligence to create the flint tool and refine it required, I believe, every bit of intelligence that was required to invent the computer.

Yes. I have already stated this, and it has not a single thing to do with my point. Our language allows us to have a flowing culture. One tribe talks to another. Nobody (well, not many people) live in a vacuum. Once one person figures something out, just about everyone knows how to do it. So the selective breeding on basis of intelligence would only "count" for that ONE PERSON that invented it.

I feel I need to restate this:

We didn't selectively breed to become more intelligent in the time we have been what we know as Homo Sapien. After we evolved to this point, our changes have been largely superficial, usually changes to better suit our environments. Because we lack this sort of selective breeding, I am of the opinion that no one "race" is more intelligent than any other, in general. Furthermore, I think the concept of race as anything other than a physical description is largely archaic and pointless, and it is impossible to predict how intelligent or athletic a person will be solely based upon that persons race.

[Bjorn]

Fade,

Do you believe someone who scores 150 on an IQ test is more intelligent than one who scores 100? Or rather, if one scores higher, is one more intelligent? If not, we have a definition problem. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Fade


Okay, I already answered this. Please go back and read everything I have written.



Doh

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Fade

Can anyone define exactly what intelligence is?

I think you'll find that it's a combination of dozens of things, only a few of which are really ever measured :)

This is one of the things that bugs me when people talk about intelligence as a specific trait, but the definition always depends on reference to other abilities, or to some generalised capacity.

Round my neck of the woods there's a joke that IQ testing is a test of how middle class you are, because that's another amorphous correlate of economic success.

Anyway, for anyone who's at a particularly loose end, here's a pretty thorough collection of arguments for and against intelligence testing (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000002/).

[Fade]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Fade,

Do you believe someone who scores 150 on an IQ test is more intelligent than one who scores 100? Or rather, if one scores higher, is one more intelligent? If not, we have a definition problem. ;)

IQ tests are Mensa vanity mirrors. They mean nothing. They measure nothing.

Except, of course, your ability to take IQ tests.

Edit
Anyway, for anyone who's at a particularly loose end, here's a pretty thorough collection of arguments for and against intelligence testing.

Bookmarked. Looks like some good reading material!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Fade


IQ tests are Mensa vanity mirrors. They mean nothing. They measure nothing.

Except, of course, your ability to take IQ tests.

My my, how egalitarian of you. Would you be as willing to share if you had tested at 95?


Bookmarked. Looks like some good reading material!

Yeah, more data for you to ignore. :rolleyes:

By the time we get to the 150+ range, IQ doesn't predict things too well; just that you can basically do most things you set your mind to if you can remain connected to some semblance of reality.

And as BillyTK mentioned, the historical tests were oriented towards predicting a person's abilities in 1st world situations.

Newer tests make every effort to be g-loaded irrespective of language or culture.

[Tmy]

Blacks are better athletes! Thats why the African countries always sweep through the Olympic medals!!!!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
And as BillyTK mentioned, the historical tests were oriented towards predicting a person's abilities in 1st world situations.

Newer tests make every effort to be g-loaded irrespective of language or culture.

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to just historical tests.

[Skeptic]

My my, how egalitarian of you. Would you be as willing to share if you had tested at 95?

So if someone with a high IQ score agrees that they don't mean much, they are just being "egalitarian" because they can "afford" to...

...but if somone with a low IQ score agrees that they don't mean much, they are just "jealous" and "in denial" of their "inferiority".

So whatever your IQ score, you are automatically "wrong" if you claim the score doesn't mean much.

How convenient.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B
So whatever your IQ score, you are automatically "wrong" if you claim the score doesn't mean much.

[/B]

Yeah, damned human nature & egotism just doesn't seem to change does it?

BillyTk, have you done any research on the newer tests? If so, why do think they are still culturally/linguistically biased? Would you agree that strong efffort is being made to make them neutral?

[Skeptic]

Fade:How in the world can you be sure that intelligence wasn't a selected trait? The one trait where humans excel wasn't a survival trait?

Of course it is, but you are making a common mistake about evolution. Evolution is NOT the "survival of the fittest". It is the survival of the barely tolerable. As long as you are smart enough, or strong enough, to have kids, evolution doesn't care.

It is of course the case that the human race's evolution is strongly influenced by its intelligence over other species. But it is certainly not the case that evolution selected for those who had the intelligence (had they been born today) to become rocket scientists, as opposed to those who only had the intelligence to finish sixth grade.

In prehistory, both were far and away "more" intelligence than one could use, and the "extra" wasn't necessarily better for mating and surviving. There is no reason to believe rocket scientists were selected for.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
BillyTk, have you done any research on the newer tests?
I've read up on them, particularly the Ravens Advanced
Matrices, if that's what you mean?
If so, why do think they are still culturally/linguistically biased? Would you agree that strong efffort is being made to make them neutral?
Well, apart from the contradiction of trying to find culturally-neutral tests for a culturally-specific entities. Overall it's necessary to bear in mind that there is culturally-bound semiotic bias in *any* form of graphical representation; for instance, it's been noted with the RPM there's some abiguity over what is actually being tested. And there's always the trusty old Flynn effect (http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.html#intro).

But iI was to be really derogatory, I'd suggest the newer tests are akin to testing for intelligence via Rorscharch blobs (only with right answers).

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is of course the case that the human race's evolution is strongly influenced by its intelligence over other species. But it is certainly not the case that evolution selected for those who had the intelligence (had they been born today) to become rocket scientists, as opposed to those who only had the intelligence to finish sixth grade.

Do you mean "manipulation of" rather than "intelligence over"? There's many instances where human "intelligence"* fails to triumph over the natural world, and even where "intelligence"* leads to adversity for the human race.

Love the "enough" idea though!

*in quotes because of the ambiguity of what intelligence actually is.

[Dancing David]

The problem that I see with IQ tests is they are culturally biased, if a hunter gatherer made the test , we would fail it.
Intellegence can only be measured by the standadrd that tests it, social skills are taught in American class rooms evryday, and they are graded very heavily, yet they are not on the IQ tests.
Emotional intellegence (And yes the book is pop trash, but the concept is usefull) is the ability to navigate the inner psychic world as it intersects in our interactions with others, useful skills , never on the test.
Employemnt skills: the abilty to follow tasks and act independantlybut seek guidance and resolve conflicts, not on the test.

By the way, human intellegence was probably not (IMO) the first selected trait it was walking and hands, then I believe that led to speech and more complex memory. Memory was the main reason we survived as a species, the ability to revever our elders and listen to thier sage advice.

Peace
dancing David

[Bjorn]

Fade,

You ask me how I can/will prove that 'asians' are more intelligent than 'caucasians'. I would like to try to dig up some of the statistics on this, but I need to know if it will help, even if I do.

When I ask you if the score on IQ tests shows more or less intelligence, you answer:

IQ tests are Mensa vanity mirrors. They mean nothing. They measure nothing.
Next alternative then: Is the score on university admission tests showing something about the applicant's intelligence?

If the answer is still no, please suggest how one can find out if one person is more intelligent than another (I take it you agree that not all individuals are equally intelligent). :confused:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Fade,

You ask me how I can/will prove that 'asians' are more intelligent than 'caucasians'. I would like to try to dig up some of the statistics on this, but I need to know if it will help, even if I do.

When I ask you if the score on IQ tests shows more or less intelligence, you answer:

Next alternative then: Is the score on university admission tests showing something about the applicant's intelligence?


The obvious point here is that the answer is in the question; it's only a measure of the intelligence of university applicants and as the sample being tested (university applicants) is so restricted, then it's problematic generalising the findings to support such a claim as one portion of the population being more intelligent than another.

To problematise this even further, university admission tests are generally used to indicate the presence of skills required for a particular course of study, so the test is not so much of some general cognitive capacity but of ability to be successful at university.

[Tmy]

If Albert Eienstien lived in a cave all his life and never learned to read and write and neverhad any schooling whould he be any less of a genius (genetically speaking)? How would he fare on an IQ test given that background.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


In your case I'd agree. :rolleyes:

Other than "you", I strongly suspect you can't back up that assertion.

Thank you for your constructive, non-adhom additions to the discussion.

Now tell me, what do you think is the best overall explaination for how human beings came to exist, given the existance of primitive lifeforms?

Please note, the only mention of the word "science" is in this sentence.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


Now tell me, what do you think is the best overall explaination for how human beings came to exist, given the existance of primitive lifeforms?


Yeah, asked & answered. I take you didn't find the answer pleasing to you. Should I assume you understood it ok?

PS. try spelchek

Or, don't tell me you are a YEC, man-in-image-of-god type??? I don't think so, actually, and neither am I. Got it?

[Skeptic]

Love the "enough" idea though!

Not mine... it is Richard Dawkins', I believe.

[JAR]

I read on one page that the guy who owns Stormfront was once put in an insane asylum for putting together a 1,000 man army to use to conquer the Caribbean island nation of Dominica. Nowadays he is unemployed.

[Skeptic]

2) How can the hick task be culturally biased?

There are half a dozen ways. Here's one.

From your description, the faster you move your finger from the button, the "smarter" you are, and the faster yo move it to the lightbulbs after you moved it from the button, the "more agile" you are.

But who says that's true?

Surely, it could be a cultural difference between whites and blacks that whites in general have more confidence or self-esteem, for instance, which makes them more likely to have their finger leave the "home" bulb even when they are not 100% sure of the answer, confident they'll figure out the answer presently. On the other hand, black test-takers might be more likely to hesitate, trying to make sure they KNOW the right bulb to move to before leaving "home". This would also explain why whites on average take longer to touch the right bulb once they leave "home" than blacks--they're still doing a calculation in their head, while the black person already finished it with their finger on the button.

In fact, it is easy to imagine a few reasons for just such a "bias". Perhaps, for example, it is precisely because blacks are more concerned to prove they are smart to the testers, in order to dispel the myth that blacks have a lower IQ, that will make them leave their hands on the button for that extra half second of "making sure". On the other hand, whites--likely to care less about what general impression they are sending about the "intelligence" of the "white race"--could take a chance once in a while, and do the test more freely, which would make them leave the button earlier, at the "price" of a longer time to reach the right bulb on average.

Of course, this doesn't prove this IS necessarily the actual bias working here. But it certainly at least a REASONABLE way in which the test can be biased--as opposed to the claims that such a bias is "impossible". By the way, I can think, off the top of my head, of at least another unrelated ways that such a systematic bias against blacks could be introduced into this test.

[hammegk]

Whew. And here silly me thought the psychometrics were not in dispute, just the reasons why racial IQ disparities exist.

Perhaps lending your ideas to the dumbshits actually doing research will lead to your doctorate & a Nobel prize. When do you intend to publish the preliminary results you must already have at your disposal?

Amazing, all those whities collaborating all these years to have Asians & some jews leading the IQ sweepstakes & blacks trailing far behind.

[JAR]

Originally posted by LukeT
There were other debates on Stormfront about IQs, and how blacks score lower. I don't remember details, but it certainly didn't look good for blacks.

The high crime rate among African-Americans is true. That is due to environmental causes in their upbringing, not biological ones.

If someone says that high crime rates among areas dominated by African-Americans is a sign that they have a biological tendency to commit crimes then he/she must be reminded that during the days of the Roman Empire, white people such as the Germans and Celts were known for attacking and plundering their neighbors.

[hammegk]

Or, if you are big, strong, & dumb, what pays better than crime, especially if an intelligent person is running a gang of big, strong, dumb ones?

Skin color is way over-rated as any kind of indicator imo.

[JAR]

But let's get something straight. A person getting mad over large numbers of people from certain ethnic groups moving into their neighborhood is not necessarily a race issue. It can also be an issue of not wanting to be mugged when you're out on a walk.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by BillyTK


The obvious point here is that the answer is in the question; it's only a measure of the intelligence of university applicants and as the sample being tested (university applicants) is so restricted, then it's problematic generalising the findings to support such a claim as one portion of the population being more intelligent than another.The sample so restricted? There must be tens of thousand tests done every year.:confused:

To problematise this even further, university admission tests are generally used to indicate the presence of skills required for a particular course of study, so the test is not so much of some general cognitive capacity but of ability to be successful at university. And is there any special reason why asians should score higher?

Is there a reason to belive that there is a connection between IQ and 'the ability to be a success at university'?

If IQ tests are dismissed as measuring something else than intelligence, and so with university admission tests, how does one measure intelligence?

Whether you think it can be measured or not, do you believe that all people are born equally intelligent?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR


The high crime rate among African-Americans is true. That is due to environmental causes in their upbringing, not biological ones.

If someone says that high crime rates among areas dominated by African-Americans is a sign that they have a biological tendency to commit crimes then he/she must be reminded that during the days of the Roman Empire, white people such as the Germans and Celts were known for attacking and plundering their neighbors.

Australia was founded as a prison, the first settlers were all criminals. Yet it's initial high crime soon subsided down to normal levels. Many convicts, once they served their time, stayed and lived normal lives in their new country.

The cultural relics now are that people are proud to be able to trace a convict past, and dislike for authority, and a sense of egalitarianism. Sadly, the egalitarianism seems to be dying away now.

[DanishDynamite]

Fade:Until the classical periods, I really don't see the higher forms of our intellect coming into play at all. What do you mean by the "higher forms of our intellect"?
Even the most average (great wording, I know) person would be more than capable of hunting, trapping, building shelter, etc. "Trapping" and "building shelter" came very, very late in human development. See Caveman. In any case, it doesn't matter if the "average" individual was able to survive and breed, as long as those who were better at hunting or trapping or building shelters had more viable offspring.
These things don't take much brain power, all they take is learning. This sentence makes no sense. The ability to learn is more or less the definition of intelligence.
Once you understand it, you can teach it to everyone, so everyone can take advantage of it.Those who were able to understand it can take advantage of it, yes.
Look at what the average human can do today as far as, say, math goes. I can perform nearly any tasks the ancient Greek or Arabian mathemeticians could, and can even show you for the most part how they arrived at them. Their intellect manifested in the sense of putting things together first, but it granted them not actual benefit, as once the one of them figured it out, it belonged to the entire human race.What does the development of mathematics within the last 5-10 thousand years have to do with the development of intelligence and subspecies?
Intelligence is a funny thing. I don't think it's quite possible to give a definition that narrow. There is no question that the more capable people lived longer, but were those more capable people more intelligent by the standards we hold right now? I am firmly of the opinion that we did our evolving 150,000 years ago, and our evolution since then has been largely superficial changes to deal with weather. 150,000 years ago, humans did not have total control of external factors affecting evolution. It is arguable that humans today do control most of these factors. That doesn't mean evolution has stopped. It just means that the factors affecting it have been reduced substantially and are now mostly internal. However, this is a recent development. For 10's of thousands of years, the weather was just a small factor affecting the survivability of human offspring.
Because after you get to human level intelligence, you don't need to go further to survive on this earth. On what do you base this arrogant assumption? Just 50 years ago the prospect of nuclear self-annihilation was a non-negligable possibily.
Here's a question that I have never heard an answer too:

How does Joe-Primitive Man know who is intelligent, and who is not? By what standards does he use? Joe-Primitive Man's opinion is irrelevant. If anything, it is Jane-Primitive Man's opinion which is of some importance. As in whom she chooses to mate with.
The man who catches the most meat isn't necessarily the man who is most intelligent. What one lacks in intellect, one can make up for in physical strength, ability to work in a group, ability to give commands, ability to take commands, ability to learn, etc, etc. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a comparison of intellects would ever take place. One may have superior strength and a good ability at giving commands, but if the commands are based on a faulty plan, the outcome will probably be likewise. Do you have evidence that those who were physically strong but mentally weak were better able to bring home the bacon? If this were so, why don't humans compare well with other animals regarding physical strength?
The thing is, we are more intelligent than we need to be.Huh? Evidence?
All of these things can be done by a mediocre human intellect. No they can't. A mediocre human can't produce "a better tool". A mediocre humand can't communicate as much detailed information as one who isn't mediocre. Etc.
Again, how being more intelligent than average be of any practical benefit? Because it resulted in more viable offspring?
What -reason- would a European or Asian need to be more intelligent than an African? I believe the term "argument from ignorance" applies.
Also, the pygmy's would fall under the category "exception" and not "rule" It would take too long to be too specific.Are you saying that all African races are better physically than non-African races, except for the Pygmies?
Our intelligence likely came about as a means to use our hands. Once we were done evolving, we stopped. Evolution doesn't stop.
I don't believe I have ever seen evidence supporting the idea that we aren't almost exact duplicates of humans living 150,000 years ago. We aren't duplicates, but in general it is a close call. However, I see no reason that certain subspecies shouldn't specialize in a particular area.
Perhaps in time, we'll need to get smarter to keep up with the ideas that come forth out of our brains, but there are very few concepts we have NOW that the average person can't understand given enough time, much less simple things such as tools and traps and communication.Again, it doesn't matter what the last 10,000 years of human evolution have resulted in, as it has no relevance. And again, it doesn't matter what the average member of a species is capable of. If that member is out-bred by others, the traits which made this possible will be preferentially propogated.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Of course it is, but you are making a common mistake about evolution. Evolution is NOT the "survival of the fittest". It is the survival of the barely tolerable. As long as you are smart enough, or strong enough, to have kids, evolution doesn't care. Crapolla. If you are just "barely tolerable" and are just able to produce a few offspring, your characteristics will continue for a while. But if others are not just "barely tolerable" but somehow excell, they will have more offspring. The end result is obvious.
It is of course the case that the human race's evolution is strongly influenced by its intelligence over other species. But it is certainly not the case that evolution selected for those who had the intelligence (had they been born today) to become rocket scientists, as opposed to those who only had the intelligence to finish sixth grade. Perhaps. What does this have to do with the evolution of the human species in the vast majority of its existence (i.e. before the last 5,000 years)?
In prehistory, both were far and away "more" intelligence than one could use, and the "extra" wasn't necessarily better for mating and surviving. There is no reason to believe rocket scientists were selected for. On the contrary, the fact that we do have "rocket scientists", which other species don't, shows that intelligence was selected for in the human species.

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Australia was founded as a prison, the first settlers were all criminals. Yet it's initial high crime soon subsided down to normal levels. Many convicts, once they served their time, stayed and lived normal lives in their new country.

The cultural relics now are that people are proud to be able to trace a convict past, and dislike for authority, and a sense of egalitarianism. Sadly, the egalitarianism seems to be dying away now.

Exactly my point. Some peoples who were once horrible are not so horrible anymore. If you compare the modern Danish to the Vikings, one sees how this holds true.

I think we agree on this.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR


Exactly my point. Some peoples who were once horrible are not so horrible anymore. If you compare the modern Danish to the Vikings, one sees how this holds true.

I think we agree on this.

You have something good to say about the modern Danes?

As for the 'horrible' criminals, the crimes that got people transported were often nothing worse than stealing a loaf of bread. Now if GWB wants to get tough on crime, he should learn from England in the 1800's. Their prisons were full too.

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You have something good to say about the modern Danes?

As for the 'horrible' criminals, the crimes that got people transported were often nothing worse than stealing a loaf of bread. Now if GWB wants to get tough on crime, he should learn from England in the 1800's. Their prisons were full too.

I knew an African-American in high school that had robbed a liquor store. He said that his friends pressured him into doing it. I think that makes him and his friends "horrible criminals." Youth gangs often have a rite of passage for members that they must be in jail once. I think these people can be termed "horrible criminals."

There was one incident near where I live where a white family got lost driving around and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Gang members appeared and one threw a trashcan at their car. The man driving the car tried to drive through them and they opened fire on his vehicle, killing his little daughter.

It was said that the gang members were hostile to these people because they had gone into their territory.

These are what I term, "horrible criminals."

Another time a group of white teenagers were walking around and a group of African-Americans driving by in a car at night mistook them for members of a rival gang and opened fire, killing several of them. They said in their trial that the drive-by was a mistake and was intended for other people. That's not too reassuring.

These horrible acts that these gang members do often have nothing to do with a lack of money.

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by JAR
But let's get something straight. A person getting mad over large numbers of people from certain ethnic groups moving into their neighborhood is not necessarily a race issue. It can also be an issue of not wanting to be mugged when you're out on a walk.

Precisely.

You know, just like disliking all those jews moving into the liberal professions is due to fear of their notorious clannish, scheming ways that cheat the honest gentiles, and has nothing to do with their religion. So it isn't antisemitism, god forbid.

Sure, some leftist bleeding-heart liberals might call me an antisemite, but that's just because they don't what those jews are REALLY like. I'll bet anything they never lived next to a synagogue, like I do.

[Fade]

What do you mean by the "higher forms of our intellect"?


Reading? Writing? Arithmetic?

None of these things has a lick to do with survival. Why then, can we do them?

"Trapping" and "building shelter" came very, very late in human development. See Caveman. In any case, it doesn't matter if the "average" individual was able to survive and breed, as long as those who were better at hunting or trapping or building shelters had more viable offspring.

Yes, and without the information to back it up, your intelligence won't do you any good. Then again, I ALREADY addressed this.

This sentence makes no sense. The ability to learn is more or less the definition of intelligence.

What a narrow definition of intelligence. Intelligence is far more then learning, it also has to do with adaptation, deduction, induction, and kinesthetics.

Those who were able to understand it can take advantage of it, yes.

You are working under the assumption that caveman wasn't every bit as intelligent as we are. You can't argue your way out of the simple fact that humans are much more intelligent then they absolutely need to be to survive.

What does the development of mathematics within the last 5-10 thousand years have to do with the development of intelligence and subspecies?

Right here I am going to stop responding to you, as you have obviously not been reading what I have been saying.

I am not referring to the development of intelligence.

I am not arguing about the role it took in our initial evolution.


Try responding to what I am saying without making assumptions on top of them. Or should I begin assuming that your arguments are nothing more than bigotry and racism?

But that wouldn't be answering you, now would it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR


I knew an African-American in high school that had robbed a liquor store. He said that his friends pressured him into doing it. I think that makes him and his friends "horrible criminals." Youth gangs often have a rite of passage for members that they must be in jail once. I think these people can be termed "horrible criminals."

There was one incident near where I live where a white family got lost driving around and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Gang members appeared and one threw a trashcan at their car. The man driving the car tried to drive through them and they opened fire on his vehicle, killing his little daughter.

It was said that the gang members were hostile to these people because they had gone into their territory.

These are what I term, "horrible criminals."

Another time a group of white teenagers were walking around and a group of African-Americans driving by in a car at night mistook them for members of a rival gang and opened fire, killing several of them. They said in their trial that the drive-by was a mistake and was intended for other people. That's not too reassuring.

These horrible acts that these gang members do often have nothing to do with a lack of money.

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

I was referring to just labelling those convicted of crimes as 'criminals', as though they aren't even human. I have not doubt that there are places in America I should not go to. (Although, a friend once told me his father, as a tourist, had walked through Harlem at night. Not a thing happened to him).

I don't doubt that there are 'bad' people out there who shoot other people. However, most crime does not fall into this category. Like I said, people were being jailed in England for stealing food. This is happening in America now, I read of a man jailed under the three strikes and your out legislation for stealing a piece of pizza.

The interesting question is, why is there a sub-culture that earns respect via violence, and what is to be done about it. In Australia, there was a gang of teenageres going around pack-raping girls. They are in jail for a long time now, but their families could not accept the fact that they were capable of such a thing, that the girls must have aquiesced. During the trial, they put a big show of bravado and showed no contrition. These are the things that worry me. And they weren't black, or latino.

There is something missing in a young mans life if he only sees acts like this as the means of obtaining recognition and respect. And that's what most young men want.

The second biggest terrorist act in the USA was committed by a white man, who saw himself as a patriot. The UNA bomber was white.

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
a friend once told me his father, as a tourist, had walked through Harlem at night. Not a thing happened to him).

Yes, it is true that if you walk into a bad neighborhood, the majority of the time, you will walk out unharmed. But that won't always happen.

Both of my brothers have been mugged in bad neighborhoods. My older brother was mugged by a Mexican and my younger brother was mugged by a pair, one of whom was Mexican and the other an African-American. My older brother had a Asian-American friend on his cross-country team who was beat up at a bus-stop. He had his jaw broken.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The sample so restricted? There must be tens of thousand tests done every year.:confused:[/b]

Yup, but the sample exhibits specific properties wrt to age and (possibly) gender; it's therefore problematic in generalising the intelligence scores of a group of approx. 18 year old Asians who apply to university to the rest of the Asian population. What about all the Asians who are 18 and don't apply to university? Or all the Asians who aren't 18 and don't apply to university?

And is there any special reason why asians should score higher?
I have no opinion; I'm not commenting that the results of the test are incorrect, or even that Asians (as a specific group or in the general population) are any less intelligent than anyone else, but what I am contesting is making that claim based on evidence from a limited sample. All this evidence shows is that of the people who take University admission tests Asians score the most highly; you might infer that, all things being equal it is possible that Asian teens are more intelligent than other teens from other ethnicities and therefore Asians are more intelligent than any other ethnicity, but this requires a number of assumptions to be made to fill in the gaps left by the imcompleteness (is that a word?) of the evidence.
Is there a reason to belive that there is a connection between IQ and 'the ability to be a success at university'?
This is the problem of definition of intelligence. Is it a general cognitive capacity or is it a set of specific skills? Is it genetic, or is it environmental? Why is it important anyway?
If IQ tests are dismissed as measuring something else than intelligence, and so with university admission tests, how does one measure intelligence?

Whether you think it can be measured or not, do you believe that all people are born equally intelligent?
Let's deal with the biggy first; you can only measure intelligence if you believe that intelligence exists in some form that lends itself to testing. To some extent the problem is tautological; people score on intelligence tests therefore intelligence must exist; however one of the criticisms of intelligence testing is that intelligence is a statistical entity, a product of the measurement tool being used rather than of any capacity being measured.

For instance, everyone possess to a greater or lesser extent five senses--sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. So I develop a test to evaluate the efficacy of our senses which gives a cumlative score out of 10. You score 7 and I score 4. Does that tell us anything meaningful about our difference in sensory capabilities other than how well we scored on the test?

If intelligence does exist and is a general cognitive capacity, how do we account for, for instance, the results found by Arthur Jensen that this capacity is greater in one particular set of people; typically middle-class whites? Or the Flynn Effect, which indicates that IQ has been steadily rising across generations. If intelligence is actually a specific set of skills (to border on facetiousness, the skills required to get through university are not going to help you survive in the Australian Outback) then surely that's what we should examine?

So as to whether people are born equally intelligent, as an environmentalist (in that I believe that on the whole the nurture has far more explicit effects than nature) then I'd say yes. But wrt to the problem of definition of intelligence, then saying yes is no more meaningful that saying everyone is born with equal amounts of God's love.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR


I knew an African-American in high school that had robbed a liquor store. He said that his friends pressured him into doing it. I think that makes him and his friends "horrible criminals." Youth gangs often have a rite of passage for members that they must be in jail once. I think these people can be termed "horrible criminals."

There was one incident near where I live where a white family got lost driving around and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Gang members appeared and one threw a trashcan at their car. The man driving the car tried to drive through them and they opened fire on his vehicle, killing his little daughter.

It was said that the gang members were hostile to these people because they had gone into their territory.

These are what I term, "horrible criminals."

Another time a group of white teenagers were walking around and a group of African-Americans driving by in a car at night mistook them for members of a rival gang and opened fire, killing several of them. They said in their trial that the drive-by was a mistake and was intended for other people. That's not too reassuring.

These horrible acts that these gang members do often have nothing to do with a lack of money.

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

The plural of anecdote is not data? Btw, I live in an area with a large Afro-Caribbean/Asian/Irish population, as well as a representation by just about any ethnicity you care to mention. Btw(2), leftists aren't only non-African-American or Mexican-Americans.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


This is the problem of definition of intelligence. Is it a general cognitive capacity or is it a set of specific skills? Is it genetic, or is it environmental? Why is it important anyway?
It is the ability to LEARN.

Let's deal with the biggy first; you can only measure intelligence if you believe that intelligence exists in some form that lends itself to testing. To some extent the problem is tautological; people score on intelligence tests therefore intelligence must exist; however one of the criticisms of intelligence testing is that intelligence is a statistical entity, a product of the measurement tool being used rather than of any capacity being measured.
So you fully believe the ability to learn has no value. BS.

For instance, everyone possess to a greater or lesser extent five senses--sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. So I develop a test to evaluate the efficacy of our senses which gives a cumlative score out of 10. You score 7 and I score 4. Does that tell us anything meaningful about our difference in sensory capabilities other than how well we scored on the test?
Truly irrelevant, unless the tests were designed to tie sense responses to real world situations with consequences.

If intelligence does exist and is a general cognitive capacity, how do we account for, for instance, the results found by Arthur Jensen that this capacity is greater in one particular set of people; typically middle-class whites?
You are correct that the consequences of historical testing were designed to predict for success in 1st world civilizations. The tests still measure in essence the ability to learn.


Or the Flynn Effect, which indicates that IQ has been steadily rising across generations.
Unknown. Since you like to speculate, how about the more widespread dissemination of information (learning) via increased media & communication available to all?


If intelligence is actually a specific set of skills (to border on facetiousness, the skills required to get through university are not going to help you survive in the Australian Outback) then surely that's what we should examine?
I fully believe that more intelligent bushmen -- as proven by testing geared towards bushman culture & life -- will be at an advantage. Do you agree?

So as to whether people are born equally intelligent, as an environmentalist (in that I believe that on the whole the nurture has far more explicit effects than nature) then I'd say yes.
Too bad your "belief" has no backing by the multitude of psychometricians, sociologists, and psychiatrists who have searched unsucessfully to demonstrate that -- as dictated by political correctness -- for the last 50 years.

For example, have you heard of Head-Start?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk

It is the ability to LEARN.
Is that your definition, or one supported by evidence? If the latter, references please, preferably online ones. One exactly is learning anyway? Isn't this an example of swapping one amorphous concept for another?

So you fully believe the ability to learn has no value. BS.
BS indeed, as that is a strawman.

Truly irrelevant, unless the tests were designed to tie sense responses to real world situations with consequences.
Of course they would be, how else would you test them? By attitudinal surveys?

You are correct that the consequences of historical testing were designed to predict for success in 1st world civilizations. The tests still measure in essence the ability to learn.
I wouldn't characterise Jensen's work as "historical"--the latest reference I can find for him is for 2000. Is that "historical"? The essence of the test is to test what aspect of learning? And how is this generalisable?

Unknown. Since you like to speculate, how about the more widespread dissemination of information (learning) via increased media & communication available to all?
Quite possibly, and quite possibly a number of other factors as well, which, you would surely agree, dumps on the idea that intelligence is a fixed and determined capacity?

I fully believe that more intelligent bushmen -- as proven by testing geared towards bushman culture & life -- will be at an advantage. Do you agree?
Oh, I'd agree, I just wouldn't see the point; I don't imagine many US universities adopting this "Bushman" test of yours. What would it tell us, other than of specific qualities required to be a successful bushman?

Too bad your "belief" has no backing by the multitude of psychometricians, sociologists, and psychiatrists who have searched unsucessfully to demonstrate that -- as dictated by political correctness -- for the last 50 years.

For example, have you heard of Head-Start?
Have you heard of the Bell-Shaped Curve? Of course, there is such a great consensus on intelligence testing.

Btw, great example of selective quotation there though; almost makes it look like I am suggesting that intelligence is mostly environmental, when I'm clearly saying no such thing. Here's the full paragraph for the purposes of accuracy:
So as to whether people are born equally intelligent, as an environmentalist (in that I believe that on the whole the nurture has far more explicit effects than nature) then I'd say yes. But wrt to the problem of definition of intelligence, then saying yes is no more meaningful that saying everyone is born with equal amounts of God's love.

[Tmy]

Who defines the persons race in these statistics? The individual? If a person is of mixed race are they disqualified? How can you make a statement that whites are smarter than blacks if the pool is made up of individuals that are genetically mixed.

Isnt that like saying a mixed breed shepard-lab will have the same traits and tempermant as a pure bred shepard.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Is that your definition, or one supported by evidence? If the latter, references please, preferably online ones. One exactly is learning anyway? Isn't this an example of swapping one amorphous concept for another?
Duh. Try google -- Binet, IQ, maybe you can think of something else even.


BS indeed, as that is a strawman.
Glad to hear you think ability to learn at least "might be" important.


Of course they would be, how else would you test them? By attitudinal surveys?
Your silly example; who would care? I don't.


I wouldn't characterise Jensen's work as "historical"--the latest reference I can find for him is for 2000. Is that "historical"? The essence of the test is to test what aspect of learning? And how is this generalisable?
Any luck with google?


Quite possibly, and quite possibly a number of other factors as well, which, you would surely agree, dumps on the idea that intelligence is a fixed and determined capacity?
That's what Head-Start has spent $$$$ and many years attempting to disprove. Still the same; everyones' IQ has a genetically fixed upper maximum.

Oh, I'd agree, I just wouldn't see the point; I don't imagine many US universities adopting this "Bushman" test of yours. What would it tell us, other than of specific qualities required to be a successful bushman?
Are you truly so dense?


Have you heard of the Bell-Shaped Curve? Of course, there is such a great consensus on intelligence testing.
Perhaps you mean The Bell Curve? Not to mention books & articles of debate written to follow PC dictates. Yes, I have, and have actually bothered to read at least some of them.

Btw, great example of selective quotation there though; almost makes it look like I am suggesting that intelligence is mostly environmental, when I'm clearly saying no such thing. Here's the full paragraph for the purposes of accuracy:

Unfortunately, IQ is a "gift from god" transmitted via your ancestry. I was trying to do you a favor.

Anyway, enough for me at the moment. Maybe bpesta will have the patience to further assist in your education. I don't.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk

Duh. Try google -- Binet, IQ, maybe you can think of something else even.
Evasion noted.

Glad to hear you think ability to learn at least "might be" important.
Another strawman? Or claim of supernatural powers?

Your silly example; who would care? I don't.
That you questioned it would indicate otherwise. But I will take your advice accordingly.
Any luck with google?
Evasion noted.

That's what Head-Start has spent $$$$ and many years attempting to disprove. Still the same; everyones' IQ has a genetically fixed upper maximum.
Which increases with each generation. Hmmm...

Are you truly so dense?
Evasion noted.

Perhaps you mean The Bell Curve? Not to mention books & articles of debate written to follow PC dictates. Yes, I have, and have actually bothered to read at least some of them.
I do mean the Bell Curve. Apologies and thanks for the correction. PC dictates? Would that be an aspect of your pc'lib conspiracy? I guess they could have organised a covert mission to replace Herrnstein & Murray's research with scurrilous results (http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html), but for the life in me I carnt think why they would.

Unfortunately, IQ is a "gift from god" transmitted via your ancestry. I was trying to do you a favor.
Thank you. You've certainly been doing well so far.

Anyway, enough for me at the moment. Maybe bpesta will have the patience to further assist in your education. I don't.
Thank you for your contribution so far, I've certainly found your responses most enlightening. Perhaps you might consider putting me on "Ignore..." as well? :D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JAR

When I read what you leftists write, I get the impression that you are ignorant due to the fact that you live in areas that are almost entirely inhabited by people who aren't African-American or Mexican-American.

Gee, and when I read what some rightist wroites in makes me think that they just ignore all the crimes that 'white' people commit, and they use only anecdotes to base thier claims.
try these on:
White football players rape developementally disabled girl with baseball bat.
Whiteboys harrass and rape white girls in small towns.
White boy made good rips off investors by lying about which stocks he would buy and advises his clients to buy stocks in the tank.

So if money isn't a factor in crime , why does crime go down when the economy is good?


__________________________________________

To the topic at hand:

Our ancestors did eventualy develop the ability to learn and transmit information.
I agree with some of hammegk, the bushman test would pick out the smarter bushman.


Peace
dancing david

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy
Who defines the persons race in these statistics? The individual? If a person is of mixed race are they disqualified? How can you make a statement that whites are smarter than blacks if the pool is made up of individuals that are genetically mixed.

Isnt that like saying a mixed breed shepard-lab will have the same traits and tempermant as a pure bred shepard.

This is one of the criticisms of intelligence and racial difference in general and Jensen's work in particular (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000699/#html); that participants are required to identify themselves according to pre-defined categories, which are culturally-defined and give no clue as to the genetic make-up of the individual. But even this is based on the assumption of genetic similarity between all black people which is significantly different to all white people, when the case is that (unsurprisingly enough) there is as much diversity within these groups as there is between them.

[Tmy]

If blacks are genetically more athletic, why dont the African countries sweep through the Olympics?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Evasion noted.
Perhaps. If I could impart my knowledge base on IQ to you I would. Your concerns in this area need to be addressed by your own studies.


Thank you. You've certainly been doing well so far.
I've suggested some areas you might consider familiarizing yourself with, unless of course, you are being purposely obtuse. It is irrelevant to me whether you do so or not. You want to bring something to the table other than baseless speculations, we'll discuss it.


...Perhaps you might consider putting me on "Ignore..." as well? :D

Not quite yet. Thanks for suggesting though. ;)


Re your last comments on Jensen. Were it acceptable to the politically correct, dna could easily be used to correctly type individuals at least by percentage representaion of the 3 basic racial groups & the australian sub-group. And do you honestly believe the historical self-typing was completely wrong?

Also we are not chatting about standard deviation & upper-lower limits per se, rather about group means. Individual results are admittedly just a crap-shoot, but a better way than chance to play the odds.

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
The plural of anecdote is not data? Btw, I live in an area with a large Afro-Caribbean/Asian/Irish population, as well as a representation by just about any ethnicity you care to mention. Btw(2), leftists aren't only non-African-American or Mexican-Americans.

It is true that not all leftists are non-African-American or non-Mexican-American.

You call my evidence to support that African-Americans and Mexican-Americans have a more war-like culture anecdotal. Yet in nearly every incident I know of where someone was beat up, mugged, or shot at, the person who did the crime was non-white(mostly commonly African-American or Mexican).

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Gee, and when I read what some rightist wroites in makes me think that they just ignore all the crimes that 'white' people commit, and they use only anecdotes to base thier claims.
try these on:
White football players rape developementally disabled girl with baseball bat.
Whiteboys harrass and rape white girls in small towns.
White boy made good rips off investors by lying about which stocks he would buy and advises his clients to buy stocks in the tank.

Peace
dancing david

Oh yeah right, the more war like culture, is this what?

How about the history of white people lynching ethnic africans for the crime of being black, I suppose that was peaceful , hmmmm?

Peace
dancing David

[JAR]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Gee, and when I read what some rightist wroites in makes me think that they just ignore all the crimes that 'white' people commit, and they use only anecdotes to base thier claims.
try these on:
White football players rape developementally disabled girl with baseball bat.
Whiteboys harrass and rape white girls in small towns.
White boy made good rips off investors by lying about which stocks he would buy and advises his clients to buy stocks in the tank.

25% of African-American adult males are in jail at any given time. Whites commit crimes, but the percentage of them that do is lower.

I'm not arguing that African-Americans have a biological tendency to commit crimes, I'm just arguing that their culture causes them to commit them more often.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Oh yeah right, the more war like culture, is this what?

How about the history of white people lynching ethnic africans for the crime of being black, I suppose that was peaceful , hmmmm?

Peace
dancing David

The lynching thing was more commonly practiced among southerners. Most white people are not southerners.

The fact that lynching of African-Americans doesn't happen much anymore(if it happens at all) shows that culture changes over time.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by JAR


25% of African-American adult males are in jail at any given time. Whites commit crimes, but the percentage of them that do is lower.

I'm not arguing that African-Americans have a biological tendency to commit crimes, I'm just arguing that their culture causes them to commit them more often.

Or maybe the culture of the judical system favors imprisoning blacks more than whites.

Lots of people commit crimes. Not all of them are sentenced to jail.

(How many Enron employees are in jail right now?)

[Victor Danilchenko]

That's actually what my sociology professor told us -- that blacks and whites commit crimes in approximately similar proportions, but that they commit different kinds of crimes, based on opportunity. Whites' crimes tend to be white-collar, and are thus prosecuted much, much less, and much less severely.

[hgc]

JAR:

25% of African-American adult males are in jail at any given time.
Just to be accurate, this statistic is for the % currently involved with criminal justice in some way (in jail, on probation or parole, awaiting trial, etc), not just in jail.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JAR


The lynching thing was more commonly practiced among southerners. Most white people are not southerners.

The fact that lynching of African-Americans doesn't happen much anymore(if it happens at all) shows that culture changes over time.

Sorry JAR but the largest KKK rally of all time occured across the state line in Indiana. There were plenty of lynching here in central Illinois, they just didn't dress up the kids and take them.

Would there be a way to adust the 25% statistic to adjust for socioeconomice class?

Peace
dancing david

[DanishDynamite]

Fade:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean by the "higher forms of our intellect"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading? Writing? Arithmetic?

None of these things has a lick to do with survival. Why then, can we do them?Because our brain is to some extent a general purpose information processing unit. It can be used to consider how to make a better stone ax or how to outmanouver rivals or....any number of things. However, before the advent of agriculture, humans didn't have much time for non-essentials.

BTW, do you know how writing was invented?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trapping" and "building shelter" came very, very late in human development. See Caveman. In any case, it doesn't matter if the "average" individual was able to survive and breed, as long as those who were better at hunting or trapping or building shelters had more viable offspring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and without the information to back it up, your intelligence won't do you any good. Then again, I ALREADY addressed this.Without what information? What are you talking about?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sentence makes no sense. The ability to learn is more or less the definition of intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a narrow definition of intelligence. Intelligence is far more then learning, it also has to do with adaptation, deduction, induction, and kinesthetics.Intelligence has nothing to do with kinesthetics. How much kinesthetics do you think Stephen Hawking has? In regard to adaptation, deduction and induction, these all fall under the "ability to learn" category.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who were able to understand it can take advantage of it, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are working under the assumption that caveman wasn't every bit as intelligent as we are. You can't argue your way out of the simple fact that humans are much more intelligent then they absolutely need to be to survive.Why do you think I assume that cavemen weren't as intelligent as we are?

Your last sentence is a repeat of a claim you have made before. I find it astonishing. I personally feel that much of humanity is dumber than they are legally allowed to be. Well, OK, there is no such "minimum credulity" law, but there ought to be. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does the development of mathematics within the last 5-10 thousand years have to do with the development of intelligence and subspecies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right here I am going to stop responding to you, as you have obviously not been reading what I have been saying.I've read what you said. Please point out where I have misunderstood what you said.
I am not referring to the development of intelligence.

I am not arguing about the role it took in our initial evolution.Give me a break. Let me quote a few things you said:

I said "this type" of selective breeding didn't happen, referring to brain power. I am absolutely sure that the intelligence of a mate was unimportant to our ancestors.

...I don't see how any primitive human could even BEGIN to distinguish between a smart person and a stupid person. That is why I am absolutely sure this type of selection never happened.
Etc, etc.

Try responding to what I am saying without making assumptions on top of them. Or should I begin assuming that your arguments are nothing more than bigotry and racism?I have responded to what you said. If you can't rebut, just say so.

Regarding your assumption that I am a bigot and a racist, please point out where I made a statement which would support this assertion.

[DanishDynamite]

a_unique_person:You have something good to say about the modern Danes?:D

Yeah, that is hard to believe, isn't it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
That's actually what my sociology professor told us -- that blacks and whites commit crimes in approximately similar proportions, but that they commit different kinds of crimes, based on opportunity. Whites' crimes tend to be white-collar, and are thus prosecuted much, much less, and much less severely.

A piece of pizza can get you life if you are a black in caifornia, literally steanling millions, and a good attorney, will get a pat with a feather duster. Also, when a big company commits massive crimes, such as the recent billion dollar fines paid for insider trading and fraudulent stockbroking advice, it is the company, which for a publicly listed company means the shareholders, who pay.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Would there be a way to adust the 25% statistic to adjust for socioeconomice class?

I never said that the high crime rate among African-Americans isn't due to their socioeconomic class. I think it has a lot to do with their socioeconomic class.

One time in my senior year at high school, my English teacher asked everyone to raise their hands if they lived with both of their parents. There were at least six African-Americans in the classroom. Only one raised his hand. He had a Muslim name interestingly.

An African-American female high school student who waited at the same city bus-stop as I did was a single mother. One time when I was on the city bus, a group of African-American girls who appeared to be teenagers conversed with each other about their children.

[Fade]

Regarding your assumption that I am a bigot and a racist, please point out where I made a statement which would support this assertion.

I didn't call you a racist OR a bigot, I was trying to point out to you that your -take- on what I am saying doesn't correlate at all to what I am saying. You are bringing points I have already addressed, at that point I simply stop responding. I refuse to be drawn into a circular debate which leads nowhere.

I've read what you said. Please point out where I have misunderstood what you said.

I never argued, in any way, shape, or form, the development of our intellect.

Never. It is 100% irrelevant to every single thing I am trying to get across. The fact that you brought it up at all can mean nothing other than that you haven't actually tried to understand what I am saying.

You completely failed to spot:
But that wouldn't be answering you, now would it.

Taken all together, the only thing I can assume is that you don't understand my position. If you did, you would have argued it using relevant points.

Try again.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk

Perhaps. If I could impart my knowledge base on IQ to you I would. Your concerns in this area need to be addressed by your own studies.
It’s revealing how you choose to construe your unwillingness to support your claims as lack of knowledge on the part of the person requesting you to support those claims.
I've suggested some areas you might consider familiarizing yourself with, unless of course, you are being purposely obtuse. It is irrelevant to me whether you do so or not. You want to bring something to the table other than baseless speculations, we'll discuss it.
You’ve suggested nothing that wouldn’t be familiar to any foundation level psychology undergraduate. And again, you demonstrate your construing of your unwillingness to support your claims as lack of knowledge on the part of the person requesting you to support those claims. It would certainly be more interesting if you would bring to the table evidence to support your claims (omg I’m beginning to sound like WMT1 here). If you are unable to do so, please remember that ceasing to reply to me is always an option.
Not quite yet. Thanks for suggesting though. ;)
How about if I insulted you with something like; “Your claims made so far (and your unwillingness to support your claims) indicates a position based on unyielding dogma rather than rationality.” Would that do the trick? ;) :)
Re your last comments on Jensen. Were it acceptable to the politically correct, dna could easily be used to correctly type individuals at least by percentage representaion of the 3 basic racial groups & the australian sub-group.
Could you support that claim, and indicate how such typing would be the result of properties of the dna sampled, rather than the product of cultural/statistical factors?
And do you honestly believe the historical self-typing was completely wrong?
Good grief! Do you honestly believe that self-identification on the basis of a culturally defined typology is a scientifically rigorous way of investigating genetic factors?
Clue:
"all of the descriptive statistics and studies referred to here are based on the social classification of individuals into racial groups as black and white, although virtually all American blacks have some degree of European Caucasian ancestry. American blacks are socially defined simply as persons who have some degree of sub-Saharan African ancestry and who identify themselves (or, in the case of children, are defined by their parents) as black or African American. Persons of European Caucasoid ancestry are classified as whites."
Jensen, A. (1998, 1999) "The g Factor" as cited here (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000699/#html).

Also we are not chatting about standard deviation & upper-lower limits per se, rather about group means. Individual results are admittedly just a crap-shoot, but a better way than chance to play the odds.
Yes, we’re talking about group difference. I’ve illustrated the arbitrary nature of those groupings wrt the claims of the research. Y’know, I’m willing to accept there is group difference. I’m also willing to accept that g is a correlate of economic success. I’m willing to accept that g might have some existence outside of the statistical tests which infer it. I'm even willing to accept that g (or rather, the properties which compose it) have a genetic component. But I’m not willing to accept that g, or intelligence, has any existence other than a product of reification, or that group (or individual, for that matter) differences in g are solely the result of genetic factors distributed along archaic and redundant racial lines, based on the evidence provided so far. Sorry! :)

Edited to fix urls

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK

It’s revealing how you choose to construe your unwillingness to support your claims as lack of knowledge on the part of the person requesting you to support those claims.

You’ve suggested nothing that wouldn’t be familiar to any foundation level psychology undergraduate. And again, you demonstrate your construing of your unwillingness to support your claims as lack of knowledge on the part of the person requesting you to support those claims.
I'm trying to gauge what level we should begin with. (Your final comments here do give me a much better idea, thanks.)


It would certainly be more interesting if you would bring to the table evidence to support your claims (omg I’m beginning to sound like WMT1 here).
omg is right. one is too many for me.

Bring my evidence sounds good, but how? I will cite something, you will cite the alternative view -- in this subject you have a lot more citable ammo than I do. However more of this later.

If you are unable to do so, please remember that ceasing to reply to me is always an option.

How about if I insulted you with something like; “Your claims made so far (and your unwillingness to support your claims) indicates a position based on unyielding dogma rather than rationality.” Would that do the trick? ;) :)
What I decide is either a) stupidity or b) irrascable intractability will do it. Not much else.


Could you support that claim, and indicate how such typing would be the result of properties of the dna sampled, rather than the product of cultural/statistical factors?
Nope, in that data is scarce due in great part to the PC niceties; who would fund such a touchy study? Who would publish? What I have is uncitable snippets -- a bit here on this tv show (discovery, tlc, etc), a bit there elsewhere in media that imply the racial grouping is as obvious from a given dna sample as is any information. On environmental problems & statistics, what I have read -- maybe my understanding was subpar -- is that efforts to address these problems are integral to study design.

Good grief! Do you honestly believe that self-identification on the basis of a culturally defined typology is a scientifically rigorous way of investigating genetic factors?
To my own mind, the results would not necessarily be significantly skewed. The dna work would shed light on this effect.


Yes, we’re talking about group difference. I’ve illustrated the arbitrary nature of those groupings wrt the claims of the research. Y’know, I’m willing to accept there is group difference. I’m also willing to accept that g is a correlate of economic success. I’m willing to accept that g might have some existence outside of the statistical tests which infer it. I'm even willing to accept that g (or rather, the properties which compose it) have a genetic component.
Thank you; I finally have some idea where you are coming from.

With agreement on those points, I will for the moment make some no-specific-source, snippet-based comments. Every effort over several decades now has been designed to find that nurture -- not nature -- is the key. Instead, the variance explained by genetics appears to have increased from initial 25%-40% estimates to near 80% today. Any study that found nurture is the key would be trumpted by every media outlet in the world; i.e. ther is nothing to trumpet. This is borne out by the abject failure of Head-Start and the like; if any program had ever demonstrated tangible & lasting increases in IQ it would be world headlines. Rather, adult IQ edges closer & closer to being attributed 100% to genetics. Early IQ gains disappear with time.


But I’m not willing to accept that g, or intelligence, has any existence other than a product of reification, or that group (or individual, for that matter) differences in g are solely the result of genetic factors distributed along archaic and redundant racial lines, based on the evidence provided so far. Sorry! :)

I could further speculate on the ill effects of small-tribe genetics, which could address various 3rd world groups, and also mention wrt race today in the US, "it's a wise man who knows his father" -- older paternity testing was more an art than a science.

How many Afro-Americans (lineage negroid) remain for study in the 1st world? The dna work would be very interesting I'd think.

Do The Bell Curve analyses that were using lineage caucasoid cohorts bother you, or is it the "race card" in last couple of chapters?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Yes, we’re talking about group difference. I’ve illustrated the arbitrary nature of those groupings wrt the claims of the research. Y’know, I’m willing to accept there is group difference. I’m also willing to accept that g is a correlate of economic success. I’m willing to accept that g might have some existence outside of the statistical tests which infer it. I'm even willing to accept that g (or rather, the properties which compose it) have a genetic component. Great.

But I’m not willing to accept that g, or intelligence, has any existence other than a product of reification, or that group (or individual, for that matter) differences in g are solely the result of genetic factors distributed along archaic and redundant racial lines, based on the evidence provided so far. Sorry! :)Great.

You seem to be saying that 'g' exists, there are some genetic factors involved, although not 'only' genetic factors. That happens to be more or less my viewpoint. :p

Discussing differences in physical abilities between 'races' would have been a lot easier - nobody calls one a racist if one claims that the average pygmy is not as strong as a the average masai, and that there might be some genetic factor involved. :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk

I'm trying to gauge what level we should begin with. (Your final comments here do give me a much better idea, thanks.)
My last comment was provocation (see next remark). However, I will own up to drifting off during Experimental Design and Statistics lectures, particular during the subject of interquartile ranges, if that's any help.
omg is right. one is too many for me.
See--even across the pc/lib divide we can agree on some things. If it happens again I made need to step out the debate for a while... ;)
Bring my evidence sounds good, but how? I will cite something, you will cite the alternative view -- in this subject you have a lot more citable ammo than I do. However more of this later.

What I decide is either a) stupidity or b) irrascable intractability will do it. Not much else.
Oh I've got tons of the latter, but I only introduce it when I suspect the other party of the same :)
Nope, in that data is scarce due in great part to the PC niceties; who would fund such a touchy study? Who would publish?
No it's not (and I hope you're not invoking the pc/lib conspiracy here?). Whilst the pc "bias" is that issues of race need to be treated with some degree of sensitivity, there's plenty of evidence out there that the DeGobineau classification (caucasian/mongoloid/negroid) does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's a cultural construct, and needs to be addressed on that basis (and boy, there's tons of work in that field!).
What I have is uncitable snippets -- a bit here on this tv show (discovery, tlc, etc), a bit there elsewhere in media that imply the racial grouping is as obvious from a given dna sample as is any information.
Sorry, but excuse me if I'm a little sceptical about any evidence drawn from these sources; regardless of political bias, there's the simple bias of trying to fit a complex issue into the media format.
On environmental problems & statistics, what I have read -- maybe my understanding was subpar -- is that efforts to address these problems are integral to study design.
I have no comment to offer wrt your understanding; however essentially you are correct but the problem is always in how anti-bias strategies are implemented, how effective they are, and ultimately how rigorous the researcher is prepared to be.
To my own mind, the results would not necessarily be significantly skewed. The dna work would shed light on this effect.
Really? :eek: You don't see the methodological problems with using a typology defines all blacks as anyone with any degree of sub-Saharan African ancestory, whereas all whites are people of European Caucasiod descent regardless of any degree of sub-Saharan African ancestory? You'd consider this rigorous for research into genetic factors? Would this be an example of that irrascable intractability you mentioned earlier? :p
Thank you; I finally have some idea where you are coming from.

With agreement on those points, I will for the moment make some no-specific-source, snippet-based comments. Every effort over several decades now has been designed to find that nurture -- not nature -- is the key. Instead, the variance explained by genetics appears to have increased from initial 25%-40% estimates to near 80% today.
50-90% depending on country of origin of researchers, participants and and aspect of intelligence tested. From the same source ;)
Any study that found nurture is the key would be trumpted by every media outlet in the world; i.e. ther is nothing to trumpet. This is borne out by the abject failure of Head-Start and the like; if any program had ever demonstrated tangible & lasting increases in IQ it would be world headlines. Rather, adult IQ edges closer & closer to being attributed 100% to genetics. Early IQ gains disappear with time.
I'll admit I don't know enough about Head-Start to offer any kind of informed opinion, except to state the obvious that a one-year intervention followed by a return to the environment the intervention was meant to address is not going to produce any stable gains. As for nurture vs. nature, genetics is the new sexy subject and nurture is just so 1960s

I could further speculate on the ill effects of small-tribe genetics, which could address various 3rd world groups, and also mention wrt race today in the US, "it's a wise man who knows his father" -- older paternity testing was more an art than a science.

How many Afro-Americans (lineage negroid) remain for study in the 1st world? The dna work would be very interesting I'd think.
In terms of ancestory, certainly; but as we're all pretty much mongrels anyway, it's not really relevant to the issue at hand?
Do The Bell Curve analyses that were using lineage caucasoid cohorts bother you, or is it the "race card" in last couple of chapters?
The race card is kind of insulting, particularly as it's supported by spurious statistics (critique linked to previously), written by two authors with little to no experience in the area, with a very clear agenda which directs their work and funded by a rather--um--questionable--group of people. Apart from that it's a typical political work; it's just not science.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Oh I've got tons of the latter, but I only introduce it when I suspect the other party of the same :)

No it's not (and I hope you're not invoking the pc/lib conspiracy here?). Whilst the pc "bias" is that issues of race need to be treated with some degree of sensitivity, there's plenty of evidence out there that the DeGobineau classification (caucasian/mongoloid/negroid) does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's a cultural construct, and needs to be addressed on that basis (and boy, there's tons of work in that field!).
Yes, there is. Too bad there isn't much published on genetics in dog-breeding. The subjects of IQ, race, and fitting into life in the first world effectively raises too many hackles.

Sorry, but excuse me if I'm a little sceptical about any evidence drawn from these sources; regardless of political bias, there's the simple bias of trying to fit a complex issue into the media format.
Agreed.

Really? :eek: You don't see the methodological problems with using a typology defines all blacks as anyone with any degree of sub-Saharan African ancestory, whereas all whites are people of European Caucasiod descent regardless of any degree of sub-Saharan African ancestory? You'd consider this rigorous for research into genetic factors? Would this be an example of that irrascable intractability you mentioned earlier? :p


In terms of ancestory, certainly; but as we're all pretty much mongrels anyway, it's not really relevant to the issue at hand?

Are the problems insurmountable other than the funding & publishing problem for such non pc'ness? I don't really know; do you? I suspect reasonable could be drawn from such a study, but we'll never know will we?


50-90% depending on country of origin of researchers, participants and and aspect of intelligence tested. From the same source ;)
With differing bias. What results do you lend more credence to?

My thinking is that the 90% is getting close to correct. And ignoring all other human attributes -- like skin color -- I suspect you do agree that g is a strong correlator to many measures of success, and given 2 candidates to choose from who were exactly equal in all other aspects (like ability to finish a task which doesn't correlate to g) why would you accept the one with lower IQ? Yes, I can think of jobs I'd rather have the dumber one doing; please move past that.

I'll admit I don't know enough about Head-Start to offer any kind of informed opinion, except to state the obvious that a one-year intervention followed by a return to the environment the intervention was meant to address is not going to produce any stable gains. As for nurture vs. nature, genetics is the new sexy subject and nurture is just so 1960s
You seem to know a lot about something you say you "don't know about".

The race card is kind of insulting, particularly as it's supported by spurious statistics (critique linked to previously), written by two authors with little to no experience in the area, with a very clear agenda which directs their work and funded by a rather--um--questionable--group of people. Apart from that it's a typical political work; it's just not science.

As opposed to say "Mismeasure of Man" as the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Ignore the race card. What are you comments on the results using solely caucasian cohorts?


I have no comment to offer wrt your understanding; however essentially you are correct but the problem is always in how anti-bias strategies are implemented, how effective they are, and ultimately how rigorous the researcher is prepared to be.
Umm. well, yes. That & peer-review .... ;)

[Dancing David]

quote from hemmegk
This is borne out by the abject failure of Head-Start and the like; if any program had ever demonstrated tangible & lasting increases in IQ it would be world headlines
_______________________________________________
Oh, come on even an argument about this seems wierd.

1/4 of the kid's in Head Start have major learning disabilities, so surely that shouild be factored into your condemnation, I have come to expect more from you than such broad brush strokes.

Lets see we will start a program to help disadvantaged children get help withj school and now some how this becaomes support for a genetics based definition of race?

I thought that the greatest school program of all time was Sesame Street.

I sit the social enginering that youy don't like about Headsatrt, your arguement sound a lot like, all the money used to treat old people diseases is wasted because they go and die anyway.

Peace
dancing David

[hammegk]

Altruism on a personal basis makes us human, but we are discussing policies that distribute our coerced tax dollars for feel-good reasons much of it imo race-based. Does race exist? As I understand dna info, yes. Can some "racial" correlation be made to superficial body features, also yes. Does Spearman's g correlate meaningfully with success in a given social group, again, yes. Can tests of one kind or another approximately measure g? I'd say yes.

Think about a question with no good answer; would any social group be better served in any longer term by identifying its highest potential members, and ensuring they received a larger share of scarce resources, or by treating every individual as though no differences existed? And how many potential Einsteins or Hawkings are there? Who *will* "make a difference"?

Note that socialism can provide equal misery for all, although implementations to date have just redefined the haves v the have-nots. Capitalism and individual initiate provide more pie to share, but share it very unequally. In the 1st world of technology, education is required. Who gets the time & effort expended on their education? At government level we are making poor decisions if test scores and graduation rates have any meaning, and parents who can afford to switch out of public schools do so if they ever notice what the public schools are providing.


Just my 3 cts .. take anything you like, ignore the rest ... :eek:

[Dancing David]

Sorry I had problems posting yesterday.

I can agree with the coerced tax dollar thing, but then I have to pay to make defense contractors rich, and the friends of Dubya rich as well.

We are a society, the lowest in our society are part of that society, Headstart is not nessecarily race based, I thought it was income based, If giving all those kids a free breakfast and extra education keeps them out of trouble and moving forward I think it is a good thing.

You raise a very interesting point that I am still struggling with.

A. I believe that while there are cultural differences in humans they are all basically the same, given the same upbringing most humans will achieve the same.(IE I don't believe in race, I do believe in culture)

B. I live in a society that is filled with all sorts of bigoty and unequal acsess to resources.(There are people who act based upon thier bigotry, you can get into law school with poor grades because your father went there, money talks)

C. I believe that there needs to be equal acsess to resources for all and that there may be some poor half steps that are better than no steps. (IE affirmative action, set asides for school admissions)

D. Since the lack of equal acsess falls anlong the lines of class and bigotry C. leads to tracking acsess to resources.

E. This means supporting the notion of 'race' in tracking because it is part of bigotry and discrimination.I think that we need to track a lot of other things as well.

So while I don't belive that there are seperate races I end up supporting a system that tracks them to have more equal acsess to resources.

Argh!

Peace
dancing David

[Earthborn]

Let's assume the world is Black and White (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/BlackWhite/Black%20and%20White.htm)

[hammegk]

Er, is that article supposed to be new news?

Given a 6 year old black child with an IQ of 120, and a 6 year old white child with IQ of 80, I go with the IQ 120 to get a larger share of the educational dollar.

Given 2 kids IQ 120, what difference does the skin color or other "racial" features make regarding the share of educational funding they receive?

It is only the unfortunate fact that as groups the 15 point difference exists that make even talking about it such a hot-button topic. It is also an unfortunate fact that no published studies -- or even anecdotal results -- show any early intervention program to offset substandard nurture that has ever provided an adult level IQ gain over the IQ predicted by earliest testing. I'd be happy to read any such study anyone could cite.


dancing David, I wish I had any kind of suitable answer either. If we as a society continue to pretend there is no problem, only inequal treatment & unfair funding, nothing changes for the better for anyone. Again, studies don't even get proposed, let alone funded, for the merest suggestion is "racist". I'd also be happy to be advised by anyone that new studies are being proposed and funded.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by hammegk
[diatribe]
Altruism on a personal basis makes us human, but we are discussing policies that distribute our coerced tax dollars for feel-good reasons much of it imo race-based. Does race exist? As I understand dna info, yes. Can some "racial" correlation be made to superficial body features, also yes. Does Spearman's g correlate meaningfully with success in a given social group, again, yes. Can tests of one kind or another approximately measure g? I'd say yes.



Can you prove that the DNA race to race differs?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by dmarker


Can you prove that the DNA race to race differs?

I did not say "differs". I refer to dna "markers" that correlate to ethnicity, and which do not seem to receive much publication in major media.

For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9106543&dopt=Abstract

To me the abstract strongly implies my assertion, and this study was made several years ago.


Can anyone cite any studies that show such markers do not exist?

[Earthborn]

Er, is that article supposed to be new news?No, it is just a clear restatement of the obvious.Given a 6 year old black child with an IQ of 120, and a 6 year old white child with IQ of 80, I go with the IQ 120 to get a larger share of the educational dollar.

Given 2 kids IQ 120, what difference does the skin color or other "racial" features make regarding the share of educational funding they receive?Good, we agree on that then.It is only the unfortunate fact that as groups the 15 point difference exists that make even talking about it such a hot-button topic.It is also a largely irrelevant fact: for the vast majority of people it makes no difference whether there is or isn't a difference in intelligence between 'races'.

What it makes such a hot topic is not so much that the difference exists (or seems to exist). It is that certain political groups use it to justify their ideas. The fact that it is largely irrelevant also means that the question is justified why such research is conducted. Do researchers want to prove a particular political point? If so, then their research should be viewed with suspicion and cannot be relied upon as evidence.It is also an unfortunate fact that no published studies -- or even anecdotal results -- show any early intervention program to offset substandard nurture that has ever provided an adult level IQ gain over the IQ predicted by earliest testing.I would be surprised if you find a decent study that shows that a certain early intervention program failed. Studying the effects of early intervention is extremely difficult as other factors are almost impossible to isolate. Factors such as socio-economic status, upbringing, neighbour safety etc. should all be considered. Just because there are no successful intervention programs does not mean the difference is purely genetic.

[Bjorn]

Earthborn,
It is also a largely irrelevant fact: for the vast majority of people it makes no difference whether there is or isn't a difference in intelligence between 'races'. And yet every time it has been discussed on the Forum there are heaps of people denying that a difference exists and/or claiming that it is some proof of being a racist if one points out what seems to be a difference.

The fact that it is largely irrelevant also means that the question is justified why such research is conducted. Do researchers want to prove a particular political point? If so, then their research should be viewed with suspicion and cannot be relied upon as evidence. If 'Asians' continue to score higher than 'Caucasians' in university admission tests, isn't it one bit interesting to find out why? Are they on average more 'intelligent', or are there other reasons?

Honestly I think many posters find it so important to be PC that they don't even bother to think through the questions. It is PC to assume that women are more able in certain fields (language springs to mind), but not equally PC to assume that males are (in other fields) unless one adds some socio-upbringing-indoctrination reason why it might, just might, be so. :p

[Earthborn]

And yet every time it has been discussed on the Forum there are heaps of people denying that a difference exists and/or claiming that it is some proof of being a racist if one points out what seems to be a difference.Not what I meant but... yeah.

What I meant is this: suppose you let a number of people, black and white, take tests and these results are presented to the scientists who claim that there is a difference between black and white IQs. Could they, by looking at the test results, determine who's black and who's white? I say they can't. Only when they have thousands of tests available could they get a result that is just slightly statistically significant. This would prove IMHO that this whole black-white intelligence thing is largely meaningless.If 'Asians' continue to score higher than 'Caucasians' in university admission tests, isn't it one bit interesting to find out why? Are they on average more 'intelligent', or are there other reasons?I don't say that there could be no legitimate reasons to do such research. All I say is that it is justified to ask why researchers want to do it. What do they want to prove?

The fact that Asians score best is also usually ignored in discussions about this issue. Maybe because the white supremacists hate to admit that negroes are best in sports, Asians are highest in intelligence and whites are mediocre in everything? :D

Yes, it is interesting why Asians do better in these tests. I favour the education hypotheses. Look at some of the math questions Japanese 12 year olds need to answer:
http://www.japanese-online.com/MATH/index.htm
How is it even humanly possible to answer these in such a short time! :confused: Honestly I think many posters find it so important to be PC that they don't even bother to think through the questions.Equally bad are those that insist on being anti-PC: accusing everyone of PCness (as if it is an insult) if they dare to propose a different explanation than a biological/genetic one. As if it is somehow morally wrong to be skeptical about scientific findings that may be abused to legitamize discriminatory policies. IMHO it is ones duty to seriously question whether such things are even true, and not immediately assume it is good scientific research if the book is full of nice numbers and graphs.It is PC to assume that women are more able in certain fields (language springs to mind)Yes, but it is not so PC to assume that women are better at language because of some biological-genetic-unchangeable-innate reason. There are socio-upbringing-indoctrination reasons that need to be considered too. Since these different reasons are very hard to isolate it is still a controversial issue what reasons are most important. It is much too early to declare a winner at this moment in time.

[marxist2]

You are all racist. You are all racist haters.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by marxist2
You are all racist. You are all racist haters. Thank you.

[marxist2]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Thank you.

See! you even take it as a compliment!

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, but it is not so PC to assume that women are better at language because of some biological-genetic-unchangeable-innate reason. There are socio-upbringing-indoctrination reasons that need to be considered too. Since these different reasons are very hard to isolate it is still a controversial issue what reasons are most important.

Wow, I guess those tuition dollars weren't wasted on that women and gender studies program!

[Bjorn]

Yes, but it is not so PC to assume that women are better at language because of some biological-genetic-unchangeable-innate reason. There are socio-upbringing-indoctrination reasons that need to be considered too. Since these different reasons are very hard to isolate it is still a controversial issue what reasons are most important. It is much too early to declare a winner at this moment in time.But let us at least admit that differences exist where they do, the average man is stronger than the average woman. Next step would be to look at the 'most important' reasons for the differences.

As if it is somehow morally wrong to be skeptical about scientific findings that may be abused to legitamize discriminatory policies. I'm not sure if you really mean what you posted - let me just state that if 'scientific findings' are real, your scepticism should be about the abuse of the findings, not about the findings themselves (unless you doubt them as such).

What I meant is this: suppose you let a number of people, black and white, take tests and these results are presented to the scientists who claim that there is a difference between black and white IQs. Could they, by looking at the test results, determine who's black and who's white? I say they can't. Of course not, even if all statistical differences were true. The unidentified person 'clever with languages' could be a man, even if 70% of those 'clever with languages' are women.

Only when they have thousands of tests available could they get a result that is just slightly statistically significant. This would prove IMHO that this whole black-white intelligence thing is largely meaningless. The more people you test, the more accurate the results. If the results are 'statistically significant', they are 'statistically significant' (even if you don't agree), and it would in fact prove that 'this whole thing' is not meaningless at all.

Again, if it had been proven that 'asians' are smaller than 'caucasians' we'd admit it at once - but since it seems to be some evidence that 'asians' are more intelligent, we refuse to admit it and struggle to find a way of not seeing that just as there could be a difference in body height it could be a difference in brain size or -capacity.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yes, there is. Too bad there isn't much published on genetics in dog-breeding.
2000+ hits on Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22dog+breeding%22+%2Bgenetics&btnG=Google+Search)? ;)
The subjects of IQ, race, and fitting into life in the first world effectively raises too many hackles.
Because they're contentious subjects, particularly when the antique idea of race (white/oriental/black) is invoked.

Are the problems insurmountable other than the funding & publishing problem for such non pc'ness? I don't really know; do you? I suspect reasonable could be drawn from such a study, but we'll never know will we?
The main insurmountable problem is that at the genetic level there's no evidence for the white/oriental/black separation, regardless of the desirability of its existence for certain people.
With differing bias. What results do you lend more credence to?
Considering the variance (greater heritability in The Netherlands, less in Japan), I prefer to fence sit with my environmentalist pals! :p
My thinking is that the 90% is getting close to correct. And ignoring all other human attributes -- like skin color -- I suspect you do agree that g is a strong correlator to many measures of success, and given 2 candidates to choose from who were exactly equal in all other aspects (like ability to finish a task which doesn't correlate to g) why would you accept the one with lower IQ? Yes, I can think of jobs I'd rather have the dumber one doing; please move past that.
I don't accept the 90% figure (see above), and the evidence coming is suggests the situation is way more complex that a simple nature vs nurture split. I don't need a complex and expensive test to work out how middle class someone is ;) and I'd be more interested in the specific qualities required for the job--qualities like collaborative ability for instance--which won't be revealed by some generalised indicator of success. There's always the risk that it's some bloody psychology student trying to play the odds anyway ;)
You seem to know a lot about something you say you "don't know about".
it's not exactly specialised knowledge to know that Head Start is a one-year intervention, and if you know a little about Piaget's theory of intellectual development, you'd know there's not one critical period, but several.
As opposed to say "Mismeasure of Man" as the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Of course it is--it agrees with my viewpoint! :eek:
Ignore the race card. What are you comments on the results using solely caucasian cohorts?
Pants (http://www.srv.net/~msdata/subjects.html). Herrnstein and Murray used a sample from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, but due to missing variables (ie, no data recorded for that variable) had to drop approx. a quarter of the sample, which skewed the sample in favour of higher-income instances. Basically, this means they should've acknowledged the lack of confidence in the results they found. Can you say
Umm. well, yes. That & peer-review .... ;)
Ah, you did. Tell that to Herrnstein and Murray ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Great.

[b]You seem to be saying that 'g' exists, there are some genetic factors involved, although not 'only' genetic factors. That happens to be more or less my viewpoint. :p

Not quite what I'm saying... I'm saying that "g" is a label applied to a range of cognitive/sensory functions, and otherwise has no other existence other than as a collective term. As such it's a problem of reification (http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=572975&secid=.-&hh=1).

Discussing differences in physical abilities between 'races' would have been a lot easier - nobody calls one a racist if one claims that the average pygmy is not as strong as a the average masai, and that there might be some genetic factor involved. :)

That's an excellent example; where the racism creeps in is the notion that the difference between the average pygmy and the average masai is less than the difference between either and the average caucasoid. :eek:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk


I did not say "differs". I refer to dna "markers" that correlate to ethnicity, and which do not seem to receive much publication in major media.

For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9106543&dopt=Abstract

To me the abstract strongly implies my assertion, and this study was made several years ago.


Can anyone cite any studies that show such markers do not exist?

From hammekg's link:

this panel of markers provides significant statistical power for ethnic-affiliation estimation

To me this seems to be suggesting that there are dna markers that correspond with ethnic affiliation. *shrugs* is it a sign of significant genetic difference which manifests educational, social and/or economic success?
Ethnic Variation as a Key to the Biology of Human Disease (http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/01sep97/ethnedit.htm)

[...]The out-of-Africa model posits that Homo sapiens originated in southern and eastern Africa 100 000 to 200 000 years ago and that all contemporary human populations are descended from this single African population.

Polymorphic genetic markers have been used both to support the out-of-Africa model and to directly assess the genetic affiliations of human populations. If the classic concept of race were appropriate, we would expect to find that many genetic markers are restricted to one population or one group of populations. In fact, such distinguishing markers are very rare: Of the thousands of markers that have been surveyed in multiple human populations, only one (the Duffy null allele, which confers resistance to Plasmodium vivax malaria) is found in 100% of African persons and 0% of other persons.
[...]In other words, most of the genetic markers found in one population are found in others, and most of the genetic differences between two persons are not the result of coming from different populations but are the result of not being the same person (the obvious exceptions are identical twins and clones).

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk


I did not say "differs". I refer to dna "markers" that correlate to ethnicity, and which do not seem to receive much publication in major media.

For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9106543&dopt=Abstract

To me the abstract strongly implies my assertion, and this study was made several years ago.


Can anyone cite any studies that show such markers do not exist?

From hammekg's link:

this panel of markers provides significant statistical power for ethnic-affiliation estimation

To me this seems to be suggesting that there are dna markers that correspond with ethnic affiliation. *shrugs* is it a sign of significant genetic difference which manifests educational, social and/or economic success?
Ethnic Variation as a Key to the Biology of Human Disease (http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/01sep97/ethnedit.htm)

[...]The out-of-Africa model posits that Homo sapiens originated in southern and eastern Africa 100 000 to 200 000 years ago and that all contemporary human populations are descended from this single African population.

Polymorphic genetic markers have been used both to support the out-of-Africa model and to directly assess the genetic affiliations of human populations. If the classic concept of race were appropriate, we would expect to find that many genetic markers are restricted to one population or one group of populations. In fact, such distinguishing markers are very rare: Of the thousands of markers that have been surveyed in multiple human populations, only one (the Duffy null allele, which confers resistance to Plasmodium vivax malaria) is found in 100% of African persons and 0% of other persons.
[...]In other words, most of the genetic markers found in one population are found in others, and most of the genetic differences between two persons are not the result of coming from different populations but are the result of not being the same person (the obvious exceptions are identical twins and clones).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyKT


To me this seems to be suggesting that there are dna markers that correspond with ethnic affiliation. *shrugs* is it a sign of significant genetic difference which manifests educational, social and/or economic success?
Ethnic Variation as a Key to the Biology of Human Disease (http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/01sep97/ethnedit.htm)


LOL. Other tests which link IQ to an individual, and then by these markers to "race" have no merit, yet disease Biology is a fit topic to scientifically describe as having racial components. Although your quote seems to disagree with any marker other than sickle-cell having any merit -- they were careful to discuss "differences" and throw out the canard "vary rare". Must to be tough to find the "right" answer I guess.

Do you dispute that IQ links to many types of "success"?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Do you dispute that IQ links to many types of "success"?

I would, the only thing that IQ relates to consistantly is itself, that is why it is not a factor in college admissions(or so i have heard).

In fact colleges may use test because they are there, there is little correlation between entance exams and college succsess, or so I have heard from people in the admissions game.

Maybe a better question: what should be added to IQ to make it meaningful.

Peace

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


In fact colleges may use test because they are there, there is little correlation between entance exams and college succsess, or so I have heard from people in the admissions game.


Anecdotes don't carry much weight. Has this "lack of correlation" been demonstrated in any published studies? Quite a number have demonstrated that the correlation is strong.

SAT's are highly g loaded IIRC.

[Dancing David]

hammegk: you are quite right my sources are antecdotal, is that correlation higher than 60%. I will read and see.
Peace

[hammegk]

The 60% confuses me a bit since I'm not sure what you are applying it to. I hope you will do some reading.

60% might be a reasonable correlation between 1200 SATs & people who finish college. Or are you referring to IQ & race? Many articles out there 50-80% IIRC are current estimates.

Re anecdotal: I've seen this, but am myself curious as to its veracity??? Er, christianparty, for god's sake.... :eek:

http://christianparty.net/sathu2.htm

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk


LOL. Other tests which link IQ to an individual, and then by these markers to "race" have no merit, yet disease Biology is a fit topic to scientifically describe as having racial components.
Why do you think that is? The pc'lib conspiracy, or the validity of the supporting evidence?
Although your quote seems to disagree with any marker other than sickle-cell having any merit --
From the article:
Of the thousands of markers that have been surveyed in multiple human populations, only one (the Duffy null allele, which confers resistance to Plasmodium vivax malaria) is found in 100% of African persons and 0% of other persons.
Seems to? The basis for this judgement *seems* pretty sound, unless you have evidence to the contrary? ;)
they were careful to discuss "differences" and throw out the canard "vary rare". Must to be tough to find the "right" answer I guess.
Yeah, particularly when there's so many "wrong" answers kicking around, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Do you dispute that IQ links to many types of "success"?
Originally posted by BillyTK
Round my neck of the woods there's a joke that IQ testing is a test of how middle class you are, because that's another amorphous correlate of economic success.

Remember? :p

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Why do you think that is? The pc'lib conspiracy, or the validity of the supporting evidence?
I don't consider pc'lib a conspiracy, thanks.

Seems to? The basis for this judgement *seems* pretty sound, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Get serious. The herrings are starting to stink.

Remember? :p
See my last comment.



And where oh where is Dancing David???

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk

I don't consider pc'lib a conspiracy, thanks.

I'm glad we've cleared that one up.
Get serious. The herrings are starting to stink.
Which herring would that be, the one about "the thousands of markers that have been surveyed in multiple human populations" or the one about your admitted inability to find evidence to support your views?

See my last comment.
You asked the question, and c'mon, we've been round the gardens with this one already.
And where oh where is Dancing David???
Dancing, I'd guess...

[hammegk]

BillyTK, you must be correct. I salute you for selecting your associates & workforce on the basis of their dumbness.

How is business going? :rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

I am still digesting, there have been some way cool points raised, and Diogenes turned me onto this thing about atoms, and I was getting stupid with Interesting Ian.

The reason I asked about the 60% is that there is an inherent glitch in correlation where results below that level are insignificant.(I keep throwing that around, I'd better go check).

I have had to confront the idea of how to battle rasissm without using racism, ther farthest I have gotten is that I think bigotry exists and we need to make sure it is not institutional.

I think that Hamme has raised a very valid point, in modern medicine there is a slowly developing field to study which medicines are effective with variuos sub-groups of the population. For example, flouride wrecks havoc with latino teeth.

This poses the further question of which lifestyle and other factors fir into those studies.

On the Headstart thing, I still support it, I thought it was more than a year, but will have to call some people I know. Hammegk raised the point that he feels that money should be spent on the kids who it will benefit the most. My only counter argument is that I am still not convinced that IQ alone is a valid predictor of sucsess. I think that there are still too many socio economic factors that lead to sucsess in education that I can't agree to the argument.

I am paying attention, just wasting my time in other threads.

Funk On.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
BillyTK, you must be correct. I salute you for selecting your associates & workforce on the basis of their dumbness.

How is business going? :rolleyes:

Are ad homs the only thing you've got to support your case, hammekg?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Are ad homs the only thing you've got to support your case, hammegk?

You mean as opposed to pc'lib babble? I suspect we agree on various things:

g exists, is measureable, and predicts in a correlative, group, sense how real-world life is handled -- well or badly.

Some predictive use of g does apply to the individual.

Fast muscle/slow muscle reaction time tests do correlate to g.


No study has ever given strong to support to the statement that IQ (g) is highly malleable by environment. Many studies point more & more strongly to the opposite conclusion: what you're born with is what you end up with as "adult IQ".


Unfortunately, using obvious & superficial racial characteristics, other correlations appear. Over the past 50 years every effort has been expended to "prove" that this is racism, not reality, but to no avail.

DNA analysis does show strong correlations -- presumably to negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid, and australo -- groups.


If you have any refutation, please point it out for me. Thanks.

[Dancing David]

New tact:

Maybe spending money to educate and train individuals that don't have high IQs will help keep them from becomeing the antisocials and burdens of the future.

Does g corellate to job performance as measured by employers and again correlations below the sixty percent mark are eak and it's been stuffed through a chi table I think that the threshold raises to 80%.

How do they control for the various factors that do also effect say school performance in these studies?

Peace

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
New tact:

Maybe spending money to educate and train individuals that don't have high IQs will help keep them from becomeing the antisocials and burdens of the future.
No disagreement there. The trouble is IQ is a predictor, and if it is used it is not race-neutral.

As a talking point, schools should be three tier systems: IQ under 85, 85 to 115, over 115. Under 85 should be able to read & write after 12 years. Mid-group receives "the usual", Higher group more math & science, plus other subjects of individual interest. Funding the same for both lower & higher groups, bulk to mid-group. Whatta ya think?

If student (actually parents usually) want student in higher group, no problem; pass the tests is all that's required-- parents or tutors provide help if & as needed.

Does g corellate to job performance as measured by employers and again correlations below the sixty percent mark are weak and it's been stuffed through a chi table I think that the threshold raises to 80%.

How do they control for the various factors that do also effect say school performance in these studies?

Google finds various stuff -- none of which I particularly trust. Have you visited the local library lately? You will have a better chance to find answers in the detail you need.

On correlation cooeficients you will have to form your own conclusions as to meaningfulness & utiltity.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk


You mean as opposed to pc'lib babble?
Would that be "all the evidence which disagrees with you"? ;) :D
I suspect we agree on various things:

Sorry hammekg, but we agree on none of the below; we've been through each one directly or indirectly and I've supplied evidence to support my case, particular wrt the issue of race and genetics.

For that reason I'm going to drop out the debate unless there's anything new you want to bring to the table (or if I find something that might be of interest).

Cheers

Billy

g exists, is measureable, and predicts in a correlative, group, sense how real-world life is handled -- well or badly.

Some predictive use of g does apply to the individual.

Fast muscle/slow muscle reaction time tests do correlate to g.

No study has ever given strong to support to the statement that IQ (g) is highly malleable by environment. Many studies point more & more strongly to the opposite conclusion: what you're born with is what you end up with as "adult IQ".

Unfortunately, using obvious & superficial racial characteristics, other correlations appear. Over the past 50 years every effort has been expended to "prove" that this is racism, not reality, but to no avail.

DNA analysis does show strong correlations -- presumably to negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid, and australo -- groups.

If you have any refutation, please point it out for me. Thanks.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Sorry hammekg, but we agree on none of the below; we've been through each one directly or indirectly and I've supplied evidence to support my case, particular wrt the issue of race and genetics.



You did? I guess I missed your "evidence". I'm particularly interested in the study you like that supports any increase in adult level IQ over that predicted by early testing.

And you will "prove" my comments on g are wrong? Where will you publish?

Finally, I don't mind agreeing to disagree. You hire the dumb ones & I'll make do with what's left for my business enterprises ... ;)

On the actual topic -- race -- I'm curious as to the lack of scientists posting here to step up to the plate and state that from their reading of the current human dna efforts "there do not exist dna markers that correlate distinctly and differently to each of the 4 historically recognized racial groups". When is BillHoyt going to illuminate this point for us?

[Dancing David]

Hammegk:
I think that some already made the point that tissue typing does map certain genetic 'pools', they just don't always follow skin tone or cultural beliefs.

I am still not sure that IQ means anything other than ability to take IQ tests.

Peace