Race & Intelligence (UK TV, Channel 4)

[Professor Yaffle]

I just caught the end of this last night. Did anyone else watch it, and was it any good (ie worth me watching on the channel 4 player online)?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/r...ces-last-taboo

[Jeff Corey]

From the link;"In 2007, Nobel Prize winning US scientist James Watson was quoted referring to research suggesting that black people were less intelligent than other races. His comments caused a storm of controversy, Watson was condemned."
Watson's DNA test showed he had 16% African heritage. Now that's irony.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm not here to say one race is more intelligent than another because I would have no way of knowing such things. But more importantly, was he condemned because it was shown his research was wrong or didn't actually support his claim, or was he condemned because we simply don't want to accept his research?

Was it a case of a scientist just offering a bigoted personal opinion, or does he have research to back his claim? It doesn't sound implausible that there could be tendencies for certain races to have more intelligence than others. That of course is on a large scale and not individual. So what if it were true? We can certainly see that there is a differing level of intelligence among individuals. So what's to prevent this from happening with races who may be isolated from each other? We can see it with things like skin color and hair color and other physical features. Out brains are physical, so what is so unthinkable about the brain varying among races?

And I would imagine every human on Earth has African heritage. I doubt that the man was trying to say "If you're black you're not smart".

[GreyICE]

I've always thought Gould's criticism was entirely timely and to the point.

For the hypothesis to even work, all the following must be true:

1. Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
2. Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
3. Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
4. Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
(Stephen J. Gould)

If 1 is not true, then the concept of 'comparing' intelligence becomes a bad joke, similar to comparing athletic ability by measuring how well people do at playing football.

If 2 is not true, then the entire concept of any group being 'smarter' is a nonstarter.

If 3 is not true, then genetics isn't playing a factor, so genetics doesn't play a factor (tautology is tautological).

If 4 is not true, then the concept of ranking based on an aspect unchallengeable from birth is a bad joke.

The authors of the Bell Curve never came up with convincing proofs that any of the 4 were true, and no one has since.

[Professor Yaffle]

So nobody saw it then? I'll probably watch it later then.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

From the link;"In 2007, Nobel Prize winning US scientist James Watson was quoted referring to research suggesting that black people were less intelligent than other races. His comments caused a storm of controversy, Watson was condemned."
Watson's DNA test showed he had 16% African heritage. Now that's irony.

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I'm not here to say one race is more intelligent than another because I would have no way of knowing such things. But more importantly, was he condemned because it was shown his research was wrong or didn't actually support his claim, or was he condemned because we simply don't want to accept his research?

Was it a case of a scientist just offering a bigoted personal opinion, or does he have research to back his claim? It doesn't sound implausible that there could be tendencies for certain races to have more intelligence than others. That of course is on a large scale and not individual. So what if it were true? We can certainly see that there is a differing level of intelligence among individuals. So what's to prevent this from happening with races who may be isolated from each other? We can see it with things like skin color and hair color and other physical features. Out brains are physical, so what is so unthinkable about the brain varying among races?

And I would imagine every human on Earth has African heritage. I doubt that the man was trying to say "If you're black you're not smart".

There have been several multi page threads on this forum arguing about whether race is a meaningful concept when discussing humans, however I don't remember even the most enthusiastic proponent of race as a valid distinguisher of human groups proposing the binary categories of 'black' and 'the rest' as their preferred option.

Regardless of what research Watson was referring to his statement is bigoted.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I watched most of it last night.

I thought it was pretty good. The claims of the racists pretending to be scientific were presented, then knocked down one by one.

[Paul W]

This is one of those problems which has dogged ability testing since Binet first invented it. I didn’t see the programme, but when my wife gets home and can explain how to play catch-up TV on [her] box, I’ll try!

Background: I am a psychologist, and I have spent much of the last 30+ years using a variety of standard ability tests. If it has gone wrong on anyone, it has gone wrong on me!

Broadly, all ability testing (aka also known [wrongly] as “intelligence testing”) suffers from one major problem. All – I repeat ALL – tests are culturally biased. They are created within a particular culture, and really only apply within it. This is particularly apparent with the “management” selection tests – the Saville and Holdsworth ones, and their competitors (eg GMAB), are good examples – but is true of all of them.

The three Raven’s Matrices tests are an interesting example. Ostensibly they are culture free tests, and behave in Factor Analytic studies as reliable measures of Spearman’s g. I have used them with clients who were dyslexic, clients who were totally deaf, and clients who did not have English as a first language. The internal evidence was that they were reliable, insofar as the error pattern was exactly as I would have expected.

Unfortunately with some - I stress some - non-European populations they seem to break down completely. I don’t know why: they just do.

Basically, we don’t have any kind of reliable way of comparing “intelligence” (whatever that may be) across widely different cultures. However, given the similar levels of occupational success between different cultural groups, it is probably true that the overall levels of ability in the population are the same. I say probably, because drop a WASP into an African jungle and …

It kind of depends on what you mean by "intelligence".

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I'm not here to say one race is more intelligent than another because I would have no way of knowing such things. But more importantly, was he condemned because it was shown his research was wrong or didn't actually support his claim, or was he condemned because we simply don't want to accept his research?..

He didn't do research in that area.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Paul W

Unfortunately with some - I stress some - non-European populations they seem to break down completely.

On the surface, I can read that as " blacks fail this test too".

Can you elaborate on "break down completely" ?

Also "non-European populations " ?

But at the least, you are saying that no test is devoid of sociological problems?

But you know, we are not trying to measure IQ as pertains to an African Jungle. Aren't we trying to measure IQ as related to living in the First World?

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by casebro

On the surface, I can read that as " blacks fail this test too".

Can you elaborate on "break down completely" ?

Also "non-European populations " ?

But at the least, you are saying that no test is devoid of sociological problems?

But you know, we are not trying to measure IQ as pertains to an African Jungle. Aren't we trying to measure IQ as related to living in the First World?

Well now we get back to the problem pointed out by Stephen J. Gould:


1. Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.

But there's no evidence that Intelligence is reducible to a single number. We'd consider it very odd to create a single number that defined atheletic ability, so we could rank Michael Phelps, Michael Jordon, Tiger Woods, Caster Semenya and Brock Lesner on one scale (please, hypothesize for a bit. Create a scale where we could rank all of those athletes in a way that was somehow meaningful).

But apparently we can do the same for intelligence? Evidence of that?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Well now we get back to the problem pointed out by Stephen J. Gould:


1. Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.

But there's no evidence that Intelligence is reducible to a single number. We'd consider it very odd to create a single number that defined atheletic ability, so we could rank Michael Phelps, Michael Jordon, Tiger Woods, Caster Semenya and Brock Lesner on one scale (please, hypothesize for a bit. Create a scale where we could rank all of those athletes in a way that was somehow meaningful).

But apparently we can do the same for intelligence? Evidence of that?

ICE man, not to rain on your parade here, but isn't the IQ the Intelligence Quotient that represents a variety of mental traits/talents/et al rather than a single dimension?

(No, I am not gonna defend them, but I think the "just a number" approach is a slight misrepresentation of what the number of IQ is supposed to represent).

That said, Gould's critique is on solid ground.

DR

[dogjones]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

We'd consider it very odd to create a single number that defined atheletic ability, so we could rank Michael Phelps, Michael Jordon, Tiger Woods, Caster Semenya and Brock Lesner on one scale (please, hypothesize for a bit. Create a scale where we could rank all of those athletes in a way that was somehow meaningful).

Easy. Whoever can spit the furthest. Yes, the best way is to test for an athletic trait that has nothing to do with their specific abilities, because that would be cheating. Although the world spitting champion, Amy Lase, would be excluded from this test.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Well now we get back to the problem pointed out by Stephen J. Gould:


1. Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.

But there's no evidence that Intelligence is reducible to a single number. We'd consider it very odd to create a single number that defined atheletic ability, so we could rank Michael Phelps, Michael Jordon, Tiger Woods, Caster Semenya and Brock Lesner on one scale (please, hypothesize for a bit. Create a scale where we could rank all of those athletes in a way that was somehow meaningful).

But apparently we can do the same for intelligence? Evidence of that?

Everyone knows that mental and physical traits each break down into exactly THREE categories: (intelligence, wisdom, charisma) and (strength, dexterity, constitution); the average human value in each of these is 10.5, varying from 3 to 18. You can't rank everyone on one physical scale because one may have, for example, a higher strength but lower constitution.
But everyone can be ranked according to intelligence, which IS actually a single number.

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Everyone knows that mental and physical traits each break down into exactly THREE categories: (intelligence, wisdom, charisma) and (strength, dexterity, constitution); the average human value in each of these is 10.5, varying from 3 to 18. You can't rank everyone on one physical scale because one may have, for example, a higher strength but lower constitution.

You can't be serious with this?

Um, I'm pretty sure evolutionary biology is a little more complicated than rolling dice to get traits for your cleric in Advanced Dungeons n' Dragons, bro.

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by oldhat

You can't be serious with this?

Um, I'm pretty sure evolutionary biology is a little more complicated than rolling dice to get traits for your cleric in Advanced Dungeons n' Dragons, bro.

Try putting any one of these at the end and see how it reads

[dlorde]

PaulW has pretty much summed it up. Even if you decide to accept that what common IQ tests measure as 'intelligence' means something useful, they are typically standardised on a particular, normally distributed, sample population, and compare an individual measure against the average performance of that population. Unless you're within the normal bounds of that sample population, the tests don't really mean very much. You can interpret them however you like.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Everyone knows that mental and physical traits each break down into exactly THREE categories: (intelligence, wisdom, charisma) and (strength, dexterity, constitution); the average human value in each of these is 10.5, varying from 3 to 18. You can't rank everyone on one physical scale because one may have, for example, a higher strength but lower constitution.
But everyone can be ranked according to intelligence, which IS actually a single number.

Lack of smilies noted. I don't use them either. Whenever I post a parody, people usually know it or just assume I'm drunk.






i

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I'm not here to say one race is more intelligent than another because I would have no way of knowing such things. But more importantly, was he condemned because it was shown his research was wrong or didn't actually support his claim, or was he condemned because we simply don't want to accept his research?

Was it a case of a scientist just offering a bigoted personal opinion, or does he have research to back his claim? It doesn't sound implausible that there could be tendencies for certain races to have more intelligence than others. That of course is on a large scale and not individual. So what if it were true? We can certainly see that there is a differing level of intelligence among individuals. So what's to prevent this from happening with races who may be isolated from each other? We can see it with things like skin color and hair color and other physical features. Out brains are physical, so what is so unthinkable about the brain varying among races?

And I would imagine every human on Earth has African heritage. I doubt that the man was trying to say "If you're black you're not smart".

It was talked about on two episodes of the SGU that I can remember. Episodes 117 and 118.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/arch...?mid=1&pid=117
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/arch...?mid=1&pid=118

Originally Posted by Independent.co.uk

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...rs-394898.html

But then:

Originally Posted by Slate.com

James Watson tried to explain and revise his comments about blacks and intelligence. (See original item below.) New quotes: 1) "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said." 2) "If I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it." 3) "To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant." 4) "There is no scientific basis for such a belief." 5) People want "to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough." 6) "We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things." 7) "This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers." Related news: 1) Watson's quotes were apparently recorded. 2) Watson's lab suspended him. 3) The director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health says Watson's comments "are completely inconsistent with the body of research literature in this area." 4) London's Science Museum said it canceled Watson's speech because he "has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate."

http://www.slate.com/id/2175899/

[Jeff Corey]

Dr. Alzheimer, call your service.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

I've always thought Gould's criticism was entirely timely and to the point.

For the hypothesis to even work, all the following must be true:

1. Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
2. Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
3. Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
4. Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
(Stephen J. Gould)
.

Odd, me replying to a JREF thread on race n iq.

Gould is fool, imo.

1-3 are empirical facts, although I wouldn't claim all of intelligence is a single number (just the biggest and most important chunk of it; g).

4. I don't think 4 is necessary for the argument. The jury's still out on this, although there is a long literature of documented failures (when it comes to increasing g in the long run).

Thanks to the OP for the link. I'm gonna watch it!

Here's my small contribution to the literature in this area:

http://www.csuohio.edu/business/acad...ll_race_iq.pdf

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Odd, me replying to a JREF thread on race n iq.

Gould is fool, imo.

1-3 are empirical facts, although I wouldn't claim all of intelligence is a single number (just the biggest and most important chunk of it; g).

4. I don't think 4 is necessary for the argument. The jury's still out on this, although there is a long literature of documented failures (when it comes to increasing g in the long run).

Thanks to the OP for the link. I'm gonna watch it!

Here's my small contribution to the literature in this area:

http://www.csuohio.edu/business/acad...ll_race_iq.pdf

I'll check this out tomorrow and send you a PM, if you wish,

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

I'll check this out tomorrow and send you a PM, if you wish,

Feel free to critique it here; would be interested in anyone's skeptical take on it.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

ICE man, not to rain on your parade here, but isn't the IQ the Intelligence Quotient that represents a variety of mental traits/talents/et al rather than a single dimension?

(No, I am not gonna defend them, but I think the "just a number" approach is a slight misrepresentation of what the number of IQ is supposed to represent).

That said, Gould's critique is on solid ground.

DR

Of course it is. But it presupposes many things. Suppose you, through immense application of time and effort, created a standard that could measure every single attribute that is considered important to every single sport and physical activity, then weighted them, then used them to create a number.

You'd have numbers for each one of the atheletes. Maybe Jordan has a 154 AQ, and Semenya has a 146 AQ, and maybe Phelps is a 159 AQ. And you'd have a system that took lots of factors into account and produced a number.

But what would that number mean?

The same problem with IQ. IQ doesn't mean you're creative. IQ doesn't mean you have strong spacial recognition, or are good at rhetoric. It doesn't mean that you can analyze situations quickly, or form long-term plans. It doesn't mean that you can analyze and solve problems. It doesn't mean you can memorize large amounts of information and use it to form an informed picture of a situation or events. It doesn't mean that you can keep your cool and think rationally in stressful situations.

It doesn't measure any of those. Or rather it tries to measure every one of those and distill it into one number.

I'll leave it up to you to decide if you can adequately put a meaningful weighting on how important creative expression versus physical quantitative analysis versus game-theory problem solving are. And what level of importance the time component has (is someone who can produce a pretty good thing in 1 day better than someone who can produce a really good thing in 8, but only the most mediocre version in a single day?).

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Odd, me replying to a JREF thread on race n iq.

Gould is fool, imo.

1-3 are empirical facts, although I wouldn't claim all of intelligence is a single number (just the biggest and most important chunk of it; g).

4. I don't think 4 is necessary for the argument. The jury's still out on this, although there is a long literature of documented failures (when it comes to increasing g in the long run).

Thanks to the OP for the link. I'm gonna watch it!

Here's my small contribution to the literature in this area:

http://www.csuohio.edu/business/acad...ll_race_iq.pdf

Gould is NOT a fool. Gould is one of the most respected experts I've ever encountered, and I find his writings and speeches a thousand times more informative than other, more controversial figures.

Point 4 is not necessary. Any SINGLE ONE of those points would sink the concept we're discussing (and, in fact, he went on to many more points used to sink it). That's the point. Each and EVERY one of those points is something that would destroy the notions of The Bell Curve authors. And the best we can say about any of them is that 'the jury is out.' That was his point. To even hypothesize about the effects of race on intelligence by using IQ tests, you have to make so very many unproven assumptions that it's as relevant as speculating about the whether the first alien species we encounter will have gay marriage.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

So nobody saw it then? I'll probably watch it later then.

It isn't viewable in my country. Must be some legal issue.

[wufwugy]

If intelligence variation among humans was a product of ethnicity, we would see different geographical results

[Puppycow]

This is very much a third-rail subject.

Even if it were true that there are racial differences in intelligence, it wouldn't be the sort of thing that could be frankly discussed. And I'm not sure what profit there would be in finding out. I suppose it might mean that we could accept that the stubborn racial gap in standardized test scores won't go away, no matter what policies you try, but I'm not comfortable with the implications.

A more limited claim would be rather than that there are racial differences in intelligence per se, there are racial differences in performance in standardized tests.

If performance in standardized tests is meaningless, that would also have profound implications. A new system for college admissions would become necessary, for example.

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by wufwugy

If intelligence variation among humans was a product of ethnicity, we would see different geographical results

We do. That's the whole point. It is the explanation of those results that is at issue.

I have watched the programme now, and it was pretty interesting. I'll write more about it later.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Of course it is. But it presupposes many things. Suppose you, through immense application of time and effort, created a standard that could measure every single attribute that is considered important to every single sport and physical activity, then weighted them, then used them to create a number.

You'd have numbers for each one of the atheletes. Maybe Jordan has a 154 AQ, and Semenya has a 146 AQ, and maybe Phelps is a 159 AQ. And you'd have a system that took lots of factors into account and produced a number.

But what would that number mean?

...snip...

To play devil's advocate.

That AQ could tell you something. For example whilst you may not be able to say "someone with an AQ of 123 will be a great football player", it may be that we find every single athlete winning medals has an AQ of over 123, so we can say that unless you have an AQ of over 123 you will not be able to be a top athlete.

[Dally]

I know of few factors that can affect "intelligence" that people often fail to mention:

-Diet (children who are malnurished do not develop their cognitive abilities as well as those who are well fed. I believe this can have an impact on the generation down the line???).

-Culture...

-Parenting (teaching your kids/encouraging their curiosity and raising them in a loving environment has an impact on a child's intelligence).

-Beating your kids (there was some research done where it was found that those who were spanked more often lacked a few IQ points..)

Its pretty obvious that a majority of those from countries that lack food supplies/good food will not have children as well developed physically and mentally compared to those in developed countries.

I've also noticed that parenting and culture has quite an impact on a persons intelligence...

Parents who have the motto "you wanna gangsta blaad - innit!" attitude are not going to raise kids who are intelligent as parents who have the motto as "knowledge is power, hail science!" etc

[wufwugy]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

We do. That's the whole point. It is the explanation of those results that is at issue.

I have watched the programme now, and it was pretty interesting. I'll write more about it later.

I didn't mean that we would see differences in geographical results (which we do), but that we would see different geographical results than we currently see.

Currently, the geographical results correlate with modernization and education, not lineage. This, as well as many things, blows a colossal hole in the idea that there is a causation between intelligence and ethnicity

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Currently, the geographical results correlate with modernization and education, not lineage. This, as well as many things, blows a colossal hole in the idea that there is a causation between intelligence and ethnicity

Maybe they also correlate with lineage if you control for geography, education, modernization, etc.

[wufwugy]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Maybe they also correlate with lineage if you control for geography, education, modernization, etc.

Oh they sure do, but that's when you get into specific families passing on their genes. A lineage of Richard Feynmans is going to have more intelligent genes than a family of Sarah Palins, or something to that effect.

What I am getting at is along the lines that, assuming intelligence is race based, we would see a correlation of intelligence with gene flow. IOW, there would be an intelligence correlation between say the Japanese and South East Asians. But there's not. The correlation is purely one of modernization and education. If the correlation was genetic we would expect to see a different pattern; one based on genes, not one based on societies.

If we assume that intelligence is race based, then how do we explain modern Asians scoring very well while poor Asians score awfully, yet an ethnicity that is even more separated from Asia (Northern Europe) scores similarly to modern Asians but not poor Asians? If intelligence was race based we would be able to map it geographically based on biology, genetics, evolution, etc, but we can't because the differences within the homo sapiens species is too small, and the margin of error in nurturing and testing for intelligence is too large

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Darat

To play devil's advocate.

That AQ could tell you something. For example whilst you may not be able to say "someone with an AQ of 123 will be a great football player", it may be that we find every single athlete winning medals has an AQ of over 123, so we can say that unless you have an AQ of over 123 you will not be able to be a top athlete.

Probably true. However, we could set up something like that right now. Unless the sport is sumo wrestling, if you have more than X % body fat, less than X% muscle mass, and can't reach the following times running, or do the following exercises in flexibility, you're not a top athelete.

The thing is, we'd have no way of knowing if a basketball player with an AQ of 156 was better than a basketball player with an AQ of 151. Even comparing every single statistic they keep about basketball between two players doesn't necessarily give that information. Weighing all those statistics, and then dragging it into some single number doesn't even come close.

I'd agree IQ can be useful for setting basic thresholds (testing below 70 isn't good). But as a finely tuned indicator of intelligence good enough to determine that one particular subset of humanity is 'less intelligent' than another? It doesn't really come close.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Oh they sure do, but that's when you get into specific families passing on their genes. A lineage of Richard Feynmans is going to have more intelligent genes than a family of Sarah Palins, or something to that effect.

What I am getting at is along the lines that, assuming intelligence is race based, we would see a correlation of intelligence with gene flow. IOW, there would be an intelligence correlation between say the Japanese and South East Asians. But there's not. The correlation is purely one of modernization and education. If the correlation was genetic we would expect to see a different pattern; one based on genes, not one based on societies.

If we assume that intelligence is race based, then how do we explain modern Asians scoring very well while poor Asians score awfully, yet an ethnicity that is even more separated from Asia (Northern Europe) scores similarly to modern Asians but not poor Asians? If intelligence was race based we would be able to map it geographically based on biology, genetics, evolution, etc, but we can't because the differences within the homo sapiens species is too small, and the margin of error in nurturing and testing for intelligence is too large

1) I'm not sure if SE Asians and Japanese are as closely related as you think they are. Asia is a very large continent, and Japan is separated from mainland Asia by a sea.
2) I'm not aware of the basis for the claims you are making such as "modern Asians scoring very well while poor Asians score awfully." What is the basis for this? Also, this is not my area of expertise, but I've heard that East Asians score higher than whites, but I don't think that East Asians are generally more modernized or educated on average than whites (Japan is a possible exception).
3) It's possible, at least in principle, that intelligence correlates with living in a modern society because a populace with a higher average intelligence tends to modernize earlier than a populace with a lower average intelligence.

[wufwugy]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

1) I'm not sure if SE Asians and Japanese are as closely related as you think they are. Asia is a very large continent, and Japan is separated from mainland Asia by a sea.
2) I'm not aware of the basis for the claims you are making such as "modern Asians scoring very well while poor Asians score awfully." What is the basis for this? Also, this is not my area of expertise, but I've heard that East Asians score higher than whites, but I don't think that East Asians are generally more modernized or educated on average than whites (Japan is a possible exception).
3) It's possible, at least in principle, that intelligence correlates with living in a modern society because a populace with a higher average intelligence tends to modernize earlier than a populace with a lower average intelligence.

1. They're closer in relation than to Northern and Eastern Europeans.

2. "East Asians" are referring mainly to the modern areas of Japan, Korea, and China that stress education and success, aren't malnourished, etc

3. I espouse Jared Diamond's theory of inequality. IOW, technological inequality is based on resources, not intelligence. The historical data that backs this up seems overwhelming.


Anyways, I'm not really going to try to gather the data to back up my arguments. I've been over this stuff before, and know that it will take hours of my time. But that's okay because of the very simple fact that if IQ were based in ethnicity we would be able to map it genetically and evolutionarily. So far, nobody has done this, and only when they do it will the debate be able to be reasonably opened up. Seriously, this is an extremely important point. I have yet to see somebody arguing for the IQ/genetic link who also can provide data that correlates with gene flow. Instead, all the evidence correlates with things like modernization, education, nourishment; but for whatever reason, some people ignore this and just make the hand waving claim that the correlation is based on genes. There is ZERO evidence to back that up, and the debate is effectively over until somebody can provide some evidence that points to ethnicity. And the easiest way to do that would be to map things geographically and genetically, but when we do this we find that there is no correlation

[Roboramma]

wufwugy, your point is good if you are looking for an explanation of the geographical variation that we see. That is, an explanation based on racial differences wouldn't work, whereas one based on modernization, etc. does.

However, that doesn't show that there isn't also racial variation that is just much smaller, and thus swamped by the effects of modernization, etc.

The problem with anyone suggesting that the latter is true, however, is that if it is, the effect is so small as to be indistinguishable from other possible causes: that is, any variation that they show can be explained by poor tests, cultural differences, and those variations in diet, upbringing, etc.

Of course that doesn't mean that the idea is falsified, but its not demonstrated by the data either, which means that if it exists its certainly a much smaller effect than its proponents seem to think.

[wufwugy]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

wufwugy, your point is good if you are looking for an explanation of the geographical variation that we see. That is, an explanation based on racial differences wouldn't work, whereas one based on modernization, etc. does.

However, that doesn't show that there isn't also racial variation that is just much smaller, and thus swamped by the effects of modernization, etc.

The problem with anyone suggesting that the latter is true, however, is that if it is, the effect is so small as to be indistinguishable from other possible causes: that is, any variation that they show can be explained by poor tests, cultural differences, and those variations in diet, upbringing, etc.

Of course that doesn't mean that the idea is falsified, but its not demonstrated by the data either, which means that if it exists its certainly a much smaller effect than its proponents seem to think.

Yes, that's absolutely right. We can't 'disprove' that there isn't some link between ethnicity and intelligence. In order to do this we would effectively have to have complete understanding of genes and intelligence and be able to test them with next to zero margin of error.

While I do think there *could* be a link, I consider that to be a rather low probability, and I think that we are not even close enough in our understanding of the factors to be able to accurately test it. And without any evidence to suggest that any link actually is genetic, I just want to point out that the debate is then kinda pointless.

I also just simply don't like it. While I don't let my biases get in the way of empirical data, I hate ethnic segregation with a passion, and I view any contention about differences in ethnicities in which there is currently zero evidence as perpetuating that segregation

[casebro]

The Black/White racial difference in IQ is supposedly one standard deviation, or about 15 IQ points.

Consider a graph of the two bell curves. Use similar curves, just shift one 15 points. Note how great the overlap in the middle is. Seems to show to me that lots of Blacks are smarter than lots of Whites, and lots of Whites are dumber than lots of blacks.

I wonder what the two actual curves look like when juxtaposed?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

I just caught the end of this last night. Did anyone else watch it, and was it any good (ie worth me watching on the channel 4 player online)?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/r...ces-last-taboo

No need to watch it. I already know whites are smarter than blacks.