Science as racism?

[Dancing David]

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/S...ion_88259.html

Quote:

Rushton and Jensen said their new study confirmed their earlier conclusion that Black-White IQ differences are 80 percent heritable, an estimate based on a review of the literature in the 2005 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Rushton argued that given that the IQ differences were 80 percent genetic, no more than a 3-IQ point convergence would be possible.

[Avita]

I have no idea about the heritability numbers, but whoever did this study is banking on people knowing very little about intelligence testing. WAIS-III, the test that I am most familiar with, and one of the most respected and widely-used IQ tests out there, gives a score with error margins. A 3-point error margin would be a minimal margin, and it's not that uncommon to see 10 point error margins, or higher, depending on which confidence interval one uses, and the degree of accuracy in the administration of the test. Furthermore, the same person being tested twice with this test would, on average, have scores that are different by about 5 points. If that person had been trained in the kinds of tasks used in the test in between the two tests, the difference would be even higher. So to me, it's ridiculous to claim that IQ tests are precise to the point that they won't change more than 3 points.

Edited: Forgot to add, there is, in fact, a documented 3-point difference in IQ scores between Americans as a whole and Canadians as a whole, discovered during the original norming process. The average Canadian IQ is 103, not 100. Given that the two cultures have similar genetic makeup and variety, share a language and mostly share a culture, I do wonder how the authors of the article would like to explain this one away. The way the difference is used in practice is to ignore it, because really, the usual error margins more than cover the difference, anyway, and the only time it becomes important is when the score is on the borderline of a cutoff that will determine what kinds of services someone receives.

[Katana]

I don't understand how they came to the 80% heritability. Also, this was a fairly cursory description as most press releases are. It doesn't describe anything about how the study was conducted, where they obtained their data, and how many subjects were involved. This is all it said:

Quote:

The researchers reported on the Wonderlic Personnel Test, the Kaufmann Assessment Battery for Children, the Woodcock-Johnson test, and the Differential Ability Scale, which all combined to show a Black gain of less than 1 IQ point over the last 30 years.

So you have four different tests here. How many of the subjects took all of them, one of them, two? If each only took one, can the scores really be compared across them? I don't know very much about each of these tests, but this seems like a bit of a methodological flaw.

Also, I have to wonder whether a 15-point gap in average IQ scores between two very heterogeneous populations is important anyway, especially in light of the margins for error and variation among individuals tested on separate occasions that Avita mentioned.

Having said that, if (big "if") what they found is true, how would it be racism?

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/S...ion_88259.html

That's not science.

[Avita]

Oh, my, what I lost by only barely skimming the article - thanks, Katana, for listing the actual tests they used. The Kaufmann and the DAS I know little about, but they are administered only with children, so right away, I wonder about them being generalized to adults. The WJ is not an IQ test - it is two batteries of a variety of subtests, one battery focusing on cognitive performance, and the other on "achievement" - that is, knowledge gained through learning, rather than innate ability. Although the cognitive components are often similar to the tasks used on IQ tests, the WJ is not designed to produce a single score comparable to an IQ score. A major reason for that is that hardly anybody ever administers the complete battery of tests - it takes far too long, and is usually unnecessary for the purposes of assessment. Finally, the WPT, from the brief description of it that I just read, seems to be designed to be comparable to an IQ test, but takes 12 minutes to administer. By comparison, the WAIS takes at least 2 hours. For some reason, I am highly doubtful that the results on the WPT are all that accurate. And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Avita

And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

Jensen is well-established to be complicit in the "fraudulent" school of IQ studies as established by Cyril Burt.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by Avita

Oh, my, what I lost by only barely skimming the article - thanks, Katana, for listing the actual tests they used. The Kaufmann and the DAS I know little about, but they are administered only with children, so right away, I wonder about them being generalized to adults. The WJ is not an IQ test - it is two batteries of a variety of subtests, one battery focusing on cognitive performance, and the other on "achievement" - that is, knowledge gained through learning, rather than innate ability. Although the cognitive components are often similar to the tasks used on IQ tests, the WJ is not designed to produce a single score comparable to an IQ score. A major reason for that is that hardly anybody ever administers the complete battery of tests - it takes far too long, and is usually unnecessary for the purposes of assessment. Finally, the WPT, from the brief description of it that I just read, seems to be designed to be comparable to an IQ test, but takes 12 minutes to administer. By comparison, the WAIS takes at least 2 hours. For some reason, I am highly doubtful that the results on the WPT are all that accurate. And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

Thanks for that perspective, Avita. This study is sounding less and less credible.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/S...ion_88259.html

Thse always struck me as more about binary race construct than science. Where is everybody who is neither black nor white? Where are the people who are both? In varying degres and percentages? I'd like to see studies like this done and reported with more comprehensive and meaningful genetic subpopulations.

I would like research into intelligence(s) and subpopulations to continue, and to be reported and discussed, but I'd like to see more critical thought and open-ended inquiry going into it.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

Thse always struck me as more about binary race construct than science. Where is everybody who is neither black nor white? Where are the people who are both? In varying degres and percentages? I'd like to see studies like this done and reported with more comprehensive and meaningful genetic subpopulations.

I would like research into intelligence(s) and subpopulations to continue, and to be reported and discussed, but I'd like to see more critical thought and open-ended inquiry going into it.

Agreed. Haven't we learned that black versus white isn't a (ahem) black and white issue genetically?

I was thinking about the thread's title. Whether racism was the underlying motivation for publishing this study, I don't know. I googled both authors, and it is clear that they have made their careers on their somewhat controversial views of race, genetics, and intelligence. For them, this study is another piece of evidence that what they have been saying all along is correct.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Katana

Having said that, if (big "if") what they found is true, how would it be racism?

I used a question mark? To denote that this might or might not be racism, and it is also an attention grabber in the title.

If it is found to be true then it raises all the usual questions about what different factors effect an IQ score that are not associated with race.

[bpesta22]

As argued in the thread on Spearman's g, as skeptics, perhaps you should read the article before attempting to discredit it.

It's only 2 pages; I will email it to anyone who wants it.

Don't mistake ignorance of the field for junk science.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Katana

Agreed. Haven't we learned that black versus white isn't a (ahem) black and white issue genetically?

I was thinking about the thread's title. Whether racism was the underlying motivation for publishing this study, I don't know. I googled both authors, and it is clear that they have made their careers on their somewhat controversial views of race, genetics, and intelligence. For them, this study is another piece of evidence that what they have been saying all along is correct.

100 years of worth of evidence to be correct. Just one example of the evidence comes from a meta-analysis (2001) of 6,246,729 people.

The only thing Rushton and Jensen claim in this specific article is that the race gap is not shrinking, despite what Dickens and Flynn argue in the same issue.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Avita

Oh, my, what I lost by only barely skimming the article - thanks, Katana, for listing the actual tests they used. The Kaufmann and the DAS I know little about, but they are administered only with children, so right away, I wonder about them being generalized to adults. The WJ is not an IQ test - it is two batteries of a variety of subtests, one battery focusing on cognitive performance, and the other on "achievement" - that is, knowledge gained through learning, rather than innate ability. Although the cognitive components are often similar to the tasks used on IQ tests, the WJ is not designed to produce a single score comparable to an IQ score. A major reason for that is that hardly anybody ever administers the complete battery of tests - it takes far too long, and is usually unnecessary for the purposes of assessment. Finally, the WPT, from the brief description of it that I just read, seems to be designed to be comparable to an IQ test, but takes 12 minutes to administer. By comparison, the WAIS takes at least 2 hours. For some reason, I am highly doubtful that the results on the WPT are all that accurate. And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

They reference their earlier work-- Rushton and Jensen 2005, wherein they show that the race difference correlates with the g factor; not the specific test of IQ used in each study. From any of the tests used, one can get the g score and use that for the correlation.

If these guys are racist it's odd that they-- in the same 2 page article, though not talked about in the media discussion of it-- argue the asian mean IQ is 106.

So, they're the particular blend of white racists who think they're better than blacks but not quite as good as Asians?

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/S...ion_88259.html

It's interesting that this is a press release by Rushton. Dancing David, how did you come across it?

My big question is how is race determined in the recent tests? Self-identification? What about all the research by population geneticists showing that there is considerable african-european admixture in America? And how are latinos (a huge portion of the American public today) categorized and how do they impact this data?

[bpesta22]

Interesting-- if you click on the link above that you can go to his vita and click on the article to see the 2 page publication.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Avita

I have no idea about the heritability numbers, but whoever did this study is banking on people knowing very little about intelligence testing. WAIS-III, the test that I am most familiar with, and one of the most respected and widely-used IQ tests out there, gives a score with error margins. A 3-point error margin would be a minimal margin, and it's not that uncommon to see 10 point error margins, or higher, depending on which confidence interval one uses, and the degree of accuracy in the administration of the test. Furthermore, the same person being tested twice with this test would, on average, have scores that are different by about 5 points. If that person had been trained in the kinds of tasks used in the test in between the two tests, the difference would be even higher. So to me, it's ridiculous to claim that IQ tests are precise to the point that they won't change more than 3 points.

Edited: Forgot to add, there is, in fact, a documented 3-point difference in IQ scores between Americans as a whole and Canadians as a whole, discovered during the original norming process. The average Canadian IQ is 103, not 100. Given that the two cultures have similar genetic makeup and variety, share a language and mostly share a culture, I do wonder how the authors of the article would like to explain this one away. The way the difference is used in practice is to ignore it, because really, the usual error margins more than cover the difference, anyway, and the only time it becomes important is when the score is on the borderline of a cutoff that will determine what kinds of services someone receives.

You're ignoring the principle of aggregation and how that affects margins of error.

Sure, study one person's IQ and it might vary by 3 or 5 or 10 points over time, tests and testers.

Study 1000s of people classified on some dimension (e.g., race) and this becomes far less of a problem. Whether one is studying IQ or agression, any test measuring one or the other construct would be validated by using lots of people and not one or two.

Even the the classical model of reliability (invented by Spearman, coincidentally!) assumes this: A person's observed score on a test = his or her true score, plus error.

Errors can be positive (artificially inflate your score) or negative (artificially reduce your score). For any single person, the error score might be very large, but test large groups of people and the error scores become normally distributed with a mean of zero!

In fact, one can use the idea of error to make a fairly ingenious (imo) prediction: If the black white gap is real, then regression to the mean should occur differentially for black and white parents re their kids IQ's. That is, people selected based on an extreme IQ score should have kids whose IQ regresses back to the race group mean IQ.

The original study referenced in the OP (rushton and jensen) reviews lots of data on this issue.

Match two couples (one white; one black) on SES, income, education, etc, and IQ. The key is to match on extreme IQs to then observe how the kids' IQ regresses to the mean.

So, some matched couples will have IQ's of 120; others IQ's of 70.

For the 120-IQ parent group, their black kids' average 100 for IQ; wheras, the white kids average 110. So, regression to the mean is twice as strong for black kids, because the black kids are regressing to their group mean of 85-- a longer distance away; whereas, white kids are regressing to their group mean of 100-- a shorter distance away (and hence less regression).

Just the opposite happens for matched parents with IQs of 70-- regression up to the mean is twice as strong for the kids with white parents!

The black kids' IQ is now 78 (half the difference up to their true mean) and the white kids IQ is now 85 -- more regression for whites because the distance to their true mean (100) is now farther.

Any gouldists out there who can suggest an environmental or cultural explanation that accounts for this pattern of regression to the mean?

[bpesta22]

Oh, finally, the original article-- rushton and jensen, 2005, is a lit review of some 30 years of research on the issue.

It's 60 pages long, but it's worth the read to the extent you want answers to these questions. At the very least, reading it should convince you that arm chair dismissals here from people not in the field are inaccurate and frankly naive (e.g., that a chemist could come in, think for 60 seconds, and generate problems/flaws in the study that would not have occurred to the person with the phd in the area and 200 pubs on the topic).

Yahzi's famed cultural hypothesis, for example, is thoroughly trashed, though, I'm not sure that Jensen is aware of the gorilla study.

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

argue the asian mean IQ is 106.

Just as an example of how utterly shoddy these people's work is:

When they say "Asian," what do they mean? Did these people ever go to, you know, Asia, and adminster any tests?

Why... no. They have deduced the IQ of half the planet from the sample which chose to emigrate to California.

First-class science here, folks! We don't need no stinking data!

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

At the very least, reading it should convince you that arm chair dismissals here from people not in the field are inaccurate and frankly naive

Theologians say exactly the same thing. In exactly the same tone of voice.

Quote:

(e.g., that a chemist could come in, think for 60 seconds, and generate problems/flaws in the study that would not have occurred to the person with the phd in the area and 200 pubs on the topic).

Notice how he puts "would not have occurred" above, as if these clever people can be counted on to be aware of all the relevant facts. And then, in the very next sentence, admits they are unaware of the most basic facts:

Quote:

I'm not sure that Jensen is aware of the gorilla study.

Jensen, being a Genius Of The First Order, can safely dismiss data he is utterly unaware of. But heaven forbid the Yahzi dog should sniff a steaming pile of fecal matter and declare it stinky.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

In fact, one can use the idea of error to make a fairly ingenious (imo) prediction: If the black white gap is real, then regression to the mean should occur differentially for black and white parents re their kids IQ's.

I don't understand what you mean with "if the black white gap is real". Are you refering to a cultural gap or a difference in average IQ? Does "real" mean in this case mean "existing" or "caused by innate differences" ?

Wouldn't the same effect occur if the differences in average IQ are real, but caused by cultural influence?

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

For the 120-IQ parent group, their black kids' average 100 for IQ; wheras, the white kids average 110. So, regression to the mean is twice as strong for black kids, because the black kids are regressing to their group mean of 85-- a longer distance away; whereas, white kids are regressing to their group mean of 100-- a shorter distance away (and hence less regression).

Just the opposite happens for matched parents with IQs of 70-- regression up to the mean is twice as strong for the kids with white parents!

The black kids' IQ is now 78 (half the difference up to their true mean) and the white kids IQ is now 85 -- more regression for whites because the distance to their true mean (100) is now farther.

Any gouldists out there who can suggest an environmental or cultural explanation that accounts for this pattern of regression to the mean?

Oooh, ooh! Me! Me!

You're just restating the known data about IQ testing in slightly more convoluted manner*. This novel testing still fails to eliminate peer support, teachers behaviour and cultural expectation which could plausibly drag the group mean down. As such all the standard criticisms still stand.

The same results would hold for a comparison of the heights of adults in a malnourished environment verses the heights of well fed adults.

*Regression to the mean is needed to preserve normal distributions within populations, and this idea dates back to Galton in the middle of the 19th century.

[Dave1001]

Biracials smarter than white people?

Here's a gem buried in on of Rushton's papers. I read this to say that all things equal, white people will have smarter kids if they procreate with black people than with other white people, because of the advantages of hybrid vigor:


http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/fac.../PAID-1999.pdf

Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression -unlike Black-White differences: A reply to Flynn

J. Philippe Rushton, 1988

"An alternative hypothesis is hybrid vigor. This is the opposite of inbreeding depression and occurs because genes for intelligence are dominant in the Mendelian sense due to their adaptive value (Jensen, 1983). The more out-breeding there is, the greater the probability that a dominant gene for high IQ will occur. Hybrid vigor, however, is a much weaker effect than inbreeding depression."

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

It's interesting that this is a press release by Rushton. Dancing David, how did you come across it?

My big question is how is race determined in the recent tests? Self-identification? What about all the research by population geneticists showing that there is considerable african-european admixture in America? And how are latinos (a huge portion of the American public today) categorized and how do they impact this data?

I believe I found a link at http://www.fair.org and it linked to a blog that linked to the article.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I don't understand what you mean with "if the black white gap is real". Are you refering to a cultural gap or a difference in average IQ? Does "real" mean in this case mean "existing" or "caused by innate differences" ?

Wouldn't the same effect occur if the differences in average IQ are real, but caused by cultural influence?

The article alleges that the gap is 80% hereditary in the study.

I feel that personal circumstance, family history and social/culture account for the major impact.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Just as an example of how utterly shoddy these people's work is:

When they say "Asian," what do they mean? Did these people ever go to, you know, Asia, and adminster any tests?

Why... no. They have deduced the IQ of half the planet from the sample which chose to emigrate to California.

First-class science here, folks! We don't need no stinking data!

Jesus Christ Yahzi, it cannot be the case that your arm chair cleverness invalidates what the science here is doing. This is worse than a strawman as you're too lazy apparently to even skim through an article to see what's been done.

The assumptions you make here illustrate how naive your knowledge of the area is. I rarely respond directly to your points because it's clear when you speak (on this specific topic) you just don't understand it. Independent of who is right or wrong here, you just don't understand it.

All you gots to do is actually read one of the articles. This is pure intellectual laziness couched smugly. It's the worst trait a so-called skeptic can possess. If you spent two minutes searching through the rushton and jensen article, you would see that your claims here are nothing but ignorant.

Let me do the work for you:

From R&J:

Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in ****Japan and Hong Kong,**** White children in Britain and Ireland, and Black children in South Africa (summarized by Lynn & Vanhannen, 2002, pp. 66–67). The Progressive Matrices were given as a
nonverbal test of intelligence, along with the simple, choice, and odd-man-out
tasks.

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984).

*Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 yearsof age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition...

..141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age

...A study by...examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium.

*Not just in the United States but around the world, East Asians and Blacks fall at the two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate, not only on mean cognitive test scores and brain size measures but also on 60 life-history variables
that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

*Moreover, the three-way pattern of mean Black–White–East Asian group differences occurs worldwide on culture-fair reaction time measures, which all children can do in less than 1 s

*Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points
higher than their adoptive national norms.

*************

The studies on black IQ (versus asian) are much more common. Look through the reference section of the article to see how many of these studies were done globally-- in africa-- versus just for races within the USA.


For those still interested, here is how they define race:

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although
he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximumlikelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.







Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Oooh, ooh! Me! Me!

You're just restating the known data about IQ testing in slightly more convoluted manner*. This novel testing still fails to eliminate peer support, teachers behaviour and cultural expectation which could plausibly drag the group mean down. As such all the standard criticisms still stand.

The same results would hold for a comparison of the heights of adults in a malnourished environment verses the heights of well fed adults.

*Regression to the mean is needed to preserve normal distributions within populations, and this idea dates back to Galton in the middle of the 19th century.

edit: Ah, I had an idea. Let me retract this specific offer to you re $50. I will make a more general one here in another thread, where if you're interested, you can accept.



Yes, Galton, Darwin's cousin, first to do this type of stuff, mentioned on the first page of the Rushton and Jensen article.

I urge you to spend an hour skimming through the Rushton and Jensen article. If you can't get it, pm me and I will email it to you.

I think the answer to your example is provided therein, and I think one hour spent reading it will convince you that the arguments levied against the data herein are strawmans.

In fact, if you read the article, and post a detailed honest critique of it here-- open-minded skeptical like, I will donate 50$ to the JREF (with my paycheck coming at the end of November) in your name.

[Steven Howard]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

If these guys are racist it's odd that they-- in the same 2 page article, though not talked about in the media discussion of it-- argue the asian mean IQ is 106.

So, they're the particular blend of white racists who think they're better than blacks but not quite as good as Asians?

Is it your assertion that "Asians are smart" is not a commonly held racial stereotype?

[bpesta22]

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

edit: Ah, I had an idea. Let me retract this specific offer to you re $50. I will make a more general one here in another thread, where if you're interested, you can accept.



Yes, Galton, Darwin's cousin, first to do this type of stuff, mentioned on the first page of the Rushton and Jensen article.

I urge you to spend an hour skimming through the Rushton and Jensen article. If you can't get it, pm me and I will email it to you.

I think the answer to your example is provided therein, and I think one hour spent reading it will convince you that the arguments levied against the data herein are strawmans.

In fact, if you read the article, and post a detailed honest critique of it here-- open-minded skeptical like, I will donate 50$ to the JREF (with my paycheck coming at the end of November) in your name.

That's a nice offer.

It's 60 pages long, but then I probably will end up reading anyway, having read the mismeasure of man a couple of weeks ago.

However, if you could give an off the cuff explanation of why the behaviour regarding the regression to the mean is inconsistent with an environmentally dampened IQ, I'd appreciate it.

Count me in as a maybe for the paper review, I'll get back to you after the weekend.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

I don't think it's odd if you have good reason to do so. However, if you're presented with solid data to support the contention of one race being, on average, more intelligent (or as having higher scores on intelligence tests), than another, then simply discounting the argument as racism is ignorance.

As for your previous comments, I have appreciated your insight and obviously superior knowledge on this topic. I never intended to present myself as an expert, and my comments were based only on what I read in the press release, which I stated very early on. I did not see the link to the two-page article, but I also did not actively seek out the article either which, I admit, I should have.

[Steven Howard]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

I'm not attributing motives to anyone. Just to show that it's possible to simultaneously a.) be a racist; and b.) believe that (some) Asians are smarter than whites based on IQ tests, here's a link to a post on Stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...02&postcount=1

Originally Posted by some Nazi

Whites have the highest IQ out of any other race right, higher than Indians, Pakistanis, Southeast Asians, Arabs, way higher than Sub-Saharan Africans, Mestizo’s, aboriginals, Native-Americans. Though do we get a snag when are presented with Japanese, Koreans, Chinese * ?
(*Specific provinces of china)

I don't think so, because IQ is not be all and end all of great culture and civilization. Hypocritically though, the multi-cults will use IQ stats against our cause (saying we aren’t smartest), and yet condemn us if we use the same IQ stats when we say others like Black Africans are borderline-retarded.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Katana

I don't think it's odd if you have good reason to do so. However, if you're presented with solid data to support the contention of one race being, on average, more intelligent (or as having higher scores on intelligence tests), than another, then simply discounting the argument as racism is ignorance.

As for your previous comments, I have appreciated your insight and obviously superior knowledge on this topic. I never intended to present myself as an expert, and my comments were based only on what I read in the press release, which I stated very early on. I did not see the link to the two-page article, but I also did not actively seek out the article either which, I admit, I should have.

Katana-- thanks. I didn't have you in mind for signaling out.

I think the we are entitled to our opinions but not our facts idea should hold here. We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area (accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong) before our opinions hold any weight.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Steven Howard

I'm not attributing motives to anyone. Just to show that it's possible to simultaneously a.) be a racist; and b.) believe that (some) Asians are smarter than whites based on IQ tests, here's a link to a post on Stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...02&postcount=1

Points taken.

I guess I'm interested in what the science says versus how some nazi interprets what he thinks the sciencs says.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Katana-- thanks. I didn't have you in mind for signaling out.

I think the we are entitled to our opinions but not our facts idea should hold here. We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area (accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong) before our opinions hold any weight.

Agreed.

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Jesus Christ Yahzi,

Oooh, I've been promoted.

Quote:

it cannot be the case that your arm chair cleverness invalidates what the science here is doing.

It cannot be the case that you think the nonsense you have presented is actual science.

Just look at it:

Quote:

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in

A non-IQ test on a small sample size. You think that counts?

Show me where they adminster an actual IQ test to children who could not speak English.

But no, toss a few tests of any kind at a small sample, and just extrapolate the results. "We know what they would test as because we know the test is right. And how do we know the test is right? Because it says what they would test as!"

Quote:

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268

Cranial volume?

You report this as if it had any relation to IQ at all?

You cite phrenology, and yet you wonder why everybody laughs at you.

Quote:

adopted... adopted... adopted

I can make up a thousand reasons why an adopted child of a different race might have incentive to test differently. Has your research attempted to rule out any of them - other than by divine fiat, I mean.

Quote:

also on 60 life-history variables that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

And of course, culture has nothing to do with these variables.

Why, indeed, the last variable asserts that culture is a product of racial, genetic IQ!

In all honesty: how can you look at this and not see the presumption of racism?

Quote:

For those still interested, here is how they define race:

Why, look, folks, it's the good old social theory of race.

And people kept telling me such simplistic racist nonsense was dead.

Quote:

Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and measures.

Only on "almost all?"

Gotta leave room for our ubermensch race, of course.

Quote:

Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

You cite penis-measuring idiots and you think I am doing a disservice?

Listen, if you wanted to have an actual conversation, you had your chance. But you simply ignored my gorilla example every time I presented it, finally admitting you weren't paying attention. And now you quote your heroes, also busy ignoring it. You assert that these brilliant fellows have considered every angle, even while you admit they are wholly ignorant of basic biological research.

And in the beginning, you pretended you weren't a racist, that you did not endorse the racist claim that White people are genetically superior to Black people. Yet every fact you cite, every conclusion you endorse, leads back to this. Why did you feel the need to hide your racism? Why do you think your being dishonest about your position is not a disservice to rational inquiry?

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area

How about the fact that male gorillas can delay the onset of puberty (and the consequent doubling of their weight) for up to nine years based solely on social cues?

Do you think that fact has any bearing whatsoever on how social cues could affect human development?

Would you like to explain how you know that such biological effects do not occur in human beings? As I recall, your previous response was to simply dismiss it as ludicrous, out of hand.

Do you think this qualifies as:

Quote:

(accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong)

[bpesta22]

Again Yahzi, how about reading the article. The across country research they talk about is on people who speak whatever language the country speaks, and the test was developed by people in the same culture as the test taker.

Calling a sample size of 1000 small just illustrates you are wholly ignorant of anything relevant to this area.

[bpesta22]

And calling cranial capacity comparisons as they relate to IQ prhrenology is yet another yahzi strawman. Should I cite the recent meta-analysis on brain size and IQ?

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

From R&J:

Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in ****Japan and Hong Kong,**** White children in Britain and Ireland, and Black children in South Africa (summarized by Lynn & Vanhannen, 2002, pp. 66–67). The Progressive Matrices were given as a
nonverbal test of intelligence, along with the simple, choice, and odd-man-out
tasks.

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984).

*Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 yearsof age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition...

..141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age

...A study by...examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium.

*Not just in the United States but around the world, East Asians and Blacks fall at the two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate, not only on mean cognitive test scores and brain size measures but also on 60 life-history variables
that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

*Moreover, the three-way pattern of mean Black–White–East Asian group differences occurs worldwide on culture-fair reaction time measures, which all children can do in less than 1 s

*Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points
higher than their adoptive national norms.

*************

The studies on black IQ (versus asian) are much more common. Look through the reference section of the article to see how many of these studies were done globally-- in africa-- versus just for races within the USA.


For those still interested, here is how they define race:

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although
he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximumlikelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.

Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

Fascinating. Where do Latinos fit into this? Indians from India? Middle Easterners?

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

And calling cranial capacity comparisons as they relate to IQ prhrenology is yet another yahzi strawman. Should I cite the recent meta-analysis on brain size and IQ?

does it conclude that both H sap sapiens (100,000-c.30,000 years ago) and H neanderthals (c. cultural explosion) had a higher IQ than modern day H sap sapiens?