Don't beat around the bush. If some races are more intelligent than others, it means there's a hierarchy. Some races are smarter and some are dumber. What is the ladder? Who's at the top and who's at the bottom? What's the end game of this?
Maybe that is what Bronzeage meant to ask, but he asked about an unqualified "hierarchy," and he asked "Which races are more advanced..." again unqualified. There is a hierarchy of intelligence (or many hierarchies since it depends in part on how specifically races are clustered), but intelligence is not the only hierarchy. Far from it. There is also a hierarchy of muscular strength, a hierarchy of cardiovascular endurance, a hierarchy of alcoholism, a hierarchy of immunological resistance to each pathogen, a hierarchy of bodily height, a hierarchy of violent behavior, a hierarchy of sexual drive, a hierarchy of extroversion, and so on. When you ask about an unqualified "hierarchy" of races, I normally take it to mean a ranking of power that objectively should exist because of God or the design of nature or whatever. There is no such hierarchy from my perspective. If you take the hierarchy of intelligence to be such a thing, don't assume I know what you mean.
If all I know is American white and American black, then I can speak only of probabilities, not of absolutely certain differences, and there are many probabilistic differences. For example, as a white man, you are much more likely than a black man to have type 1 diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and celiac disease. You are 68% probable to have an IQ within the range of 100 plus or minus 15, whereas the American black man is 68% probable to have an IQ within the range of 85 plus or minus 15. You are only 5% likely to be lactose intolerant, but the black man is 70% so likely. Anything in particular you are curious about?
Pretty sure it's the color of your skin. I can pass for a Mexican or an Arab if I work outside during the summer- I've got a bit of swarthy Jew in me. Otherwise I just look.. I just look ugly.
Can you reiterate your question? I am not sure I understand it. I plainly do value the racial IQ data as an explanatory principle, but maybe you think I should more deeply integrate it into my morality and politics as though higher-IQ races are better races or whatever?
I see that as a reflection of a general social problem. The scientific evidence is not so important. The motivations of the people delivering the arguments--that's what needs to be questioned, investigated and analyzed. I see my motivation as an extension of the motivation I had when I defended the theory of evolution against creationists: I want to defend the better theories of science against ideological oppressions and delusions. But, here is the more important point: my motivations should not matter to you.
Very well. Psychoanalyze me. Speculate as needed. I must be a lying psychopath or something. Maybe I am trying to found a racist cult?
If you are going to directly break the forum rules, you may as well be generous about it and tell me something you know about my brain that I don't.
The authors who most heavily criticized Lynn et al's scores of black Africans were Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas, mostly on the basis that Lynn et al's selections of IQ tests were negatively biased. There seem to be some good points. They claimed that Lynn et al had no single explicit set of selection criteria, which may bias the averages in favor of Lynn et al's beliefs, and I think that point seems to stand. But, Wicherts et al's selection criteria seem intended to bias the results high. For example, in Wicherts et al's "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans," 2009, one selection criterion was given as:
When moderators break the rules enough to really tick me off, I would be using the private feedback forum, as I was instructed in the past. I am not completely ticked off yet.
Yes, I know.
