How to prepare for the coming science of genetic racial variations, and a summary of the full case for the genetics of racial differences in intellige

[dystopian]

I have two stacks of books in my room. The left stack of books argues that the race gaps in intelligence scores are primarily environmental. The right stack of books argues that the race gaps in intelligence score are primarily genetic. Each rests on the same unified data set: in every test of mental abilities ever examined, there are race gaps.

Oh the irony of trying to make a point about race gaps by posting a broken image link.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That's cool, you don't need the image. It is an image uploaded from my personal files and supposedly embedded in the forum.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

People with Downs have a genetic differentiation. The lowered intelligence is well demonstrated and the physical causes are well demonstrated.

The differences among races is poorly demonstrated (if at all) both in actual practice and genetically. It makes me ponder, if intelligence varies by race so much, then why is it so hard to demonstrate it.

The race gap in intelligence scores between blacks and whites in the United States is perhaps the most heavily-studied phenomenon in the field of psychology. The reason you don't know much about it is because the topic is taboo among the public. If you heavily follow popular science news like I do and you have a science-based undergraduate and post-graduate education like I do, they will almost never mention it, but you will still get the impression that you have a well-informed scientific base of knowledge. You can know more science than 98% of everyone else and not know this.

I have two stacks of books in my room. The left stack of books argues that the race gaps in intelligence scores are primarily environmental. The right stack of books argues that the race gaps in intelligence score are primarily genetic. Each rests on the same unified data set: in every test of mental abilities ever examined, there are race gaps.

Herrnstein and Murray of Harvard wrote The Bell Curve, which stirred up a lot of public controversy in the mid-nineties, because it made the case that the race gap in intelligence scores was the main cause of the racial wealth gap. They got a lot of blowback from the public, who were largely unaware that the intelligence score race gap even existed, and the primary objections reflected the barest minimum comprehension of the science (i.e. IQ scores say nothing except how well you score on an IQ test). Since then, the science has remained largely taboo. Even those who defend the environmentalist explanation have to tread lightly for fear of public hatred. Many academics have challenged Herrnstein's and Murray's proposed causes, but none of them challenged the correlations and averages that they based their case on. It is now the same data you can download and analyze yourself.

So the study of racial intelligence is the Area 51 of psychology? THEY are keeping the truth from the public. a few brave souls are breaking the silence and telling the TRUTH.

So psychologists are spending more time studying race gaps in IQ scores than they are schizophrenia, depression, addiction, autism, phobias, manias, anxiety, etc.

As for having stacks of book, I had over three thousand comics book as a child, and they stacked pretty high. Didn't make Aquaman a real guy.

And the Bell Curve was shot down pretty much as soon as it hit the stands.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah, the stack of books does not prove that the race iq gap is genetic, only that the race iq gap is widely accepted among the academics. Pick any book in the left stack and I can show you a pic of a page that assumes the racial iq gap.

 

[dystopian]

Yeah, the stack of books does not prove that the race iq gap is genetic, only that the race iq gap is widely accepted among the academics. Pick any book I the left stack and I can show you a pic of a page that assumes the racial iq gap.

Do you understand the concept of selection bias?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah, the stack of books does not prove that the race iq gap is genetic, only that the race iq gap is widely accepted among the academics. Pick any book I the left stack and I can show you a pic of a page that assumes the racial iq gap.

Do you understand the concept of selection bias?

Yeah. Another thing about this topic is that you cannot possibly investigate it without coming across very many examples of selection bias. It is the rule of this field of study, not the exception.

 

[Trausti]

Tsunamis really aren't a weather phenomenon.

Neither is intelligence linked to race, but we still seem to be having a dialogue on it.

Eh, the racial intelligence gap seems to be constant no matter how you change the variables. I appreciate that some would prefer to says it's all environmental, but at this point there ought to be evidence to bear that out. Yet there isn't, is there? Many studies have demonstrated that intelligence is mostly heritable. So if there is a persistent racial intelligence gap, that difference is due to inheritance. I don't understand how, if one comprehends evolution and natural selection, that this could be controversial. Otherwise, one would need to take the position that, despite all the other human variation imprinted by natural selection, human intelligence has not changed in 100,000 years. That would be remarkable.

 

[dystopian]

Do you understand the concept of selection bias?

Yeah. Another thing about this topic is that you cannot possibly investigate it without coming across very many examples of selection bias. It is the rule of this field of study, not the exception.

*sputters madly*

"W-what!? Are you saying... are you saying my evidence is meaningless because of this...this 'selection bias'!?"

*starts frothing at the mouth*

"Well! E-everyone else is doing it! That makes it okay, even if I'm just saying everyone else is doing it without proving they are!"

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah. Another thing about this topic is that you cannot possibly investigate it without coming across very many examples of selection bias. It is the rule of this field of study, not the exception.

*sputters madly*

"W-what!? Are you saying... are you saying my evidence is meaningless because of this...this 'selection bias'!?"

*starts frothing at the mouth*

"Well! E-everyone else is doing it! That makes it okay, even if I'm just saying everyone else is doing it without proving they are!"

Don't worry. So long as you are fully aware of it, it is not so large of a problem (though it is always a problem).

 

[dystopian]

Don't worry. So long as you are fully aware of it, it is not so large of a problem (though it is always a problem).

Silly boy, that is misplaced confidence born from arrogance speaking.


"Look at all these texts I have proving my prejudices!"

"I don't know, aren't you worried about selection bias?"

"Of course not! Selection bias is only a large problem when you're aware of it."

"..."

"I am of course fully aware of the fact that this evidence of mine only appears impressive because of my own prejudices and the selection bias that follows from it!"

"..."

"Still skeptical are you? Well just take a look at all this evidence!"

"...you didn't understand the question, did you?"

 

[ApostateAbe]

I fully encourage wariness of selection bias, but there is also a fallacy at the other extreme: it may mean that absolutely no evidence counts for anything, because any and all of it can result from selection bias. Remember, the stack of books on the left as presented is NOT intended to prove that the race IQ gaps are genetic. Instead, it proves that everyone in academia accepts that the race-IQ gap EXISTS. The left stack of books are in the same political camp as you. They are anti-racists. They accept that the race IQ gaps exist, but they explain it in ways that you would prefer. I can give a pic of a page out of any one of those books on the left that assumes, asserts or concedes that the race IQ gaps exist. If this doesn't count as evidence for the given point, then absolutely nothing would. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So East Africans are smarter than whites.

Way to go Somalia.

 

[Uwe]

...It is an image uploaded from my personal files and supposedly embedded in the forum.

Abe, I cannot see the image of your books. There is only a broken-link icon. Possibly everyone else is also having this problem.
I would like to take you up on your offer of posting a page from one.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Richard E. Nisbett argues for the race IQ gaps being environmental, not genetic, and he wrote a book titled, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. It is a surprisingly well-argued book (a bunch of the books in the left stack are just plain awful). At the header of Chapter Six on page 93, he has a quote from Thomas Sowell 1994:

The taboo against discussing race and IQ has not left this an open question. On the contrary, it has had the perverse effect of freezing an existing majority of testing experts in favor of a belief that racial IQ differences are influenced by genetics. No belief can be refuted if it cannot be discussed.​

Plausibly, that really is the effect of the public taboo against the topic. Not only does it leave the public vastly uninformed or misinformed about it, but even those who argue in favor of environmentalist explanations for the race IQ gaps are liable to be the victims of the public's extreme hatred upon violation of the taboo.

 

[ApostateAbe]

...It is an image uploaded from my personal files and supposedly embedded in the forum.

Abe, I cannot see the image of your books. There is only a broken-link icon. Possibly everyone else is also having this problem.
I would like to take you up on your offer of posting a page from one.

My apologies. I will upload it externally and link it.

http://s2.postimg.org/mart2jso9/Two_stacks_of_books_about_race_and_intelligence.jpg

 

[ApostateAbe]

So East Africans are smarter than whites.

Way to go Somalia.

Some of them, yes. Most, no, according to the data compiled by Lynn (I can show you a map of his data if you like). What are you referring to or responding to, dare I ask?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The IQ test is almost worthless when measuring intelligence above iq 70. It was designed to asses retardation. That´s pretty much all it´s good for. So said it´s creator Binet, and so says all the people who have studied it as well. The urge to use the test to measure high intelligence is a political choice. Not a scientific one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

We have no way of measuring high intelligence. We can´t even define it.

We also haven´t really defined the difference between human races in a meaningful way. Skin colour is only one aspect of regional differences between humans. We´re still not quite sure how epigentics work.

There´s just way too many vague factors to make any kind of race/intelligence assessment meaningful.

- - - Updated - - -

So East Africans are smarter than whites.

Way to go Somalia.

Some of them, yes. Most, no, according to the data compiled by Lynn (I can show you a map of his data if you like). What are you referring to or responding to, dare I ask?

I read somewhere that ethnic Somalians in USA do have an above average prevalence of autism. I´m not sure if this is significant... or true. But there you have it.

edit: did a quick google. Somalians have autism in much greater ratios than Swedish kids as well.

 

[fromderinside]

Richard E. Nisbett argues for the race IQ gaps being environmental, not genetic, and he wrote a book titled, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. It is a surprisingly well-argued book (a bunch of the books in the left stack are just plain awful). At the header of Chapter Six on page 93, he has a quote from Thomas Sowell:

The taboo against discussing race and IQ has not left this an open question. On the contrary, it has had the perverse effect of freezing an existing majority of testing experts in favor of a belief that racial IQ differences are influenced by genetics. No belief can be refuted if it cannot be discussed.​

Plausibly, that really is the effect of the public taboo against the topic. Not only does it leave the public vastly uninformed or misinformed about it, but even those who argue in favor of environmentalist explanations for the race IQ gaps are liable to be the victims of the public's extreme hatred upon violation of the taboo.

Why would Sowell say that? It is known we aren't isolated enough to be actual candidates for race development by a long shot and the study of the genetics of intelligence hasn't even gotten past the array found in our capability for language which is somehow related to FOXP2.

The only way Sowell ethically or morally could say that is if he is suffering from blindness and selection bias disorder at the same time. I'm suspicious. Is he relying on intelligence testing among humans and phenotypology? If so. Explained.

Atta boy DrZoidberg​.

 

[dystopian]

I fully encourage wariness of selection bias, but there is also a fallacy at the other extreme: it may mean that absolutely no evidence counts for anything, because any and all of it can result from selection bias.

An argument that does nothing, however, to lend any credence to what you're saying.

Remember, the stack of books on the left as presented is NOT intended to prove that the race IQ gaps are genetic. Instead, it proves that everyone in academia accepts that the race-IQ gap EXISTS.

And so, predictably, you demonstrate you didn't understand my question after all.

Remember, the 'proof' that "everyone in academia accepts this race IQ gap exists"; is nothing more than a pile of books *you* have gathered. This, is the fallacy of selection bias.

"EVERYONE in the world loves pudding!"

"What? On what do you base this claim?"

"Look at all these photos of people enjoying pudding! How can you argue with that?!"

"But these are all YOUR photos!"

"What's your point? I'm totally being fair here. Look, here's the stack of photos of people enjoying chocolate pudding. And here's a stack of photos of people enjoying other kinds of pudding! See? Totally fair and balanced."

"...But you just selected for photos of people eating pudding! What of all the photos of people not eating pudding? And these photos don't even show that these people love pudding, just that they ate it at least once!"

The left stack of books are in the same political camp as you. They are anti-racists. They accept that the race IQ gaps exist, but they explain it in ways that you would prefer.

That's a pretty bold statement given that I have not stated my political camp.

It's also hopelessly one-dimensional. To you, there is only a binary division here. When you've already decided the answer to the question for yourself, you can divide the stack of books in 'for' and 'against', but you can not conceive or acknowledge the possibility that not only might the 'for' and 'against' books not be either of those things, but the very question itself might be wrong to begin with.

Put it simpler terms: when you've already decided that the sky is blue and that's that, you have no need to learn that the sky in fact doesn't have any color and that the 'blue' is in fact wavelengths being absorbed by atmospheric particles and then radiated outward.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The IQ test is almost worthless when measuring intelligence above iq 70. It was designed to asses retardation. That´s pretty much all it´s good for. So said it´s creator Binet, and so says all the people who have studied it as well. The urge to use the test to measure high intelligence is a political choice. Not a scientific one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

We have no way of measuring high intelligence. We can´t even define it.

We also haven´t really defined the difference between human races in a meaningful way. Skin colour is only one aspect of regional differences between humans. We´re still not quite sure how epigentics work.

There´s just way too many vague factors to make any kind of race/intelligence assessment meaningful.

Yes, Binet designed the first intelligence test to identify children liable to fall behind in school. Gould suggests that this should remain the ONLY use of the IQ test, but I suggest you be careful of the genetic fallacy (origins have central relevance to everything that came afterward). Intelligence score variations all along the spectrum show very relevant correlations. For examples, they have an 80% correlation to variations in educational attainment, 50% correlation to variations in economic earnings, 60% correlation to genetic variations, and 40% correlation to brain size variations. Remember, we are not even talking about races here. Whatever the causes of some or all of these correlations may be (genetic or environmental), they have (or ought to have) central relevance in our understanding of human society as a whole.

The article "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" provides a non-technical but widely-accepted and useful definition and description of intelligence:

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).