Of course not; I’m trying to stay on your level. Chief Pedant says he is not invested in the African inferiority idea - ‘it’s just what the evidence says’ - and yet he feels the need to interject it into discussions like the recent one. My meaning was obvious and I’m not going to play the nitpick game.
Interestingly, in the early days of IQ tests, they did in fact show Ashkenazi Jews as being less intelligent than whitey. (Following a general pattern of ‘demonstrating’ that people of stigmatized racial groups were dumber, as they did with Irish and Italians.)
I seem to recall reading some sort of quote – which I am paraphrasing from extremely fallible memory here – from one of the original advocates of IQ testing, that said something along the lines of “The Jews are known for their cleverness, but IQ testing reveals that it is no more than an animal cunning; they are less intelligent than the general population”. (I know that this is totally bastardizing whatever quote I read, and I apologize for that.)
At any rate, IQ testing nowadays reveals the contradictory fact that Ashkenazi Jews are in fact the smartest of human populations, rather than being stupider than whitey. Which hints at the distinct possibility (read: certainty) that IQ testing reflects factors related to a person’s exposure to education just as much as any (imagined) phenomenon of ‘innate intelligence’.
It’s more than your meaning that’s obvious, Marley. Maybe one day you’ll be ready to confront scientific research that don’t comport with your prejudices, but I won’t hold my breath.
By this definition I am a racist. What is the “science” you want to cite that SIRE groups are genetically equal?
Let’s take the group “Self Identified Race/Ethnicity” (SIRE) of “US resident black.”
I take it you somehow think it is not science to study this group’s performance versus the performance of SIRE group “asian” or “white” and notice that their performance differs for standardized quantitative exams. If you do accept that “science” (simple analysis of SAT scores, for example) one might then advance a further hypothesis that the difference is due to nurturing–perhaps income level of family, or educational achievement of parents. Unfortunately, those studies have been done, and as it turns out blacks still underscore other groups. Perhaps you’d like to take a tack that there is no genetic definition of a race. Fine, but irrelevant; the group of all tall people is genetically taller than the group of all short people regardless of whether or not you can genetically define them as a group along other criteria. And frankly, nobody really buys that “define a race genetically” strawman anyway. Where genes drive phenotypic differences we see broad average differences between SIRE races, whether it’s bone density or prevalence of HbS genes. So if genes drive differences, it’s pretty easy to prove there are prevalence differences for genes among SIRE groups.
It’s not possible to compress into a single post all the arguments for why SIRE group differences have scientific support for having genetic underpinning, but it’s pure ignorance to proclaim “there is no actual evidence for this.”
The world is not the way wishful egalitarians want it to be. Eskimos will never dominate the NBA, no matter what cultural shifts occur, until they intermarry with other groups to the extent that those superior genes gain prevalence within their current group. “Race” is a broad and amorphous category, with multiple individual sub-groups. That such is the case does not mean that gene prevalences cannot vary among SIRE groups. It can, and does. And we are our genes.
My own race is inferior in some aspects; superior in others; in the middle for most. There is excellent and constantly expanding science that will lay waste this hope some cling to that somehow SIRE groups all have equal potential. It helps politicians get votes. It is not the straight dope.
And again it doesn’t even make a dent. It’s in all the threads you say you’ve read, Rand Rover. People rebut this stuff scientifically all the time. The idea that people only object because it hurts their feelings is another one of your fictions about namby pamby liberals.
Yeah, I’m beginning to understand why you’d feel that there’s no point in arguing these issues here. It’s interesting that this “leftist” message-board is so friendly and open to outdated views like scientific racism.
Actually, I’m relating the total failure of scientific study to indicate that racial groups are unequal. You know, the fact that these studies never manage to defeat the null hypothesis. I’m sad that someone who has enough education to even begin to discuss this issue doesn’t have the basic acquaintance with the science to understand my point. You make me sad, Chief Pedant.
Oh dear. Further reading of your post mentions SAT testing. The prospect of even beginning to explain why SAT tests are not the equivalent of intelligence tests would require me to perform so much education in the basics of psychology that I can’t even begin to imagine doing it here. Suffice it to say, for readers, someone who would draw a connection between SAT tests and IQ tests is either lying or just straight up fucking stupid. I’m new here, I’m not sure which this beloved poster is.
And he goes on to point out obvious physical differences between different ethnic groups – thus, apparently, totally unfamiliar with the vast swath of literature that shows that preaching about cognitive differences is unjustifiable – no surprise that he fails to attach citations to ‘research’ indicating cognitive differences.
Congrats to the SDMB for being what may well be the internet’s premier source for scientific racism. I certainly am not aware of any other website that permits itself to be used as an avenue to the dissemination of this type of material.
Chief Pedant says (or meant to say) this:
The relevant thread is about where Africa would be without white “imperialism.”
The answer is that Africa would have remained severely underdeveloped because they would not have developed modern infrastructure on their own.
The reason they would not have developed on their own is because, as a group, they have less ability to do so than other populations.
There are innate differences among broad categories of human populations and the genes underpinning the skillset that is required for a modern industrialized society are less prevalent among sub-saharan black population.
This is an unpopular position. It is distasteful to parade it around in public. It is unfair that Mother Nature allowed this to happen. It is controversial to argue it.
It is, however, an opinion relevant to that debate, and it provides an explanation for the underperformance of blacks in Africa and everywhere else in, for example, STEM disciplines underlying modern infrastructure. I have stated elsewhere in other threads that perhaps it will be proved wrong. To date all the evidence I have found points to it being correct, including multiple studies documenting that equivalent nurturing does not eliminate SIRE group differential performance, in any culture anywhere.
Whether you admit it or not, your problem is that you don’t like this position and that is why it is so easy for you to find it distracting and irrelevant. Were it a position with which you agree, in the context of this thread you would simply advise a participant to learn how to ignore posts, or politely request the poster to bow out gracefully. Instead, you decide a relevant opinion should precipitate a warning.
At some point this sort of behaviour on the part of mods will prevent this board from being the Straight Dope. It will be the Politically Correct Dope where people can turn to for some sappy reassurance that their wishful egalitarianism is right on the money and supported by facts.
Why on Earth are we even arguing over IQ tests anyway? It’s well-known that they are flawed and incredibly culture-bound. I mean, seriously, The Bell Curve says that the average IQ of Africans is, what, 60? That’s low enough to warrant special schooling in the US. Do Bell Curve supporters seriously think that a continent full of people are mildly retarded? You also realize that the IQ tester people have to regularly retool the tests, right? Americans’ IQ scores have been increasing steadily over the years, so they have to keep resetting so that an IQ of 100 stays average. Do you really think the youngest generation is “smarter”? Or could it be that IQ tests a very specific type of intelligence, mainly what westerners consider “logical” thought (which is not logical to Africans, or Australians, or so on), which is on the rise due to increased use of computers? Seriously, I have a fairly high IQ, and I’m pretty sure I’d fail miserably at what an Aboriginal or a mButi tribesmember would consider a logical test.
I don’t know if anyone answered the question above, but, yes, forensic anthropologists are reasonably accurate at guessing race. However, it’s due to two things. First, they’re actually measuring geographic area of origin. It works just as well whether you think there are 3 races or 12 or some other number. No one denies that humans exhibit geographical variation, but the races just don’t adequately explain that variation. Secondly, they usually know a bit about the victim they’re identifying already. One example is of a victim found in… Iowa, I think? One of the possible races that popped up was for a South Sea Islander or something like that. Since that just is not likely, they went with “white”, as it was also high on the likelihood scale based on metrics. The AJPA did a special issue on race a year or two ago. If anyone would like the PDFs of those articles, let me know.
I’ll admit I might think that around election time.
Oh, you didn’t mean the US.
I think we agree that it is hard to have any discussion on race and intelligence. I find that I never get to enjoy reading or hearing a good debate on the topic because people can’t stick to the science. Emotion leaks all into everything, sometimes so subtly that the speaker doesn’t even realize they are coming from a place of emotion. When they speak of the science they begin to anthropomorphize it and when they state their position, they present the ‘facts’ with such a tiny slant that, again, I think they miss it. Even your quote above holds hints of emotion that I wish would stay out of these discussions.
When I was a teen, I was taught by the boys in my 'hood that the black man was God and the white man was the devil and the reason we have, as blacks, had so many trials and persecution in our history was because we were a peaceful people by nature and the white man was wicked.
I will never know if all the guys who taught me that believed it in their hearts or if they thought that teaching that was necessary to bring black kids enough self esteem to overcome the inferiority complex that can claim some black poor kids.
And I fear I will never hear the discussion on the topic that I long for, because it is always either dipped in emotion or drenched in it.
Actually yea. If it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, has a duck bill, duck parents, duck siblings, duck DNA, duck feathers and eats bread from kids at the park then you have to question a system where you ain’t allowed to call it a duck.
That’s not a very convincing argument as to why the quality of debate would be improved. My guess is that it would make you feel better to be able to call people out. But that’s not the same thing as improving the quality of debate.
We don’t allow personal insults in GD. If you can’t make a case against someone without calling them a racist, then you’re not a very good debater.
… did you notice that could be interpreted that you believe you are the equal of the achievents of those three countries? …
NO IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT SCIENCE SAYS THE IQ TESTS ARE GOD AND THAT IS WHAT THE SDMB BELIEVES. THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE VALUE OF IQ TESTS THE SDMB BELIEVES IN THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
I AM A DOPER I BELIEVE IN THIS PSEUDOSCIENCE.
(this portion of my message is in order to allow my ironic use of all caps.)
No, it is a narrative I have fashioned to explain those who don’t dismiss the studies after realizing they don’t make sense. I find the conclusion that I am inherently predisposed to be more intelligent than the average white person just as insulting as the conclusion that a black person is inherently predisposed to be less intelligent.
I seriously think that the reason IQ tests remain so popular is not because they are in any way, shape, or form useful, but because it makes supposedly smart people feel good about themselves. Bragging about your SAT scores is pathetic once you get into college. But MENSA membership lasts a lifetime! Actually, it has come in handy. People who think it matters tend to be really annoying to deal with.
Fuck, I should join Mensa. My standardized test scores were always WAY fucking higher than “the top 2% of the population” which is what I understand Mensa looks for.
If only I was a few points smarter, maybe I would be able to understand why black people are inherently inferior to me!
Of course, not. On the other hand, given the extreme “carelessness,” (to avoid regarding the authors as merely dishonest), employed in the composition of those works, there is really no reason to give either of them any credence.
On the other hand, if you actually read the book, you will discover that Lynn and Vanhanen:
- invented numbers for 104 of the 185 countries that they “compared”, typically “averaging” numbers from nearby countries, regardless how unreliable the numbers from those countries were;
- relied on tests of as few as 48 persons and often fewer than 150 persons (of widely varying ages and no provenance for education or class in their societies) for multiple countries;
- used tests that had been administered decades earlier and arbitrarily assigned them an additional 2 or 3 points per decade to “counterbalance” the Flynn effect on those scores even though there are nations that have displayed jumps in the Flynn effect that exceed 5 and 10 points per decade (and we have never found the cause of the Flynn effect, so assigning any number is futile);
- used, as equivalent, tests from different places that were based on different scales;
- and their own data has been found to have contained errors of fact.
When over half of their data is invented, when most of the data they did not happen to invent is based on too small sample sizes, when they compare unlike tests as if they were identical, when they arbitrarily apply their own fudge factor that has no corresponding value in the psychometric literature, and when there are errors of fact in their collated data, why should anyone accept any conclusion they publish?
Similarly with Murray and Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve:
- they compared unlike tests intended for different purposes and then pretended that both measured IQ on the same scale;
- they arbitrarily assigned values for data that they could not actually gather;
- and the statistical methods they employed have been criticized by mathematicians and statisticians as being sloppy and inappropriate.
These objections to The Bell Curve are not the initial emotional reactions that condemned it or praised it, depending on one’s political views, (although it is telling that they published the book without any peer review so that the immediate reaction could only be emotional), but from later studies by scholars who took the time to review the book and note its flaws.
Well, since the Flynn Effect has been brought up, who would like to join me in discussing how it makes discussion of IQ scores of people in other countries totally irrelevant?
Okay, no takers? Who wants to discuss the fact that the IQ scores by nation in that book that is being discussed were invented rather than measured?
No one? Well, no one so far, anyway. Literally no one has addressed the fact that the “scientific” studies mentioned by this douche are totally bogus.
Nice. Thanks for being so cooperative, dudes. Stormfront is not scientific enough, I’m very pleased to find a website where scientific racism is totally an acceptable topic of discussion.