I’m totally a racist if Marley doesn’t like me. Which she doesn’t. So I’m a racist. I’m also a nazi and woman abuser. Because Marley.
I only needed to “check out” the first one, thanks. Take your IQ & The Wealth of Nations-citing “research” and fuck off, you racist fuck.
Ethiopia is what, now? Did you do a paper bag test or something?
The Suryanarayana et al document does no such thing. There are no references in that entire paper to IQ, Intelligence or SAS scores.
“If you’re friends with a bunch of racists, that’s a warning sign”
It’s also exactly what we would expect if societal and cultural factors were the cause.
You still haven’t shown that this is the case, nor have you shown that it is any different for white immigrants.
It doesn’t matter if they’re scientifically-valid groups, it matters that they were historic groupings.
No-one’s arguing there’s no such thing as social races, which is what were historically disadvantaged. Here, for instance, Affirmative Action is specifically targeted at Historically Disadvantaged Individuals (HDIs) - this includes Blacks, Coloureds, Asians and women & disabled people regardless of race. But “Blacks” includes Filipinos, and “Coloured” includes Chinese and Koreans and Native Americans - so much for any relation to scientific groupings.
And no-one’s arguing that there aren’t ethnicities, period. “Ethnicity” isn’t a genetic grouping.
Why?
Specifically, if the racial gap is entirely due to ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ factors, why would you expect the importance of those factors to increase with age? When, with most other traits, we see quite the opposite (i.e. heritability increases with age).
They’re certainly pre-selected for education, I assume you’re not going to deny that. Compare the educational background of a typical Indian immigrant, to the educational achievement of average people in India. Same goes for Nigerians and most other African immigrants, their educational background is much higher than most of their compatriots. If education is related at all to IQ, then you’d expect highly educated Indian or Nigerian immigrants to be unrepresentative of their groups.
As an analogy, if you wanted to know what Tamil IQ is like, you wouldn’t try to look at some Tamil professors at your nearest state university, you’d do better giving an IQ test to, say, the tea-plantation labourers in Sri Lanka, since they were brought over by the British as a labour force and presumably weren’t selected either positively or negatively for IQ.
The papers I’ve seen estimate the West Eurasian component in the Ethiopian gene pool to be about 40%. Were you seriously unaware of that?
Because very young children have much less contact with culture and society at large than school-age children. If the factors don’t begin to be involved until the kid goes to school, then we wouldn’t expect to see a gap until the kids go to school, for example, and might get larger and larger as the individual is more involved in society outside the home.
They’re not “opposites” in this sense – they could both be involved.
Even if this is true, how is this different than for white immigrants?
And if you wanted to know what Irish IQ is like, you wouldn’t try to look at Irish professors at your local American university – you’d give tests in Ireland, right?
So why is it different for white immigrants?
Sorry, I mis-stated the citation (the Suryanarayana document is cited in the paper I wanted to refer to). It’s this paper here, where they look at PISA scores from two of India’s most advanced states, and they’re awful.
Since you seem to have trouble believeing the Ethiopian thing, here’s a blog post with links to a bunch of papers.
I would tend to agree that a poll to which 18% of researchers responded in not a representative sample. But the key question here is how absolute of a position it is that you’re defending.
The significant thing about that poll is that 83% of those who responded thought there was some genetic element. So even if the poll was completely skewed to the maximum extent - meaning even if one were to assume that every single expert who did not respond thought there was 0% genetic basis (an extremely unlikely skew, even for an 18% response rate), that still means that 15% thought it was to some extent genetic.
That does not suggest that the evidence for a genetic disparity is as non-existent as you keep insisting it is.
[It’s worth noting at this point that perhaps the biggest nitwit arguing in these threads used to constantly go on about how he had papers attributed to him on PubMed - assuming that’s true that’s a pretty good indicator that you can be a complete idiot and get your name attached to some published papers. That said, I would have to think a survey of people who have “had recent intelligence-related publications in Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Biological Psychology, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Journal of School-Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology” is worth something against amateurs who claim on message boards that they’ve read a lot about the topic.]
I’m not arguing aginst the idea of suspicions, feelings, etc. about the subject. I’m arguing against the positive assertion that black people have inferior genes for intelligence. I’m arguing that there is no data that suggests that black people having inferior genes for intelligence is the best explanation for various test score disparities. Even looking at that poll, based on the percentages, most of the respondents would disagree with the assertion that black people having inferior genes for intelligence is the best explanation for various test score disparities.
It suggests nothing about the evidence that black people have inferior genes for intelligence.
To be clear, you’re saying that those experts are just bigots who are making assessments that are not based on any evidence or expertise?
You’re saying “best explanation” as if it means “sole explanation”. Otherwise your statement is completely false.
Are you seriously unaware of the concept of something having two components?
It’s not an either/or.
I have no idea if they’re bigots.
You’ll have to prove this to me.
Of course not. Right now, there’s no data that suggests that the best explanation for various test score disparities is inferior genes for intelligence among black people. We still cannot entirely explain the cause of test score disparities, and I think it’s very possible that multiple factors are involved.
So what explanation are you offering for all these experts assuming something that has zero evidence for it?
Huh? OK, let’s try this.
[ol]
[li]17% of experts say “0% of differences due to genes”[/li][li]100% - 17% = 83%[/li][li]Therefore, 83% of experts say <>“0% of difference due to genes”[/li][li]<0% of difference is not one of the options.[/li][li]Therefore 83% of experts say >“0% of difference due to genes”[/li][/ol]
Need anything else, just let me know.
Incidentally, MrDibble the fact that Ethiopians have a lot of West Eurasian genetics and low IQ scores is evidence against Chief Pedant’s claim, not for it.
I don’t know. Why do I have to explain it?
This doesn’t follow for “best explanation” at all, from what I can tell.
From looking at the numbers in the link, it seems like only 39% of the respondents would agree that genes are the “best explanation” (>50% of the cause). The other ~60% chose some number <= 50%, which means that they would disagree that genes are the “best explanation”.
The question was different than the one I would ask, so we have to make suppositions translating these percentages to the assertion I am attempting to refute. I would ask respondents this: “Are inferior genes for intelligence in black people, on average, the best explanation for the ‘test score gap’?”
I don’t think you’d actually hit a woman for fear of getting your ass kicked. You just talk shit about them on the internet. (Also, I’m a guy, but being wrong about everything is kind of your deal, so why quit now?)