Meh, just useless puffery. And you are still cranky. In several meanings of the word.
Incoherent, and missing the fucking point as usual. CP fails again.
In the 26 pages of vitriol, has the question of Irish IQ studies been dealt with? Basically, multiple IQ studies have shown that Ireland’s IQ has climbed ~10 points or so since a 1972 study of ~3500 school kids placed their mean at 87. If IQ is measuring something genetic, how is it possible for a society to climb that much in one to one and a half generations? Doesn’t that suggest that IQ is measuring something conveyed by culture, rather than something conveyed by genes? Or perhaps there’s a way to distinguish the Irish situation from the rest of the race and intelligence data?
I don’t have a problem, per se, with the idea that the genetic components that convey greater intelligence are more closely associated in one racial group vs another. I don’t think it’s proven one way or the other. (Identifying the genes that convey “intelligence” would be a start. So would identifying the ones that distinguish Caucasoids from Negroids.)
All I’m saying is that, based on the Irish studies, I don’t think that you can prove genetic predisposition to intelligence with IQ tests, and that therefore what these tests are measuring has to do with culture, not race.
Please clarify – are you trying to prove you’re not a racist here?
Probably all of those black Irish blowing out the back of the curve…
Well put.
This is an example of how it’s sometimes a mistake to come into a 26 page thread without reading through it and post your bright ideas “hey, what about …?”
What you write is a simple logical error, which has been dealt with repeatedly. And your premise is something that neither side of this dispute agrees with (anti-racists in particular are worked up about people attributing this belief to them).
Remember when this thread was about warning signs? Maybe the title should be “Prove at great length that you’re a gigantic racist.”
No one is saying that IQ is controlled only by genes.
The average height of a Japanese 11 year old has increased by 5 1/2" over the last 50 years, but no reasonable person would conclude thereby that height is something conveyed entirely by culture.
Regards,
Shodan
I think his work here was done with his first post.
It further says:
Based on these statements, it appears that black students are succeeding when permitted.
To me, the obvious conclusion is not that blacks have inferior intellect to be admitted, but that the tests are, in some way, skewed to keep them out.
I do not propose a conspiracy of any sort. I simply note that the tests do not actually appear to be valid predictors of success in intellectual endeavors. (This would buttress my belief that the effort to identify g is utter rubbish, but I will not further hijack the thread pursuing that point.)
Could there be differences? Perhaps. However, there may be a rough analogy that the psychometricists are missing, (or choosing to ignore). When women first began applying to be firefighters, there was much hullabaloo made by those opposed that the standards were “lowered” to let the women compete. The most common example was the routine failure of the vast majority of women candidates to successfully move a body using the traditional “fireman’s carry” across the shoulders. However, when women, whose muscle mass tends to center at the hips rather than across shoulders, were permitted to drag bodies rather than throw them across their shoulders, they actually scored at the same rates as men–and the victims of fires are actually safer being dragged below the smoke than they were being carried four or five feet higher in the smoke.
I do not know exactly why test scores tend to vary among groups, but assertions that one group is genetically inferior that are based on the belief that test scores actually mean anything more than the ability to take a particular type of test seems strange.
Given the pages, and pages, and pages, of back and forth on whether or not the genes had been identified for intelligence I can see why Gray Ghost thought this was relevant to the conversation.
Please don’t make me go back and re-read. Surely it’s burned in your brain too. :eek: “But they is stupid” “but you can’t argue that because no one can find the genes!” “stupid” “no genes” “how do you classify race” “no genes”
And on, and on. my eyes are bleeding
Course, we’ve moved on. Some of us.
Some of us are still yapping about Texas and some poor kid whose parents sued UT.
I’m composing a Pit thread. My first. Unless someone beats me to it. 3 guesses as to topic. First 2 don’t count.
This is a pit thread.
And are you saying that the reason for this height increase is genetic? That Japanese people have different genes than they had two generations ago?
I think most people are going to reject the idea that there has been some massive mutation in Japan. Japanese children today have the same genes that Japanese children had fifty years ago.
The reason Japanese children today are taller is because they’re better nourished. In other words, this effect is caused by external social conditions not by genes.
And, hey, look where we’ve come back to - more evidence that social conditions explain disparities.
Ding, ding, ding. Look at the charts listing Japanese caloric intake from 1960 to the present, especially Chart 4.3. Their calories from fish and meat, as well as total calories, skyrocketed over that period.
There isn’t the same situation in Ireland. (On the contrary, I remember one of David Halberstam’s 1970s almanacs singling out Ireland for a large caloric intake relative to its neighbors) And yet there’s a 10 point IQ increase over 40 years or so, something which shouldn’t be able to happen if IQ tests were governed strictly, or even largely, by the genetic makeup of the tested population. Ireland did get a whole lot wealthier though, especially after 1990. See this article in the American Conservative for even more hilarious results. It looks like the IQ tests correlate with the GNP of the test population’s culture more than anything else.
Chief Pedant’s posts on the inability of American blacks to do well on the MCAT compared to whites or asians, whether or not the black students come from wealthy socioeconomic backgrounds, are going to have to be explained some other way. I particularly would like to know if the students s/he votes to admit, regardless of their inferior objective data, have inferior outcomes in medical school. If not, maybe the MCAT and/or GPA isn’t that meaningful in predicting who’d be a good doctor? (And perhaps we could do with a few more medical schools.)
Don’t be stupid. Gray Ghost’s argument was that any phenomenon which changed over a few generations had to be controlled entirely by culture. Height changed in the Japanese study, but height is not controlled entirely by culture - there is also a genetic component.
Do you need a cite that height has a genetic component? Here’s one. It states -
The different genetic background and their culture. Both contribute.
So different ethnic groups have differing genetic backgrounds as well as different cultures. Altering the culture can be done, but this does not prove that the genes play no part.
Regards,
Shodan
It seems pretty clear to me that his argument is that the change that happened so quickly must be due to cultural factors, not that the entire characteristic is ‘controlled’ by cultural factors.
So the quick change in Japanese height was entirely due to nutrition (and other cultural factors), not genetics, even if height itself has genetic factors. And the same goes for the rapid change in average IQ test scores in Ireland.
No, he didn’t say that. He said
He was arguing that the change in IQ demonstrated that IQ was something conveyed by culture rather than genetically. That isn’t a valid argument, since both IQ and height are both controlled by a combination of genetics and environment.
So the observed change in the Irish IQs does not demonstrate that IQ is measuring something conveyed by culture* rather than *something converyed by genes.
Do you really not know what “rather than” means?
Regards,
Shodan
Point taken.
My misreading of his point, I think, is actually a superior argument for demonstrating that a test-score gap need not be explained by genetics.
Just to be clear here, Shodan, are you suggesting that Japanese children in 2014 are genetically different from Japanese children in 1964?