The OP had lots of words and I didn’t understand all of them. Restating the OP in words that I understand:
Suppose it’s true that asians, on average, are much smarter than whites and whites, on average, are much smarter than blacks, which should public policy be with respect the the various groups?
Assuming, I restated it correctly…
…there should be no public policy based on racial identity because the differences between individuals dwarfs the differences between groups.
Q. If you are choosing a sprinter, should you choose the black sprinter or the white sprinter?
A. You should choose whichever runs the fastest.
The whole issue of defining race groups gums everything up. And it seems the major current insistence upon it is promulgated by underrepresented minorities, at least in the US. Perhaps I am wrong here, but it seems to me much of society would like to get rid of the notion of race. I certainly would. I don’t think most thinking people give a patoot what your “race” is.
The dilemma is that, since people do identify with their “race” as a group, they look around and see inequitable distribution of races in society. And if one’s premise is that all racial groups are inherently equal, than any maldistribution must necessarily be due to societal unfairness. That perception of unfairness–even if it’s wrong and built on an incorrect premise–has huge consequences.
And so we have this standoff: One side takes the position that society is at fault. The other takes the position than groups are differently enabled.
If I do not know in advance which sprinter is faster, please place my bet on the black one…I will win this bet, on average. And if I win, it is not because the black sprinters, on average, had better training or better coaches or better opportunity.
I think one of the OPs (unstated) points is that many govt policy programs take a shotgun approach instead of evaluating each individual.
Affirmative action, for example is a based on race. A single ultimate decision (at college admissions, or job applicant) may be based on an individual but the premise of the program begins with a racial group identification.
If one already takes a shotgun approach to “helping” minorities, how would/should that same shotgun approach change in response to everyone agreeing that IQ is genetically determined?
But there are objective tests available for measuring intelligence. You can record a person’s ability to recall a series of numbers. Or identify which object in a group is different from the others. Or assemble a small block puzzle. There are tons of tests for measuring someone’s raw intellectual horsepower.
Success, however, is not always about having the biggest brain. There is a point where once you have a minimum level of intelligence, then that is effectively “smart enough”. The factors that make one engineer or accountant or lawyer more successful than another are more complex than one having an IQ of 120 vs 190.
A far more influential factor on success is the environment a person was raised in. Compare and contrast a white kid like me growing up in an affluent suburb vs an equally intelligent black kid growing in a poor urban neighborhood.
Me (white dude)
I was raised by two highly educated working professional parents.
My family always placed a high value on education.
I had the time and availability to pursue interests in art, science, athletics.
My family can afford to keep up with the latest fashions and maintain proper hygene
My high school had a number of AutoCAD workstations which I had access to that helped cultivate my interest in architecture and engineering.
My family was financially well off enough that going to a top college was never an issue of money.
My interaction with authority figures - teachers, police, etc. - is such that I expect they are there to support me so long as I follow the rules. i.e. I do my homework and they provide me feedback; I have a problem, I call the police
The people in my life are other working professionals, their parents or their children
Attitude of “entitlement” - I expect that with hard work, I will be successful
In short, by the time I have graduated college at 22, I have had the opportunity to amass the various social, academic and professional skills I will need to be successful in life. I understand how “the system” works because I have spent my life around people the system works for. I have had access to the resources that lets me build the skills and experiences I will need. I have the support of friends and family and teachers who recognize my abilities and provide the assistance I need.
Now by comparison:
Poor Black Dude
Possibly raised by a single working mother
Value on education may be incidental
Plenty of time, but lack of availability of extra-cirricular activities other than sports requiring low start-up costs (basketball)
Outdated thrift-store clothing creates self-consciousness by immediately identifying you as “low-income”
School has lack of resources and is a poor educational environment
College may be unaffordable
Interaction with authority figures - teachers, police, etc. - is often adversarial or antagonistic, leading to distrust.
Significant number of people in this person’s life may be unemployables, drug dealers/users, criminals, violent or other negative influences
Attitude of “resentment” or “frustration” due to an inability to navigate the system successfully
This same person, by the same age of 22 may be just as intelligent as me, however, they have not had access to the same resources or opportunities to discover their talents. They don’t have anyone in their lives who can provide them with support, even if they wanted to. They may be lacking the social skills they need. Think of the Screaming Black Woman or Angry Black Man stereotypes. Those learned behaviors may have been effective in an environment where being loud and agressive worked as a defense mechanism, but they don’t work in Corporate America. Not that they may have even gotten far enough to be in consideration since they didn’t have parents helping them with their 5th grade math homework.
There are plenty of studies that suggest that blacks have lower IQ than whites. The only reason any of this even matters is because there is a history of slavery and segregation in this country.
You could divide the world along almost any lines and find that one group is smarter or stronger or faster than the other group and noone would blink an eye to try to narrow the gap. If I told you that Republicans scored one standard deviation below Democrats on standardized tests, noone would stay up nights trying to figure out how we could even the results. But when you insert race in a society that has conspired to impoverish, disenfranchise and illiterate minorities, THEN you have a different story.
There are several studies that control for everything from nutrition to home environment. It turns out that IQ is heritable and while genetics are not the only factor in determining IQ, it is a significant factor. I don’t thin any serious scientist disputes that.
Perhaps you can explain to her that the ripples of racism still have a huge impact on how wealth and education have been (and continues to be) distributed in this country. Then you can explain to her that she is suffering from reverse discrimination (a side effect of trying to address racism) rather than direct discrimination which blacks suffered for about 400 years before we STARTED addressing the problem 40 years ago.
Intelligence Quotient tests do not assay such aspects as a person’s ability to interpret mood; appreciation for the arts; the faculty of subtlety, respect, loyalty; their open-mindedness or lack thereof; their level of xenophobia; their concern for human life; their respect for their own health, bodies, themselves in general… That is to say, elements that dictate how ‘smart’ a person really is in the societal construct we live in.
Mathematical problem solving or spacial ability (for example) are not true indicators of intelligence in our world today. I mean, since when does being a pedant geek with an aptitude for numbers equate to a person who is happy? It doesn’t. In fact, if anything, it could be argued that it’s inversely proportional to thus! Find a happy person (…if you can!) and a bookworm, speak to them both. See which is more ‘intelligent’.
This is why these rote tests stand for little more than an arbitrary numerical value insecure poindexters can wave in your face in a feeble attempt to prop up their frail egos.
NB: I could quote the last IQ score I myself ‘achieved’ to buttress my point. (And believe you-me, despite the number, I ain’t no Einstein!) But then I’d be no better than those/the system I’m effectively decrying here. So I won’t!
Don’t shoot the messenger bub. I just cut 'n paste 'em. Blame the Internets!
(*Surely they can estimate these kinds of things based on the guy’s legacy/body of work. It’s not like IQ test themselves are accurate anyway, so… :rolleyes:)
…Are muscle heads who were smart enough to parlay their ‘intelligence’ in a field that yields some monetary reward for a modicum of work. I’ll give 'em that.
Aside from that however (notwithstanding your eliding of Arnie’s well-known steroid use and over-exaggeration of the complexity involved in sculpting a body that is genetically predisposed to hypertrophy), you’re missing the point! :rolleyes:
“Rote” means memorization without the reasoning behind it. I’m trying to clarify that IQ tests do not measure rote memorization.
Many standardized tests administered to public school students have rote memorization (e.g. what year did Civil War start.). The USA citizenship exam is also a test of rote memorization (e.g. how many states are there in USA). IQ tests have many flaws but they DO NOT test rote memorization.
Mathematical problem solving or spacial ability IS NOT rote memorization. Don’t muddy up the conversation by using incorrect terminology.
Maybe your hangup are the words “smart” and “intelligence”. That’s fine… let’s use another word… a totally made up word with no baggage… such as “zypdaq.” Zypdaq is a measure of mathematical problem solving, spacial ability, and pattern analysis. The economy that society has constructed today finds “zypdaq” a highly valuable attribute in a humans.
Most of this sounds like something someone with a low IQ would say.
Really the answer is “so what”. IQ is just a way of measuring intellectual aptitude and potential. It is no guarantee that a person will have ambition or an appreciation of the arts or emotional intelligence. And you would find it difficult to convince me that intelligence is inversely proportional to happiness.
You have basically redefined “intelligence” to equate to an unhappy, socially maladjusted nerd. Don’t presume because someone acts vapid or inarticulate or are a musclehead or generally don’t fall into your stereotype that they don’t possess a high IQ.
As I pointed out before, a high IQ only matters if a person is given the support and encouragement they need to pursue intellectual interests. You can have an IQ of 190, but if you grow up in a family that doesn’t value education, you are constantly told your lot in life is to grow up and be a coal miner or mill worker or unemployable crackhead like your dad who is in jail, chances are that high IQ won’t be of any use.
But: the discovery of this genetic lack wouldn’t make a single person any dumber than they are right now. So if you can’t justify putting any group into work camps or special schools based on the data you have on hand now, you have no business doing it based on genetics.
I don’t dispute that your bet is likely to pay off - but why do you need to make the bet? In what circumstances are you likely to choose a sprinter without knowing how fast they can run.
In what circumstances does society need to make a bet on a race-based grouping?
Contra many of the posters here, I believe that there’s a well established scientific consensus that
[ol]
[li]There is such a thing as general intelligence[/li][li]It is measurable quite early and remains stable for a whole lifetime[/li][li]It is a good predictor (better than race, class or social circumstance) of success in life[/li][li]It is largely heritable (between 40 and 60%)[/li][/ol]
Assuming that the first three points are true, we could craft an entirely color-blind public policy that is based on individual intelligence rather than racial identity.
Note that I am not claiming that general intelligence is the only predictor of success. Nor am I defending the status quo of racial quotas or affirmative action. Nor am I claiming that environment does not matter.
In that case, kewlaw, you should be first in the fight against the idea that if a test shows group differences in intelligence, it is racist and should be ignored. Likewise, you should be against quotas and affirmative action, which are efforts to “handicap” individual intellignece on a racial basis.
I mean, that’s the only real-world policy implication of the points you listed; can you think of any others?
[ul]
[li]School selection based on IQ rather than the price of your house?[/li][li]Affirmative action based on SES rather than colour of your skin?[/li][li]More opportunities for bright kids to excel independent of their parent’s bank balance.[/li][/ul]
It doesn’t matter what IQ measures or whether it’s a useful measurement of anything. You may draw your own conclusion about whether or not you want your airline pilot or nurse to be someone who scores 130 or 80…
If there is a group average difference in IQ when nurture is controlled for, that’s pretty good evidence that nature–genes–must be the cause of the difference. And that, really, is the crux of the problem at hand: various race groups score differently even when nurture is controlled for. Children of wealthy blacks underperform children of poor whites on SATs, for example.
We have to find a way to get to a perception that society is fair. As long as we insist on categorizing humans by races, we are going to see different performance characteristics because different races have differing expressions of genes that govern performance.
We either have to develop a different perception of what is fair–for instance, measuring representation according to opportunity–or a different perception of what groups should be measured. Since races are differently enabled, as long as we insist on measuring equality by representation of races, we’ll need to set aside a portion of jobs according to race.
Absolutely. The problem is that, since we have this atavistic tendency to identify with groups, where there are average differences between groups we have to accept there will be different group outcomes. If we insist on identifying blacks as a group, or males as a group, we have to accept that both will be over-represented in the NBA because–as a group–they are better enabled for that skillset.
If we can manage to simply measure individuals and accept that we are individuals, the whole issue goes away.
The OP serves as a nice example of how difficult it is to make self-identification with a group go away. Self-identification with a group creates a problem where none needs to exist. The need to measure groups is generated only by the complaint that a given group has an unequal outcome. If there is an implicit charge within that complaint that the unequal outcome must necessarily be the result of unequal opportunity, then the only defense is to measure group average ability to see if the unequal outcome is the result of ability and not unfairness.
This is impossible and goes against the very nature of how we as humans function.
6 billion humans == 6 billion individual measurements? Nobody’s brain works that way.
Instead of 6 billion humans, we simplify to 200 nationalities (200 countries).
Instead of 6 billion people, we simplify to 2 genders (male and female).
Instead of 6 billion citizens, we simplify to Republicans vs Democrats.
We also simplify to ethnicities and race. Sounds evil but that’s how our brains are hardwired to make sense of this world. We’ll even go further and try to cross-reference race to different attributes… IQ being one of them. We seek patterns in the data.
Our brains have an overpowering need to classify, categorize everything… including people.
On a related note, we also complain about “stereotyping” as a dirty word but the unfortunate fact is it’s our mechanism to simplify our interactions and expectations of people. We assume the waitress at the diner cannot do physics. We assume the electronics engineer can’t dunk a basketball. We couldn’t function in this world on a daily basis if we had zero assumptions about everyone.
I do in fact know the strict definition of the word. But thanks for the link anyway. :rolleyes:
I have no “hang ups”, believe me! But lets use another word, shall we? How about… linearity? By ‘rote’ I imply linearity. And by linearity I mean the nature of standardized testing in question. Testing that does not encompass the ‘organic’ aspects of the human intellectual make up.
Humans are organic creatures, not automatons… despite the robotic nature of educational systems. An aptitude for linear systems demonstrates only ‘robotic intelligence’ – a kind of intelligence that can be wrought. Creativity, ambition, sympathy, dignity (for example) - faculties that can neither be trained as such or be assessed through a mere written test - are what dictate true human intelligence. Even a ‘Mirco Bee’ computer can process exponentially more than any human can as long as the right instructions are punched into it. Does this make it intelligent also?
The fact that you are seemingly hung up on the dictionary definition of a word indicates that you yourself are looking at this issue in a linear, or, dare I say, ‘rote’ fashion!
Nope. My IQ, for what it’s worth, is well above average the last time I sat one of these shits n’ giggles tests. But like I stated, I’m not descending into a kaber toss-off about whose is ‘bigger’. -_-
Indeed. No arguments here.
Not intelligence per se. More enlightenment. I’m adamant that the more enlightened one becomes the more inclined to ‘brooding’ they are. (…as a direct result of this ‘enlightenment’)
I don’t. I never would. Not sure where you got the idea…
‘The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.’
Actually, a “high IQ” means nada if one isn’t ambitious, motivated and presented with at least some opportunity.