MrDimbulbs, I’m retired into a consulting capacity in business. My resume speaks for itself but is irrelevant to the discussion here. It includes a distinguished multi-decade career in clinical medicine as well as competency demonstration on formal exams in the top 1 or 2 percentile for the medical specialties for which I am certified; most recently last year. My clinical career does not include a single blemish and I continue to be widely respected for clinical acumen. Does that help? I don’t see why it would, since ideas here should rise and fall on their own merits.
Of all the various datasets and cites I’ve posted here, you apparently take a single chart–a passing reference to IQ and the Wealth of Nations-- and paint a picture that all of the data I present is tainted somehow.
Here’s the thing: if those who think IQ has been mis-measured want to disprove a notion that IQs vary by population, all they need to do is establish an alternate proxy for intelligence and use that. Why bother attacking IQ as a marker? Find an alternate proxy and show that there are no differences.
The dilemma, of course, is that there are differences, demonstrated repeatedly using any number of markers, and found in a consistent pattern throughout the world. Some populations are good at one thing; some at another. And evolution has that effect, doesn’t it? Sub-saharan Africans and non-Africans are clearly two allopatric groups, historically. If you want to demonstrate that allopatry has not had any genetic drift creating functional differences, why that’s just fine: demonstrate it.
Attacking me for using a single reference point you don’t like is…stupid, especially since your specific complaint is apparently around its funding (of which I was not aware) and not its science. And calling me a “racist” is utterly devoid of any counter-evidence at all. You see, it’s not a question of whether or not someone is a “racist.” It’s a question of whether or not there is any data to support their position. Work on understanding that and try to get away from this idea that if someone meets your definition of a racist, their position is therefore unsupportable by science.
So…in summary, Cheezits are causing the underperformance of high-income blacks on standardized testing in the US? The under-$10k/yr white cohort against which they are underperforming is eating what…organically-certified whole grains and raw milk?
I guess that is the worst effort I’ve seen at presenting an alternate hypothesis.
Congratulations on humiliating the opposition with the most vapid reasoning to date.
I said " I think, and this is my personal opinion, that you are kidding yourself into thinking that your opinions about race are derived from the data (and supported by it) and not the other way around. "
You’re the one who concluded that this meant you were a racist. All it means is that I think your assumptions may be driving things. You say, ‘no’, I say, ‘fine’. I don’t think I’ve used the term ‘racist’ at all until now.
Let’s try translating this into a different idiom:
I think, and this is my personal opinion, that you are kidding yourself into thinking that your opinions about recycling are derived from the data (and supported by it) and not the other way around.
I think, and this is my personal opinion, that you are kidding yourself into thinking that your opinions about earthworm mating behaviours are derived from the data (and supported by it) and not the other way around.
I think, and this is my personal opinion, that you are kidding yourself into thinking that your opinions about going barefoot in the summer are derived from the data (and supported by it) and not the other way around.
Not exactly inflammatory to me, but hey, YMMV. As I recall, you said similar things about assumptions underlying liberal beliefs.
I was not, and am not trying to get up in your face, but apparently I’m succeeding. All I’ve ever been trying to do is point out what I believe to be a methodological problem.
Oh, wait, I did say I’d have a beer with you in Pretoria in the '50s. That was a joke - there’s this board joke about a trench and a submersible. Sorry if it hurt your feelings.
The performance gap for both standardized tests and socioeconomic success for sub-saharan blacks emigrating anywhere else in the world, and all Eurasian groups emigrating to sub-saharan Africa does, in fact, exist.
Data can be parsed many ways, but the existence of the gap is immutable, to the best of my knowledge, and always the same general pattern.
As an example, here is some data from the UK, by ethnic groups, using cohorts with English as a first language and free school meals (so we’re taking groups in the same general–and lower–class status). Download the first Excel (SFR38-2007 Tables) and focus on students achieving level 3:
This particular dataset is not all comers. It doesn’t included higher-income groups (I don’t think) or dropouts, etc etc. But what is remarkable and consistent is a general pattern of East Asians on top and Africans on the bottom, and mixed genes somewhere in between. This is the sort of general pattern we find across the world.
That’s what immutable. That’s the general pattern that never changes, despite individual variations in numbers. It’s not like you can go to Brazil, say, and see a different pattern.
:rolleyes: If this is the best insulting the “high-cognitive function” volk can do…
I’ve heard better insulting from illiterate Bushmen.
Look, I don’t need any further evidence that testing has nothing to do with intelligence, but thanks, all the same. So you were a quack. And clearly the senility is setting in, old man, better hang on to that high-cognitive function while you can…oh, wait, too late.
You must have this mistaken for GD. Here, I’m not discussing the merits of your ideas, as worthless as those are. I’m just rejoicing in the ability to call you what you really are - a racist troll.
Yeah, you’ve only referenced the book once :rolleyes: And yes, all your data is tainted. Or are you now prepared to disavow all the massaged “data” in IQatWoN?
You posted the fucking graph, now suddenly it’s just “a single chart?” Like hell, it’s the entire research program of Lynn et al, as well as all the shit that cites it.
Been done, troll. I’ve given plenty of cites in GD.
I am not going to wade through the shit here. But let me make this observation.
There are two kinds of standard deviations (at least when one is not being extremely precise in ones language). One is a measure of the ACTUAL variation in what you are measuring for large population. The other is possible ERROR (or uncertainty) in what the actual value you are trying to measure IS.
Lets say one population has a mean IQ of 100, with a standard deviation (of THAT population) of 15. That means that a majority will have an IQ of between 85 and 115 and a large fraction of the population will be between 70 and 130 and so on and so on.
Now lets say another population has a mean IQ of 90. So the ranges become 75 to 105, 60 to 120 and so on.
That DOES NOT mean you can go “but wait, the standard deviation of the first population is 15points centered around 100 and 90 is WITHIN THAT so that means the difference between the two populations is NOT significant”. That is just statistically and logically wrong wrong wrong.
I am unable to sort out from this exactly why “Lynn, his book and his backers” are trash.
In general, in looking over your cites, I see two themes:
A criticism of funding which seeks to elucidate genetic differences among races.
A criticism that groups which do such research either associate directly with various hate groups or else provide them “scientific” fodder.
Let’s take those two points as a given. Neither of them have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not genetic differences among groups accounts for the disproportionate success we see among racial groups in the world.
The fact that you and society are uncomfortable with the research does not make the premise, a priori, wrong.
I am reminded of religious fanatics, also determined to protect their faith-based principles which they consider absolutely vital to society, who see themselves at war with any research which would undermine their faith-based beliefs.
It is faith, and faith only, that supports a position that all human groups are genetically equivalent in potential. No one has ever shown this.
It may well be true that showing a genetic difference in potential among what we consider race-based grouping is bad for society. But it’s a lazy attitude to simply color any such research as “trash” because we don’t want to know the outcome or because we are afraid the data will be used by nitwits. I’m not worried about the hate groups. From what I’ve seen they represent the lowest intellectual tier of humanity.
I believe that to be incorrect.
Can you post a cite for me to review?
There are a number of other spreadsheets listed in the link I gave you, and of course there are other markers, so I’m open to taking a look at them.
Don’t be defensive. It’s a condition of humans to identify with one’s own group, and categories such as “race” aren’t any different from all the other categories we use.
You know from your own experience in South Africa how fractured the “black” community is even toward other blacks. The idea that only whites are “racist” is one of the many bits of nonsense in this whole discussion. Think Hutu-Tutsi, but pick any other two groups.
We’ve all got this (genetically-based ) bug up our butt that we’re superior to the next tier over. It’s an atavistic heritage from helping the Clan survive to reproduce. The only way to get rid of it is to:
Recognize there are genetic differences among us*, and
Reach a conclusion that, since one does not choose one’s genes, there’s no intrinsic merit in being born within a particular gene pool. We are all the Family of Man. One Family. And,
We need to all learn to find ways to create an egalitarian society with equal opportunity for all and a helping hand for the underserved, regardless of whether they are underserved because of opportunity or birth circumstance.
*If we don’t start there, we’ll be wondering why the NBA is so “closed” to Asians (hi, you with the face! ) and get bitter for the wrong reason.
You read that entirely the wrong way round, then. Not that I’d expect better from you, but come on…
) bug up our butt that we’re superior to the next tier over. It’s an atavistic heritage from helping the Clan survive to reproduce. The only way to get rid of it is to: