What if some researcher claims to have shown that gay people go to hell? Huh? What then, MR. SCIENCE?
But if the researcher turned out to be correct, then they would not be bigoted to make that claim? What if a study showed that result, but it later turned out to be flawed? Do you understand why I think it is extremely problematic to make bigotry and therefore morality depend on empirical evidence in this way?
There’s plenty of evidence for the first. And the hypothetical is simply a claim that there is a difference, with no opinion as to cause.
So please, present some. Because from the evidence I’ve seen, what an IQ test is good at is telling you how good someone is at taking an IQ test.
You are asking me if, based on the results of the study, I’d treat women differently. I am telling you, that depends. Did you ACTUALLY prove that women are inherently less intelligent? Or did you prove that due to different priorities our culture places on encouraging different behaviors during childhood, men and women perform differently on a test that measures how good you are at test taking?
Seriously? What evidence have you looked at, the back of cereal packets? Feel-good self-help books?
https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219009367498
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608008000836
Are you next going to demand evidence that academic achievement correlates with adult SES?
Why does it matter? On the one hand, if you are eg recruiting people for a job, you can look at their individual qualifications and skills, rather than basing your decision on a population average. On the other, if you are for example wondering why there might be a gender imbalance in some particular profession, it doesn’t matter whether the difference in ability is inborn or not; the results will be the same either way
But if you really would treat women (or Hungarians, or whatever) differently depending on such evidence, perhaps I had better stop discussing the subject with you just in case…
Soooo your evidence is that people who score well on the IQ test (ie good test takers) do well academically (…because they are good at taking tests…)?
Note how they correlate IQ with achievement, then claim that intelligence is correlated by achievement.
I’m not claiming that there’s no correlation between high IQ and intelligence. IQ tests measure a specific skill, that skill takes intelligence. But IQ tests certainly don’t measure general intelligence.
YOU are the one who claims we should treat trans women differently because statistically speaking cis men are more violent than cis women, so that’s pretty hilarious.
When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Hawking gave a curt reply: “I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.”
But more seriously:
which suggests an intelligence in the top 10 per cent of the population. But this, surely, does not tell the whole story. Even those sympathetic to the former president have acknowledged that as a thinker and decision-maker he is not all there. Even his loyal speechwriter David Frum called him glib, incurious and “as a result ill-informed”. The political pundit and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough accused him of lacking intellectual depth, claiming that compared with other US presidents whose intellect had been questioned, Bush junior was “in a league by himself”. Bush himself has described his thinking style as “not very analytical”.
You can define intelligence however you like, but if it doesn’t correlate with academic achievement, I question how useful your definition is. Regardless, IQ also correlates with job performance, and inversely with juvenile deliquency and divorce.
Hey, we’re in the Pit, so I can call you a liar. You fucking liar; you know damn well that’s not what I claimed.
Intelligence correlates with academic achievement.
IQ correlates with academic achievement.
Therefore IQ correlates with intelligence.
Please use your high IQ to detect the flaw in this logic.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
IQ tests predict real world outcomes that we would expect to be influenced by intelligence. Whatever they are measuring, it is not just how good someone is at taking IQ tests.
The ONE thing it definitely tells you is how good somebody is at taking IQ tests.
This might also correspond with other skills; it also might not.
My son would not fare well with an IQ test… in large part because most IQ tests also are slanted towards people with a good grasp of English, and he has issues with language skills. Brilliant in mathematics, but for whatever reason, dyslexic and suffers word confusion in his raw language skills.
Most IQ tests give separate verbal and non-verbal IQ scores; it sounds like your son would likely score much higher on the latter.
The vibe in these arguments overall is very strong scientific racism in new clothes. I point this out not for your benefit DT, because I expect you to deny it, but for the benefit of others.
@Omar_Little I enjoyed your tangents post.
@kayaker The bigliest IQ! 
Yeah, I know it’s getting kind of close to areas best avoided. But any example I gave was bound to be contentious by the very nature of the topic. And then people want to debate the examples instead of my actual question. Maybe it’s just impossible to discuss at all.
I’m thinking it’s the absence of a Transitive Property of Correlation.
I would think the problem with hiring people and stereotypes is that the customers might behave differently due to the stereotype, not so much that the employee is or is not qualified.
For example a male doctor hiring a female nurse because female patients are uncomfortable disrobing without another female in the room.
Or an advertiser hiring a masculine voice talent because some study shows that the masculine voice is seen as more authoritative.
~Max
I don’t think that has anything to do with my post, but I agree there are times when it makes sense to hire a man or a woman for certain situations. The TSA has to have men and women available all the time for body patdowns, for example.
In the context of your discussion with DemonTree, I think she was trying to determine if you think bigotry is factually wrong by definition. So take my second example, hiring a masculine voice talent for advertisement because a study shows masculine voices are seen as more authoritative. Assuming the study is unimpeachable, is it bigotry to discriminate against feminine voices in the hiring process? Would it depend on some other circumstance?
ETA: It may be a fact that gender (or any trait) has no demonstrated relationship to actual expertise or authority on a matter, yet also a fact that people perceive a relationship and that such perceptions affect a company’s bottom line. So when relying on the latter to justify discrimination, is it bigotry?
~Max
Like I said, I think there are sometimes reasons to prefer a woman or man for a particular positions.
But, this hypothetical doesn’t seem right to me – is this question begging? You’re assuming the consequent – “let’s pretend that we had a study that showed that men were considered more authoritative, and you wanted to hire someone for an ad who sounded authoritative – shouldn’t you be bigoted then?” “Let’s say we had a study that showed that Pacific Islanders were genetically [inferior/superior] to West Africans in [some skill or task] – shouldn’t you hire Pacific Islanders [before/after] West Africans for [that task]?”
ETA: Just saw your ETA – yes, definitely. If I had a store and found that white salesmen were more successful than Black saleswomen, it’s still bigoted to only hire white salesmen.