Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

[Great_Antibob]

@RaftPeople

That’s a new approach. Just flat out admit you have no data but keep forging onward.

Well, you know that’s how science works, right?

As long as you have some kind of hare-brained concept, it’s up to other people to prove you’re wrong. And if they have this so-called “evidence” backed with numbers and statistical analyses, it’s really political correctness run amok and not due to any actual epistemological problems.

[BrainGlutton]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The author of the article made a few concessions to political correctness.

And you know that how?

[Smeghead]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The author of the article made a few concessions to political correctness.

Hilarious. Well, at least you’re beginning to stop pretending that there’s any sort of science to back up what you’re saying, and beginning to admit that it’s purely your own opinion. In other words, this is all in your mind, and not backed up by anything else, which is what we’ve all been saying since day one.

[Buck_Godot]

@iiandyiiii

Of course, the NYT article you cited says some high-IQ “snippets” are more common among African populations than others.

Just to be a pedantic nit-picker, I have to point out that the use of the word snippet represents a misunderstanding on the authors part. The study in question was talking about SNPs, pronounced snips, but referring to Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, which basically means a change in a single letter in the genetic code. We will now return you to your regular scheduled squabble.

[Gagundathar]

I believe there is an essential fallacy being promoted here. It has been pointed out by at least one other poster in this thread. When we see IQ rates (as measured by some presumably neutral method) changing over the course of time, the most probable cause for that change is societal not genetic. Society changes relatively rapidly. Genetics do not. You can’t honestly imagine that IQ rate changes are driven by genetic differences when such changes are relatively rapid and are correlated with other significant factors such as GDP and education levels.

[Mijin]

Well I mentioned the Flynn Effect, and how it appears to be proceeding more rapidly in the (developing) countries that have in the past scored lower on some IQ tests.

But of course this is just proof that there are increasing numbers of ashkenazi men touring the third world impregnating women.

[Truman_Burbank]

“Because the achievement gap persists, and exists everywhere in the world it is sufficient evidence.”
Says you. OK, I *might *accept you as an authority on the subject. What are your credentials again, that I should accept your judgement?:dubious:

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Truman_Burbank

“Because the achievement gap persists, and exists everywhere in the world it is sufficient evidence.”
Says you. OK, I *might *accept you as an authority on the subject. What are your credentials again, that I should accept your judgement?:dubious:

You will not accept the credentials of Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Professor Rushton. Why should I expect you to accept mine?

One needs no credentials to understand the significance and extent of the race gap in intellectual achievement. All one needs is a mind that accepts facts and draws logical conclusions from them.

[Telemark]

@New_Deal_Democrat

You will not accept the credentials of Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Professor Rushton.

Well, to be fair, these three have had their data and methodology thoroughly debunked. It would be perverse to accept their credentials.

[Smeghead]

@New_Deal_Democrat

You will not accept the credentials of Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Professor Rushton. Why should I expect you to accept mine?

One needs no credentials to understand the significance and extent of the race gap in intellectual achievement. All one needs is a mind that accepts facts and draws logical conclusions from them.

A basic grounding in the fundamentals of biology and logic would be incredibly helpful, too.

[Truman_Burbank]

“All one needs is a mind that accepts facts and draws logical conclusions from them.” Well, no, in order to draw logical conclusions from them you need to be trained in the relvent disciplines. Will you EVER answer the question of how much schooling you have?
Prediction: will dodge or ignore.

[GIGObuster]

I don’t think there is any need for it, as the old saying goes: “Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are”.

Charles Murray is in reality a political scientist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Nowadays, besides funding people that are no experts in biology or genetics to muse about policy solutions with no basis on genetics, the AEI is also heavily involved in climate change denial or for the delay in the application of any solutions to the human made green house gases emissions.

Anti-scientists are indeed birds of a feather.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

I don’t think there is any need for it, as the old saying goes: “Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are”.

Charles Murray is in reality a political scientist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Nowadays, besides funding people that are no experts in biology or genetics to muse about policy solutions with no basis on genetics, the AEI is also heavily involved in climate change denial or for the delay in the application of any solutions to the human made green house gases emissions.

Anti-scientists are indeed birds of a feather.

You know, I saw you’re name to the latest contributor to this thread and thought, “Hey, let me check out what he has to say when the topic has nothing to do with global warming.” And then I read what you wrote.

Unbelievable. Dude, you need help.

[BrainGlutton]

From the RationalWiki page on Racialism:

The head bone’s connected to the…bigotry bone?

Racialists were also known for having big skull fetishes. The pseudoscience of phrenology was incorporated into racialist theories during the 19th century. The variant of phrenology known as “craniology” or “craniometry” became popular during this period. Craniology attempted to measure intelligence using the shape and size of the skull as a proxy. Craniology was used as a justification for all sorts of bigotry. Brits, for example, declared the Irish to be inferior to Anglo-Saxons based on skull measurements. It could also be called a form of “scientific” sexism as it was used to “prove” the superiority of men.[12] Surgeon and anthropologist Paul Broca conducted some of the most famous large-scale studies attempting to demonstrate the intellectual superiority of whites and men.[13] Herbert Spencer was also known as a promoter of these ideas in his psychological writings.

Craniology is, of course, made of multiple layers of wrong. In theory, it is already two steps removed from what it’s attempting to measure, i.e., skull size (cranial capacity, in technical parlance) is used to approximate brain size which is in turn used to approximate “intelligence.” Cranial capacity can, in fact, be used to measure brain size. However, more advanced bigots have generally moved on to direct measurements of brain size (thanks in large part to modern brain scanning technology), which is where the weak link in the chain really is. The problem here is that the size of the brain by itself is not a measure of intelligence. If this idea were taken to its logical conclusion, the world would likely be ruled by elephants or sperm whales. To use an example much more comparable to humans in brain structure, Neanderthals’ brains were on average a bit larger than ours.[14] So much for the Neanderthal master race. What is much more important than absolute brain size includes factors such as cortical folding, neuronal organization, dendritic and synaptic connections, etc.[15]

Furthermore, the size and shape of the skull is itself not set in stone. As was demonstrated a hundred years ago by Franz Boas, people who are raised with a higher quality of life tend to have slightly larger and differently-shaped skulls than those who grew up in poverty, with little food and limited access to health care.[16] It was this research, showing that upbringing plays as much a role in skull size and shape as genetics does, that helped to discredit the “science” back in the early 20th century.

For good measure, and to demonstrate how utterly wrong craniological ideas are, assume that there is a single part of the brain responsible for intelligence and that its size magically corresponds exactly to intelligence levels (or, in other words, set the game up in the bigots’ favor as much as possible). Because we know about the neuroplasticity of the brain, this still does not prove any kind of biological or genetic determinism tied to the size of this part of the brain as we don’t know the direction of causality, i.e. is the person smart because the hypothetical “intelligence cortex” happens to be large or is that part of the brain large because the person happens to have been learned well?
Race and intelligence (or, craniology redux)

A handful of “researchers” including figures such as J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen have continued to argue that certain races are just inherently dumb. While they still like their skull and brain size measurements, their arguments hinge more on invoking genetic determinism as an explanation for racial and ethnic group differences in IQ scores. In addition to the fact that race is incredibly ill-defined itself, IQ has many of its own problems. While there is general agreement on IQ as a useful measure, there is no consensus on a number of related issues, such as how strongly it correlates to general intelligence, how many aspects of intelligence it can measure, what the implications are sociologically speaking, etc.[17] Another problem with using IQ in this manner (besides the obvious) is the Flynn Effect, a phenomenon discovered by the psychologist James Flynn in which there has been a global rise in average IQ scores. In many cases, ethnic minorities have made the most rapid gains.[18][19]

Rushton, however, has put a new spin on the supposed racial hierarchy – according to him, it should be organized thusly: “Mongoloid” > “Caucasoid” > “Negroid.” This led anthropologist Jonathan Marks to remark:

First we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when [earlier] researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.[20]

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

You know, I saw you’re name to the latest contributor to this thread and thought, “Hey, let me check out what he has to say when the topic has nothing to do with global warming.” And then I read what you wrote.

Unbelievable. Dude, you need help.

So, you can not face that racists are joining forces with climate change deniers? Do tell.

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

You know, I saw you’re name to the latest contributor to this thread and thought, “Hey, let me check out what he has to say when the topic has nothing to do with global warming.” And then I read what you wrote.

Unbelievable. Dude, you need help.

No more than someone who enters a thread for the sole purpose of making a personal attack.

Take it to the Pit or e-mail, but do not do this again in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

[Ibn_Warraq]

@magellan01

You know, I saw you’re name to the latest contributor to this thread and thought, “Hey, let me check out what he has to say when the topic has nothing to do with global warming.” And then I read what you wrote.

Unbelievable. Dude, you need help.

Leaving aside the personal attack on Gigo, I’ll simply point out that his point is that both the “race realists” and “global warming denialists” rely on pseudo-science to promote their theories, are generally impervious to reason, and are aggressively in denial of reality.

Such comparisons are quite telling.

[GIGObuster]

@Ibn_Warraq

Leaving aside the personal attack on Gigo, I’ll simply point out that his point is that both the “race realists” and “global warming denialists” rely on pseudo-science to promote their theories, are generally impervious to reason, and are aggressively in denial of reality.

Such comparisons are quite telling.

Yep, that is the point, and thank you very much for that.

I have to notice here that I had my disagreements before with Ibn Warraq, but lately I had to thank him several times in recent days, maybe it is true that the end of times are upon us :).

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@GIGObuster

I don’t think there is any need for it, as the old saying goes: “Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are”.

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy

Description of Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor “reasoning”: “You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn’t believe it.”

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@GIGObuster

Charles Murray is in reality a political scientist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Nowadays, besides funding people that are no experts in biology or genetics to muse about policy solutions with no basis on genetics, the AEI is also heavily involved in climate change denial or for the delay in the application of any solutions to the human made green house gases emissions.

Anti-scientists are indeed birds of a feather.

Those who deny climate change and those who deny the importance of genetic differences are very similar. The implications of man made climate change are harmful for goals of the right. They mean that there need to be restrictions of private property rights, economic growth, and national sovereignty.

The implications of The Bell Curve and similar works are harmful for goals of the left. They mean that a certain amount of economic inequality is inevitable, and that the aspirations of the civil rights movement will never be completely achieved.

Although there is some evidence of global warming, there is far more evidence of innate individual and racial inequality. The most recent is the failure of No Child Left Behind to erase the race gap, or do much of anything to increase academic performance.

Schools Slow in Closing Gaps Between Races (Published 2006)