Sorry, just to be clear, I’m talking about actual test score gaps like SAT and so on; not IQ tests. Most of the data I’ve seen say these sorts of score differentials have leveled off and remained fairly persistent and constant for the last 15 years or so.
An example would beMCAT scores. Note, for example, existing black/asian gaps (22 v 29 for applicants).
It largely comes down to this: CP, you believe that there is something special about now as compared to various points in the past- such that past IQ disparities (discussed here, for example) tell us little or nothing about genetics (and indeed many past disparities have since disappeared), but current disparities somehow manage to perfectly (or close enough) reflect the a sort of genetic hierarchy of intelligence. So basically, you’re saying we’ve finally managed to equalize opportunity (and other “nurture” characteristics)- so any disparity that is left can only be due to inherent genetic differences.
I think that’s completely false- it’s unscientific and there’s no evidence for it. You just handwave that nurture is normalized- but I don’t buy it. How could it be normalized when we know teachers have lower expectations for black children (just as an example)? Or that job applications with identical qualifications, but black-sounding names get thrown away in favor of the white-sounding names?
I don’t see any reason to believe that the same sorts of factors that caused a big difference in the past between, say, Northern and Southern Italian test scores, or Austrian and Croatian test scores, or Irish and British test scores, do not still operate, to some degree or another, today. I think Flynn’s supposition, that the fact that black test scores today match white test scores from around 50-60 years ago indicates that the environment for black intellectual development matches the development for whites from 50-60 years ago, is reasonable. I think it’s very possible that there are many factors at work- in addition to ones mentioned before, stress could be a significant cause- it’s known that high levels of stress can reduce intellectual performance for children, so if it is shown that black children, on average, suffer from higher levels of stress then non-white children then that’s another reasonable cause.
In short, the data for the genetic explanation is no more convincing now then it was 100 years ago. Maybe you’ll find the genes in the next 20 years. Or maybe the gap will continue to shrink, and disappear in the next 50 years or so. But until there’s actual genetic evidence, it’s foolish to support the genetic explanation.
I don’t think I have anything very useful to say about IQ scores. They are well outside my area of interest and expertise. I will readily admit I don’t understand the whole Flynn argument about why IQ scores are rising. I gather his fundamental approach is to argue they are rising for everybody, but rising disproportionately faster for blacks. Therefore IQ scores must be environmentally determined, and we can sort of decide that at some absolute level of SES, we get an average IQ of X; if blacks are now at the SES level whites were at 50 years ago, they will therefore have the average IQ that correlates with that SES level.
This does not seem to be consistent with the easily-defended studies that show markedly disparate performances on standardized testing controlling for the same SES levels. How would one explain the dismal performance of wealthy and educated blacks on SATs if their SES status should have conferred upon them high IQs?
There’s another thing: Flynn seems to have ridiculously low numbers for black IQs–especially for young adult blacks and for black IQs of years past.
From your paper, P 9: “Black IQs decline relative to whites with age, indeed, the decline amounts to 11 points between 4 and 24. Despite this, black gains on whites over this 30-year period are close to 5.5 IQ points for all ages below 25. Figure 3 shows that in 2002, the mean IQ of blacks ranged from 95.5 at age 4 to 84.5 at age 24; and in 1972, from 90 to 79. It puts blacks aged 15 in 2002 at 88.8.”
The paper you cite does not give the actual figure illustrations (at least when I access it in Chrome) and so it’s a bit hard for me to follow. But the numbers for the mean black adult IQ of 84.5 in 2002, and 79 in 1972 ? (!!) Come on. Really? The average black IQ in the US in 1972 was 79, and it’s 84.5 now? Anything below 85 is sort of borderline intellectual functioning, isn’t it? As an average for a whole population?
Am I misreading something here? Those numbers fail a sniff test for me. I have lots of stuff on real-world outcome tests, which do show a gap, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen any real world test scores or skillset exam that would correlate with an average IQ gap of 21 points (!) in 1971, or even 15 points today. Maybe I just don’t understand IQ tests. (Call me someone in the 85 range, I guess.)
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s especially useful to use ad homen attacks. If the research itself stinks, correct it with good research. Some people–even on this Board :eek: – label every non-egalitarian as a “white supremacist,” either closet or public.
It isn’t very productive, in my view, to attack researchers based on an opinion of their funding sources (after all, which grant are you going to apply for to get funding for research showing intelligence differences by populations?), or on an unpopular conclusion, such as genetic basis for outcome differences?
That sort of approach degenerates pretty fast, which is why ad hominem attacks are typically discouraged here and elsewhere.
I think you’d be surprised what many researchers on population genetics really think about intelligence and genetics. But you need to catch them in off-camera moments, so to speak, over a beer.
Here’s an example which I won’t bother to place in a quote for display, as I don’t think it’s relevant to the data.
Nope, you are even wrong on that, it is not only one researcher that has pointed out how unreliable they are by their own data. But first we have too look at how you are even wrong on your use of what is an ad hominem:
If Rushton and the same old, same old, others were correct they would be recognized with most researchers citing the work of those racialists often and with reverence, as it is, it is not an ad hominem when it is the data that was looked at first, the evidence then came later showing that the errors in their data are not so innocent as they continue to push for conclusions and solutions that do not follow from that evidence, have no support where it counts and then one has too look at why they press for their lousy science.
And this once again demonstrates a grasping at straws feeling. Not a single word about race was there.
Once again the basic problem is that you can not identify when the scientists refer to all humans and when they consider race, not as often as you think, and then they report it a moot point. You have failed once again to find any good evidence of the genetic differences in intelligence among races.
I’m uninterested in pursuing discussions about which of us indulges more in ad hominen attacks. I will reiterate that you have not posted a single source citation, as nearly as I can remember, and you seem particularly partial to idiotic essays such as the one you cited from “rational Wiki.” Feel free to find a cite where Jensen’s character is assailed (other than to assail him because of his scientific conclusions) if you want to justify an ad hominem attack on him.
May I also add you seem to have a bit of trouble grasping basic English? I did not say the Flynn fiasco mentioned “race.” You already know (if you have actually read any of my posts) what I think about the notion of “race.” I know it’s a convenient straw man to pretend my views of population genetics are wrapped up in a biological definition for “race,” but straw men are no more persuasive than your ad hominem attacks.
What I said about the Flynn article where he suggests lower classes in New Zealand stop having so many babies in order to prevent further degradation of NZ’s intelligence gene pool, was that iiandyiiii might be surprised to know what many researchers in the field of population genetics really think about the association between genetics and intelligence. In the case of Flynn, he won’t come out and say the association is “racial,” but he certainly thinks lower intelligence is associated with lower classes, and you probably don’t need me to post New Zealand demographics for you to see which populations are represented in which SES classes. He certainly thinks lower intelligence breeds lower intelligence. For that comment, and for his followup suggestion that one solution would be easier access to birth control in the water, the way fluoride is in the water, he was castigated by quite a few people. He beat a hast retreat where he could, as do most of us when caught with our pants down.
As you are wrong even on what is a proper ad hominem you should continue to dream on, this is proper when the research itself is the one that is not really supporting what they claim.
As others I checked on what is an ad hominem pointed out, the silly point here is to use that accusation of ad hominem itself in an attempt to change the subject, Race is the issue here, and it is clear that your constant irrelevant cites show that the point is indeed an attempt to equate race differences in intelligence to just plain intelligence differences among all humans.
And that is because you are still wrong, there are good reasons why even that seemingly more reasonable point of yours is not much supported either.
BTW your silly dismissal of RationalWiki only shows that I’m correct in my often mentioned point that you do not pay attention, they do cite where they get what you accuse as “Idiotic” in that case it was: Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., &Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants and eggheads: a rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology.
The point stands, you are ignorant of even the levels of support that guys like Rushton had. RationalWiki is just a place to become aware of what are the main problems with pseudoscience and their supporters.
A more accurate characterization of the subject is; “what is the possibility that different populations may have genes or gene sequences that result in better cognitive skills, and what evidence there is for either side of the argument?”
You and iiandyiiii continuing to claim that there is no evidence for Chief Pendant’s side of the debate is truly baffling, since he’s provided quite a bit. Now you may be of the opinion that the evidence is weak, and that is fair. But then it is incumbent upon you, as he has stated numerous times, to offer scientific studies that are more convincing than the ones he’s provided. Simply insisting that he supply evidence that is closer to proof, isn’t really helping you.
The game of attacking and trying to discredit his sources as agenda driven, by linking to people and sites every bit as agenda driven (to put it mildly) is unconvincing to say the least. This is a tactic I see very often from the left, and you specifically. It’s as if you expect people like Rushton to get funding from the NAACP. Look at the studies themselves. That is the evidence CP is basing his position on. If your opinion is that he is wrong, provide counter scientific studies that make his moot. But there’s been none or very little of that.
Stridence in opposition may be motivating, but if doesn’t result in a superior argument, or in this case, finding scientific studies that overpower the ones you are just trying to vilify, it’s really does you no good.
My position is that I wouldn’t be surprised either way. No doubt nurture plays a huge role, but if physical attributes like eye shape, skin color, stature, and hair type, and running ability can be reliably passed from one generation to the next, then why not a brain that, due to physical differences of it, might be better? It would come as zero surprise to me if evolution resulted in different populations having a different sized X or was better at Y.
Nope, you are once again confusing the specific evidence of genetic evidence of difference in intelligence with slight differences in genes affecting very specific medical issues.
What I see so far is that the jump is made from the small changes in medical conditions and the attempt still continues to equate this into the even less supported assumption that that can also be applied to intelligence differences among races.
Why can’t slight differences in genes result in a medical condition of a larger, or better, brain? And why couldn’t that account for the differences revealed in testing and the studies?
Because you still have to find if that difference is beneficial and what genes are involved, as pointed before many times: chances are that virtually all humans have them. And it is likely that any issues with genes will have repercussions and benefit all humans.
And Rushton has just coasted after what he “found” in the 90’s, so the point there is still relevant.
After so many years of not having any evidence for genes as the reason for the difference in intelligence, then the continuation pushing those ideas has to move one to consider where they are coming from.
Could be. But that means that you’re automatically ascribing all the differences pointed to up to nurture. Given the evidence presented, that seems to be an odd assumption to make. It may very well be correct in the end, but nurture and only nurture as the explanation seems odd.
Tangential question to parse out some underlying beliefs. Given that the fastest human sprinters all have West African ancestry, do you think that can be completely attributed to nurture? Or do you think that genetics are actually playing a role, as well?
Do you really think this cite is instructive in any way? Please. This is just the sort of tactic I was pointing to. Racist websites, whatever they may be publish his findings. Big deal? You’re just trying to condemn him by association. And you do this repeatedly. It’s a waste of time. Logical Fallacies for ten triillion, Alex.
I’m not ascribing anything, except the causes we have already verified to exist (which all happen to be in the category of “nurture”). Essentially, I’m saying this: The gap exists, and we know that at least a part of the explanation for the gap is environmental/nurture/non-genetic. There remains a chunk of the gap that is unexplained, and no existing hypothesis to explain this remaining part of the gap has been confirmed (or even come close to being confirmed).
I don’t know. Chances are, all or almost all of the fastest human sprinters have European ancestry as well, and many of them may have Native American ancestry. “Nurture” factors undoubtedly play a role- Jamaica’s over-representation in sprinting is at least partially explained by the Jamaican culture of sports, which heavily emphasizes sprinting far more than most other nations’ cultures.
It is not as the evidence presented is lousy to assume that genes are driving the intelligence difference.
As pointed before, slight differences in some conditions can have genetic support, but as the failure of the recent medicine for blacks showed, it is likely that currently the harm is in the strong possibility that many other cultures and groups are limiting the potential of many of their members by assuming our differences in sport performance are all in the genes. Jumping from this fussy state of affairs to asserting that genes are involved in differences in intelligence is not justifiable or as other researchers reported, a moot point.
And you clearly missed the cites that show that your complaint about logical fallacies is just a ruse to change the subject, it remains relevant to point where the ideas of racialist researchers came from when they were discredited by their own peers; as been pointed many times before, it is relevant to mention that many others have found the reprehensible reasons why they continue to push discredited information after finding that the science they used was lousy. Lets not forget that it was the Chief and others that brought that discredited (both in science and ethics) source into this.
This is helpful in understanding you. And I agree with most of it. The problem I have is at the end. It seems that you are using “confirmed” to pretty much mean “proven”, which I think is an unrealistically high bar.
Alternatively, if you look at a piece of evidence, it will (hopefully) unseat a hypothesis or support it. think those are fairer metrics.
Yes, many do have European ancestry, and it could very well be that some “magic” happens when those gene sets comingle. But the fact remains that all the fastest humans have West African ancestry. If it is lacking, then they are not one of the fastest humans.
So the big black-white-Asian STEM gap shows evidence of intrinsic skillset differences but the big gender STEM gap doesn’t. Why’s that?
Given your beliefs, wouldn’t that be a catastrophe? You’re approving race pollution. Good for the inferior ones if they can upgrade to the next tier, but not so good for the superiors because they get dragged down to the median between the two populations. Given that, Asians should stick to themselves (or Jews), whites should stick to themselves or see if they can get lucky with an Asian, etc.
