shhh but obama is not a caucasian.
bita do try conform a bit and not refer to ‘whites’ or ‘blacks’ or whatever. what are you btw? the green thing living under the bridge?
Sentrix,
Just a reminder that referring to other posters as trolls is not permitted in Great Debates. If you feel you must take issue in such a way please start a thread in the BBQ Pit.
No warning issued.
Why do I doubt there will not be great efforts to gather more such data? To the people who get hot under the collar about this issue, in fact get outraged that it is even discussed: will you admit that you not only *think *there’s no merit to a genetic race/IQ connection, you *hope *there’s none, and if there is one, you hope scientists feel enough implicit pressure not to explore it that it will remain buried or at least murky and plausibly deniable?
I’m somehow just not getting a vibe of “let’s explore the question scientifically, dispassionately, and systematically and see where that leads us”. More like “let’s quickly bury this under the rug, shouting down anyone who tries to discuss it”.
Why is that such an odd claim? It sounds plausible to me (and I’m an almost entirely white male). Is it really “odd” or just discomfiting?
And besides, lots of scientists say “odd” things. James Watson has said some controversial and flat-out obnoxious things (including statements about both these subjects: race and intelligence, and race and libido), but I don’t doubt that he deserved his Nobel Prize, do you?
Reading an awful lot into a single factual post, aren’t you? And yes, I know exactly how ridiculous it sounds: not at all. The correct response when somebody corrects you on your errors is to say “thank you”. You’re welcome.
bita malt, I have watched this thread carefully and allowed it to continue. But the above post is rife with near insults and innuendos. That can’t go on. In the future, regardless of your personal feelings, you will treat others with respect in Great Debates. If you must snark on others, the BBQ Pit is just a few fora away.
Warning issued.
I don’t know. Why do you doubt it? Even assuming that mainstream scientists are reluctant to go down that road for fear of being called racists, there are plenty of scientists who have no problem telling anyone who’ll listen that some races are smarter than others. I expect they don’t want to collect the data for the same reason you imply that mainstream scientists don’t: they’re worried it won’t say what they want it to. This is a highly complex area with hundreds or even thousands of factors that need to be controlled for, so even if the data does say what (global) you want it to say it might not clear anything up.
Bita malt,
It is certainly not obvious to our European, African and South Asian posters that when someone says “Asian” they’re referring to East Asians.
In fact, in Europe the term Asian usually is assumed to mean just South Asians. East Asians are generally referred to as East Asians.
Reading through the posts following my previous ones, this is the only one i feel is worth paying attention to. I guess that’s because this comment has inspired me to briefly address the issue that was raised about the premise of the OP being flawed. It also gives me a chance to clarify the OP itself. (By the way, in answer to your question, of course i don’t. But that’s besides the point, as i shall explain).
I notice that the only real challenge you provided to the premise is the fact that Japan has won twice as many Nobel prizes as Russia in the last ten years (i know you earlier made comparisons between east asia and some european nations in terms of industrial productivity but i think it’s more relevant to the point to focus on academic accomplishments). Regarding the rest of the things you said (about the ‘broadness’ of the term ‘asian’ or the need to compare “similar SES and educational opportunities within populations of similar sizes” and things raised by some previous posters such as the differences in the way different populations exhibit their intelligence), all this has to do with a misinterpretation of the question and, thus, a tendency to confuse the provision of an explanation to the ‘puzzle’ with a repudiation of the premise.
The question itself does not assert that asians have a lower percentage of ‘geniuses’ (or high iq people). In fact, that is the very claim that is being called into question in the OP. Rather, it only says that asia has so far produced less than the west in terms of technological and scientific developments as well as top achievers in the world of research. In other words, the question is basically “why does it seem as though east asians have less geniuses despite their high iq average” and not “why do asians have less…” Therefore, by bringing up all those factors, all you guys are really doing is providing an explanation of this “paradox” and basically answering the question by saying “no it isn’t true that east asians have a smaller iq distribution (or less ‘geniuses’)”. That doesn’t mean you are “refuting the premise” of the question. In fact you are actually confirming it.
As for the Japan - Brazil comparison, it just seems a little too ‘picky’ especially if you are focusing only on the last 20 years (which i’m sure many Russians would argue was a very problematic period for their country). On the whole, of course, Russia still has a higher number of Nobel laureates per capita (about 0.15 to 0.12). Besides, why not compare Japan with a similarly developed European nation (like France or even Spain)? Note that i’m not saying this in order to argue that the claim that is being brought into question is true. I’m only explaining what gives rise to the very premise of the question. So please, before you try to argue that the premise itself is false, make sure you are not misunderstanding the premise itself. Personally i don’t even like the idea that some populations have different iq distributions than others. It just goes against the way i tend to think of population genetics (of course, one still has to know the facts and that’s just what i’m interested in).
That said, i do appreciate the points you (and some others) raised. I believe they have been helpful in shedding light onto the issue.
After making that post, i had a strong feeling that i would receive a warning like this. I agree that i need to watch my tone next time, but it’s hard not to respond to innuendos and gibes with some of your own. Still, point taken.
Oops: either strike the “not” or replace “doubt” with “suspect”.
Because they’re also sly and inscrutable.
The caveat “who’ll listen” is telling. Clearly, if the mainstream scientists won’t touch it, the ones that will investigate it will get dismissed as racists with an axe to grind, and we are back at square one.
I took severe umbrage at this the first time I read it; after I stopped seeing red, I noted the word “global” in parentheses and see that you were not imputing a racist motive upon me. (Almost as offensive as being called a racist would be to be accused of non-impartiality in investigating a scientific question.)
Personally, I had a difference working hypothesis before reading the other thread. I had assumed that most of the gap was a combination of SEC and lead exposure, plus some cultural factors related to the fact that African Americans, unlike other minorities in the US, were not allowed to immigrate and assimilate on their own terms (this is partly true for Native Americans as well, especially those relocated from the East in the Trail of Tears and so on).
But that SAT chart in the other thread really kind of blew my mind. For the highest SES blacks to score more poorly than the lowest SES whites is just hard to explain with my previous working hypothesis. Those very poor whites do not have a lot of cultural capital, to say the least; and the other deficits I outlined should be more than ameliorated by having all that capital capital. Outside of lottery winners and maybe some people in entertainment and sports, I can’t imagine anyone who is capable of earning that much money being feckless in how they use it to provide resources for their children.
Are you claiming this is factually incorrect?
And the answer is as follows:
Because those reported national IQ averages have no significant correlation with any reported measure of geniuses, including, as previously cited, number of Nobel prizes won per capita.
What changed to make Russia go from being one of the world leaders in Nobel prizes per capita to winning half as many as Japan, a smaller country, over both the last 10 and 20 year periods? Did the national average IQ drop substantially? Did Japan’s IQ suddenly go up?
I suspect strongly that the reported national IQ numbers are crap, the product of selective sampling in different populations. Moreover I believe that genius level accomplishments require only a certain level of above average IQ and that beyond that many other factors come into play - educatinal opportunity, type of education, curiosity, creativity, work habits, habits of mind, etc. … none of which are well measured by IQ.
BTW funny for you to mention France. Last on that list of national IQ averages at 96. More recently came in at 94. Yet almost 3 times as many Nobels awarded to French citizens than to Russian ones despite being half the size. Italy is about the same size and has a significantly higher average IQ according to those figures yet France has more than 3 times as many Nobels than they do.
Do the French just have a very wide SD?
How do you explain these numbers?
Are you saying you think that white men have really small penises and are inadequate lovers? :dubious:
Can we stop talking about Nobels? Winning a Nobel is obviously a huge achievement, particularly in the STEM categories, but also wholly subjective. Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won one, but Rosalind Franklin didn’t - and she was the only person whose work was essential to their discovery.
What other thread?
Was that a rhetorical question? FTR, I don’t take these national iqs that seriously myself. There are much better ways to explain the differences between the performance of different countries (one of which I raised in my original post). And i agree that the way these studies have been done are highly suspect. However, differences in average iq scores between racial groups do appear to be more robust whatever the explanation is for those differences (such as some groups having benefited from the ‘Flynn effect’ more than others). But I don’t think the iq factor can be discounted altogether like you and some others seem to. I just think that, like most things in life, one has to expect several variables when trying to explain a phenomenon.
Look, you need to make a consistent thesis, first. You’re contradicting yourself badly here - in the same paragraph, no less.
Your thesis doesn’t even make sense unless you take national IQs at least somewhat seriously. So, which is it?
Is your thesis in need of a major rework because you used your “gut instinct” about racial differences (rather than any actual, controlled studies of the matter) or do you take these IQ studies more seriously than you’d like to let on?
“badly” 
If you actually read the paragraph very carefully, you will see that there is no contradiction at all.