Only on a very narrow reading that requires significant pedantry.
I get it. You want to argue that you don’t really trust national IQ tests, but, tellingly, at the same time, you think there’s still something there, even if it’s kind of hand-wavy and not at all objectively measured and quantified yet. That is, that even if IQ tests aren’t as objective as you’d like, they’re still correlated with something that is. Fine.
You’re the one who brought IQ tests in the first place (it’s in your OP!). So, clearly you think they’re at least correlated with something important. And a significant enough factor not only not to ignore but to focus on.
Even if you use word games to very narrowly avoid the contradiction, it’s inherent in your thesis.
The funny thing is that I expected the real problem with the quote to be: If one does not take the iq research that has been done comparing different countries too seriously, then why should one take any more seriously the iq research that compare different racial groups? I guess the answer to that is that, barring questions regarding the meaning or validity of ‘race’, the fact is that there has been a lot more research done on the latter over the decades, especially within the same countries. The iq research comparing different countries, on the other hand, seems to be more eccentric. And when I noted that the comparisons between races appear to be more “robust”, it’s not to say that there haven’t been changes or significant 'reduction in the gaps’ in some places.
Again, can you restate your thesis, because it’s not coherent.
Your own OP uses differences in national IQ tests as evidence towards some kind of thesis of racial differences even within a country.
Evidence of what? Sure, now, after your first few posts didn’t go well, you claim that national level comparisons are suspect.
So, since you are the one who brought up the national level comparisons in the first place, how is this supposed to relate to racial comparisons even within a country?
Seems like you are cherry-picking the parts you like and extrapolating inferences and simply making token noises to gloss over the weak or incoherent parts of your thesis.
The one that’s closed now. As is the one I created to complain about its closure. As this one no doubt soon will be. Which is why other than responding to things like this one, directed specifically at me, I will not be participating in GD any more.
Well this thread was, allegedly, about the achievement of countries to produce works of genius, or at least how it seemed to you. Not race.
You seem now to put forth the position that what seems to be and what is vis a vis acts of genius may not be the same thing, that many other factors than IQ contribute to works of genius produced by a nation, and that the national IQ test results likely mean little. So speculation about SD as a cause to explain that which might not be based on looking for an explanation of a mismatch with that which might not be an accurate measure and which is at most one factor that contributes to the outcome in question seems … unwarrranted.
The Nobel Prize like and Oscar is not always awarded to the “best” unless you mean the best lobbied for. It has until recently been largely a prize of Western Democracies.
After my two week sabbatical, I think i ought to just give this thread a rest. But let me address the lingering confuscion (excuse the mispelling) that is still apparent with regards to the OP.
There is actually something within the quote (#78) that gives rise to an issue of (apparent) incoherency. But it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are basically shooting at the wrong target. It has to do with what i blurted out about the Flynn effect. However, if i had known that nobody would take up an issue with that i would not have bothered making my follow-up comment (in which i only indirectly addressed it).
Now, regarding this “incoherency” you keep talking about. It only appears to be the case if you take my comment about my attitude towards national iq test research in all-or-nothing terms. Just because i don’t take seriously some national iq comparisons doesn’t mean i don’t take all of them seriously. I believe the national iq comparisons between most of the east asian nations and the western ones can be taken at face value because they correspond to results that have already been shown consistently in race iq testing over the decades. As a further clarification, i don’t take seriously the iq scores that have been assigned to respective African nations, essentially comparing them against each other. Neither do i take seriously the ones assigned to respective European nations also pitting them against themselves (which is what i was referring to in my comment to dseid). Not that there may not be some truth to any of these comparisons (of course there may be). I just find the studies not to be rigorous enough. However, i do believe that the comparisons between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa as a whole is fairly accurate. [It’s a pity i have to waste time elaborating on these obvious trivialities but there it is.]
In any case, i never actually said anything about “national iq tests” in my original post. But i acknowledge that i unintentionally gave that impression with the words i used.
False. The very core issue raised in the question is entirely about race. How can it not be??? I even made it clear in post #23. ‘National achievement’ is only one way (a politically correct way) of phrasing the puzzling disparity in overall achievement between east asians and whites despite their higher average iq. That should have been obvious. And, guess what?..it was obvious to everyone else, apparently. Think about it: if the question had nothing to do with race, then how do you account for all the venom that was thrown at the OP? Therefore your fellow liberals would disagree with your above statement.
It’s a nice jingle but it is entirely misplaced. You were obviously still misinterpreting the question when you wrote this. The question of standard deviation is the primary question of the OP. And it stands regardless of how one might wish to hand-wave away the relative underachievement of east-asian nations. In other words, even if alternative explanations that are based on, historical, socio-political and economic factors were obvious (which is not the case), it is still legitimate to ask whether these fairly common allegations of differences in iq distribution are true or not (isn’t it?). Also, just because iq is just one variable, does it mean it is not worth speculating about? And, finally, like i pointed out to antibob above, i never actually said anything about national iq tests. My comment was “despite their superior iq average” which is a widely known and established fact (“their” referring to them as a race, though i probably should have made that painfully clear).
One comment regarding the giant elephant in the room: China. Of course, China still has huge chunks of its population that are deprived of opportunity, and it is still a ‘developing country’, not to mention it’s political issues. But the fact is that many people do not find these explanations completely satisfying given china’s humongous population and the renowned academic discipline and iq performance of its population. Whatever other explanations there may be to china’s (and other similar nations) relatively low output in scientific innovations, these are issues i was hoping would be discussed in the thread in a genteel manner as opposed to people taking offense where none was intended.
China has an extraordinarily high output of scientific innovations, spanning thousands of years. Unless their genes have suddenly changed during that span, any recent slowdown in their rates of innovation is more readily attributed to anarchy, war, and Communism.
Sorry that I misunderstood how completely ignorant your op was and how deep your ignorance delves.
You apparently are one of those people who do not understand that “Asian” is a label that covers many different sub-populations and cultures.
It is very hard to have a “genteel” conversation with someone who presupposes a host of incorrect concepts and then speculates why those concepts. The “venom” you detect is more the frustration of having a conversation with someone who has unsupported conclusions as a precondition of discussion.
The simple answers:
1) There is no evidence for a difference in SD. The logical hypothesis is that particular Asian sub-populations likely have fairly narrow SD (such as Japan, which has been a failry homogenous sub-population and culture), that others such as China would have fairly broad SDs (which contains multiple different genetic sub-populations and absorbed cultures) and that the broad label of “Asian” if broadly sampled would have an extremely wide SD. “White” European origin also contains a fairly broad group of populations but not likely as broad, whereas “American” encompasses probably the greatest variety of sub-populations and sub-cultures (inclusive of European, Asian, and more) and likely has the broadest SD of all (other than the narrowing caused by the bottom moving up as deprivation’s effects are reduced - the Flynn effect).
2. There is no lack of intellectual accomplishment in Asian nations. When matched for population size of similar SES and educational opportunity Asian population have similar if not greater intellectual accomplishments that “Western” nations (which are not sub-population or even racially homogenous). Specific to any attempt to explain some percieved lack of accomplishment on SD, that is fairly well falsified by the fact that the group most likely to have the narrowest SD (Japan) has for their size a very high rate of accomplishments. Moreover any hypothesis that pins some metric of intellectual accomplishment on any racial genetic factor that “Asian” has less of and “White” has more of (SD as your stretch) has to exlain how hisorically those genetics change so much, such that Europe (as a crude proxy for “White”) could be going through the intellectual output of Greek times, into the lack of any growth during the Middle Ages, and then suddenly change their gene pool to create the Renaissance, and similar ups and downs of output in Asia cultures and in the Islamic world.
The primary question of the op is a bit akin to an op that states: “Cats seem to fly better than dogs, could that be because they are more favored by invisible angels who carry them?”
Now, why the temper all of a sudden? Anyway, you either misunderstand the question or you don’t.
Again, who said anything about the the entire “asian” population? Furthermore, what has the fact that a race of people is divided into different “sub-populations and cultures” got to do with the issue? West africa alone is divided into different “sub-populations and cultures”. Does that mean they don’t have common genetic characteristics that are not shared by other “sub-populations”?
Well you only needed to say that. Would have saved us a lot of trouble.
Do you realize that you are essentially implying with this drivel that even a relatively minor degree of isolation (resulting in “broadness” of culture) would produce wide iq differences enough to result in significant standard deviations? How does what you are saying here (without even knowing it) square with the usual liberal mantra that the tens of thousands of years of separation between the black race and other races resulted in no differences in intelligence levels?
Let me help you out: Factors such as the bubonic plague that happened in Europe and its resulting sociological transformations are far better explanations for wide distributions in intelligence than the mere fact of having a large population and developing varying cultures and characteristics within it.
Now, is it really necessary to engage in straw-manning?
Disregarding the persistent strawman, these are extremely spurious claims or, at best, grandiose hyperbole. By the way, how do you compare Japan to Britain or France for example (in terms of what you’re talking about)?
Each period has its own factors. We’re talking about now, given present circumstances. If you want to make an argument that a particular factor is responsible for disparities you keep implicitly acknowledging while denying at the same time, please do so. But don’t just hand wave by pointing to historical “ups and downs”.
The amount you move your goalposts and what you claim you are discussing is dizzying:
There are national differences. It’s based on race. Whose talking about Asians as group? I’m talking about intellectual accomplishments. Talking about intellectual accomplishments is strawmanning. Oy.
As far as the no evidence of SD difference … did state in my first post (#37). I’ve made specific comments regarding France.
In post 52 I defended you and stated that we should let your reponse to information inform us about your intent. It has. Clearly. The picture it has shown is the reason for the temper.
Would have saved us a lot of trouble.