POLL: Is it racist to assert that blacks have a low average IQ?

No this one http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

If the study was confounded by mixed groups they would not have got such a high correspondence.
Why would the existence of mixed groups invalidate unmixed clusters? Mixed clusters can be demarcated too. This is a continuum fallacy. Your first reference to Tang is full of errors in logic and poor quality references.

 

Yes of course I do. However "informative" is based on perception isn't it? The question really I guess is to what level of detail can we claim accuracy and not just a small insight in what is a larger issue and only tells a portion of the story?

All though I will say, if nothing else these studies may go a ways to relieve those dimwits out there of their "white" guilt. Which is so necessary right now. To all of you "white" people out there (I mean those descended from European ancestors) YOU are NOT responsible for the past in any way, shape or form and you really need to stop feeling like you are. Also, you owe NOTHING to anyone for these past transgressions. That is actually such a narcissistic viewpoint. It's one of the most damaging philosophies being expressed today and one of the most disgusting.

 

Whether you have allele X is "based on perception"? I guess so. You seem to be handwaving now. Any correlation between genes derived from group membership is based on probablity and inherently informative.

 

Well let's hope so, because Boasian egalitarian nonsense was designed to instill White guilt.

 

No, I mean the level of effect that general insight has on the issues at hand. And how it can be separated from obvious social aspects of the issue. Further, it does not reflect the effect of the rest of the individuals genetics. The meaning that one conveys from having allele X and the importance of allele X on the question at hand is partly based on perception.

*And I suspect it will be until the entire code is unraveled and understood.

 

Fair enough, I don't have full access to an academic library.

I am not saying it invalidates anything, I am saying I don't believe the findings tell the entire story and don't believe what it suggests is more than, at this point a suggestion as to the full cause of what we are discussing. So no, I don't think this is a continuum fallacy as I have not outright rejected the findings, what I am rejecting is the level of importance of the findings and the individual perception of the findings as they pertain to this thread.

If you would like to call that a fallacy, feel free, but I just believe that is a question of judgement.

I still am however, rejecting the idea of race as a classification regardless of the accuracy to which an individual may self proclaim such a thing. If they left out the race and simply used ethnicity, I would have no issue with it.

 

You seem to be making a general disparagement of heritability estimates now. Perhaps you could expand on what your main objections are?

 

Specifically the claim that mixed groups invalidate a taxonomy is a continuum fallacy. Now you are changing the subject to heritability.

 

Yes as far as IQ is concerned what percent can be attributed to the genetics studied? What portion is causal? Are we approximating variants?

- - - Updated - - -

Again I am not stating it has been invalidated.

But you don't believe there is an issue with heritability here?

 

Of course heritability is the key point of dispute, amidst the endless cycle of fallacies. Various lines of argument attempt to tease it out, skin color correlations within and between families, regression to the mean, consistent patterns. These seem to indicate a mainly genetic between group heritability.

 

Of course keep going on about your fallacies? I must ask, because you seem bias, do you feel this proves that African Americans as a whole are intellectually inferior?

Harden 2007 found genetics to account for about 55% of the variance in aptitude and environmental influence at 35% among higher incomes. For lower incomes it was found to be 45% environmental and 39% genetic.

Heritability increases as one gets older, from childhood to adolescence and further increases between 16-20 and into adulthood. Was this study only done on children and adolescence?

There is definitely a greater variance of IQ in low income situations.

MOST researches that I have read and most of the information I have found indicates great inconsistency across studies. MOST researches find this situation to be inconclusive based on studies to date. I believe I have been expressing exactly that opinion. At no time did I try to invalidate the studies you speak of. What I was attempting to do was express the opinion that this information is still inconclusive.

It sounds to me like you only read, or at least only express the opinion of those studies done that suit your motives.

I absolutely don't believe you are being objective about this now. You clearly think a lot of yourself. I will tell you, I have an extremely high IQ. I am among the upper 99%. Perhaps you are also. However, I would claim there are much smarter people than I who have seemingly lower IQs. Could you possibly admit the same?

Keep talking about my fallacies. I think you are just full of it.

If you actually want to prove your agenda, I guess you will have to write a paper about it. There is a huge difference between "seemingly indicate" and the assertions you are "seemingly" trying to convince us of.

 

A fallacy proves nothing. Pointing out a fallacy proves nothing. Odd question.

This study was done on adolescents.

What study? The study you referenced was.

For adolescents.

Instead of writing "this situation" can you clarify exactly what you are talking about? The only study I referenced expressed doubt about Nisbett's "100% environment" claim. I can reference more studies so you can talk accurately of studies I referenced, and even represent them correctly.

This is just gratuitous abuse. I referenced one study and have not been asked to back anything else up before you launched into this condescending nonsense.

LMAO.

Likewise.

No I'll guess I'll have to wait for sophists to stop spewing personal crap and get to the point.

 

Nothing to do with race, everything to do with culture and parenting. If parents take education seriously so will their kids.

And FTR, the dumbest people I know are highly educated Chinese. They literally know nothing at all outside of their discipline. And I mean NOTHING. Talking to them is like having a conversation with a lamp post. The slow rate of absorption of any idea is astonishing, and never seems to actually take. Educated morons, I call them. I've known (and still do) an equal number of brilliant minds residing inside white skin and black skin.

 

Did you read through the thread before posting.

 

1. I am glad you found my question odd enough not to answer. Is honesty about your personal opinion an issue in this discussion? See, we are online right now and I don't know you and you don't know me. Now based on your personal opinion I would be able to decide better what kind of bias you have towards this argument. Without answering the question, all I can do is question the motivation behind what you are saying. If I knew you to be a reputable researcher or something that might be different, but I don't. The fact that we don't know one another means we can not trust one another or the perspectives we are coming from. Am I to simply trust you have no ulterior motive in this conversation? Am I to trust your "un-bias" assertions? Yes I could take a leap of faith but it seems I choose not to.

2. Yes that study was done on adolescents and I do understand what that means pertaining to this topic.

3. I believe it was Jenson? Jensen? But it has been some time since I read that, but it is what I remembered. I no longer have access to these articles, or at least do not through the means I once did.

4. Well, this is not what I originally got from your statements. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I can also agree that a claim of 100% environmental seems ridiculous. Perhaps I missed that specific post or misunderstood what you wrote. I was under the impression you were asserting a definitive claim of a MOSTLY genetic influence rather than simply a "doubt" about a definitively absurd idea as a claim of 100% would be. At least in my opinion, genetics play a major role in the majority of our lives including aptitude. However, my understanding is that environment does also play a definitive role of course. I'll take the blame for this one.

5. I did not think that was condescending or abusive. Please reference #1 as to why I would consider such questions. I did say it "sounds to me" and I did not say "You definitely are".

6. I'm glad you enjoyed that. As we are discussing IQ, I am curious as to how intelligence compared to IQ is perceived. Unfortunately you decided not to answer that question either. As someone who has frequently had little issue in terms of scoring well on IQ tests, there are numerous other factors about me that I would personally claim IQ really is not a very accurate test for intelligence. Obviously it's not a test of education exactly, all though there certainly are some questionable examples from IQ tests that do pertain to educational factors. It doesn't matter if you believe me in that regard or not, I was using myself as an example. But regardless of what scores I can achieve on an IQ test, sometimes I feel downright dumb.

7. I am still not convinced you are not full of it. However your determination to link me to a number of fallacies and your insistence that I was trying to invalidate the study when that was simply not the case made me consider to the point of belief, that you may just be talking out of your azz. Again please reference #1.

8. I'm a little upset you don't like sophism. I find the idea of the "point" to be insufficient in a discussion of this nature. Perhaps not specifically for what you are discussing, but for what this entire thread is discussing. While statistics are certainly a powerful tool and definitely the most practical information on such a subject, I think it does not address certain aspects of this overall discussion. Such as the validity of IQ, the validity of specific studies, research bias, personal bias, how specific studies are interpreted and how specific information is interpreted. What fun are statistics without these larger questions? What use are statistics (for a topic like this) if not to be related to human and social issues? Why do we need the statistics on IQ and genetics vs environment if not for the real world application and what that means to our species?

 

Agreed, lack of education (ignorance) does not equate to I.Q. though. A poor school system is no excuse for lack of education with libraries full of books to read.

 

Why is it Jews with relatively similar culture score significantly different on IQ tests depending on their ethnic background?

How is it 3rd generation Christian Koreans living in the United States have an almost identical average IQ to secular Taiwanese of Chinese heritage or Buddhist Japanese in Tokyo?

Please show the culture of all three Asian groups I've named are really more similar to each other than Chinese culture is to Vietnamese culture in which Vietnamese brain volume is lower than Northeast brain volume.

 

So you couldn't suss out I was referring to Northeast Asian in my comments, and you couldn't recall that it was pointed out before North- and Southeast Asians have similar culture but differing brain volume, for instance, to which you didn't respond last time?

As far as cultural claims, I'd like you to show Vietnamese culture is more different to Chinese culture than 3rd generation Christian Korean-American culture is to Chinese culture to explain the IQ gap between Northeast and Southeast Asians.

 

Did you ever provide evidence for that claim?

What about the standard of living gap between North and South Koreans? That would seem to undercut your argument entirely as IQ is supposed to be correlated with standard of living yet two populations of the same genetic stock differ considerably in this variable indicating that environment (government in this case) has a profound effect on success. If race was the determinant of such success there would be no difference.

 

At the time, yes.

But like so often the case with you, when countervailing evidence refutes your claim and you can't pump a social scientist for a response, you simply ignore the post.

Absurd comparison as no one has ever claimed two entirely different systems of government - one a repressive dictatorship - are going to bear the same fruits in economic prosperity.

So, please, let's go back to Vietnamese and Chinese vs. Christian Korean-Americans and Chinese.

When are you going to be honest and test your own views?

 

I find it interesting that I do not recall you providing such information and I have a good memory.

So you concede the fact that race is not a determinant of culture? Because if it was all countries of the same race would have the same government. The example of North and South Korea supports my position that complex environmental variables determine culture.

I have a better idea. I'm going to focus my attention on the Sussman thread. I am currently helping him get registered to post. Would you like to debate him?

 

Comparing reaction time or backward digit span tests would be a better idea. I don't see how culture could affect one's performance on those tests.

What does a dictatorship have to do with culture?

I've also been stressing that Northeast Asians are genetically similar but have diverse cultures; the latter of which cannot credibly explain high Northeast Asian IQ.

 

It can be indicative of it. Racism is a belief. What facts you choose to present and in what context you introduce them can be a pretty good indicator of what you believe.





​

 

sub-species, race, whatever.

 

Hmm interesting information that I was not aware of.

1. I don't know why. I think ethnicity does have an effect on aptitude and brain volume and numerous other facets of what we call intellect. However, I am under the impression that these differences are minimal and that with proper education, those perhaps a bit behind because of a possible genetic factor can catch up fairly well. Also, was this test done on children and adolescents? When we are discussing IQ at least, heritability changes as one gets older. Err, well, if these tests were conducted when the individuals were say 13, if you retested those individuals when they were 20, or 25 again, the gape should narrow according to what I know about the issue. Perhaps there is a study to contest this. Depending on the details, that might go a ways to change the idea that the "gap" can be closed.

2. This one seems impossible to actually determine at this point in time. I can take a stab at it and say just because a 3rd gen Korean is living in the US does not necessarily mean their parents do not pressure them and direct them towards education more or less than those of other ethnic and secular groups nor differently than Buddhist Japanese in Tokyo. Actually, my understanding is that all these groups do value education culturally and in general regardless of their specific religion. I could not reject the idea that these groups you mentioned have some genetic factor that ultimately causes this nearly identical average. However, I think there are more similarities between the way most Asian cultures perceive education compared to how most westerners perceive education.

There is this that I found interesting: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-eastern-and-western-cultures-tackle-learning

Further, there was a book out some time ago that tackled the difference of actual perception between Asian and western cultures where it was found that Asian's tend to see a whole picture while westerners tend to see and remember specific details about a picture but not necessarily what's going on in the background. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/connection.aspx

3. You want me to show that? I am not really sure if those groups are more culturally similar to one another than to Vietnamese culture, but I would think they are. The culture not just being their religion or specific ethnicity but
values based on where they grew up. What I do know, and this is just from experience and not necessarily telling, but one of my very best friends is Christian Korean 2nd generation. Prior to highschool he had only "white" friends. When we entered highschool he all of a sudden began socializing with Asians of all descent. In fact, we were in a progressive business program in highschool and also an AP program. Aside from a few outliers, the majority of the class was made up of Asians of a wide range of ethnicity, Jews of mostly Ashkanazi descent, a few Russians and then sprinkled in were some Italian and Irish Catholics but the area we lived in was HEAVILY Irish and Italian Catholic. I always found it interesting that this group of people stayed together in classes and education throughout our entire HS career. And I did find it very interesting the number of these specific ethnic groups was far out of proportion in these classes than of their overall % in the school. And my HS had 4500 students at the time. That actually may signify something genetic but also, as we found out, whether Asian, Jewish or Russian etc.... that basically ALL of our parents stressed education a great deal and put a lot of pressure on us to succeed. While there were of course cultural differences in our varied homes there were also many similarities that were not as wide spread in the home of students outside of this AP and business cluster.
However, even with this my friend began socializing with a click of "Asians". Not just Korean, but also Chinese and Japanese with a few of the Paki/Indian crowd thrown in. I again found this interesting. While we all got a long very well, this "click" developed and this "click" was specifically Asian. Not Korean, not Chinese etc... but Asian. I don't know exactly what this means of course. However, while these groups all do have separate cultures and backgrounds, they found themselves to have enough similarities also where they bonded and this "click" developed.
So, while there are variances in culture perhaps the similarities have a generous effect also? From a cultural perspective.

You bring up some interesting points, but aside from what I have written above I don't really have any more insight in to the questions.