The IQ gap between countries is no evidence of an alleged IQ gap between races

I don't doubt that there are "brain types" just like body types and facial types. I don't believe all brains are of equal potential.
Add on to that that we are discovering more and more about how our hormones are directly linked to emotional responses in the brain. Emotional responses that influence intellectual responses. The variables continue to expand.

 

I suggest a thread I started in October 2016, ran to Feb 2017:
"A Reality Check on Race and IQ"
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/a-reality-check-on-race-and-iq.479911
OP/Highlight this you tube (link disturbed by board reformat)
This is also an excellent Primer on how IQ tests [do] work and what they measure.

IQ expert Linda Gottfredson (professor emeritus of educational psychology, University of Delaware and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society) is interviewed/converses with up-tempo Stefan Molyneux.
see:


`

 

What needs to be put on hold is blaming "global white supremacism" conspiracy theories for the lack of historical progress of low average IQ populations, yet it isn't stopping.

There is an IQ gap between races in the same country, and you admitted it in this post. I'm wondering what the issue is here.

 

Ah, the classic false dichotomy. Either it's genetics, or it's white supremacy.

Of course, both explanations have the exact same amount of evidence to support them : zero.

So how about neither.

Strawman. You didn't understand the OP.

What I said is that the only countries where I've seen evidence of an IQ gap between races are America, and South Africa.

Two countries with a history of segregation, and blatantly failed integration, which makes the races still pretty self-segregated after segregation was abolished.

Which makes this no different in practice from two different countries.

I've seen zero evidence of an IQ gap between races in a multiracial, integrated country.

If you have that, now would be a great time to mention it. Surely you won't make up an entire racial ideology based purely on environmental evidence specific to America, while totally ignoring the rest of the world, would you?

 

If you want a reputable scholar's opinion on the topic (rather than a racist ideologue with an agenda) Eric Turkheimer has a very reasonable response.

 

I was pointing out that Critical Race Theory blames "racism" on unequal outcomes which is why there is a pervasive belief on the left that "white racism" is to blame. These people aren't inventing it out of thin air. I'm saying their theories are false and racist at their core specifically due to their refusing to address issues that don't revolve around "global white supremacy" being the culprit in keeping people down.

There are other data, as we have global studies. To drag in "segregation" and "failed integration" is a correlation-causation fallacy. And yes, people self-segregate all the time. Like it or not, it's natural. Blacks don't often move into Latino or Asian areas, and Arabs aren't often seen in Latino areas either.

This is a false standard unless you can prove that "integration" by whatever measure you're subjectively using has been proven to be a factor in IQ, especially having an input large enough to close gaps between groups. Unless you can show a reasonable proof that "integration" has such an impact, your argument is both ideological and unscientific. Hint: Jews were segregated, discriminated against, persecuted, and repeatedly butchered in Europe, yet they have average IQs a few points higher than gentile whites.

You have quite a hostile attitude. I don't need to show you something that nobody of any qualification or repute has proven to be scientifically relevant. You can't just throw down a standard of your own making and demand we meet it. That's not how science works.

I have no idea what you're referring to by "making up an entire racial ideology." There is an invented racial ideology, and it's called equality.

 

Oh good Lord the butthurt. People that promote the equality myth are in fact racist ideologues with an agenda, namely blaming white people as the cause of inequality, and using junk papers to promote it.

Turkheimer has worked with the exposed fraud Nisbutt on multiple occasions so I'm not surprised you like him. There isn't going to be a large environmental explanation - as I already noted - because adult heritability of IQ is upward to about .90, and IQ has been shown to be a strong predictor of late-in-life socioeconomic status. The only way the environmental hypothesis can float is to deny the Wilson Effect and play make-believe.

As I've stated already also, "poverty" is a subjective term that means different things in different countries. If you're referring to longterm severe nutritional deficits, as I've also already said, that isn't denied to impact IQ. We aren't speaking of populations with longterm severe nutritional deficits. The West is overfed, if anything.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Your theory of genetic superiority/inferiority in intelligence between races is the TEXTBOOK definition of racism.

The fact that anti-white liberal racism is also a problem (which is true) is completely irrelevant to this fact.

 

Failing to produce science, you backtracked to an ideological argument calling names. I have no "theory" of anything; I believe in science and it shows the opposite of group equality.

I've seen this countless times before. If we're equal, prove it. Pasting a dictionary entry isn't it.

Science denial much?

 

Oh the projection.

And I didn't know the dictionary called people names. You literally just claimed that people who believe in racial equality (the literal opposite of racism in the dictionary), are in fact racists for believing that. Just wow.

That was such a massive fallacy I couldn't help. Oh but I'll get back on the scientific aspect. In fact...you're the one who's dodging that.

Remember the OP? I specifically asked for evidence of a racial IQ gap in a country that isn't America or South Africa, and I think I've explained enough why without that, claiming a "racial IQ gap" instead of a "cultural IQ gap" is baseless.

You have not produced any such thing, neither did any of the race "realists" on the forum.

 

Now you're sliding into deflection as a means of avoiding the topic.

The question of human intelligence is not a political one, in spite of that people like you are trying to poison the well with political taboos. It's a scientific one. Let us know when you can produce valid evidence of equality - and it's not in the form of posting a dictionary entry.

 

Turkheimer is actually the one who recommended Nisbett's book to me. He addresses all of your arguments in the video. No reputable scholar takes racial hereditarianism seriously. None. Comments that support your view are either made by racist academics, scholars unqualified to speak on the matter or ordinary people spouting ignorance who have a racist agenda.

 

I'll bet - he's collaborated with Nisbutt for some time, and that implicates him in Nisbutt's bad methodologies and leaps to conclusion that other scholars have pointed out for which since at least 2009, Nisbutt has not been able to defend. Turkheimer addressed nothing in that video, he kept referring to his opinion and how it clashed with others.

I make no comments that support any view other than what science states. I do not pollute the subject with personal ideology unlike some people here. These ongoing vague, dismissive comments of yours peppered with the usual ideological labels aren't a scientific rebuttal but are indicative of both science denial and a temper problem. That's an ideologically-based rejection and I still don't care about anyone's ideological objections.

 

yeah it has but you never paid attention...academic performance with Asians, it's cultural/work ethic...they have a cultural drive for educational success and the work ethic to accomplish it, nothing to do with genetics...

 

What you did there is invoke a standard of your own choosing of which no scientist agreed has any relevance. It would seem rather obvious that to invoke such a standard and demand that people meet this demand should be coupled with a scientific validation of the idea, rather than your personal say-so.

You're suggesting a significant input on IQ from specifically historical forced segregation, but you aren't qualifying that. Are you suggesting that blacks can only "get smart" if they are in close proximity to whites? That sounds quite insulting. If you're suggesting that proximity to whites causes black IQ to drop, then I assume you're a staunch proponent of black nationalism?

 

Nonsense. Logic is logic, it's not my choosing.

The question is on whether there is an IQ gap between races or an IQ gap between cultures and environments.

So the logical step to determine which is true is to test the IQ differences, or lack thereof, between different races within the same culture and the same environment.

Simple hypothesis testing.

Sounds like appeal to authority to me. No, I don't need "validation from scientists", that's a fallacy.

The only thing that needs validation is your belief in a racial IQ gap, which is the point of this thread. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

I never said segregation itself has a significant impact on IQ.

What I actually said is that culture and environment has a significant impact on IQ. Segregation just kept the cultures and environments separate and very different, just like living in two different countries.

No, I said that blacks can only get smart if they are in close proximity to smart people.

You're the only one who believes in a racial IQ gap. I don't. So I don't believe that smart = white.

Interesting statement from someone who believes that black people are genetically less intelligent than other races.

No, and no.

 

it's not natural, it's economic/educational...my community is east asian, south asian, african, white, latino , middle eastern, you name we got it our grocery store looks like a UN market...

other than some low income housing, economically mostly middle to upper class...we all get along just as well as any homogeneous community...also one of the lowest crime communities in my city...academically the community schools are consistently producing graduates in the top 10 percentage scholastically despite less than 50% whities...

I'll call BS on that ....so were gypsies were is their "IQ a few points higher"...yeah BS

invented...nah it's called genetics...look it up...

 

Well no, you specifically invoked "segregation," in other words you're pointing to that as a causative factor. Do you have evidence of this or not?

What you're doing here is making a claim and demanding people prove you wrong. That's not how a claim is validated. You need to validate your claim independently of how others respond to it.

The logical step is to actually prove that "segregation" has any impact whatsoever, rather than invoke it and it alone as a reason to dismiss IQ studies at least in 2 separate countries without scientific backing to show your dismissing them is valid.

You obviously don't know what an appeal to authority fallacy is. You're trying to claim it to dismiss a scientific consensus, not the opinion of one person.

This thread is about an assertion you're making, not what someone says that questions it. The existence of IQ differences between human population groups isn't up to debate because it's not denied, even by the most liberal researchers.

It's the central focus of this thread, and you've invented science whole-cloth by asserting that "You would only have evidence of an IQ gap between races if
1) Different races in the same country had different average IQ's
and
2) The average IQ's in question were the same from one country to another (ie blacks in France have the same IQ as blacks in the US)"

Either you're inventing science out of the air OR you can provide a scholarly source which agrees with this. You're not a scientist, so...

What proof do you have of this?

Since sub-Saharan African average IQs are somewhere from 70 to 80, you're suggesting that blacks need to be in proximity to whites to have higher IQs?

Again, science shows unequal IQ averages between world populations. I didn't invent that, nor did I say "smart = white."

Funny considering you just asserted that black people need to be around smart people to get higher IQs.

 

False - you're grossly overestimating the environmental impact of adult IQ in specific, and seem to think IQ studies measure what you have learned as opposed to cognitive ability. Northeast Asians are markedly higher in IQ than sub-Saharan Africans, and less higher than whites, Latinos, and South Asians. Perhaps there are local businesses in your area that recruit brighter immigrants for tech jobs, because whatever you are seeing is not an accurate representation of those populations.

Exactly.

Yes, genetics shows that humans are genetically different. We are not clones of each other, different population groups are susceptible to different diseases and there can be very serious transplantation compatibility issues with mixed-race people. The idea we are "equal" is equal parts vague and false.

Equal under law is one thing, but we're not clones.

 

Anecdotal Baloney.
"Getting along" is not the topic.

LINK/documentation on the "consistently top 10 percentage" and WHO get's those scores?
Guaranteed the Racial Hierarchy in IQ (and 88% Correlated SAT) will show up in your area as it does THROUGHOUT the USA.
(Asians and S Asian will outscore blacks, etc, etc)
<Rule 3>

<Rule 3>

Actually here is the short list/NON-White-Supremacist numbers.
Ashkenazi, NOT Sephardic or Mizrahi Jews are more than a "few points higher."
Those latter two Jewish groups are in the 90-100 range.
So the inter-Jewish groups IQ differential itself IS a mini-case FOR Racial IQ differential.

Ashkenazi Jews - 113
NE Asians - - -- - 106
Euoro/'White' -- - 100
USA 'Black' - -- - - 85 (Avg genetically: 76% sub-Saharan/24% White)
Sub-Saharans - - 70

The lower 3 scores the SAME as they are in South Africa where the races have mixed to some extent.

Of course, the countries you are going to see it are those where there are different groups.
Nice (obtuse actually) strawman attempt though!
The largest land masses, of Eurasia (Russia and China)... and sub-Saharan Africa are not significantly mixed enough for a result.
You posted a fallacious Strawman Attempt. Failed.
So the USA/America's is plenty large enough for a good sample.

BTW, the gap in Australia between White and Aboriginal is even a bit larger, as Aboriginals test in the 60s despite monumental efforts to raise them up.

Asians (as well as Jews) were persecuted and discriminated against in the USA.
(Chinese Exclusion Act, WWII Internment, some Segregation signs said "No Blacks OR Jews" until the 50s, etc, etc)
Yet NE Asians too have higher IQ's than 'Whites.'

Really?
WHAT country/countries are those?
Another vacuous claim.
The USA IS as good as it gets, and one can Consistently find the IQ differential in every state in the country.... And probably almost every single mixed school district as well... And despite income.

(AltLightPride welcome/Invited to chime in)
`

 

Adult IQ is highly heritable. Calling entire races lazy and having a crappy culture isn't exactly an egalitarian position, even if you think it is.

 

Intelligence is overrated.

 

If you were given the choice of having a child with an IQ of 65 or one of 120, which would you pick?

 

<<MOD EDIT - Rules 2 and 3 - Removed insulting flamebait - Lee S>> All you are doing now is trying to confine your arguments to a few sources that aren't associated with Scientific Racism (e.g. criticisms of Nisbett by some experts in his field ignoring the fact that many agree with him) but don't actually address the position that there is no genetic component to racial differences in IQ. Turkheimer is qualified to speak on the subject. He is a reputable scholar and has not only discussed this subject in real academic settings but was gracious enough to have a discussion with Stefan Molyneux, a popular internet personality associated with the Alt-Right, who Turkheimer educated on the subject with positions supported by modern scientific research.

Eric Turkheimer



http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/turkheimer_bio.htm

Eric Turkheimer grew up in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, raised by his parents Nathan Turkheimer and Barbara Tack Turkheimer. He graduated from Croton Harmon High School in 1971, received his B. A. from Haverford College in 1976 and studied clinical psychology and behavior genetics under Lee Willerman and John Loehlin at the University of Texas at Austin. After completing his Ph.D. at the University of Texas in 1985 and a clinical internship at the University of California, San Francisco in 1986, he accepted a faculty position in the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he is currently Hugh Scott Hamilton Professor of psychology. From 2003 to 2008 he was Director of Clinical Training. Turkheimer has been an Associate Editor for Psychological Assessment, is currently an Associate Editor of Behavior Genetics and has served on the editorial boards of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Perspectives on Psychological Sciece. In 2009, he was awarded the James Shields Memorial Award for outstanding research in Behavioral Genetics. He is a past President of the Behavior Genetics Association.

Turkheimer’s research has encompassed many of the substantive and methodological themes common to behavioral genetic researchers: data from adoptees, twins, siblings, parents and children to investigate intelligence, personality, psychopathology and family dynamics; experimental and quasi-experimental research designs, statistical modeling, synthesis of empirical results, and, perhaps most characteristically, philosophy of science. His current research includes detection of G by E interactions in twin studies of intelligence, development of statistical methods for analyses of children of twins, and the use of twins to establish quasi-experimental control in studies of developmental associations between parenting behavior and offspring outcomes in adolescence. His overarching research goal is to explore the possibilities and limitations of behavior genetics as a means of expanding the scope and rigor of human behavioral science.


You have no rebuttal to Turkheimer's arguments other than associating him with Nisbett (another reputable scholar whose name you are childishly mocking). I recommend those interested take the time to watch the actual video. Here are some key comments that refute Empress' arguments:

On the Heritability of Intelligence

Eric Turkheimer: You asked me about...getting everything nailed down on exactly what the heritability of intelligence actually is. Is it .40 or .50 or .70 or whatever...I think one thing that is very important to me and even beyond the problems that are introduced by the interactions that I've reported with poverty is that I don't think it's a meaningful question to ask "What is the heritability of intelligence?" The heritability of intelligence isn't anything...It's the most standard thing that anybody says about this, that a heritability coefficient is population specific and depends on where and when you study it. But I take that position a little bit more literally, I think, than most people do. You can make the heritability of intelligence equal to anything you want it to.

If you find a bunch of people...which actually you can't do this in people but you can do this in rats or mice. Find a bunch of inbred rats and mice who are all genetically equivalent the heritability of...ability...however you measure it in rodents would be 0 and if you get a bunch of rodents who are all raised in identical cages with identical environments the heritability would be 1 because all of the variability would be genetic. Those things are harder to do in people but it remains true. The heritability of anything depends on how genes and environment happen to be varying at the time and those things change. So...I just don't regard the whole discussion of is the heritability of intelligence .80 or .60 or .40 or .30...I just don't think that is an interesting discussion...it's not 0 and it's not 1! Those are two things that we know and there are implications of the fact that it isn't 0 or 1.

And there may be people, I don't know if there's anyone who wants to act like it's 1 but there are still people out there that want to act like it's 0 and the fact that it isn't makes them wrong about certain things. But beyond that I don't think it matters.

Stefan Molyneux: The approach that I've taken in this show is I think that from a theoretical standpoint the question is very interesting. From a practical standpoint I think it's best to approach as if it's zero because there's so much that we can do to improve the quality of children's lives that I wouldn't want us to hesitate or feel bound by some upper limit. I think we should act as if it's zero, work as much as humanly possible to improve the quality of children's upbringing, education, love, nurturing, stimulation and so on...and maybe if there's something left over after that multi-generational project then we can get back to the genetics...but I think..it's sort of like if you don't think you can run a race you won't run as fast. You know, the fastest runners run with someone who is pacing them. I think if we take the assumption at the moment that it's zero I think that stimulates a huge amount of social activity to improve the quality of children's upbringing. Maybe we will find out after awhile, it could be a long while....maybe we will find out that there is some limit. But I think we're a long way from there because there's so much that can be done to improve children's existence.

Eric Turkheimer: I basically agree with you, except that I don't think we have to assume that the heritability is zero to justify those efforts to change and increase intelligence environmentally....one of the most basic things about the heritability of anything is that heritability does not constrain malleability. So something can be very, very heritable and still be environmentally manipulable.

Stefan Molyneux: So like height, if you don't get enough food you may end up stunted so you won't reach your full potential.

Eric Turkheimer: If we study height now, it has a heritability of .90 or so...but between a period before World War II and now the height of Japanese people has increased by 6 inches on average and that's not a genetic change, it's an environmental change. Or another standard example, is the single gene genetic disorder, phenylketonuria, which prevents people from being able to digest phenylalanine which is common in food and if they do it poisons them and leads to mental retardation and eventually death. It's as straightforward a genetic disorder as there is but the treatment for it is 100%, you don't do gene therapy, the treatment for it is you avoid foods that have phenylalanine in them and you if do you avoid the consequences. So it is something that is an absolute heritable genetic thing for which the treatment is environmental.

So I think the two things, the question of, "Are the IQs of parents and children related to each other for in part genetic reasons?" The answer to the question can be yes and then you can ask a separate question, your question, "Is intelligence malleable and are there things that we can do to improve anybody's IQ regardless of what their genetic background may or may not be?" and the answer to that question is yes. And those two questions can be studied and theorized about separately. One doesn't necessarily constrain the other.