When are white nationalist going to stop pretending to care about IQ?

My contributions to this thread have also been well-reasoned. You changed the subject by interjecting nonsense about me having no credibility and being a "horrible human being" because I called you a racist for trying to derail my thread. Why don't you just stick to the topic and debate in good faith?

 

That's exactly what I was doing, then you showed up.

 

I showed up to address the topic not pick a fight with you. You're the one who changed the subject. Stick to the topic.

 

I guess my problem with the leftist angle in this debate is that it cedes some ground to racists. Even if the entirety of the disparity in general intelligence between populations could be put down to genetics, so what?

Of what importance is 4 points on an IQ test between populations? I really don't understand where racists are going with these claims.

 

First, you need to stop treating this like a political topic. Rejecting Scientific Racism is not a "leftist angle" nor is it a manifestation of political correctness. This is an issue of Scientific Correctness and both liberals and conservatives have addressed this topic (for example look up what Thomas Sowell has said about the race & IQ controversy) but more importantly respected scientists have opposed this research. They aren't supporting an "angle" just refuting this research.

Now where are the racists going with this? That is simple. They are trying to seek a genetic basis for racist stereotypes. Their real goal is to justify racist views. They don't care about science. They are using science as a tool to advance a racist ideological agenda. If you look at the argument of White Nationalists they support what they call "race-realism" because they believe that racial differences are socially important. What they are basically promoting is the concept of dysgenics, which is that the accumulation of disadvantageous genes over time will cause a society to degenerate due to lowering important characteristics such as intelligence, health and morality. Watch the movie Idiocracy for an idea of how dysgenics is supposed to play out. The racists believe that the immigration or over reproduction of low IQ groups will lead to the downfall of Western Civilization and that we need racist social policies to stop that.

Now I for one do not believe that if Scientific Racism were correct that this would justify racist policy recommendations. Tim Wise wrote a good article on this titled,

"Race, Intelligence and the Limits of Science: Reflections on the Moral Absurdity of “Racial Realism”

http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race...ons-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realism/

In the article Wise argued that while arguments like those promoted in The Bell Curve can certainly be demonstrably shown to be based on pseudoscientific premises we shouldn't focus solely on the scientific aspect of this topic and lose sight of the real issue which is that racists are using science to justify their racist views. Let's say that "race-realism" was based on good science and that these theories of racial differences in mental characteristics were correct. What difference does that make for social policies on race? Should we all become racists because of it? Absolutely not! Racism is morally reprehensible regardless of what differences exist biologically. We don't discriminate against the mentally ill and disabled just because of their problems do we? Racist policies like mass deportation, sterilization, genocide, segregation etc. are ridiculous and no amount of scientific research is going to justify these ideas i.e. the position is morally absurd.

So no ground is being ceded to racists. But I don't believe the conversation should end with, "Even if they are right, so what?"

I don't believe that racists should be allowed to take the scientific high ground. Their theories are false. Beyond that they don't matter any way. Their ideas are not a threat to egalitarian principles. However I have presented sound scientific research in this thread that refutes their arguments and addresses your concerns with this research. The theories of racists are not taken seriously by the scientific community in general because what they are presenting is not real science. What we're dealing with is pseudoscience that's only purpose is to serve racist ideological agendas which have no place in a civilized society.

 

I certainly do not. It is a political topic, that's why it's so incendiary.

This is simple nonsense. If their concern is people with IQ points a few points below the national average (which is inconsequential) then "race" shouldn't be a determining factor at all, only IQ.

That's exactly my point.

Sure, I agree, but there is a danger that there IS a genetic component to general intelligence disparity between populations. At least in principle. If you find small enough populations you will find disparity through chance alone.

My problem is that anybody who believes that there might be a genetic component to general intelligence disparity between populations might get branded as a racist, for no good reason.

 

What I mean by that is when it comes to the subject of race and intelligence and whether there are genetically determined racial differences in IQ I don't believe that it is reasonable to brand the opposition to racists as "leftists" as if their position is purely political and not rooted in science. Certainly the topic has social implications and could influence public policy on race depending on what one feels should be done about such differences. That's the political expect. The scientific position that there is no genetic component to racial differences in IQ should not be generalized as coming from the left or liberals.

Yes, you could argue that if you want to discriminate based on IQ then condemning entire races isn't justified. Only low IQ people should be treated differently. The fact that racists don't do this exposes their real agenda which is simply to rationalize racist views and racist policy recommendations.

I agree with this point and it is important. But you should consider that opponents of Scientific Racism are not ceding any argument to proponents. If they were right that wouldn't justify racism. I wouldn't stop being an Egalitarian and become a racist or believe that treating everyone fairly was no longer worth promoting. That has never been the position of opponents of this theory and Tim Wise's article exemplifies my point.

While it is possible to be an Egalitarian and believe that the theory of genetically determined racial differences in intelligence is scientifically valid you shouldn't fall in to the trap of saying, "Believing this doesn't make me racist therefore this theory is probably true."

I know some people who have discussed this topic on the internet who believe in Egalitarian principles but have come to believe that there probably is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and some groups are mentally inferior. One poster went as far as to say that they thought Blacks were genetically defective and as a group could not behave like people of normal intelligence and temperament to produce a successful culture but that they aren't proud to believe this and don't think Blacks should be mistreated. My concern with this position is that it's basically a promotion of racist stereotypes and a form of benign racism i.e. "I don't hate them but I agree that they are mentally inferior."

The reason that I vigorously oppose Scientific Racism aside from it being pseudoscience is that it is socially harmful. These racist theories have the potential to damage race-relations. They are insulting. They are being used to rationalize racist perceptions and policy recommendations. Even if you don't believe this when you say that you think the argument is plausible and likely true you are legitimizing this pseudoscientific propaganda. Now you did admit to being ignorant of scientific arguments against these racist conclusions and notice that I presented the argument rather than dismiss you as a racist and shout you down. That is how I believe these discussions should be handled. Scientific Racism doesn't need to be censored or ignored just subjected to rigorous critique.

 

I'm not a white nationalist but the IQ issue is important because whites are endlessly scapegoated for the poor comparative socioeconomic outcomes of low average IQ populations to the point of at times being attacked on the streets in racially-motivated hate crimes.

 

Not entire ones, just large portions of certain ones which would be enough to piss off a lot of people.

Personally I'm not interested in treating anyone differently or denying anyone opportunities. My view is that if you fail it's on you and you should stop assuming your failure is a result of a big racial conspiracy theory without looking at other factors and ruling them out in order like an intelligent, contemplative adult.

 

Correlation is not causality.

Personally, I would submit that the former leads to the latter. In other words, better education leads to higher IQ.

 

That'd be because IQ is not genetic (my bold).

 

Stating that environment influences behavior and culture does not mean that you don't hold people accountable for their actions or appeal to racial conspiracy theories. Institutional racism against Blacks in America by Whites for example is not a conspiracy theory, it is a historical fact and this discrimination has had a negative social, economic, physical and psychological impact on Black Americans. That does not equate to "blame everything on White people." Rather than looking for someone to blame why not look at not only causes of conditions but solutions? Racist pseudoscience doesn't solve anything and is just propaganda designed to justify racist agendas.

 

This is false. There is more genetic diversity between than within races.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/5vy238/i_refute_the_meme_that_theres_more_genetic/

 

I am not a biologist. But from what I understand, these assumptions are mostly not based on taking someone's genes and seeing a difference in a assume the genome. Since every human is unique, then every genome is unique. My question, and I ask again, I am not a biologist, is there a a convergnce point where we declare that two indivduals are the "same or similar". Also does a white person with an IQ of 85 have similar genes to a black person with an IQ of IQ? Where is the actual biological study, the mathematics, the actual rigorous proofs for any of these claims. To me it seems to be a lot of claims backed up by social studies. And white they have their place, this isn't a substitute for actual legit biological proof.

 

I'm sure better education might enhance IQ, but no education is going to turn anyone into John Von Neumann.

 

After doing some research just right on the spot, it seems there are several methods for measuring genetic difference. I guess the official term is genetic distance. Nei standard seems to be based on a divergence point. There are others as well, at least based on skimming the wikipedia page. But it seems they all have their pros and cons. The formulas seem pretty complex.

Here is a breakdown of the formula:

http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/molmark/lect06/lect6.html

This is an even more technical breakdown:

http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/washu/washub87001/washub87001_part6.pdf

I also decided to ask another question. "How are these actual distances measured". It appears to be based on. Here is the wikipedia entry. It does seem to be quite a bit of variations and methods of taxonomy between humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

However this is pointless if we don't measure the genes for intelligence. Though this article sites SNPs as having a strong correlation with IQ test. Though this article also says it falls apart after significant sample sizes

http://bigthink.com/world-in-mind/which-genes-are-responsible-for-intelligence

This article does link to a refutation of SNP's correlation with intelligence, but it's a broken link

To me, there doesn't appear to be conclusive enough information from the field of genetics to really say we know with any certainty how similar or dissimilar people are. Hence I think any claim that states it does know is likely to be pretty bogus

 

You can't become Von Neumman without significant education however. And access to that type of information and resources require that someone already have a significant income. Most people simply don't have the resources to become Von Neumann, because it takes a lot of commitment. Even if you have a very bright poor person, they will never have the resources to ever come up with the innovations he did.

Which begs the question. Can someone really be all that intelligence without an significant amount of knowledge?

 

I think intelligence is separate from knowledge, however some knowledge is required to even take an IQ test. If you're illiterate but a genius, then you'll not score on a test that you can't read. But von Neuman's intelligence I brought up because he didn't require massive educational resources to become the genius he was. I just read this blog post about him and the other atomic bomb creators. Apparently many of them went to the same High School in Hungary.

THE ATOMIC BOMB CONSIDERED AS HUNGARIAN HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE FAIR PROJECT

 

Coming up with an idea doesn't make you a genius, or mean you have some special innate ability. A bunch of school kids in Brooklyn could have had the same idea, but they probably wouldn't have had the same access to education and resources someone from Hungary would have. And with that said even if you come out with an idea, knowledge is the only thing that would enable you to follow through with your ideas.

Again which begs the question. We can all agree that there is no problem in the world that can't be solve without knowledge. So can a person assume that intellgence is simply the acquisition of knowledge? you can even state intelligence is "how someone thinks". But how is that even significant without a substantial amount of knowledge. It would seem that there no problems in the world knowledge can't solve.

 

I'm going to have to disagree that "we all agree that there is no problem in the world that can't be solve[sic] without knowledge." We have a lot of knowledge. But that didn't stop Venezuela.

I think you are arguing that IQ is simply a factor of knowledge or education. That doesn't seem to be true at all and that's not what's tested on IQ tests.

 

So let me frame a question for you. Couldn't the atom bomb have just been created by some computational model. Couldn't a computer with the right processing power, and the right algorithm just produce the framework to create atom bomb? To me it seems to be the case. Make it a "knowledge" problem.

I find it a bit funny that we measure high IQ by someone's proficiency in science and math. Both of which requires a ton of knowledge. No one is a natural mathematical genius. Not without knowledge of mathematics. They may have some innate sense of quantities and counting. But no way they could come up with the sophistication of formulas and abstractions we see in modern sciences. And let's be honest, the computer kills us in terms of mathematics which is the basis of all other sciences.

Yet we flock to scientist as our "geniuses". When in reality anyone can learn exactly what they know. Maybe not everyone will have the same insights. But they don't need them. Knowledge is good enough in 95% of all problems in the world.

I mean why don't we call Michael Jackson a genius? You're far more likely to duplicate or surpass the work of Albert Einstein than your are to ever be another Michael Jackson. I mean I can take a book, lock myself in a room and learn all the math needed to figure out what Einstein knew. Maybe it'll take a few months, maybe a few years. But there is nothing to stop anyone in the world from knowing what most theorhetical physicist know. The only differences between the average guy and researcher are resources to continue to research the field. Otherwise anyone can know what's been recorded and written. Yet it's hard to be another Michael Jackson. Even if you can emulated his look, his voice, and his moves. You simply can't inspire people the way he has.


My issue with IQ is we assume it tells the whole picture, when in reality it only seems to tell us a little part of who a person is. What they can do and what they can achieve. You can always say "historically" it has been a great predictator. But I have yet to see some regression model of how IQ predicts outcomes. Why? Because such a statement isn't emprical. It's pure conjecture, and born more of deifying IQ test than anything that can be modeled and measured through pure scientific rigor. It's a statement that tell us more about how pious we are about IQ test, moreso than it states a mathematical reality.

 

Well we don't measure IQ based on proficiency in science and math. It's based more on pattern recognition and problem solving. So..not a knowledge issue.

And I don't think anyone is assuming IQ tells the whole picture. But it seems that you have been working yourself to the point that you don't believe IQ measures anything significant, and therefore is a meaningless test and measure. That's fine if you think that, but then why even start this thread? By your apparent measure, white nationalists are consumed with a testing device that doesn't say anything important. In fact, it doesn't even have whites at the top of the heap. You need to correct those guys!

 

Obviously, you don't like the hundreds of studies showing the same thing that Blacks are one standard deviation below Whites with IQ's.

College isn't for everyone, neither is high school. However, legitimate schools require tests that require intelligence. SAT and other tests correlate very nicely with how one will do in college academics---not how well they will play sports for their college teams.

I don't have your sour grapes because I took all the countless tests and passed many different National and State boards in pursuit of my Doctor's degree. All done with no scholarships and almost no federal grants or free money.

Creative geniuses, those who invent or discover groundbreaking things, almost always do well financially: Edison, Ford, Westinghouse, Bill Gates, Bell and so many more.

 

Again, we have to ask ourselves, "what is success"? Is it about money? If it's about money, I've already stated you can make money without any significant education or utilization of intellect. I know people with little to no education who have successfully started businesses. But then someone would respond "well that isn't actually success".

So how are we measuring success? Are we only defining success by people like Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, who represent the top 0.001% of the entire human race? In that case, haven't all failed to be successful? Haven't all the PHDs in universities failed to be successful if that is the metric?

So again, you have to ask, how is IQ relevant. What type of objective reality does it tells us about a human being that is that can be qualified? It seems that the shift in economic systems from strong protectionism to stronger free markets have created a better opportunities for people in general. People who I'm not really sure have top level IQs in every case.

So again, what does IQ measure, what is success, and what is the value? And if success is economic success, then we have to assume that our economy is a constant (it's not, in case you don't know economics). Hence my example of the differences between a 1970s economy vs a 2010s economy. A lot of people are taking the traditional "road to sucess" and failing, while they're being passed up by people who are not. Who aren't show any demonstratively quantifable intellect. Can we really throw such observations about humans and their relative success because it doesn't fit our worship of IQ test? Which studies people source are extremely old.

 

Success on a personal level is meeting all your goals that can be met.

To some people success is getting as much of whatever they want with as little effort and as quickly as possible. Winning the lottery or getting a lawsuit settlement.

On a more global level, its achieving important things that one's in-group sees as a positive.

Just don't forget the really important people, like Edison & Gates who allow you to post on your computer, and greats like George Washington who helped this land from being controlled by heathen savages in a constant state of war, with almost no human rights---into present day America with all its wonderful things and liberty.