|
Post by Ganbare! on May 31, 2010 3:53:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Jun 1, 2010 22:07:30 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken there used to be a previous thread dealing with interesting IQ-race theories. Beyond ethnicity, political and social environments clearly matter but it is difficult to tell how significant their influence on intelligence really is.
It find fairly strange Italy scores the highest IQ of all Western countries although the Italian civilization is undoubtedly Europe's finest, their modern contribution is quite unspectacular compared to analogous nations.
Anyone noticed Western countries with large Sub-Saharan African populations have fairly average scores: the US, France (98) and Great-Britain (100) despite those three countries producing more innovations in most fields than the rest of the West combined?
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jun 2, 2010 0:44:20 GMT -5
I think the figures for Italy vs. other Euro countries are just statistical noise. You can kind of tell by the way the figures change over a short 4 year period when virtually all institutional and socioeconomic features haven't changed (maybe slight changes in immigration but even those should be pretty small and comparable over the 2002-2006 period). So I wouldn't read much into the small differences.
At least compared to the large differences over time. The documented presence of the "Flynn" effect - appropriately normalized IQ scores increasing significantly over the 20th century, to the point where blacks today do better than whites on IQ tests 100 years ago - represents, to me, the most compelling evidence against inherent racial and cultural differences. Though granted, while the changes over time are bigger than the racial differences, the overall racial gaps have not shrunk by much in the last century. Then again, it's not like the socioeconomic gaps or cultural mindsets of certain ethnic groups have changed much either...
Given the difficulty of making progress on what is always a thorny issue for science, I find it more interesting to ask what difference it would make if we really knew that there were inherent, unchangeable "average" racial differences in IQ (or any other measurable attribute that is correlated with success). Would we use it as an excuse for existing socioeconomic inequality or would we use it to provide redistribution and affirmative action to groups based on average differences in traits? It is well known that height also correlates with success in the West - should we then favor or disfavor individuals or ethnic groups based on height as well as intelligence? I think that's the really interesting question, and I'd especially like to know where Murray, Hernstein, William Saletan, etc. all of the people who strongly advocate inherent racial genetic differences stand...
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Jun 2, 2010 1:01:07 GMT -5
^Î wouldn't call it statistically insignificant considering the gap between Italy 102 vs Croatia 90 or Portugal 95 is huge. Also you have to take into account methodological changes between the first and the second survey concerning the slight variations. The colossal IQ difference between North Asian and African countries is very eloquent, even North Korea with its failed education system and frequent starvation is at the top, there is clear evidence to support the genetical IQ superiority of certain ethnicities over others. Do all issues need to be discussed in the light of policy, can't debates stay theoritical especially debates such as this one? On a side note IQ tests only evaluate linguistic, maths and spatial skills, there are 6 other intelligences not assessed according to Gardner. I definitely have underdeveloped logical-mathematical, visual-spatial and naturalistic abilities. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jun 2, 2010 15:30:07 GMT -5
^I wouldn't call it statistically insignificant considering the gap between Italy 102 vs Croatia 90 or Portugal 95 is huge I would. ^there is clear evidence to support the genetical IQ superiority of certain ethnicities over others. I disagree. It's just a correlation. Until you find the genes in question, you haven't really proven any genetic causation. North Korea is yet another culture based on Confucianism with near universal schooling (compared to Africa) and a competitive exam based culture vs. primarily agricultural Africa with very low levels of schooling. Having briefly perused the wikipedia link you cite (and the link to their original book) and looked a bit at the criticisms and data sources, I also conclude that their book, while thought-provoking, falls far short of academic standards. I don't believe their data or their methods. And trust me, it's not because I disagree with their conclusion - I'm certain there are some average genetic differences in performance on any number of mental and physical tests across countries or racial phenotypes. It's just that the studies on the subject fall so far short of meeting reasonable evidentiary standards that we really have NO idea what percentage of these average group differences are due to any particular factor. I strongly suggest you read this as a primer on the debate: delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/11/william-saletan.html^Do all issues need to be discussed in the light of policy, can't debates stay theoritical especially debates such as this one? No, but I think the debate about policy is the more interesting one, given the lack of data. What I'm getting at is that people who invest a lot of effort and time trying to convince you that some races are inherently superior or inferior often have an agenda, and the agenda is the interesting part. Until I see some interesting study design designed to figure out causation rather than correlation I'm not going to be particularly interested by the theoretical debate - that's why the Flynn effect is so interesting, it broadens the debate and brings in a different kind of correlation which might tell us something about causation, and doesn't just rehash a bunch of cross-sectional correlations.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jun 2, 2010 17:17:08 GMT -5
Let me just add that the * next to North Korea, which means it is "estimated," probably means they took some weighted average of Chinese and South-Korean IQ scores to impute it. Anything you see with a * is just an imputation, not based on any actual data. The exercise is so poor, statistically speaking, I wonder if they then forgot to cluster their standard errors later when they did their correlations?
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Jun 2, 2010 19:31:51 GMT -5
You are right, it's only conjecture, I don't see a way to prove causation as no one has yet. Nevertheless, confucean culture you mentionned doesn't explain why the rest of North Eastern Asian countries have much better scores than Vietnam who also have a confucean universal competitive education system inspired from China's. Like I said earlier there is more than genetics to it but there is evidence to support the case. About the Flynn effect, outside of their remarkable contribution to the arts what innovation or theory can you historically credit to Blacks, ancient Egypt aside, same for those who have been in the Western countries' favorable literary environment ?
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jun 2, 2010 20:30:47 GMT -5
"About the Flynn effect, outside of their remarkable contribution to the arts what innovation or theory can you historically credit to Blacks, ancient Egypt aside, same for those who have been in the Western countries' favorable literary environment ? "
I'm confused, what does this statement have to do with the Flynn effect? And what does the last clause mean? If you want to berate the achievements of certain ethnic groups that's fine - you should check out neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront as they have really long and detailed discussion threads on the superiority of European or white culture - but don't change the subject. We're talking about one measurable trait - IQ - and how it correlates with race over space and time.
Also, the value for Vietnam is - guess what - imputed! So the reason the Vietnamese have a lower IQ than China is - get ready for this - they border Laos!
The more you push me to look at your wikipedia link the worse this study is looking. Even their imputation procedure seems pretty ad hoc - just use the arithmetic average of neighboring countries. So they figure, well, Vietnam is about half China and half Laos. At the very least use some kind of population and geographical weighting system.
The fact that they not only fail to prove causation but severely abuse statistics for the purpose of simple correlations is really a crime, but then when your thesis is provocative enough who needs actual data or correct statistical methods.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Jun 2, 2010 21:28:46 GMT -5
I'm not saying the study is completely precise from a statistical standpoint but you are too quick to dismiss the correleation between IQ and geography. It's difficult to deny it validates anecdotal evidence we have from observing different regions past cultural and scientific development, it's very unlikely these differences only result from differing social and political environments.
Ultimately this is just an intuition considering our knowledge of human genome is not advanced enough to prove causality. It's sad you implied I have neo-Nazi thoughts for suggesting a not-so controversial idea that may have some truth in it, a lot of members have left because of the overzealous political correctness reigning on the boards, this time around you win, I'm done discussing in such atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jun 3, 2010 4:30:50 GMT -5
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you're a neo-Nazi. People can take a statement like "outside of their remarkable contribution to the arts what innovation or theory can you historically credit to Blacks, ancient Egypt aside, same for those who have been in the Western countries' favorable literary environment?" and draw their own conclusions about what you meant by it. I was just stating that you can probably find lots more discussion of the inferiority of black people or some other race and the superiority of the European race on a White supremicist forum. And you will find more people who agree with you, though you seem to enjoy arguing with me so more power to you. I enjoy contrarianism and political incorrectness as much as the next guy but I wish you would engage a little more on an intellectual level - respond to the links I cite, read the articles, look into the statistics a little more, rely less on anecdotes. I find the quote above to be a bit of an overreach and while I'm not offended by it, it does come close to crossing a line. People who cry "political correctness" need to grow a thicker skin - I'm not personally responsible for censorship and I'm going to give you my opinion no matter what. Getting back to the substance, have you read Guns, Germs and Steel? I think you need to answer Jared Diamond's points first before claiming that European or Asian civilization was due to superior genetic factors. And since you asked: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists
|
|
conorsoccr23
Junior Member
EAN Spelling Bee Winner!
Posts: 158
|
Post by conorsoccr23 on Jun 3, 2010 8:25:03 GMT -5
maby its just a cultural thing
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Jun 3, 2010 8:52:58 GMT -5
I read your link and it doesn't suggest anything to explain IQ differences, just some ramblings about the Flynn Effect that does not solve even hypothetically why some regions always scored better on IQ than others obviously not limited to Blacks, this is the reason I eluded it. I seldom p**** out but I cannot stand for very long racist innuendos especially since I merely stated the obvious or at other times for defending alternative point of views drawing from different references than yours. I really did not want to post further but to dispel the myth of my intellectual superficiality here goes. Short excerpt contradicting your opinion and validating the hypothesis that race differences in IQ are mostly genetical: Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes. www.rense.com/general77/racedif.htmI truly wish I could support culture-only universalist theories as this is what I was ideologically fed for years and you probably were too by the leftist PC academic consensus but I'd be dishonest in regards to obvious and scientific facts.
|
|
buffyuna
Junior Member
The Tabasco Kid
Posts: 94
|
Post by buffyuna on Jun 3, 2010 14:56:44 GMT -5
You are right, it's only conjecture, I don't see a way to prove causation as no one has yet. Nevertheless, confucean culture you mentionned doesn't explain why the rest of North Eastern Asian countries have much better scores than Vietnam who also have a confucean universal competitive education system inspired from China's. Like I said earlier there is more than genetics to it but there is evidence to support the case. About the Flynn effect, outside of their remarkable contribution to the arts what innovation or theory can you historically credit to Blacks, ancient Egypt aside, same for those who have been in the Western countries' favorable literary environment ? I don't understand why Egypt can't be included. "Black" is more of a culture than a race nowadays (like Latino) so you have many "blacks" that look like the ancient Egyptians, from the dark to the tan to the light. To answer the question, Egypt wasn't the only so called advanced civilization in Africa. You had tons of kingdoms/empires in North Africa such as the Kus***e Empire, and the Aksumite Empire. Since I'm assuming that you don't consider North Africa to be a representation of Black people here are some West, East, and South African Empires/Kingdoms before colonialism: Oyo Empire, Mali Empire, Benin Empire, Ghana Empire...etc. Here's a short clip on the Mali Empire, not really in depth but it shows some of their accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jun 3, 2010 16:01:12 GMT -5
^No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
That's a straw man argument if I've ever heard one. And it's not true - there is lots of evidence that interventions do work, inclding adoption studies that show that being adopted by higher socioeconomic status families boosts IQ considerably, by about 1 standard deviation or 10-15 points, or similar to the black/white race gap and much bigger than the Asian/White gap (about .32 sd). The gap between highest and lowest social classes in the UK is 2 standard deviations, much bigger than the racial gaps. Of course, I would never use this to argue that social class CAUSES differences in IQ, and I couldn't use it to rule out genetics - maybe the lower classes are just gentically inferior to we ubermenschen. It just illustrates that potentially cultural factors can explain a lot of variation.
^Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
This is the best evidence we have. But it's still far from conclusive, both because of pre-adoption factors (selection into adoption, nutrition in utero and early childhood, etc.) and subsequent environmental factors. A black child raised in a white family is still perceived and treated like a black person, is more likely to have black friends, etc. I don't think you can conclude from the study how important genetic factors are relative to other ones. The reason I keep citing the Flynn effect is to show that environmental factors - cumulated over about 50 years - are more than enough to explain the ENTIRE current black/white gap. And this is clearly holding the genetics of a population constant.
^Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
Total BS. Native Alaskans and Siberians would have the highest IQs if that were true.
As for the racist innuendoes, let me try to clarify: Do you agree or disagree with the statement that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites who are less genetically intelligent than Asians? And do you then agree that differences in the advancement of civilizations is due to this inherent genetic superiority?
I claim you have been arguing yes on both points. If I'm wrong about this I apologize - please correct me. If you agree, then by my definition, your beliefs do not make you racist or a neo-Nazi per se. That's where I was going earlier with my comments about the interesting thing being the implications of racial or genetic differences for policy. If you believe that blacks are genetically inferior ("stupider") then one course of action is to support them and give them more support from society because they start at a disadvantage. That would be an "anti-racist" racism, like a permanent affirmative action grounded in genetics rather than historical oppression and disadvantage. Or you could use that belief to support subjugation of the inferior race or to encourage racial purity of the superior races, eugenics, etc. Now THAT would be neo-Nazi. Hernstein and Murray and Jensen and Rushton et al. are all conservatives, and they all argue that their evidence on genetic racial difference implies that "intervention is wasted" and we should be worried about the lower classes/stupider races outbreeding us. I don't know if that makes them racist or neo-Nazis by your definition, but one reason they get so much criticism- apart from making claims that I think are much stronger than what the evidence permits - is that they make these claims for policy alongside their arguments about genetic superiority.
Do I think you fall into the first case - the anti-racist racism? Yes. You seem to favor redistributionist, collectivist goals generally, and I imagine you are not arguing for less government intervention on behalf of (gentically) disadvantaged groups.
But do I agree with the initial premise, that some races are inherently less intelligent and that is explains all or most of the differences in historical development, growth, civilization, arts and achievements. No. Am I the one who is being ideological and politically incorrect, ignoring all the data, while you are just acknowledging the incontrovertible truth? Or are you the contrarian and I'm just being a good, skeptical empiricist who is deeply unimpressed by sweeping claims, generalizations, and theories based on very poor empirical evidence?
I'll repeat that I'm not arguing for a culture-only hypothesis, just like you're presumably not arguing for a genetics only hypothesis. The "truth" lies somewhere in the middle and it seems clear we are on different sides of the spectrum. I'll leave it at that.
Buffyuna, thanks for the interesting post.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Jun 3, 2010 21:12:15 GMT -5
You are right, it's only conjecture, I don't see a way to prove causation as no one has yet. Nevertheless, confucean culture you mentionned doesn't explain why the rest of North Eastern Asian countries have much better scores than Vietnam who also have a confucean universal competitive education system inspired from China's. Like I said earlier there is more than genetics to it but there is evidence to support the case. About the Flynn effect, outside of their remarkable contribution to the arts what innovation or theory can you historically credit to Blacks, ancient Egypt aside, same for those who have been in the Western countries' favorable literary environment ? I don't understand why Egypt can't be included. "Black" is more of a culture than a race nowadays (like Latino) so you have many "blacks" that look like the ancient Egyptians, from the dark to the tan to the light. To answer the question, Egypt wasn't the only so called advanced civilization in Africa. You had tons of kingdoms/empires in North Africa such as the Kus***e Empire, and the Aksumite Empire. Since I'm assuming that you don't consider North Africa to be a representation of Black people here are some West, East, and South African Empires/Kingdoms before colonialism: Oyo Empire, Mali Empire, Benin Empire, Ghana Empire...etc. Here's a short clip on the Mali Empire, not really in depth but it shows some of their accomplishments. I didn't think anyone else had heard of African empires here so I didn't mention them but you are completely right, Africa was more developed than the West during Antiquity, the Kush empire had a centralized government similar to pre-Columbian meso-American civilizations, knew ivory carving techniques, my mother was born in Africa so she told me about their story. I mostly agree with you but I'm not in favor of fixing inequalities on a racial basis instead of income. I'm not going to force Asians to replace background hip hop dancer if they can't, biological advantages should be taken into account to optimize policy, who wants a world populated by artificial, rootless chimera-like individuals? Policymakers are no God. Furthermore there should be no more failed job/education affirmative action in which minorities from upper classes are favored over all groups of low status either. I support meritocracy not mediocre, unnatural absolute social/gender/ethnic egalitarism! Since I don't have decisive evidence to prove my claims and you don't either and considering your skeptic posture, I'll keep it at that unless someone brings conclusive facts to the table.
|
|