Some comments about "race" and "intelligence"

Bill,

Your post 58 got right to the very heart of this matter.

Ed

Post 61

Sunday, May 6, 2012 - 11:59am

I'd like to point out, once again, that IQ is not the same as intelligence, and, further, intelligence is not the same as either character or true ideas.

IQ is the mathematical score on a test, a test that does not measure common sense, wisdom, character, value structures, or even those reasoning practices that deal with our emotional nature.

IQ is not intelligence, but even if it were, intelligence is only a capacity to abstract, and by itself it can be like a powerful engine placed into an automobile with a slipping transmission and failing steering mechanism.

Sound ideas, good value priorities, good psycho-epistemological reasoning practices, acquired wisdom, and good character - these are far more important in the functional use of consciousness to guide our lives. None of them are genetically determined.

We can (and should) attack those bad ideas that make up the heart of various subcultures, teach critical thinking, and demand certain character traits. Sometimes, what needs attacking is a failure to order the priority of values - like failing to put education and personal responsibility high on the list. Collections of values make up the heart of a subculture and identification with that subculture's values will determine success or failure of those in that subculture.

Until we focus on subcultures and their values we are stuck with either head-in-the-sand failure to identify the causes of success or failure of whole groups of people, even whole civilizations, or we end up doing that primitive and stupid identification of race as cause which will not only fail to answer the real causes of success or failure, but will cause horrendous injustices of it's own.

Post 62

Tuesday, May 8, 2012 - 4:43pm

Thank you, Mr. Dwyer. Your post 56 states my position quite well, although I was somewhat naively thinking that it shouldn't have to be spelled out.

Brad, it's possible in your post 57 that you are referring to Dean who posted in this discussion last November. However, if you were, in fact, referring to Deanna (that would be me), I would like to clarify some points.

First, I am a she.

Second, I do not agree with you. I do not find your source information to be more persuasive than the dissenting source information provided by other participants in this discussion. Nor do I find your conclusions to be in agreement with my own personal experience.

Third, I am not interested in coming to your defense because ..... I don't agree with you. See above.

Fourth, you are partly correct in that I don't think emphasizing racial differences as it pertains to IQ is productive. I will gladly entertain a discussion on other racial differences where I know there to be some positive end-game. For instance, in matters of health and wellness, research that focuses on why some races are more disposed to certain diseases will lead us to better treatments for those diseases.

Finally, I do not lack interest in fighting for the truth. I lack interest in fighting for your truth. To be fair, I am not fighting against you, either. I have simply asked that you define your expected outcomes.

Post 63

Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 1:01pm

Please allow me to find some facts to rationalize my hatred of a group of people that is not based upon their actions.

Oh wait, I'm not Brad.

I work in a diverse workplace with people from many different countries and with people of many different "races." That's enough to tell me how valid such "facts" are.

Discussions with people such as Brad are a net loss of finite lifetime.
(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 5/09, 1:14pm)

Post 64

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 4:17am

To withhold full consideration of the factual merits of a claim until one knows that the facts will lead to "positive" outcomes (in an emotional or moral sense) is to invert the relationship between facts and values. All rational values are based on facts first identified objectively. An objective assessment takes into account only whether a claim corresponds with reality, not whether it accords with a pre-derived emotional or moral standard. According to Objectivism, a fact cannot be a threat to one's rational values. Values aren't self-justifying absolutes. Rather, they are justified by the valuer's contextual grasp of facts of reality. If one acquires new knowledge, then changes in values may logically follow.

Characterizing the ideas of a person with whom one disagrees as being motivated by "hatred" is rational only if one can point to actual expressions of hatred. Otherwise, it is non-objective argumentation that falls under the category of speculative psychologizing.

Personal anecdotes do not refute data pertaining to averages or distributions. The respective IQ distributions of any given races will show overlap. Height distributions among males and females also overlap (height is about 80% heritable; IQ is about 75% heritable).

Among all people in the U.S. with IQs below 75, there are more blacks than whites. Among all people in the U.S. with IQs above 100, there are several times more whites than blacks.

(Edited by Brad Trun on 5/10, 4:30am)

Post 65

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 8:14am

There is no value (to me) to the above post by Brad Trun. I doubt there is value in it to anyone other than Brad and those like him that want to use statistics to feel better about themselves without having to actually do anything.

Citing IQ distributions does not do anything to build value based trading relationships.

It should be noted that Brad's IQ could in fact be to the far left of this chart meaning that most "black" people have a higher IQ. Consider this when deciding whether or not to respond to him and other members of Team Retard.

Post 66

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 10:42am

Brad says we can use information about statistical differences in intelligence between races to "stop encouraging unrealistic expectations". This is absolutely, horribly, wrong and immoral! And I think this is the key thing that all us sensible types on this thread are objecting to. To use Brad's little graph above to justify saying to a black child, "don't bother trying to become a scientist or engineer; it's too hard for you because you're black" - is just plain wrong, in both senses - incorrect and immoral.

Post 67

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 11:48am

Anthony Robbins corroborates Laure Chipman's assertion:

Let me start with one major warning: There is no need to put any limitations on what's possible. Of course, that doesn't mean throwing your intelligence and common sense out the window. If you're four feet eleven inches tall, there's no sense deciding your outcome is to win the NBA slam dunk contest next year. No matter what you try, it won't happen (unless you work well on stilts)*. More important, you'll be diverting your energy from where it can be most effective. But when viewed intelligently, there are no limits to the outcomes available to you. Limited goals create limited lives. So stretch yourself as far as you want in setting your goals. You need to decide what you want, because that's the only way you can expect to get it.

* Since I wrote this, Spud Webb of the Atlanta Hawks, 5'7", won the slam dunk contest. So much for the limitations of stilts.

Robbins, Anthony (2008-06-30). Unlimited Power: The New Science Of Personal Achievement (Kindle Locations 3004-3007). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/10, 11:50am)

Post 68

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 12:32pm

Laure,

If by "absolutely, horribly, wrong and immoral!" you mean a volitional act that inherently runs severely counter to the actor's rational self-interest, then you'd need to establish that it's always going to make the actor happier to foster expectations other than those grounded in reality. You'd need to establish that refraining from "encouraging unrealistic expectations" will always subtract happiness from the actor. I don't think you'll be able to do that.

You're apparently quoting yourself when you offer up this line of advice for refutation: "don't bother trying to become a scientist or engineer; it's too hard for you because you're black." I didn't say those words or any others to suggest that being a scientist or engineer requires an IQ categorically outside of the entire black IQ distribution, and putting those words up for refutation doesn't refute me or the objective facts of reality I've identified. If you seek to refute a subjective normative claim I've made or piece of advice I've given, then you'll first need to identify it.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the arguments of those who demand and impose discriminatory Affirmative Action programs. Their demand is for equal outcomes, and the premise that gives their demand the appearance of moral plausibility is the myth of innate equality. One you accept the fact that people aren't born equal, that racial disparities are natural, then there is no case to be made for using guilt and brute force to try to engineer an equality that is unnatural and impossible.

Post 69

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 12:40pm

My objection is that you cannot judge what expectations are realistic or unrealistic for any given individual, from looking at the Gaussian distribution of the IQ scores for the race to which that individual belongs. That is all.

Post 70

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 12:46pm

Brad,

No one has to refute your "facts" The statistics you cite have absolutely nothing to do with how any individual goes about building relationships with any other individual.

The whole concept of race is not valid.

If your mom is "white" and your dad is "black" what are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3eTSbC3neA

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 5/10, 12:56pm)

Post 71

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 1:11pm

Neither category deconstruction nor the invocation of the continuum fallacy change the objective fact that human populations developed "distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation" (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race).

One's evolutionary lineage is objectively estimable by reference to distinct phenotypic traits such as black skin, red hair, or epicanthic eye folds. Any mixture of lineages is objectively verifiable through DNA genotyping.

The choice to be objective or to erect moralistic, emotionalistic, or post-modern anti-conceptual barriers to your understanding of how humans evolved differently in different environments and with different levels of hybridization with neanderthals and other extinct homo spanien subspecies...is yours.

Post 72

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 1:19pm

You are not worth a rational argument. I give you my categorization of the content of your arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l12Csc_lW0Q

Post 73

Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 6:15pm

What's wrong with this picture?

The variance-in-outcome of lab-measured IQ is:

75% due to differences in genetics
>5% due to differences in lead exposure
>5% due to differences in manganese exposure
>5% due to differences in breastfeeding timespan
>5% due to differences in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids
>5% due to differences in socio-economic status
>5% due to differences in blood sugar control
>5% due to differences in other environmental factors

That's already over 110% of the variance in outcome with respect to the noted differences in lab-measured IQ! We must be really very good at explaining things, because we can even explain more than 100% of all of the difference ever recorded!

:-)

Can you guess which line item from above is the one that probably needs some adjusting?

Ed

Post 74

Friday, May 11, 2012 - 4:49am

To withhold full consideration of the factual merits of a claim until one knows that the facts will lead to "positive" outcomes (in an emotional or moral sense) ...

What about a "full consideration" of the environmental influences on lab-measured IQ?

[blank out]

Post 75

Friday, May 11, 2012 - 1:05pm

"Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5 to a high of 0.9. A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence. A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older. The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies."

Heritability of IQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

I use the most mainstream estimate of adult IQ heritability, .75, rather than the higher-end estimate of .85. I'm open to .85 being a more accurate measure, but I'm not familiar enough with the methodology to have an opinion.

Research into IQ heritability between individuals isn't politically taboo, as it is between races, so I have no reason to think the .75 estimate would be understated for corrupt reasons. Ideological bias is usually absurd on its face and extremely blatant, as in category denials, appeals to cultural/linguistic relativism, consequential apppeals, or selective unreasonable skepticism - as in dogmatic unwillingness to accept that the genetic contribution to any of the race gaps is more than 0%.

Whether IQ heritability is .75 or .85 or .5, none of these estimates support rigid egalitarian or culture-only explanations. It's pointless to argue data with people who derive their position from religion. Data won't move them from absolutist "created equal" theories that have an emotional stronghold on them. If they are to be moved, their religiosity must be broken.

Post 76

Friday, May 11, 2012 - 2:14pm

When the pattern of behavior of an individual reveals that his intention is to focus on the deficiency of individuals due to a group genetic makeup, it is reasonable to view their assertions with suspicion.

Put another way, racists look for ways to justify their position, and their assertions are therefore likely to be crap.

Here is where we should be focusing regarding his crappy assertions:

IQ is not intelligence.
Intelligence is not character.
Intelligence is not wisdom.
Marginal difference in intelligence are only loosely related to a valid structure of knowledge
Success in life is related much more tightly to an integration of intelligence, character, wisdom and true ideas. (and of that group, intelligence is the least important in being happy - and IQ isn't even on the list.)

-------------
Let us imagine another distribution chart where instead of Black/White populations distributed over IQ scores, we have OCD/Racist populations distributed over intensity of belief in racial determination of intelligence. In other words, what is the distribution in a population of those who equate IQ with race between those who simply are obsessed with the relationship of race/IQ even though they are not racists, and all others who are obsessed with a relationship of race/IQ because they are racists? In the part of the chart where the intensity of belief is highest, when I imagine such a chart, knowing how very tiny would be the number of individuals who somehow become strongly fixated upon this relationship despite not being racist, I would have to say that it is statiscally overwhelmingly in favor of Trun being racist. How could I think otherwise?

In other words, If it walks like a duck....

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 5/11, 2:29pm)

Post 77

Friday, May 11, 2012 - 4:04pm

Steve, if you'll tell me what a "duck" is, I'll tell you if I am one or not in order to save you from having to guess on the basis of whether I "walk" like one (or, as would be more telling, "quack" like one).

Tell me what a "racist" is. Define it clearly. The term seems to function mainly as a vague insult in response to hurt feelings. Some opinions called "racist" I reject, others I don't. Sometimes facts themselves are called "racist." Maybe DNA is "racist."

Whether I am, by any definition, has nothing to do with how racial distributions of IQ (which measures major aspects of intelligence, though not all) vary as a consequence of different continental evolutionary origins that resulted in different selective pressures for brain size and cognitive functioning.

Post 78

Friday, May 11, 2012 - 4:46pm

Brad, are you now or have you ever been a member of Mensa or qualified to join?

Post 79

Friday, May 11, 2012 - 4:54pm