Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 252

Thread: Race and Intelligence

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Do you have a better measure to offer?
    You might try the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities, the Cognitive Assessment System, or even the Kaufman Assessment Battery (just to name a few). Either way, as I've tried to make clear above, how you test it depends almost entirely on how you define it.
    But are they better? By what standard?

    If you have tests that measure different mental traits, and stats about those tests (for different groups, twin studies etc.), then great! It can inform us on the genetic and environmental components of those traits. I don't see how the existence of a multiplicity of tests changes things one way or another.

    (though in this case your tests look like they all measure roughly the same thing(s), or at least share certain components.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    The correct thing to say is that we're all purely, simply one species and always have been.
    If you are a creationist, you might say that. It's not a very scientific statement, though.
    Why? We fit the usual definition of "species" pretty well, don't we?
    "Always have been"? I thought we evolved.
    This is veering off-topic, but I guess it depends of how we interpret Pong's comment. The way I interpreted it is "at a time t, mankind (or whatever its ancestors were at that time) is/was one species".

    If you read it as "we are the same species as we were X million years ago", then indeed I'd agree that it isn't true for large enough values of X.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    If I may join your discussion, intelligence is empirically an output of brain function. Across all present-day permutations of humanity, there is no evidence suggesting a distinction in brain development, structure, or function among the races except by imposed environmental influences (e.g., sensory or nutritional deprivation). This suggests, given equivalent factors in the sensory experiences and nutrition of the various races, no true distinction exist in the intelligence potential between the races; i.e., given equal experience and nutrition, from womb to adulthood, a South African Pigmy child has the same potential for genius as that of an Asian, American, Indian, German, Russian, etc. child. Although we may appear different outwardly, inwardly--physiologically and neurologically--we are all empirically the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    If I may join your discussion, intelligence is empirically an output of brain function. Across all present-day permutations of humanity, there is no evidence suggesting a distinction in brain development, structure, or function among the races except by imposed environmental influences (e.g., sensory or nutritional deprivation). This suggests, given equivalent factors in the sensory experiences and nutrition of the various races, no true distinction exist in the intelligence potential between the races.
    My understanding is that there are differences in the results of IQ test, that could be explained either by genetics or environment. As far as I know, it is still an open question. Do you think the question has been settled, and if so why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    3s
    3s is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    28
    It would be hard to imagine someone would make a selection criteria (like IQ test)
    on which he/she would fail.

    say:
    we are at the top of the food chain, because of our IQ, we're the most succesfull living species.
    don't say:
    We need a lot of IQ to make our species succesfull, it soaks up most of our energy supplies, which makes us the less efficient species.
    I don't believe we gained much brain capacity throughout the centuries, so there's not going to be much brain capacity difference between the races.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    My understanding is that there are differences in the results of IQ test, that could be explained either by genetics or environment. As far as I know, it is still an open question.
    Harold; That's been my understanding as well, but I had not heard the argument that diet would be instrumental, when talking about the brain or this case IQ. Of the races, most I believe do think orientals excel in IQ, yet the smallest of the races, least brain capacity and not really living in historically environmentally friendly parts of the world. The one major factor could very well be diet, which would have been very different in the other races, for a very long time. If I recall correctly, hard liquor will still make most orientals sick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    My understanding is that there are differences in the results of IQ test, that could be explained either by genetics or environment. As far as I know, it is still an open question. Do you think the question has been settled, and if so why?
    To-date, there is no evidence of inherent genetic variations in normal brain development, structure, and function among the divergent races. No one race has a proportionally larger, more efficient brain than the others. Genetic variations suggest an abnormality that could occur among humanity regardless of race. However, given equal social and environmental circumstance, no race has a singular advantage above the others in intelligence.

    Any discussion of social or environmental factors suggests an artificial rather than innate distinction. Artificial factors could introduce advantages and disadvantages among all spices of life. However, no factor throughout the history of humanity has effected a race-wide distinction in innate brain development and output. A child conceived in the womb of a Pigmy mother has the same potential as a child of Nordic descent if given the same neonatal care, intellectual and social upbringing. Innately, we are all the same and are conceived with the same potential if given the same advantages, as I have said, from womb to adulthood. In my opinion, this question is settled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    In my opinion
    Noted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    In my opinion
    Noted.
    Not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of anyone of sound reason who has read, studied, and assessed the associated neurological evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    You needn't defend yourself against stupid put-downs. Most readers will understand Harold's remark better than he intended.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of anyone of sound reason who has read, studied, and assessed the associated neurological evidence.
    Argumentum ad populum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    You needn't defend yourself against stupid put-downs. Most readers will understand Harold's remark better than he intended.
    Argumentum ad hominem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    908
    I've been trying to find out the stats for people who wear glasses having higher IQ's. I have a feeling that the Chinese and Japanese are the ones most likely to wear glasses, and on average these races have the highest IQ's, followed by whites, then blacks. This correlates with the original argument of this post. There is a perception, true or false, that a young person who is wearing glasses is smarter than a non-wearer. Will a job interviewer be influenced when employing someone for mental work? When I worked in IT there was an unusually high proportion of men with glasses and beards. Can racial genetics and wearing glasses create more mental focus to raise IQ? I've never needed glasses and have never grown a beard to last, so maybe that's why I lost out eventually on IT!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    [...]

    Argumentum ad populum.

    [...]

    Argumentum ad hominem.
    Argumentum ad catchy fallacy name! :P

    Seriously, an "Argumentum ad populum" can be valid. All other things being equal, the fact that a lot of people believe something (especially a lot of educated and informed people) is evidence in it's favour. Not overwhelming evidence, but nearly nothing is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    To-date, there is no evidence of inherent genetic variations in normal brain development, structure, and function among the divergent races.
    There most certainly is plenty of evidence. None of it is really overwhelming, and there is considerable debate as to how the evidence is to be interpreted.

    Evidence includes:
    - Significantly different IQ distribution for different ethnic groups/"races" in the US, even once you correct for parent's socio-economic status
    - Twin studies showing a significant genetic component to IQ
    - Cross-racial adoption studies

    ... so certainly there is evidence. Yes, there is also some evidence against a significant genetic component to intelligence, and yes, there can be different ways to interpret the data (just look at the adoption studies - both sides consider it as evidence in their favour!). But that's still a far cry from saying that there's no evidence at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    There most certainly is plenty of evidence. None of it is really overwhelming, and there is considerable debate as to how the evidence is to be interpreted.

    Evidence includes:
    - Significantly different IQ distribution for different ethnic groups/"races" in the US, even once you correct for parent's socio-economic status
    - Twin studies showing a significant genetic component to IQ
    - Cross-racial adoption studies
    Ok, let’s consider your evidence:

    Significantly different IQ distribution for different ethnic group: Intelligence test, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many), are invariably biased or flawed. What, precisely, do these tests measure and how do you correct for parent’s socio-economic status? How does one impartially assess the IQ of an Appalachian child relative to that of a ghetto child? Test would have to include a detailed understanding of the environment of each child and the challenges they face. Socio-economic similarities do not account for the subtle and distinct challenges each child must learn to surmount. The only reasonable approach is an exacting assessment of IQ relative to the demands of the child’s specific socio-economic environment. Socio-economic factors are artificial distinctions that can produce children of equal intelligence among the divergent races when these children share the same social history and environment. Socio-economic factors may give one race an intellectual edge over another in a relative environment; however, such an edge would not be a result of innate or inborn factors among the races.

    Twin studies showing genetic IQ component: In a previous post, I described my thoughts on how science has ascribe much to genetics that isn’t merited and I believe IQ is included. In my prior post, I described an informal study I made of the gestational personality of expectant mothers and the personality of their children as they developed. What I saw in the personality of these children was a microcosm of their mother’s personality during their 9-month gestational period. Here’s what I wrote in previous comments:

    I think much of what our children will come to be is centered around what they may have acquired in the womb. This isn't about playing fine music to a plump belly, this is about the interests, attitudes, and skills of the mother and the bond or link she has with the child in her womb. If a child is gifted, my opinion is that this gift came from the spirit and mind of the mother during the nine months she shared with the child in her womb. I believe there's more that happens in the womb than what we are able to determine at birth.

    Here's a link to a recent article that seems to support aspects of thoughts I've expressed
    :

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0512093301.htm

    My position is that the gestational period involves more than just the physical development of the child, it is also a time when the child acquires the rudiments of personality and intellect he or she will require to survive based on the mental, emotion, and social experiences of the expectant mother. During my study, I notice that the somewhat intelligent children were born to mothers engaged in a learning or teaching process during gestation. All this to say, that genetics has not produced a distinction between the normal brain development, structure, and function of the races; therefore, some other factor, likely artificial, must be at play in any distinction between the intellect of the races.

    Cross-racial adoption studies: Do these studies account for the mental, emotional, and socio-economic status of the birth-mother and its likely in vitro effects? Were there any relevant effects in the innate brain development, structure, and function of the adopted children because of the stresses upon the birth-mothers. In previous comments, I wrote, …given equal experience and nutrition, from womb to adulthood, a South African Pigmy child has the same potential for genius as that of an Asian, American, Indian, German, Russian, etc. child.”

    The evidence you've provided appears to reflect the artificial influences upon intellectual output rather than an inbred distinction between the races, which simply does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Intelligence test, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many), are invariably biased or flawed.
    If you cannot measure intelligence with a test, then how did you measure it? You must have measured it if you are so sure there is no genetic difference. How did you manage to rule out a genetic difference?
    What, precisely, do these tests measure and how do you correct for parent’s socio-economic status?
    How did you correct for genetic differences?
    How does one impartially assess the IQ of an Appalachian child relative to that of a ghetto child?
    Since you have determined they are the same, you must have assessed it, so you tell us.
    I described an informal study I made of the gestational personality of expectant mothers
    That's not science. What qualifications do you have?
    I wrote, “…given equal experience and nutrition, from womb to adulthood, a South African Pigmy child has the same potential for genius as that of an Asian, American, Indian, German, Russian, etc. child.”
    You did write that, but you provided no evidence for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Harold - May I ask what is motivating your recent posts to this thread? The comments put forth by DrmDoc are accurate, as is painfully clear to any person who's completed even a single semester of Psych 101.

    Are you trying to argue that distinctions in intelligence between people of different skin colors exist at a genetic level? If so, then put up or shut up, will ya?

    Not only have posters to this thread shown the concept of race itself to be cultural as opposed to biological (in humans)... shown that the IQ test measuring intelligence is significantly limited and biased... but have also shown that the differences being described simply cannot be attributed to skin color (best explained by SES and in-vitro factors which are not related to melanin content in the skin).

    Really, dude... WTF? I get the sense that you are trying to rationalize a preconception you hold, and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and the ability to respond by asking these questions openly. Your posts to this thread are coming across as very uninformed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    ox; I really had not wanted to get involved in this thread, but wouldn't any hereditary involvement in different race intelligence, require at least 100 generations, more likely several thousands. Eye glasses were not around very far back and when available were limited to the elite. As for whites, that is North Americans and Europeans for the most part, contacts are very popular and you may be visualizing an allusion. Since your probably interested in the test results today, yes your correct, but with cause.

    Dr. Nesbit; Again, we're talking a result from an evolution of the three major races, not todays testing, or am I missing something. Yes today, orientals test higher, whites probably next and no doubt blacks (especially from Africa) would probably test last.

    I have a question for all of you, including DrmDoc and Harold....
    If the brains from each race, taken from proportionately the same size persons, same age (male or female, all), were placed side by side, out of body/cavity, is there any biological difference, genetic difference in that tissue alone. I'm fairly sure there is no biological difference, not sure about genetics taken from the brain tissue alone. Since in any event the differences should be reasonably minor or non-existent, how could the development or evolution of the brain development to intelligence, be from anything other than environmental, diet or causes associated with any of the other differences.

    On the other hand; Another organ, the heart is regularly transplanted between races, and there IS a rejection factor in blacks and Hispanics in the US, but it's unclear why and speculation suggest rejection may occur from these race differences.

    A large study involving more than 36,000 U.S. heart transplant patients over a 20-year period found that African-Americans live on average nearly three years shorter than whites and nearly two years shorter than Hispanics who get heart transplants. The reason for the difference in survival rates between the races isn't clear, but it might be because of a mismatch between the races of heart donors and recipients or because of other unidentified differences, says study researcher Ricardo Bello, MD, PhD, a heart surgeon at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, N.Y.
    http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=88622
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Harold - May I ask what is motivating your recent posts to this thread? The comments put forth by DrmDoc are accurate, as is painfully clear to any person who's completed even a single semester of Psych 101.
    My motivation is to discuss a science topic, nothing more, nothing less. I could just as well ask what your motivation is.
    Are you trying to argue that distinctions in intelligence between people of different skin colors exist at a genetic level? If so, then put up or shut up, will ya?
    No. I am discussing whether genetics has been ruled out as a possible contributing cause of the observed IQ test results. Since you and Drmdoc are declaring that it has been ruled out, then it is up to you, not me, to put up or shut up.
    Not only have posters to this thread shown the concept of race itself to be cultural as opposed to biological (in humans)... shown that the IQ test measuring intelligence is significantly limited and biased... but have also shown that the differences being described simply cannot be attributed to skin color (best explained by SES and in-vitro factors which are not related to melanin content in the skin).
    The posters to this thread have shown nothing of the sort, as far as I am concerned. Furthermore, if you read the previously referenced Wikipedia article, it is clear that there is no scientific consensus as you seem to imply.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Race
    Really, dude... WTF? I get the sense that you are trying to rationalize a preconception you hold, and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and the ability to respond by asking these questions openly. Your posts to this thread are coming across as very uninformed.
    WTF yourself. Your posts are coming across as arrogant, and you do not address my comments, but only repeat the same assertions without attempting to support your assertions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Your posts are coming across as arrogant, and you do not address my comments
    Noted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I have a question for all of you, including DrmDoc and Harold....
    If the brains from each race, taken from proportionately the same size persons, same age (male or female, all), were placed side by side, out of body/cavity, is there any biological difference, genetic difference in that tissue alone. I'm fairly sure there is no biological difference, not sure about genetics taken from the brain tissue alone.
    Genetically, I am sure you would be able to extract the DNA and find the difference between any two individuals.
    Since in any event the differences should be reasonably minor or non-existent, how could the development or evolution of the brain development to intelligence, be from anything other than environmental, diet or causes associated with any of the other differences.
    I think you would have a hard time telling the intelligence of any two individuals, based on a laboratory examination of their brain. That does not mean everybody is born equally intelligent. In the same way, you could not tell the difference between Mr. Ed and Secretariat by a laboratory examination of their leg muscles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Not only have posters to this thread shown the concept of race itself to be cultural as opposed to biological (in humans)... shown that the IQ test measuring intelligence is significantly limited and biased... but have also shown that the differences being described simply cannot be attributed to skin color (best explained by SES and in-vitro factors which are not related to melanin content in the skin).
    I would be wary about claiming to have shown X or Y ... in pretty much any debate, especially online, people on all sides are likely to consider that they have put forth conclusive evidence for their point. It doesn't matter if the subject is nuclear energy or global warming or taxes or evolution or who is the best football team - it's never safe to assume that the "other side" was moved one inch by your arguments.

    It's certainly not worth being outraged that the other side is not accepting your point of view. It's quite common really.

    Also ... please please please stop stop saying that anybody is saying that skin melanin influences intelligence. Nobody is saying that, it's a gigantic straw man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I have a question for all of you, including DrmDoc and Harold....
    If the brains from each race, taken from proportionately the same size persons, same age (male or female, all), were placed side by side, out of body/cavity, is there any biological difference, genetic difference in that tissue alone. I'm fairly sure there is no biological difference, not sure about genetics taken from the brain tissue alone. Since in any event the differences should be reasonably minor or non-existent, how could the development or evolution of the brain development to intelligence, be from anything other than environmental, diet or causes associated with any of the other differences.
    In addition to what Harold said, I think it would be easier if you distinguished two things:
    1) whether there is a genetic factor to intelligence or not
    2) If there is, whether the genes that affect intelligence are distributed in the same proportion among different populations.

    Your question seems to be mostly about 1), so you should probably leave the whole race issue out of it. Just talk about "a smart brain and a dumb brain".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I get the sense that you are trying to rationalize a preconception you hold
    To be fair to Harold, I don't think he has any preconceptions regarding the matter, but simply that he wants us to provide evidence for our claims and not simply to go by what makes sense to us or what is politically correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Evidence includes:
    - Significantly different IQ distribution for different ethnic groups/"races" in the US, even once you correct for parent's socio-economic status
    - Twin studies showing a significant genetic component to IQ
    - Cross-racial adoption studies
    1)Important questions are how these corrections were made. Are the criteria used any more accurate than the IQ tests themselves? Are socio-economic differences fully defined? The answers to these, I contend, is no.

    2)Nobody is arguing against a genetic component to IQ, but the models of how genetics affect individual IQ and the average IQ of racial groups are not and cannot be the same. As an easy example: It is well documented that lower IQ individuals are more likely to be poor. It is also well documented that poorer people, generally, have more children. So with only this consideration you already have an increase of lower IQ individuals relative to normal and higher IQ individuals, which would bring the overall relative IQ score of the population in question down as well as increase the prevalence of genetic contributions to low IQ. Do you guys have any objections to this?

    3)Cross-racial adoption studies cannot provide conclusive answers either. No matter where those children come from, for example, they will still be treated similar to children from poorer families by the public at large. A lot of people still do a bit of racial profiling and/or subscribe to at least a few stereotypes and/or are outright racists whether they admit it or not, those children still come into contact with children of the same color but lower inclome brachets who grow up in the more typical conditions, they still experience peer pressure, etc, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    "This means, given the same test, the mean performance of African Americans today could be higher than the mean for white Americans in 1920, though the gains causing this appear to have occurred predominantly in the lower half of the IQ distribution."

    That, to me, points towards a negligible and coincidental difference if the effects of the Dickens-Flynn model are also taken into account. These advancements happened in one or two generations; too short a time for genetics to make a huge difference.
    Which still does not mean there is no genetic difference, only that there are other factors besides.
    It points towards a negligible and coincidental difference, because the changes which were significant enough for modern black people to be able to beat whites from the 1920 happened in one or two generations, which cannot be accounted for by genetic factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Another point is the ineffectiveness of IQ testing:

    "The very low IQ scores reported for sub-Saharan African populations are especially controversial. For example, Wicherts argues that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is poorly measured and is more likely 78.[43] According to anthropologist Mark Cohen, the frequently reported African mean IQ of 70 is "preposterous". Using Western standards, this would mean that African countries evidencing such a low IQ would be largely dysfunctional. Given that individuals in these countries lead "vibrant artistic, symbolic and spiritual lives", this is, according to Cohen, clearly not the case. Thus, he concludes, the IQ test results from Africa do not reflect actual intelligence levels.[44]"
    All right, that means it is hard to measure, not that it does not exist.
    Not simply that it is hard to measure, but also that the current methods are inadequate and do not measure the whole spectrum of intelligence. So while blacks might do more poorly than whites on IQ tests, the very inadequacy of IQ testing at measuring a general intelligence brings into serious question the validity and scope of concluding that whites are more intelligent than blacks. You are right in saying that it does not exclude genetic factors, but it does challenge the scope of IQ testing.

    Again, I would like to make a distinction between inherent genetic factors that influence IQ and environmentally imposed genetic factors that influence IQ.

    The first could only be tested for with an unambiguous discovery of a "smart gene" and then subsequent testing for the gene on the physical remains from a potentially statistically telling number of individuals from relatively isolated but very similar populations. But, like I already stated, the possibility of finding any telling genetic differences is becoming increasingly unlikely, since the Flynn effect demonstrates the closing of a gap by means other than those possible by genetics, even assuming that such a test is possible.

    The second implies a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, but since, as Harold correctly stated, socio-economic and other environmental factors cannot influence genetics after birth on an individual and the Flynn effect demonstrates a non-genetic closing of gaps, it leaves only an environmental explanation as the primary driver of the differences between the IQ test scores of different populations.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    1)Important questions are how these corrections were made. Are the criteria used any more accurate than the IQ tests themselves? Are socio-economic differences fully defined? The answers to these, I contend, is no.
    I'm mostly referring to this (from the Bell Curve). No, it probably doesn't cover all possible differences, but it reduces the explanative power of parental income differences.

    Also, be it IQ or socio-economic status, it doesn't matter that much if the measure is "noisy" (not very accurate), as long as it's correlated to what you're trying to measure, and the noise factor is the same for all races. It just adds some uncertainty, but doesn't invalidate general trends.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    2)Nobody is arguing against a genetic component to IQ, but the models of how genetics affect individual IQ and the average IQ of racial groups are not and cannot be the same. As an easy example: It is well documented that lower IQ individuals are more likely to be poor. It is also well documented that poorer people, generally, have more children. So with only this consideration you already have an increase of lower IQ individuals relative to normal and higher IQ individuals, which would bring the overall relative IQ score of the population in question down as well as increase the prevalence of genetic contributions to low IQ. Do you guys have any objections to this?
    I don't. People have been worried about dysgenics since Darwin's time. It just seems that it didn't happen, and instead we have the opposite : the Flynn effect. The Wikipedia page on Dysgenics has an interesting discussion of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    3)Cross-racial adoption studies cannot provide conclusive answers either. No matter where those children come from, for example, they will still be treated similar to children from poorer families by the public at large. A lot of people still do a bit of racial profiling and/or subscribe to at least a few stereotypes and/or are outright racists whether they admit it or not, those children still come into contact with children of the same color but lower inclome brachets who grow up in the more typical conditions, they still experience peer pressure, etc, etc.
    I agree that they can't provide conclusive answesr - after all, the same adoption studies seem to be used by both sides to bolster their argument!

    But the adoption studies can inform us on the relative importance of some factors, because they eliminate many of the differences in environment. To put it roughly:

    a) If you're comparing black children raised by black families to white children raised by white families, any IQ difference can be attributed to genes, nutrition, family environment, peer pressure, family income, stereotype threat, etc.

    b) But if you're comparing adopted white children to adopted black children (all by white parents), some of those factors disappear, though you still have genes, peer pressure, stereotype threat ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To be fair to Harold, I don't think he has any preconceptions regarding the matter, but simply that he wants us to provide evidence for our claims and not simply to go by what makes sense to us or what is politically correct.
    Whether you or I have a preconception or not should not matter, as long as we argue in a logical and rigorous manner. That's what science is about. So, let's quit worrying about anyone else's preconceptions and stick to the topic of the discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Whether you or I have a preconception or not should not matter, as long as we argue in a logical and rigorous manner. That's what science is about. So, let's quit worrying about anyone else's preconceptions and stick to the topic of the discussion.
    Fair, science has found no evidence of an intelligence gene. Further still, science has found no evidence suggesting a natural or innate distinction in brain development, structure, and function between the races. Therefore, if such a distinction exists, it is likely attributable to environmental factors. All the available research seems to suggest the likely cause of all intelligence distinctions to be a product of artificially imposed factors rather than an evolved trait or divergence among the races. Given equal social, economic, and nutritional factors, no true intellectual distinction between the races exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    I was thinking hybrid vigour could contribute to Flynn effect... but real nations aren't showing it. American IQ increase is levelling off, while mixed races grow more common. Or perhaps the initial surge from mixing whites and whites, and blacks and blacks, is spent?

    Can you have significant hybrid vigour within a population like Scots? In that population we had members of isolated communities typically marrying next-door, then suddenly they all mixed up. For opposite, we have some populations of Canadian Natives who were rounded up from broadly spaced tribal remnants and placed on a single isolated reserve community. So they're a lot more likely to marry and remarry within the reserve.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    "This means, given the same test, the mean performance of African Americans today could be higher than the mean for white Americans in 1920, though the gains causing this appear to have occurred predominantly in the lower half of the IQ distribution."

    That, to me, points towards a negligible and coincidental difference if the effects of the Dickens-Flynn model are also taken into account. These advancements happened in one or two generations; too short a time for genetics to make a huge difference.
    Which still does not mean there is no genetic difference, only that there are other factors besides.
    It points towards a negligible and coincidental difference, because the changes which were significant enough for modern black people to be able to beat whites from the 1920 happened in one or two generations, which cannot be accounted for by genetic factors.
    All right, there are environmental factors, but I don't think this rules out or even tends to minimize the presence of genetic factors. We don't know what the significant environmental factors are between 1920 and present day which affect the IQ test results. Just hypothetically, pick one - nutrition - as the only significant one. Now, what is the difference between the nutrition of blacks in the present day and that of whites in 1920? If you can say present day black nutrition is equal on average to 1920 white nutrition, and no other significant environmental factors are present, then you could say that the modern blacks who were tested are on average genetically equal in IQ to 1920 whites who were tested. But since we do not know even what the environmental factors are, we cannnot make that statement. We don't even know that the environmental factors favor whites over blacks. We can guess, but we don't know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Another point is the ineffectiveness of IQ testing:

    "The very low IQ scores reported for sub-Saharan African populations are especially controversial. For example, Wicherts argues that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is poorly measured and is more likely 78.[43] According to anthropologist Mark Cohen, the frequently reported African mean IQ of 70 is "preposterous". Using Western standards, this would mean that African countries evidencing such a low IQ would be largely dysfunctional. Given that individuals in these countries lead "vibrant artistic, symbolic and spiritual lives", this is, according to Cohen, clearly not the case. Thus, he concludes, the IQ test results from Africa do not reflect actual intelligence levels.[44]"
    All right, that means it is hard to measure, not that it does not exist.
    Not simply that it is hard to measure, but also that the current methods are inadequate and do not measure the whole spectrum of intelligence. So while blacks might do more poorly than whites on IQ tests, the very inadequacy of IQ testing at measuring a general intelligence brings into serious question the validity and scope of concluding that whites are more intelligent than blacks. You are right in saying that it does not exclude genetic factors, but it does challenge the scope of IQ testing.
    If you challenge the validity of IQ testing then that does nothing to indicate an equality between races. It would only indicate that we know little or nothing about how they compare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I was thinking hybrid vigour could contribute to Flynn effect... but real nations aren't showing it. American IQ increase is levelling off, while mixed races grow more common. Or perhaps the initial surge from mixing whites and whites, and blacks and blacks, is spent?

    Can you have significant hybrid vigour within a population like Scots? In that population we had members of isolated communities typically marrying next-door, then suddenly they all mixed up. For opposite, we have some populations of Canadian Natives who were rounded up from broadly spaced tribal remnants and placed on a single isolated reserve community. So they're a lot more likely to marry and remarry within the reserve.
    I'd be surprised if it was hybrid vigour - the proposed explanations on Wikipedia (nutrition, familiarity with tests, complex and stimulating environment ...) seem more likely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Whether you or I have a preconception or not should not matter, as long as we argue in a logical and rigorous manner. That's what science is about. So, let's quit worrying about anyone else's preconceptions and stick to the topic of the discussion.
    That was my point.

    If you challenge the validity of IQ testing then that does nothing to indicate an equality between races. It would only indicate that we know little or nothing about how they compare.
    Yes, my point here is just that. Black people do more poorly on IQ tests than whites on average and it does mean that they would have more trouble performing tasks that rely on the aspects of intellect that IQ tests measure. I am just saying we should really look for a better method of testing general intelligence, because current IQ test results put people into intelligence brackets they clearly don't belong in. The average Bushman IQ is estimated at 54, but compare the average bushman to a person who in the west tests at 54 and you see a HUGE difference in functionality.

    All right, there are environmental factors, but I don't think this rules out or even tends to minimize the presence of genetic factors. We don't know what the significant environmental factors are between 1920 and present day which affect the IQ test results. Just hypothetically, pick one - nutrition - as the only significant one. Now, what is the difference between the nutrition of blacks in the present day and that of whites in 1920? If you can say present day black nutrition is equal on average to 1920 white nutrition, and no other significant environmental factors are present, then you could say that the modern blacks who were tested are on average genetically equal in IQ to 1920 whites who were tested. But since we do not know even what the environmental factors are, we cannnot make that statement. We don't even know that the environmental factors favor whites over blacks. We can guess, but we don't know.
    I agree it does not rule out genetic factors in the intelligence between races, but we do know that the Flynn effect cannot be caused by genetic factors because of the short time scale. So whether genetic factors exist or not, we can conclude that they are minimal and statistically insignificant. An interesting aspect of the Flynn effect is that mostly only the lower portions of the IQ spectrum is affected, which might indicate a more heavily genetic influence on the higher ranges of IQ.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    But the adoption studies can inform us on the relative importance of some factors, because they eliminate many of the differences in environment.
    I agree and the elimination of some factors does close the gap somewhat, but the continuing presence of a gap does not automatically point toward a heavy genetic cause or either. It is interesting to consider the data, but neither side can form any steady conclusions from it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    908
    What about neuron density and IQ. I think I read once that every neuron is connected to about 10,000 others in the brain. Presumably the the most intelligent people have the greatest density and more connections. Maybe that's the reason why they cut out Einstein's brain, in order to study this. Also, I guess that climate has an effect on neuron activity, with more stimulation in a temperate climate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133 Re: Race and Intelligence 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Millions of words have been written on IQ, but I have just watched a TV program called 'Race and Intelligence, Science's Last Taboo' (watch on the net on 'Channel 4 Catch Up'). The argument is that blacks have a lower IQ than whites who have a lower IQ than 'East Asians'. After the initial bigotry (by James Watson and others) presenter Rageh Omar, himself a Somalian, suggested that a lower IQ was more a lack of mental stimulation than skin colour, which I would agree.
    IQ for whites - average 100.
    IQ for 'east asians' - average > 100.
    IQ for blacks - average < 100.
    I assume that east asia is SE China, Hong Kong and Singapore. In other words Chinese ethnicity.
    I'm no expert on this, but I have noted that on visits to HK that there appears to a certain environment where IQ flourishes, and that's in an area of high population density where there is wealth, law and order and access to high quality education.
    There's a big problem in using IQ tests to measure intelligence of races, IQ measures behavior not intelligence. It's been shown that IQ points went up by 30 points in the past 30 years, indicating that behavior (education) is the main cause of IQ.

    Then you have the problems of defining intelligence, neuroscientists and neuropsychologists can't even come up with a concrete objective definition of intelligence. It's too subjective.

    Then you have studies showing that brain structure physically changes based off behavior, the physical brain structure actually changes. Like if someone practices mathematics, their brain structure will change, or if they practice playing an instrument their physical brain structure will change based off that repetitive behavior and practice. This again indicates that behavior is the biggest factor.

    Then ofcourse with humans, all humans have the same basic 46-chromosome DNA structure. All humans (unless of disorder) have the innate ability to know language. This means if a person grows up hearing English spoken, and has no education, never learns to read or write, they'll still know how to speak English automatically, because of the innateness in the human brain to know language. This is innate in all humans, not a certain race.

    Obviously a Chinese person who is never educated, and is illiterate won't be as a "smart" as a black person who is educated and literate.

    We're all born illiterate and uneducated. Behavior seems to be the biggest factor and all human beings (unless of disorder) can know language and learn to read and write.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If you challenge the validity of IQ testing then that does nothing to indicate an equality between races. It would only indicate that we know little or nothing about how they compare.
    Yes, my point here is just that. Black people do more poorly on IQ tests than whites on average and it does mean that they would have more trouble performing tasks that rely on the aspects of intellect that IQ tests measure. I am just saying we should really look for a better method of testing general intelligence, because current IQ test results put people into intelligence brackets they clearly don't belong in. The average Bushman IQ is estimated at 54, but compare the average bushman to a person who in the west tests at 54 and you see a HUGE difference in functionality.
    Indeed. A bit of googling foung an interesting discussion of this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Malloy
    In Frank Miele and Vincent Sarich's Race, an account is given by Henry Harpending of a resourceful young Bushman who repaired his Jeep by jumpstarting it with a rope, like a lawnmower. Harpending and his colleagues concluded that Bushmen were smarter than other Africans: "All of us have the impression that Bushmen are really quick and clever and are quite different than their neighbors . . . I expect there will soon be real data available from the Namibia school system" (p. 227). On the other hand, Lynn lists the average IQ of Bushmen, estimated from 3 studies, as 54! Lynn decides that this is a reasonable score by considering that it is equivalent to the average score of an American third-grader: " An IQ of 54 represents the mental age of the average European 8-year-old child, and the average European 8-year-old can read, write, and do arithmetic and would have no difficulty in learning and performing the activities of gathering foods and hunting carried out by the San Bushmen" (p 76). Lynn's estimate is not new, the same studies and same average IQ were listed in the 1978 chapter, the only thing that has changed is Lynn's opinion, who then wrote: ". . . it strains one's credulity that a population could long survive the rigors of the Kalahari with a true mean IQ around 55". This should not serve as a "gotcha", because I agree that the 'age' comparison is more appropriate than the 'mentally retarded' comparison for thinking about lower IQ population (such as the 16% of Af-Ams who score below 70). At the same time this also demonstrates a theoretical deficit in intelligence research of distinguishing exactly how an average child with an age unadjusted IQ of 63, a below-average non-retarded adult with an IQ of 63 and a mentally retarded adult with an IQ of 63 all differ in what are fairly considered intellectual abilities (real world indicators of independent self care and adjustment). Suggestions that these are just "personality' differences are rather specious, especially when Lynn gets to the point of comparing young children and apes as well as humans and extinct hominids on the same linear IQ dimensions. Although I agree that test bias literature also confirms important aspects of intelligence are being captured across diverse groups.
    I think the conclusion shouldn't be that IQ is a bad measure of intelligence (though there are indeed some limits) but rather that even if IQ is partly determined by genes (which seems pretty likely in my opinion), IQ alone doesn't cover all aspects of mental functioning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    I think the conclusion shouldn't be that IQ is a bad measure of intelligence (though there are indeed some limits) but rather that even if IQ is partly determined by genes (which seems pretty likely in my opinion), IQ alone doesn't cover all aspects of mental functioning.
    Consider, if intelligence is truly a genetically inherited trait, where is the genius in the progeny of Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc? Wouldn't their genetically superior intellect have expressed itself through fetes of genius by their offspring by now? Further still, where is the history of genius and remarkable innovations in their respective families that cannot be explained by chance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14730
    All right, there are environmental factors, but I don't think this rules out or even tends to minimize the presence of genetic factors. We don't know what the significant environmental factors are between 1920 and present day which affect the IQ test results. Just hypothetically, pick one - nutrition - as the only significant one. Now, what is the difference between the nutrition of blacks in the present day and that of whites in 1920? If you can say present day black nutrition is equal on average to 1920 white nutrition, and no other significant environmental factors are present, then you could say that the modern blacks who were tested are on average genetically equal in IQ to 1920 whites who were tested. But since we do not know even what the environmental factors are, we cannnot make that statement. We don't even know that the environmental factors favor whites over blacks. We can guess, but we don't know.
    You've apparently overlooked the adverse effects of social segragation in America's early history and the continual effects of racism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14730
    We don't even know that the environmental factors favor whites over blacks.
    You've apparently overlooked the adverse effects of social segragation in America's early history and the continual effects of racism.
    I think you missed the nuance. Nice is different than good.

    While it's a fact that overall poor environment does not inspire intelligence, it is also known that abused or extremely insecure children may cope by growing hyper-cognitive. They have to keep thinking lest they... stop and think... and no that's too awful. These are kids who fill page after page of crossword puzzles in bed while the rest of us enjoy sweet dreams.

    On the face of it there's no genetic component. But there often is a very strong though indirect genetic determinant. Because genetic demons like alcoholism or schizophrenia in parents hugely impacts the child. Thus we have a generation of Native Canadian survivors owning all the coping strategies and insights of survivors. In turn they're raising the next generation by premeditated ardour far beyond what one expects from such limited means and education. Such patterns surely affect intelligence and especially life outcome. I imagine they also affect IQ.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    I think the conclusion shouldn't be that IQ is a bad measure of intelligence (though there are indeed some limits) but rather that even if IQ is partly determined by genes (which seems pretty likely in my opinion), IQ alone doesn't cover all aspects of mental functioning.
    I'm sure IQ tests are a horrible measure of intelligence. IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they measure how well you can answer IQ test questions. If someone practices IQ test questions, or in the past their learned behavior caused them to better answer IQ test questions, this doesn't indicate that they're more intelligent, this only indicates that they're better at answering IQ test questions.

    If there are two people with the exact same DNA, one grew up uneducated and illiterate, and the other grew up educated and literate, who would have the higher IQ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    While it's a fact that overall poor environment does not inspire intelligence, it is also known that abused or extremely insecure children may cope by growing hyper-cognitive. They have to keep thinking lest they... stop and think... and no that's too awful. These are kids who fill page after page of crossword puzzles in bed while the rest of us enjoy sweet dreams.
    You'll have to look a little deeper than "poor environment" to understand the effects of segragation in American history. Social segragation was and, in some area, continues to be more than just poor environment. Segragation was/is a societal condition of violently unequal treatment and access from conception to death.

    On the face of it there's no genetic component. But there often is a very strong though indirect genetic determinant. Because genetic demons like alcoholism or schizophrenia in parents hugely impacts the child. Thus we have a generation of Native Canadian survivors owning all the coping strategies and insights of survivors. In turn they're raising the next generation by premeditated ardour far beyond what one expects from such limited means and education. Such patterns surely affect intelligence and especially life outcome. I imagine they also affect IQ.
    Are alcoholism and schizophrenia the norm for human evolution and development or are they environmental effects or the effects of genetic anomalies among families rather than race-wide norms?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    You've apparently overlooked the adverse effects of social segragation in America's early history and the continual effects of racism.
    I haven't overlooked anything. We might assume that racism causes low IQ test scores, but is there any proof of it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I haven't overlooked anything. We might assume that racism causes low IQ test scores, but is there any proof of it?
    Please recall that, in science, things aren't proven (proofs are for math), but concepts and theories are supported by evidence and remain until falsified.


    Semantics aside, yes... It's been shown rather robustly, has not been falsified, and it's elucidated quite thoroughly here:

    http://blogs.princeton.edu/14points/...eology_of.html
    One fact almost ends the debate by itself, and it is very easy to understand. IQ scores have increased over time. It’s called the “Flynn Effect,” after researcher James Flynn. The reason is that IQ scores measure adaptation to the modern world, to borrow from Malcolm Gladwell, who deftly summarized the arguments against the racial explanation for intelligence for The New Yorker recently. As groups become better educated and assimilated, their IQ scores increase.



    African-Americans were forcibly prevented from assimilating for most of American history, even in the north. Across the US, blacks were beaten and their homes were bombed by white terrorists when they attempted to move out of the ghetto into white neighborhoods. Take Chicago for example. Its neighborhoods on the edge of the ghetto were regulated by menacing white mobs, which frequently attacked blacks for decades. More than one bomb per month exploded at black homes from the spring of 1918 to the summer of 1919, as Thomas Lee Philpott calculated. Historian Arnold Hirsch found that between 1945 and 1950, 485 racial incidents officially reported to Chicago Committee on Human Relations. Many of these involved arson bombs directed at blacks homes resulting in the injury and death of many aspiring African Americans.



    Finally in the late 1960s major changes were made and educational and employment opportunities were advanced because of victories of the Civil Rights movement. Not surprisingly, the gap between blacks and whites on IQ scores has decreased dramatically from about 1.0 standard deviations to about 0.6 or 0.7, according to research cited by Richard Nisbett. He and many others predict that this gap will continue to decrease as blacks are further integrated into society.
    Supplemental reading:
    http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...and-jensen.pdf
    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...books_gladwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    While it's a fact that overall poor environment does not inspire intelligence, it is also known that abused or extremely insecure children may cope by growing hyper-cognitive. They have to keep thinking lest they... stop and think... and no that's too awful. These are kids who fill page after page of crossword puzzles in bed while the rest of us enjoy sweet dreams.
    You'll have to look a little deeper than "poor environment" to understand the effects of segragation in American history. Social segragation was and, in some area, continues to be more than just poor environment. Segragation was/is a societal condition of violently unequal treatment and access from conception to death.
    Since when are observations valid only when they perfectly describe the USA? I don't know your nation's racial inequalities so well. I do understand the conditions of Canadian Natives. There are similarities: like the fact I put my son not in the nearest elementary school, which has large native presence, but in a better school with few natives. There are differences: like forced assimilation by placement of Native children in white foster homes. Maybe by looking outside the box of American white/black racism you'll gain perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    On the face of it there's no genetic component. But there often is a very strong though indirect genetic determinant. Because genetic demons like alcoholism or schizophrenia in parents hugely impacts the child. Thus we have a generation of Native Canadian survivors owning all the coping strategies and insights of survivors. In turn they're raising the next generation by premeditated ardour far beyond what one expects from such limited means and education. Such patterns surely affect intelligence and especially life outcome. I imagine they also affect IQ.
    Are alcoholism and schizophrenia the norm for human evolution and development or are they environmental effects or the effects of genetic anomalies among families rather than race-wide norms?
    Yes. They're inextricable, because isolating groups of children from their families botches the experiment. They aren't lab mice. But we know Natives are genetically susceptible to alcohol. And we know that children of alcoholics - or alcoholic communities - are developmentally disadvantaged. We know these problems can repeat across generations. We also know that adverse conditions occasionally spur a kind of David Copperfield effect in spite of obvious destiny.

    You probably know already that schizophrenic families output highly creative, successful adults at a higher rate than non-schizophrenic families. Of course they also output more dysfunctional adults with low IQ! I think that schizophrenia survives because the value of those uncommon successes to the greater population outweighs the overall cost of schizophrenia. Apparently there are many genes, found in different ethnic groups, responsible for schizophrenia. Convergent evolution?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I haven't overlooked anything. We might assume that racism causes low IQ test scores, but is there any proof of it?
    Please recall that, in science, things aren't proven (proofs are for math), but concepts and theories are supported by evidence and remain until falsified.


    Semantics aside, yes... It's been shown rather robustly, has not been falsified, and it's elucidated quite thoroughly here:

    http://blogs.princeton.edu/14points/...eology_of.html
    One fact almost ends the debate by itself, and it is very easy to understand. IQ scores have increased over time. It’s called the “Flynn Effect,” after researcher James Flynn. The reason is that IQ scores measure adaptation to the modern world, to borrow from Malcolm Gladwell, who deftly summarized the arguments against the racial explanation for intelligence for The New Yorker recently. As groups become better educated and assimilated, their IQ scores increase.



    African-Americans were forcibly prevented from assimilating for most of American history, even in the north. Across the US, blacks were beaten and their homes were bombed by white terrorists when they attempted to move out of the ghetto into white neighborhoods. Take Chicago for example. Its neighborhoods on the edge of the ghetto were regulated by menacing white mobs, which frequently attacked blacks for decades. More than one bomb per month exploded at black homes from the spring of 1918 to the summer of 1919, as Thomas Lee Philpott calculated. Historian Arnold Hirsch found that between 1945 and 1950, 485 racial incidents officially reported to Chicago Committee on Human Relations. Many of these involved arson bombs directed at blacks homes resulting in the injury and death of many aspiring African Americans.



    Finally in the late 1960s major changes were made and educational and employment opportunities were advanced because of victories of the Civil Rights movement. Not surprisingly, the gap between blacks and whites on IQ scores has decreased dramatically from about 1.0 standard deviations to about 0.6 or 0.7, according to research cited by Richard Nisbett. He and many others predict that this gap will continue to decrease as blacks are further integrated into society.
    Supplemental reading:
    http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...and-jensen.pdf
    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...books_gladwell
    That doesn't seem very robust to me. It is a statistical correlation. As I said, we don't actually know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    As I said, we don't actually know.
    Equally you could say we don't know anything about it. So what is this thread for? Can't we even weigh up the collected data? Form hypothesis? If yes, do you have any?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    As I said, we don't actually know.
    Equally you could say we don't know anything about it. So what is this thread for? Can't we even weigh up the collected data? Form hypothesis? If yes, do you have any?
    Sure. The Flynn effect, whatever caused it, affected whites as well as blacks, just not proportionally. Factors affecting whites could obviously not be attributed to racism. Maybe the factors causing the Flynn effect, whatever they were, brought more blacks above some threshold and whites were mostly already above the threshold.

    Racism is a fuzzy concept anyway. Are we referring to better education due to desegregation of schools, a better self image, or what. Could there be a change within the black community, not due to any change in the attitude of whites occurring at the same time?

    The definition of race is also fuzzy, and usually defined by how somebody identifies his own race. This could be affected by changing attitudes among blacks, independently of any lesser racial discrimination from outside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    When talking about the Flynn effect per se, the interesting thing is that it occurs worldwide, even in homogeneous societies, though racism in my opinion probably is one of the contributors to the effect among the minorities in the US. It is obviously a complex issue.

    For instance, IMO some black demographics willingly segregate themselves as a statement of racial pride. Maybe IQ studies involved more republicans in some years by accident, slowing the overall Flynn effect for whites ( 8) ). Fortification of food might play a role, where poorer people got better nutrition from the same food than before. Maybe the wider integration of TV's into poorer communities played a role. I'd guess that considerably more black people went to school (segregated or otherwise) in the last few decades than ever before.

    My interpretation of racism is that it is simply a more severe and obvious version of a basic "us-v.s.-them" mentality, as well as (the same reason a bully picks on the weaker kids at school), people picking on the perceived weaker community of people that offer easier targets and the cheapest self-image boost. This type of thing can really brainwash a people. I worked in Swaziland for six months at one time and was amazed by the indoctrenated low self image these people had. I could not convince them that they were just as good as white people, and this in a land where apartheid had not been practiced and the country had been run by fellow black people for more than a generation.

    My base point is that racism ties into other known causes of lower IQ scoring in a pretty straightforward manner as a powerful driver. Don't you agree?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I worked in Swaziland for six months at one time and was amazed by the indoctrenated low self image these people had. I could not convince them that they were just as good as white people, and this in a land where apartheid had not been practiced and the country had been run by fellow black people for more than a generation.
    If they were running their own country, and had not been the victims of apartheid, then perhaps racism was not the cause of the low self-image. And how do you know the low self image is the cause of the low IQ, or even if those particular people had low IQ ?
    My base point is that racism ties into other known causes of lower IQ scoring in a pretty straightforward manner as a powerful driver. Don't you agree?
    Nothing is straightforward in this whole topic. What known causes are you referring to? I don't see where anything is really known. It's a lot of speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Sorry for my train of thought styled writing.

    If they were running their own country, and had not been the victims of apartheid, then perhaps racism was not the cause of the low self-image. And how do you know the low self image is the cause of the low IQ, or even if those particular people had low IQ ?
    A lot of white people work there and they generally still have the better jobs and authority positions. While apartheid was not practiced there, the white people that work there mostly came from South Africa and some from Zimbabwe where white people were mostly in authority positions. It is still the case in South Africa mostly, where the white people are in authority positions and black people do the more mundane and basic work. By far the majority of the black people I came into contact with and had conversations with came across as very simple people and reliant on the say-so of a white man to be able to do his job. The main reason behind this, in my estimation, is the already built-in authoritative attitude of especially Afrikaner white men towards black people and the fact that they generally had a much better developed "common sense " ability when it came to problem solving. Couple this with rampant unemployment and you have a ready-made atmosphere where exploitation can occur. I started work there fresh out of high school and almost immediately knew more about what was going on there than most of the black people that have been working there for years, and it was not a very complicated environment.

    The average black worker would pay from R300 to R400 ($40 - $50) per month. On pay day the majority of them would head straight to the micro loan lenders, pay over half of their money to cover what they had borrowed plus interest and then immediately they would take out another short term loan to get back to the starting amount. Then they would party and drink a sizable portion of their pay away in one weekend, buy one big bag of maze meal and a small portion of meat. Most of them had their own vegetable gardens. I started with no experience at R1000 pm, which is also very little but still more than twice what they got, and directly into three separate jobs at once: a managerial position at a block yard, a supervisory position at the wattle/gum plantation and as learner boilermaker at the quarry. Worst of all, I moved into these positions without any hard feelings from the other workers, as if it was expected and just the way things are supposed to be.

    But as horrible as this sounds, apart from their dismal salaries, they were not treated badly as such, just as automatic subordinates. (I mean they weren't physically mistreated as far as I saw).

    The main reason these people would test low on IQ tests IMO is facilitated by the environment they grown up in. They have virtually no intellectual stimulation while growing up and end up with poor problem solving skills. They basically have no motivation to develop these skills and the cycle keeps repeating itself through the generations. They seemed quite happy with only being able to have food for a whole month, while the most important thing in their lives seemed to be community and culture. Not the original culture of their heritage though, but one convoluted by western influences and generations of complacent subservience facilitated by abject poverty. A very sad sight indeed.

    Nothing is straightforward in this whole topic. What known causes are you referring to? I don't see where anything is really known. It's a lot of speculation.
    Poor people low on the social rung mostly score poorly on IQ tests and are mostly simple people with low levels of education (this is best demonstrated by homogeneous societies, like India), while racism breeds poverty and encourages the low social rung by its very definition. No?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Interesting stuff, Kalster! I knew pretty much nothing about Swaziland, and only read about South Africa and Rhodesia.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Nothing is straightforward in this whole topic. What known causes are you referring to? I don't see where anything is really known. It's a lot of speculation.
    Poor people low on the social rung mostly score poorly on IQ tests and are mostly simple people with low levels of education (this is best demonstrated by homogeneous societies, like India), while racism breeds poverty and encourages the low social rung by its very definition. No?
    It doesn't follow that low social status is the cause of low IQ - low IQ can also be the cause of low social status, especially in societies with high social mobility like the US. In practice, I suspect that there is some cause-and-effect going both ways, creating a spiral that exaggerates differences.

    (Also, this is somewhat off-topic, but I don't think that "racism breeds poverty and encourages the low social rung" - there are plenty of historical cases of racism directed at successful groups like Jews in early 20th-century Germany, whites in Zimbabwe or Chinese in southeast Asia)

    By the way, I would mostly agree with:

    My base point is that racism ties into other known causes of lower IQ scoring in a pretty straightforward manner as a powerful driver. Don't you agree?
    ... though I wouldn't consider it obvious that it's the only thing at work, or even that it's a large part of the differences observed in cross-racial adoption studies.

    To me the weak point of racism as an explanation of scoring differences is that it doesn't explain the differences observed between Whites and Asians (observed even in cross-racial adoption studies, which would control for the "Asian parents push their kids more" factor). If racism was a major factor, you'd expect worse score for Asians, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Thanks, but I'd like to stress that this was only my impression based on my experiences over a six month period in the capital city and surrounding areas. Rhodesia; Are you British then? And old? :P

    Sorry, I did not mean to give the impression that I believe racism and/or low social status are the only causes.

    In practice, I suspect that there is some cause-and-effect going both ways, creating a spiral that exaggerates differences.
    Yeah. As I understand it, this is basically the feedback system of the Dickens-Flynn model.

    (Also, this is somewhat off-topic, but I don't think that "racism breeds poverty and encourages the low social rung" - there are plenty of historical cases of racism directed at successful groups like Jews in early 20th-century Germany, whites in Zimbabwe or Chinese in southeast Asia)
    I don't think these quite qualify, as they are over much shorter time scales (unless I am missing something).

    To me the weak point of racism as an explanation of scoring differences is that it doesn't explain the differences observed between Whites and Asians (observed even in cross-racial adoption studies, which would control for the "Asian parents push their kids more" factor). If racism was a major factor, you'd expect worse score for Asians, no?
    Good point.

    I found THIS article:

    "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley"

    A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic. The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

    A LINK to the paper (360KB pdf).

    And a summary of views on the genetic perspective, including the above paper, at the Wiki page HERE.

    Interesting reading. I want to read the rest of that paper. I am not completely convinced though. I am still thinking about the totally non-genetic factors that could let blacks catch up to whites in one or two generations. While it does not rule out genetic factors, it does argue in favour of a lesser genetic component to racial IQ differences to my mind. What do you think?

    Also, it would seem that my assumption that poor people have more babies, was basically false. LINK.

    *Sigh* :?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc

    You've apparently overlooked the adverse effects of social segragation in America's early history and the continual effects of racism.
    I haven't overlooked anything. We might assume that racism causes low IQ test scores, but is there any proof of it?
    As I recall, the United States Supreme Court in 1954, after weighing the evidence, found that separate but equal education among the races was, effectively, unequal. Before that ruling, black students in America were not guaranteed equal access to the quality of education enjoyed by white students and, consequently, suffered a disadvantage that did have an effect on their intellectual growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    There are similarities: like the fact I put my son not in the nearest elementary school, which has large native presence, but in a better school with few natives. There are differences: like forced assimilation by placement of Native children in white foster homes. Maybe by looking outside the box of American white/black racism you'll gain perspective.
    My initial response in this matter was to Harold's claims regarding intellectual comparisons among American's from the 1920s. He chose to overlook the more significant factor of segregation in America for nutrition to support his position. The effects of segregation invalidate the position he espoused. Although I cannot deny that harsh social conditions can inspire genius among the downtrodden, the remaining fact is that such genius is not indicative of a racial distinction in intelligence.

    … Natives are genetically susceptible to alcohol. And we know that children of alcoholics - or alcoholic communities - are developmentally disadvantaged. We know these problems can repeat across generations. We also know that adverse conditions occasionally spur a kind of David Copperfield effect in spite of obvious destiny.
    Alcoholism and addiction, like intelligence, are not genetically exclusive racial distinction. Such distinctions, also like intelligence, can arise at equal levels among the divergent races given the same socio-economic conditions.

    You probably know already that schizophrenic families output highly creative, successful adults at a higher rate than non-schizophrenic families. Of course they also output more dysfunctional adults with low IQ! I think that schizophrenia survives because the value of those uncommon successes to the greater population outweighs the overall cost of schizophrenia. Apparently there are many genes, found in different ethnic groups, responsible for schizophrenia. Convergent evolution?
    As evidence of the possibility of a genetically inherited intelligence trait among the races, such evidence merely supports the non-exclusivity of superior intellect. Given the same socio-economic conditions, over equal lengths of time, genetic anomalies (perhaps caused by such condition) can arise equally among the races. Intelligence is an equally malleable force among the races whose expression can be enhanced or suppressed by environment. Regardless of race, intelligence can and does express itself in equal quantities when its enveloping environmental factors are equal. If a racial distinction in intelligence exists, that distinction is induced by artificial factors that do not reflect the innate nature of humanity. Innately, given equal advantage and environment, we are all intellectually the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Thanks, but I'd like to stress that this was only my impression based on my experiences over a six month period in the capital city and surrounding areas. Rhodesia; Are you British then? And old? :P
    Neither I'm afraid; it's just that the description of "whites being automatically in charge" reminded me of what I've read about "old" Rhodesia.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To me the weak point of racism as an explanation of scoring differences is that it doesn't explain the differences observed between Whites and Asians (observed even in cross-racial adoption studies, which would control for the "Asian parents push their kids more" factor). If racism was a major factor, you'd expect worse score for Asians, no?
    Good point.

    I found THIS article:

    "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley"

    A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic. The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

    A LINK to the paper (360KB pdf).

    And a summary of views on the genetic perspective, including the above paper, at the Wiki page HERE.

    Interesting reading. I want to read the rest of that paper. I am not completely convinced though. I am still thinking about the totally non-genetic factors that could let blacks catch up to whites in one or two generations. While it does not rule out genetic factors, it does argue in favour of a lesser genetic component to racial IQ differences to my mind. What do you think?
    You mean the Flynn effect - the blacks of today having caught up with the whites of a few generations ago? That is indeed strong evidence of a significant environmental component, since (as you said) natural selection isn't that fast and the groups are roughly the same.

    I certainly don't think genes alone determine intelligence - there clearly is an environmental component, and effects like stereotype threat and self-fulfilling prophecies do indeed change things (in addition, I don't think IQ is everything - there are plenty of high-IQ losers, assholes, or loons to go around, and other traits (honesty, discipline, determination, social skills, etc.) are as valuable or more).

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Also, it would seem that my assumption that poor people have more babies, was basically false. LINK.

    *Sigh* :?
    Interesting; I also recently came across something similar - something about abortion being more common among the poor than among the rich. I don't know how much of the "disgenic fear" (the stupid are outbreeding the smart! Idiocracy is around the corner) is real, and how much is just "common knowledge" being wrong as it often is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    … Natives are genetically susceptible to alcohol...
    Alcoholism and addiction, like intelligence, are not genetically exclusive racial distinction. Such distinctions, also like intelligence, can arise at equal levels among the divergent races given the same socio-economic conditions.
    No, genes associated with races determine how a body metabolizes alcohol. Many Chinese react like they're allergic to it, e.g. flushing and discomfort. Natives of the Americas often have the combination of genes that make them "ripe" for alcoholism. This theory is now central to Native culture.

    If you can't remove alcohol, including its generational aftermath, it must skew ethnic IQ.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    … Natives are genetically susceptible to alcohol...
    Alcoholism and addiction, like intelligence, are not genetically exclusive racial distinction. Such distinctions, also like intelligence, can arise at equal levels among the divergent races given the same socio-economic conditions.
    No, genes associated with races determine how a body metabolizes alcohol. Many Chinese react like they're allergic to it, e.g. flushing and discomfort. Natives of the Americas often have the combination of genes that make them "ripe" for alcoholism. This theory is now central to Native culture.
    Interesting concept. whats the citation for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    there are plenty of high-IQ losers
    Sure are.

    Neither I'm afraid; it's just that the description of "whites being automatically in charge" reminded me of what I've read about "old" Rhodesia.
    Oh, ok. May I ask where your from etc?

    Right, to summarize then. So basically what we have is that genetics do play a part in individual IQ's, perhaps more so at higher IQ brackets, and that a major contributor is environmental influences. As far as average IQ and race is concerned, it would also seem that there is a genetic component to the differences, but that the majority contributor is probably environmental dynamics. More or less?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    No, genes associated with races determine how a body metabolizes alcohol. Many Chinese react like they're allergic to it, e.g. flushing and discomfort. Natives of the Americas often have the combination of genes that make them "ripe" for alcoholism. This theory is now central to Native culture.

    If you can't remove alcohol, including its generational aftermath, it must skew ethnic IQ.
    Are you suggesting all Natives are potential alcoholics and all Chinese have alcohol allergies? Or, is it that some express these traits and others do not? If the latter is true, why? Isn't true that these traits are not exclusive to Natives and Chinese but are shared by families in other ethnic grougs as well? Are you suggesting that genetically inherited physiological tendencies support the idea of inherited intellectual tendencies among the races? As in alcoholism, where is the direct genetic evidence in brain development, structure, and function between the races that suggests a genetic difference in intellectual output?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    genes associated with races determine how a body metabolizes alcohol. Many Chinese react like they're allergic to it, e.g. flushing and discomfort. Natives of the Americas often have the combination of genes that make them "ripe" for alcoholism. This theory is now central to Native culture.
    Interesting concept. whats the citation for this?
    Wiki on the flush, well referenced

    There's no single alcoholic gene. We have a bunch of genes deciding how the body processes alcohol, and different ways a person may be prone to abuse it. Sort of how obesity may have different underlying causes.

    A sense of the complexity and volume of research here.

    Worth noting here that alcohol affects fetal brain development, and twin studies should account for that.



    @DrmDoc: Take it easy! I said "many" and "often". And of course cultural expectations of how alcohol is used (i.e. party time or routine drink) play a role too.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    @DrmDoc: Take it easy! I said "many" and "often". And of course cultural expectations of how alcohol is used (i.e. party time or routine drink) play a role too.
    All I am suggesting is that the evidence in brain study does not support the idea or possibility of a genetically expressed intellectual distinction between members of humanity. Like creationist in debate of Darwinism, even those with a vested interest in finding such a distinction have not produced credible evidence of any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    All I am suggesting is that the evidence in brain study does not support the idea or possibility of a genetically expressed intellectual distinction between members of humanity.
    Looking only at the brain organ? Well sure. Would study of the liver tell you much about liver disease? No, although individual livers handle alcohol differently, and alcohol clearly affects the liver.

    How do you think inherited depression or schizophrenia etc. affect IQ?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,589
    Interesting article that does not at any point address ethnicity... so Im still interested in ref on the ethnicity-alcohol connection reference
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Well according to the wiki half of Asians have this condition that punishes them for drinking. If you want evidence that's genetic and ethnic not cultural, look here. Also here for distribution among "21 different populations comprising Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids". Too bad they didn't include New World natives.

    It looks like the wider studies are pre-internet, and now everybody's focusing on individual Native populations, or Chinese vs. Korean, etc.

    This made me laugh: So we have this gene that deals with dopamine... the "long allele" is linked to schizophrenia and ADHD, as well as novelty seeking. It's distributed unevenly around the globe. Why? These people conclude that when it expressed novelty seeking, it caused prehistoric human populations to migrate.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Neither I'm afraid; it's just that the description of "whites being automatically in charge" reminded me of what I've read about "old" Rhodesia.
    Oh, ok. May I ask where your from etc?
    Je suis un cheese-eating surrender monkey, en fait

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Right, to summarize then. So basically what we have is that genetics do play a part in individual IQ's, perhaps more so at higher IQ brackets, and that a major contributor is environmental influences. As far as average IQ and race is concerned, it would also seem that there is a genetic component to the differences, but that the majority contributor is probably environmental dynamics. More or less?
    I dont know. The Flynn effect indicates that at least 75% is environmental, and twin studies indicate at least 75% is genetic - or something like that. I don't have the knowledge to figure out how all the bits of evidence fit together, since a lot of it depends on details of methodology, interpretation of statistical constructs like factor analysis, incomplete control variables, etc - not to mention the politicization of the field that worsens the signal/noise ratio. I've seen the numbers 50%/50% bandied around a bit, so I'd be tempted to go by that but leave a very large confidence interval.

    To make things more complex, yesterday I read that among the environmental factors, the ones I'd expect (parental involvement, socio-economic status ...) don't play a measurable role (for example, when twins are raised apart, the one raised in the richer family isn't more likely to end up with a higher IQ), and instead most is attributed to "nonshared environment" - which would mean that parents and educators actually have little influence (apart from genes), and most is, well, chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes 9:11
    I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    All I am suggesting is that the evidence in brain study does not support the idea or possibility of a genetically expressed intellectual distinction between members of humanity.
    How about the studies on the Heritability of IQ? (Especially twin studies)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Would study of the liver tell you much about liver disease? No, although individual livers handle alcohol differently, and alcohol clearly affects the liver.
    Well, yes it would. As with the brain, study of the liver also includes a genetic component. As with certain families, certain groups of Natives and Asians may have genetically based alcohol sensitivities. Is this, however, indicative of a Native-wide or Asian-wide genetic norm? My position is that there is no race-wide genetic norm suggesting a distinction between the races in brain function and its potential intellectual output.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    What do you mean by a "genetic norm"? That's not a term I've seen used before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    How about the studies on the Heritability of IQ?(Especially twin studies)
    I've reviewed the article you provided. That study involved the twins of Caucasian families and was designed to support an association between CHRM2 gene and cognition. This study used the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (Vocabulary, Information, Block Design, and Picture Arrangement) test and years of education, by genotype of father and mother, as a basis for its assessments. The study concluded that the CHRM2 gene may account for 1% of the variance in IQ tests and years of education. It suggested that this small percentage may be more meaningful as part of an overall genetic confluence and that this preliminary result requires replication.

    Caucasian families: This was a study of genetic traits among Caucasian families and not between the races. It did not conclude or suggest that the specific genetic trait studied was exclusive to Caucasians. As with alcohol and addiction, certain families among all races could be genetically predisposed to certain traits. However, this does not suggest a baseline racial distinction in intelligence, which is my position

    Wechsler test and years of education: The test administered and education years assessment did not account for the likely variation in the quality of education for the twin family participants or the variations in their socio-economic upbringing and status. These would have been relevant factors in the outcome of test results. Years of education is not the same as instructional quality. What was the variance in education quality and the socio-economic of each participant? The 1% measure of contribution to cognition by CHRM2 suggests that many participants, with this gene expression, did not perform as well. Might this suggests factors beyond genetic?

    1% accountable variance: A 1% possible genetic component is hardly convincing evidence of a “polygenic” trait. The researchers themselves suggested as much in their conclusions with their “in need of replication” comment. Further, their admission of a genetic confluence association with intelligence suggests the effects of other unidentified factors that may be more significant in the expression of intelligence.

    As evidence of the inheritability of intelligence, the reference you provided isn’t a very good one—in my opinion.

    What do you mean by a "genetic norm"? That's not a term I've seen used before.
    My reference here was to that which is genetically prevalent among the races. Are all Natives and Asians born with alcohol sensitivities? Again, my position is that there is no race-wide genetic distinction in intelligence and the evidence suggesting same is inadequate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    How about the studies on the Heritability of IQ?(Especially twin studies)
    I've reviewed the article you provided. That study involved the twins of Caucasian families and was designed to support an association between CHRM2 gene and cognition. This study used the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (Vocabulary, Information, Block Design, and Picture Arrangement) test and years of education, by genotype of father and mother, as a basis for its assessments. The study concluded that the CHRM2 gene may account for 1% of the variance in IQ tests and years of education. It suggested that this small percentage may be more meaningful as part of an overall genetic confluence and that this preliminary result requires replication.
    1%? Did you read the same article I did?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[10] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an estimate of around three quarters as well.[9] As well, a 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[8] The 2005 edition of Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger found correlations of 0.86 for identical twins raised together compared to 0.76 for those raised apart and 0.47 for siblings.[16] A 1994 review in Behavior Genetics based on identical/fraternal twin studies found that it is as high as 0.92 in general cognitive ability but it also varies based on the trait, with .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only .40 for memory tests.[6]
    The abstract of one of the linked articles is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits
    Abstract—There is now a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors. This fact has important implications for research and theory building in psychology, as evidence of genetic influence unleashes a cascade of questions regarding the sources of variance in such traits. A brief list of those questions is provided, and representative findings regarding genetic and environmental influences are presented for the domains of personality, intelligence, psychological interests, psychiatric illnesses, and social attitudes. These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon.
    I don't even see where you got the 1% from, or any reference to Caucasian families.

    The question of how much (if any) of intelligence is genetically determined can be considered independently of the whole race issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    1%? Did you read the same article I did?
    I don't even see where you got the 1% from, or any reference to Caucasian families.
    In the first paragraph of your Wiki-link, I read: "Most of the heritable variance in IQ appears to be carried by the general intelligence factor (or g). IQ is a polygenic trait under normal circumstances according to recent research.[4]" I then select "recent research[4]", and found this article:

    Comings DE, Wu S, Rostamkhani M, et al. (January 2003). "Role of the cholinergic muscarinic 2 receptor (CHRM2) gene in cognition". Mol. Psychiatry 8 (1): 10–1. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001095.

    Although I have not seen the Time article, the quote you provided seems to suggest an implied genetic link by way of intelligence testing among twins rather than the direct assessment of a genetic component. The quote suggests a high correlation among twins than among non-twin siblings. The quote also suggests that this correlation persist even when twins are raised separately.

    In my opinion, this is analogous to the notion that twins think and behave alike. For example, twins raised apart, have been known to marry individual by the same [name] or marry individuals who have similar profession. Is there truly a genetic component that causes a twin to make such distinct selections or can we tie these behaviors to a shared period when these twins may have been influenced to make these specific distinctions? Which seems most likely, genetics or a shared period of influence before separation? Did the studies, which this article relies upon, include factors pertaining to gestational influence among twins prior to separation?

    Regarding the variance between twins raised together and their siblings, such correlation could be explained by the distinction of concurrent education at an age apart from other siblings. Often mistook as the same individual, twins share more together than with other siblings. Perhaps this accounts for the similarities between their intelligence as opposed to other siblings.

    I take a critical view of most research because such is invariably influenced by the unconscious ideas and designs of the researcher. Researchers are so convinced of a genetic component to every aspect of humanity that they often fail to consider the most simplistic view. Much of what we are thought to be genetically, may be explained by the in-vitro preparatory influences and processes from human conception to birth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    So, basically, you seem to disagree with a lot of the research either because you can come up with alternative explanations of the data (do you know whether they have considered that possibility and rejected it? Or whether they list is as a possible but less likely alternative?), or because you suspect the researchers have a bias towards genetic explanations.

    That's a viable position, but it differs from your original statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    All I am suggesting is that the evidence in brain study does not support the idea or possibility of a genetically expressed intellectual distinction between members of humanity.
    It seems to me that the evidence does support the possibility, but that you disagree with a number of experts of the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    All I am suggesting is that the evidence in brain study does not support the idea or possibility of a genetically expressed intellectual distinction between members of humanity.

    It seems to me that the evidence does support the possibility, but that you disagree with a number of experts of the field.
    Ok...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[10] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an estimate of around three quarters as well.[9] As well, a 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[8] The 2005 edition of Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger found correlations of 0.86 for identical twins raised together compared to 0.76 for those raised apart and 0.47 for siblings.[16] A 1994 review in Behavior Genetics based on identical/fraternal twin studies found that it is as high as 0.92 in general cognitive ability but it also varies based on the trait, with .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only .40 for memory tests.[6]
    As I explained previously, studies such as this suggest an implied genetic link that could be explained by other more credible factors. Twins studies conducted in this fashion are not direct or credible genetic evidence of the inheritability of intelligence. If there were such evidence, it could have been suggested by the CHRM2 gene study. As I'm sure you know, this was a direct genetic study and, as I have outlined, it is not sufficient evidence of the inheritability of intelligence nor evidence of a racially distinct intelligence trait.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Direct study of DNA is not necessary to show that something is genetic. For example, you don't need to look at DNA to know that eye color is genetically determined, and careful study can help you determine which genes are recessive and which are dominant, etc. Would you say that there's no direct and credible evidence that eye color is genetically determined until the actual genes involved are listed? Why should things be different for intelligence?

    That is the kind of reasoning that allows twin studies to give evidence of a genetic basis to intelligence. they're not a direct genetic studies, but that doesn't mean they're worthless.

    To make an analogy, you can obtain the position of a planet either by observing it directly, or by deducing it from perturbation in the trajectories of other planets (as was done for Neptune).

    As for "credible" - that's subjective. Obviously those that published those studies considered the evidence credible enough.

    By the way, is it fair to say that you disagree with a number of experts in the field?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Direct study of DNA is not necessary to show that something is genetic. For example, you don't need to look at DNA to know that eye color is genetically determined, and careful study can help you determine which genes are recessive and which are dominant, etc. Would you say that there's no direct and credible evidence that eye color is genetically determined until the actual genes involved are listed? Why should things be different for intelligence?
    Apparent expressions such as eye color are not the same as the expression of an ethereal quality whose attributes are difficult to assess given a general lack of aggreement on how it should be tested. With planets and eye color, we have something tangible to measure and observe with standardize and accepted methods. This is not the same with intelligence. Twin studies without direct genetic components, as I have said, are too easily explained. The only indirect genetic evidence I think less easy to explain would be that suggested by the expression of genius in the progeny of history's great innovators and thinkers (e.g., Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc.). If intelligence is a heritable trait, as I've asked previously, where is the history of genius in the progeny of history's greats?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Apparent expressions such as eye color are not the same as the expression of an ethereal quality whose attributes are difficult to assess given a general lack of aggreement on how it should be tested. With planets and eye color, we have something tangible to measure and observe with standardize and accepted methods. This is not the same with intelligence. Twin studies without direct genetic components, as I have said, are too easily explained.
    Yet, still, the opinion of many scientists is that IQ has a significant genetic component. Do you know enough about their research to say with certainty that they haven't considered your "influence during pregnancy" explanation?

    Intelligence is harder to measure than eye color, but that doesn't mean it's entirely imaginative. "Lack of agreement" doesn't mean much - on how many concepts in social sciences is there complete agreement among all researchers? Does that mean all research on the other concepts (on which sometimes people disagree!) is completely invalid?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    The only indirect genetic evidence I think less easy to explain would be that suggested by the expression of genius in the progeny of history's great innovators and thinkers (e.g., Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc.). If intelligence is a heritable trait, as I've asked previously, where is the history of genius in the progeny of history's greats?
    Two factors:
    1) Even assuming intelligence is entirely genetic in origin (which it very probably isn't), intelligence enough doesn't guarantee one will become a world-famous scientist or thinker. Also, some famous thinkers are not great geniuses (I've heard that Darwin wasn't exceptionally intelligent).
    2) Regression towards the mean: Unless you're selectively breeding geniuses, the child of a genius is likely to be less smart than his parent (closer to the average of his parents, though probably with a lot of variation).

    Also, I've read of some studies that show gifted people often have other gifted people in their family.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Intelligence is harder to measure than eye color, but that doesn't mean it's entirely imaginative.
    Rather than imaginative, my reference to the “ethereal” nature of intelligence was meant to describe its lack of an observable, physical/material reference of the kind we find with the examples you provided.

    "Lack of agreement" doesn't mean much - on how many concepts in social sciences is there complete agreement among all researchers? Does that mean all research on the other concepts (on which sometimes people disagree!) is completely invalid?
    I disagree; a lack of consensus on how to fairly test intelligence calls into question the validity of any and all research rooted in such testing. Although disagreement, as our discussion observes, is common among us all, there is no disagreement regarding the neurological kinship among the races—which was my original assertion.

    Neurologically, there is no evidence of any variance, genetic or otherwise, in brain development, structure, and function among the races. Therefore, if an intelligence distinction exist, it is likely a result of artificially imposed factors. My assertion was that, given equal advantage and environmental factors, there is no distinction among the races in intelligence potential.

    Also, I've read of some studies that show gifted people often have other gifted people in their family.
    I’m very interested in reviewing such studies. Could you provide a link?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    I disagree; a lack of consensus on how to fairly test intelligence calls into question the validity of any and all research rooted in such testing. Although disagreement, as our discussion observes, is common among us all, there is no disagreement regarding the neurological kinship among the races—which was my original assertion.

    Neurologically, there is no evidence of any variance, genetic or otherwise, in brain development, structure, and function among the races. Therefore, if an intelligence distinction exist, it is likely a result of artificially imposed factors. My assertion was that, given equal advantage and environmental factors, there is no distinction among the races in intelligence potential.
    Very well said. QFT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    variance... in brain development, structure, and function
    Would you agree that such variance often follows perinatal brain trauma i.e. head deformation, constriction, and prolonged blood anoxia during complicated vaginal delivery?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Would you agree that such variance often follows perinatal brain trauma i.e. head deformation, constriction, and prolonged blood anoxia during complicated vaginal delivery?
    Understand, these are all artificial influences that may have an affect on normal brain structure and development. By artificial, I mean influences that are not caused by race specific genetic or neurological variances. To-date, no research has, convincingly or otherwise, shown a genetic or neurological variance in brain development, structure, and function between the races. Trauma amid birth is not race specific and, therefore, cannot be perceived as a racially distinctive baseline intelligence influence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Man you are slippery.

    "Trauma amid birth is not race specific" sure it's not specific. But you won't find a delivery staff in the world that hasn't noted racial differences. Hispanic babies are significantly larger. On the one hand that's good because birth weight does predict IQ (including big babies having higher IQ). On the other hand brain trauma is associated with impairment ...duh. And if the common sense of that is not enough, then check the literature on causes of cerebral palsy, retardation, epilepsy, etc.

    My own son was more than 3 weeks overdue, but delivered without C-section explicitly because his mother has "typical oriental pelvis", which every obstetrician knows makes for easier delivery. Nonetheless, the necessary contortion of such a large brain passing through is best likened to a bottle gourd.

    What is artificial is the C-section births. These artificially reduce head trauma where genetics would cause it in natural births.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    "Lack of agreement" doesn't mean much - on how many concepts in social sciences is there complete agreement among all researchers? Does that mean all research on the other concepts (on which sometimes people disagree!) is completely invalid?
    I disagree; a lack of consensus on how to fairly test intelligence calls into question the validity of any and all research rooted in such testing.
    Do you know how common that position (that all intelligence testing is invalid because of some "lack of consensus") is in the fields of Psychometrics and Quantitative Genetics? It seems that you're advocating a fringe view (at least in those fields), only based on the idea that "some people disagree", which can be said of nearly any concept.

    You're saying "there's no evidence" but upon closer examination your position looks more like "there is some disagreement about some concept in this field, so I can ignore any result I want".

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Although disagreement, as our discussion observes, is common among us all, there is no disagreement regarding the neurological kinship among the races—which was my original assertion.

    Neurologically, there is no evidence of any variance, genetic or otherwise, in brain development, structure, and function among the races. Therefore, if an intelligence distinction exist, it is likely a result of artificially imposed factors. My assertion was that, given equal advantage and environmental factors, there is no distinction among the races in intelligence potential.
    Note that in these last few posts I've been defending the idea that intelligence has a significant genetic component, and not saying anything about race (more exactly, I'm saying that a good deal of variation in intelligence between individuals is explained by genetic differences, which seems to be a majority view in the concerned fields).

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Also, I've read of some studies that show gifted people often have other gifted people in their family.
    I’m very interested in reviewing such studies. Could you provide a link?
    I don't have a link to the last place I read that (it had some nice data tables and stuff), but if you feel like digging you can look up the references of this:

    Other studies have shown that giftedness runs in families (Albert, 1978, 1980a, 1980b; Burks, Jensen & Terman, 1930; Hollingworth, 1926; MacKinnon, 1962)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Do you know how common that position (that all intelligence testing is invalid because of some "lack of consensus") is in the fields of Psychometrics and Quantitative Genetics?
    Good question...do you? How sure would you be regarding any study when its likely testing methods are disputed? Is there any dispute regarding the testing methods for eye color and planetary positioning?

    You're saying "there's no evidence" but upon closer examination your position looks more like "there is some disagreement about some concept in this field, so I can ignore any result I want".
    No, that is what you are saying. I am suggesting that current testing methods in this specific field of study are insufficient and unreliable. What is the standard measure of intelligence? Is it math and language skills, perspective and problem solving, or is the capacity to innovate and to rapidly acquire new knowledge and skills? How does one cram all the nuances of intelligence into a single unbiased test? It has been my experience that the most intelligent individuals are those with keen commonsense rather yards of academics. What is commonsense and how does one measure it faily?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    "Trauma amid birth is not race specific" sure it's not specific. But you won't find a delivery staff in the world that hasn't noted racial differences. Hispanic babies are significantly larger. On the one hand that's good because birth weight does predict IQ (including big babies having higher IQ).
    It is the diet of the birth mother that determines the weight of newborns. Diet is an artificial factor that influences birth weights, which influences the nature of delivery.

    On the other hand brain trauma is associated with impairment ...duh. And if the common sense of that is not enough, then check the literature on causes of cerebral palsy, retardation, epilepsy, etc.
    Where did this come from? :?

    What is artificial is the C-section births. These artificially reduce head trauma where genetics would cause it in natural births.
    There are many artificial factors that could affect the nature of birth. Higher baby weights among some cultures may not be genetic but rather an effect of cultural eating habits. Therefore, any outcome of such cultural influences should be viewed as a result of artificial pressures. Natural births doesn't necessarily mean devoid of environmental factors.
    _________________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    It is the diet of the birth mother that determines the weight of newborns.
    Largely, yes. Maternal health and diet has been studied exhaustively (duh), it was thought they had big babies due to a kind of diabetes. Hispanic women really do have big babies after cancelling all that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Where did (brain trauma is associated with impairment) come from? :?
    Brain trauma does not cause impairment?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    There are many artificial factors that could affect the nature of birth. Higher baby weights among some cultures may not be genetic but rather an effect of cultural eating habits. Therefore, any outcome of such cultural influences should be viewed as a result of artificial pressures.
    Bluntly, I think you're saying that if something might not be genetic we should say that it is not. I know you're a clever fellow who could ignore hard facts while conjuring frivolous objections 'till I give up. So lemme just give up on that game now.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    You're saying "there's no evidence" but upon closer examination your position looks more like "there is some disagreement about some concept in this field, so I can ignore any result I want".
    No, that is what you are saying. I am suggesting that current testing methods in this specific field of study are insufficient and unreliable. What is the standard measure of intelligence? Is it math and language skills, perspective and problem solving, or is the capacity to innovate and to rapidly acquire new knowledge and skills? How does one cram all the nuances of intelligence into a single unbiased test? It has been my experience that the most intelligent individuals are those with keen commonsense rather yards of academics. What is commonsense and how does one measure it faily?
    The field of psychometrics attempts to answer those questions. You can disagree with it, but if you want to be taken seriously you better have more than a passing understanding of it's concepts and methods, and offer detailed, technical criticism.

    It's one thing to say "I don't agree with such-and-such theory in economics because such-and-such assumption doesn't apply to humans and such-and-such study made these mistakes in interpreting the statistics", it's another to say "I don't understand how economics can reason about an abstract concept like 'value', therefore economics is wrong."

    Note that I'm not saying that there isn't any bad science in psychometrics (there's probably plenty of bad science in a lot of fields, especially in the social sciences), but that identifying what is bad science takes quite a bit of work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    I am suggesting that current testing methods in this specific field of study are insufficient and unreliable. What is the standard measure of intelligence? Is it math and language skills, perspective and problem solving, or is the capacity to innovate and to rapidly acquire new knowledge and skills? How does one cram all the nuances of intelligence into a single unbiased test?
    What I can't figure out is how you have determined that all ethnic groups are equally intelligent, without any method of testing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    It is the diet of the birth mother that determines the weight of newborns.
    Largely, yes. Maternal health and diet has been studied exhaustively (duh), it was thought they had big babies due to a kind of diabetes. Hispanic women really do have big babies after cancelling all that.
    Are you seriously suggesting that Hispanics are genetically predisposed to birthing larger than average babies? I’d be very interested in reviewing the relevant studies. Are you also suggesting that the only dietary factor associated with the weight of Hispanic newborns is diabetes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    On the other hand brain trauma is associated with impairment ...duh. And if the common sense of that is not enough, then check the literature on causes of cerebral palsy, retardation, epilepsy, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Where did this come from?
    Brain trauma does not cause impairment?
    I was merely expressing my objection to the didactic tone of your initial comment regarding brain trauma and its effects. I think I have a fairly good grasp of the subject.

    Bluntly, I think you're saying that if something might not be genetic we should say that it is not. I know you're a clever fellow who could ignore hard facts while conjuring frivolous objections 'till I give up. So lemme just give up on that game now.
    No, what I am suggesting is that blanket statements suggesting a racial distinction should be supported by “hard facts.” I could find no study suggesting that Hispanics are genetically predisposed to larger than average babies.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    I am suggesting that current testing methods in this specific field of study are insufficient and unreliable. What is the standard measure of intelligence? Is it math and language skills, perspective and problem solving, or is the capacity to innovate and to rapidly acquire new knowledge and skills? How does one cram all the nuances of intelligence into a single unbiased test? It has been my experience that the most intelligent individuals are those with keen commonsense rather yards of academics. What is commonsense and how does one measure it fairly?
    The field of psychometrics attempts to answer those questions. You can disagree with it, but if you want to be taken seriously you better have more than a passing understanding of it's concepts and methods, and offer detailed, technical criticism.
    Isn’t it fair to suggest that this statement also applies to those who seem to blindly support or accept such psychometric concepts and methods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    What I can't figure out is how you have determined that all ethnic groups are equally intelligent, without any method of testing it.
    If you will recall, I said:

    Neurologically, there is no evidence of any variance, genetic or otherwise, in brain development, structure, and function among the races. Therefore, if an intelligence distinction exist, it is likely a result of artificially imposed factors. My assertion was that, given equal advantage and environmental factors, there is no distinction among the races in intelligence potential.

    All things being equal, my position is that we are all capable of the same potential. However, as I’m sure you are aware, we are not all equal because some of us were not afforded the same comforts and advantages as others. My position regarding intelligence is based on my understanding of brain function—which produces intelligence—rather than IQ testing. Relative to brain function, the questions we ask are how does the brain of one person differ from another and how might this affect its cognitive output? One measure of cognitive output is neural function and response. To-date, no study has shown any functional distinction suggesting a variance in cognitive output among the races.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Are you seriously suggesting that Hispanics are genetically predisposed to birthing larger than average babies? I’d be very interested in reviewing the relevant studies. Are you also suggesting that the only dietary factor associated with the weight of Hispanic newborns is diabetes?
    Hispanic + macrosomia and plenty more, just Google those terms.

    And no I'm not suggesting (strawman) the only factor blah blah. I'm getting really tired of this treatment like I'm voicing absolutes, which you then object to for not muddling with "many factors".

    I was merely expressing my objection to the didactic tone... I think I have a fairly good grasp of the subject.
    Fair enough, and I think you do. So you would agree that perinatal brain trauma predicts cognitive disability in later life?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Are you seriously suggesting that Hispanics are genetically predisposed to birthing larger than average babies? I’d be very interested in reviewing the relevant studies. Are you also suggesting that the only dietary factor associated with the weight of Hispanic newborns is diabetes?
    Hispanic + macrosomia and plenty more, just Google those terms.
    That's not how it works, Pong. You made a claim, and support was requested. You need to provide a specific citation or reference, not a link to a google search.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    And no I'm not suggesting (strawman) the only factor blah blah. I'm getting really tired of this treatment...
    Pong - I'm struggling very much to understand both the nature and tone of your responses. DrmDoc has done a fantastic job of accurately conveying the literature on this topic, and you are trying to use his recognition of confounding variables to suggest he's being disingenuous? I'm sorry, but that does not speak well of you, nor your understanding of this topic.

    These are fuzzy concepts, and it's important to represent them authentically. This is what DrmDoc has done, and I'd like someone to provide me with a clear example... even just one... of why they think his posts are out of line. I'm truly baffled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Are you seriously suggesting that Hispanics are genetically predisposed to birthing larger than average babies? I’d be very interested in reviewing the relevant studies. Are you also suggesting that the only dietary factor associated with the weight of Hispanic newborns is diabetes?

    Hispanic + macrosomia and plenty more, just Google those terms.

    And no I'm not suggesting (strawman) the only factor blah blah. I'm getting really tired of this treatment like I'm voicing absolutes, which you then object to for not muddling with "many factors".
    I selected the link you provided and reviewed the article. If I understand correctly, this article describes an abnormal condition of excessive birth weight that affects all races but is highest among Hispanic. The incidents of macrosomia among Hispanic birth is analogous to high blood pressure among Afro-Americans—it is a medical condition that occurs at a higher rate among one group compared to its rate among another but is not group-specific. This article does not claim that all Hispanic births involve this condition nor does it claim that Hispanics generally give birth to larger babies as you have suggested.

    So you would agree that perinatal brain trauma predicts cognitive disability in later life?
    Yes, perinatal trauma could be a predictor of functional diabilities; however, such brain trauma is not race-specific and it is not commonly caused by a race-specific genetic trait. How does this topic address your argument regarding the focus of our discussion which, if I am not mistaken, regards race-specific intelligence distinctions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    I selected the link you provided and reviewed the article.
    Thanks. For inow:
    Quote Originally Posted by emedicine.medscape.com
    Macrosomia ...Factors associated with fetal macrosomia include genetics; duration of gestation; presence of gestational diabetes; and class A, B, and C diabetes mellitus. Genetic, racial, and ethnic factors influence birth weight and the risk of macrosomia.

    Race

    Macrosomia occurs with higher frequency in newborns of Hispanic origin. Because Hispanic women have a higher incidence of diabetes during pregnancy, part of the preponderance of macrosomia in this ethnic group is due to the higher incidence of diabetes in pregnancy. However, even when corrected for diabetes, Hispanic mothers tend to have larger newborns.
    I suggested Google search because the first result page is solid authoritative information. I linked hit #2 because #1 is wikiparenting and not as credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    If I understand correctly, this article describes an abnormal condition of excessive birth weight that affects all races but is highest among Hispanic. The incidents of macrosomia among Hispanic birth is analogous to high blood pressure among Afro-Americans—it is a medical condition that occurs at a higher rate among one group compared to its rate among another but is not group-specific. This article does not claim that all Hispanic births involve this condition nor does it claim that Hispanics generally give birth to larger babies as you have suggested.
    Okay please please quit pretending I've made absolute statements like "all Hispanic births" which you and the article refute. That got old posts ago.

    Plainly we interpret the article differently. I interpret it to mean Hispanic women more often have large for gestation age babies. In plain language: Hispanics have big babies. That's in addition to and including big babies associated with gestational diabetes. Gestational diabetes in turn is associated with excessive maternal weight gain and prolonged pregnancy i.e. weight gain indicates it. So it's kinda one thing: Going only by an baby's ultrasound head diameter, I could say, "Oh, that mother's at risk of diabetes." And it's worth remembering that the little hijacker also runs the show. That's basically my understanding of it.

    Why do you underscore "affects all races, is not group-specific"? You mean not exclusive? Whoever said it was? We're not debating that. Big babies are common in Hispanics, that's all. I just got done relating that my Oriental wife delivered our macrosomic baby. :wink:

    Can you please admit the simple fact of big babies without a lot of weasel words and unnecessary clauses stressing they are not exclusive to Hispanics.

    Then we may proceed.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    What I can't figure out is how you have determined that all ethnic groups are equally intelligent, without any method of testing it.
    If you will recall, I said:

    Neurologically, there is no evidence of any variance, genetic or otherwise, in brain development, structure, and function among the races. Therefore, if an intelligence distinction exist, it is likely a result of artificially imposed factors.

    I don't see how that follows. Why is it "likely"?
    My assertion was that, given equal advantage and environmental factors, there is no distinction among the races in intelligence potential.
    An assertion which is not based on any testing. Correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I linked hit #2 because #1 is wikiparenting and not as credible.
    Yes, I made an error. Sorry about that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Okay please please quit pretending I've made absolute statements like "all Hispanic births" which you and the article refute. That got old posts ago.
    I make no pretention, although blanket statements in the body of your comments like this…

    Plainly we interpret the article differently. I interpret it to mean Hispanic women more often have large for gestation age babies. In plain language: Hispanics have big babies. That's in addition to and including big babies associated with gestational diabetes.
    …and unqualified statements like this …
    Why do you underscore "affects all races, is not group-specific"? You mean not exclusive? Whoever said it was? We're not debating that. Big babies are common in Hispanics, that's all. I just got done relating that my Oriental wife delivered our macrosomic baby.
    …are pretty darn confusing. By “Hispanics have big babies,” did you meant to say some Hispanics have big babies? Also, by “Big babies are common in Hispanics,” did you intend to convey that big babies are common not just among Hispanics? Your statements are confusing because you seem to be designating a single group (Hispanics) as the owner or exhibitor of a specific trait (big babies) to the exclusion of all others. Again, I fail grasp how this supports your arguement regarding divergent racial intelligence.

    Gestational diabetes in turn is associated with excessive maternal weight gain and prolonged pregnancy i.e. weight gain indicates it. So it's kinda one thing: Going only by an baby's ultrasound head diameter, I could say, "Oh, that mother's at risk of diabetes." And it's worth remembering that the little hijacker also runs the show. That's basically my understanding of it.
    The article describes an abnormal medical condition affecting a percentage of Hispanic births more frequently than others. Although it may not be your intent to suggest otherwise, this is not a blanket statement that “Hispanics have big babies.” This is merely a statement that a higher percentage among Hispanic newborns exhibits this condition than exhibited by non-Hispanic newborns. For example, of 100 Hispanic births, 5% may exhibit this condition compared to 3% of 100 Caucasian births. In this example, the number of abnormal Hispanic births would exceed the Caucasian number by 2%. (Note: these are arbitrary percentages used as an example to convey meaning.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Neurologically, there is no evidence of any variance, genetic or otherwise, in brain development, structure, and function among the races. Therefore, if an intelligence distinction exist, it is likely a result of artificially imposed factors.
    I don't see how that follows. Why is it "likely"?
    If we can find no developmental, structural, or functional distinction between the brains of divergent races, what other cause is likely?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    My assertion was that, given equal advantage and environmental factors, there is no distinction among the races in intelligence potential.
    An assertion which is not based on any testing. Correct?
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    My position regarding intelligence is based on my understanding of brain function—which produces intelligence—rather than IQ testing. Relative to brain function, the questions we ask are how does the brain of one person differ from another and how might this affect its cognitive output? One measure of cognitive output is neural function and response. To-date, no study has shown any functional distinction suggesting a variance in cognitive output among the races.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    My position regarding intelligence is based on my understanding of brain function—which produces intelligence—rather than IQ testing. Relative to brain function, the questions we ask are how does the brain of one person differ from another and how might this affect its cognitive output? One measure of cognitive output is neural function and response. To-date, no study has shown any functional distinction suggesting a variance in cognitive output among the races.
    You are expecting to find a difference in neural function? That doesn't even make any sense. What is the difference in neural function between a human and a dog?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    You mean not exclusive? Whoever said it was? We're not debating that.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    you seem to be designating a single group (Hispanics) as the owner or exhibitor of a specific trait (big babies) to the exclusion of all others.
    sub⋅ter⋅fuge
    –noun
    an artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc.


    Congratulations DrmDoc you've successfully blocked progress. Let me know when you've resolved to drop the objection.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    You are expecting to find a difference in neural function? That doesn't even make any sense.
    Your entire arguement seems to involve some distinct difference in intelligence between the races. As the source of intelligence, the brain is the most logical organ to examine for baseline variances in cognitive output between the races. If there is a neurological difference between the races, why wouldn't there be a difference in neural function?

    What is the difference in neural function between a human and a dog?
    You must have seen one or two dogs in your lifetime. A cursory external examination of the skull of the largest canine breed suggests that its brain is structured differently than a humans. The olfactory epithelium in canines contains an estimated eighteen receptors per square centimeter, compared to four in humans. This suggests a brain architecture that is more devoted to scent processing than in humans. Structural differences, for example, in the canine brain do not allow for the speech production we find among humans. Before we leap into a comparitive study of canine brain function, structural factors must be considered and, since this is a discussion of human intelligence, I hardly see the relevance or need to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    sub⋅ter⋅fuge
    –noun
    an artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc.
    No subterfuge intended, its just that your comments as stated above were unclear as I have said. So Hispanic have large babies, as well as, Caucasians, Asians, Afro-Americans...what is your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    My position regarding intelligence is based on my understanding of brain function—which produces intelligence—rather than IQ testing.[/b] Relative to brain function, the questions we ask are how does the brain of one person differ from another and how might this affect its cognitive output? One measure of cognitive output is neural function and response. To-date, no study has shown any functional distinction suggesting a variance in cognitive output among the races.
    You are expecting to find a difference in neural function? That doesn't even make any sense.
    I'm sorry, Harold, but you've just betrayed your ignorance on this topic, and made it obvious that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the work being done in this field.


    I encourage you (and others here) to read more of what is being published in neurological journals. Here is one example which might help clear up the abysmal misconceptions which so many people are continuing to toss about in this thread. I've only quoted a small bit, but a reading of the whole thing has a high probability of elevating the utility and accuracy of people's contributions to this discussion.


    http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf
    We examine the recent application of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability.

    <...>

    Intelligence has several meanings, largely based on the context in which the term is used. Generally referring to competence and accomplishment, in neuroscience intelligence is typically referred to as general cognitive ability and quantified as Spearman’s g—after its first proponent, Charles Spearman.

    <...>

    Functional MRI, for example, can be used to build a more mechanistic model of intelligence because it can localize brain systems involved during cognitive tasks. The activation of specific neural systems in the frontal and parietal lobes correlates with g, which suggests that these regions interact to contribute to g (Prabhakaran et al. 1997, 2001; Duncan et al. 2000; Gray et al. 2002).

    A contrary view of intelligence holds that important intellectual abilities are poorly assessed or entirely missed by standardized intelligence tests. Sternberg (1999) proposed a triarchic theory of intelligence, in which practical and creative intelligence are regarded on par with analytic skills. For Sternberg, analytic intelligence denotes one of three primary intellectual skills, namely one that is similar to the g factor—the ability to recognize and apply logical relations. Equally fundamental, however, are practical intelligence, which denotes pragmatic and social skills, and creative intelligence, or the ability to come up with imaginative solutions to problems rather than applying familiar logical rules or book knowledge. Social or emotion-related abilities have also been argued to be essential ingredients in mental function (Salovey et al. 2002).

    A still broader view of intelligence has been popularized by Gardner (2000). Gardner posits at least seven types of intelligence (mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal). The case for multiple intelligences has been supported by studies of brain lesions that cause very specific neurological deficits but leave many cognitive abilities intact (e.g., speech or visuospatial skills). Gardner considers that proponents of the g factor confuse intelligence with a highly specific type of scholastic performance.

    The most negative view of IQ testing is that inherent biases make cognitive tests a poor measure of individual competence. Detractors of IQ tests say that the ability to answer some questions may depend on a person’s upbringing or cultural background, and that the questions assume a familiarity or agreement with certain cultural norms. Situational factors may also impair performance (Steele & Aronson 1995; Gould 1996, p. 166; Baumeister et al. 2002; Schmader & Johns 2004).

    <...>

    A recent meta-analysis (including a total of 1375 subjects) found that total brain volume and IQ were correlated significantly in all but 1 of 28 MRI studies, with an estimated correlation of 0.33 (McDaniel & Nguyen 2002). This finding implies that ∼10% of the population variability in IQ can be predicted from brain volume measures alone.

    <...>

    Recently, we found that intellectual functionc(g) was significantly linked with differences in frontal gray matter volumes, which were determined primarily by genetic factors (Thompson et al. 2001a). Posthuma et al. (2002) extended these findings using a cross-twin cross-trait (bivariate genetic) analysis to compute genetic correlations. They demonstrated that the linkage between gray matter volumes and g is mediated by a common set of genes. Haier et al. (2004) used voxel-based morphometry in two independent samples to identify substantial gray matter correlates of IQ. More gray matter was associated with higher IQ in all lobes, underscoring a distributed model of the neural basis of intelligence. Intriguingly, the strongest correlations are typically found between IQ and frontal gray matter volumes (Thompson et al. 2001a, Haier et al. 2004), the same brain regions that are under greatest genetic control. Frontal brain regions play a key role in working memory, executive function, and attentional processes, and their structure has rapidly expanded in recent primate evolution, consistent with their role in reasoning and intellectual function.

    <...>

    Intelligence therefore depends, to some extent, on structural differences in the brain that are under very strong genetic control. This indicates a partly neuroanatomical (structural) explanation for the high heritability of intelligence.

    Given the above, it is WHOLLY valid to suggest that the lack of differences in neural function is a VERY strong indicator for a lack of differences in intelligence potential.


    You too, Pong... I'm not sure why you speak so forcefully about a topic about which you obviously have only remedial understanding. This has become silly-season here because you guys refuse to accept that there are a lot of caveats which are vital to consider when discussing study of human minds and abilities, and why it's necessary to use clear, precise language when making claims... especially when those claims are based on a suggestion of difference in intelligence potential across people with different melanin contents in their skin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,332
    Inow, I'm not at all struggling to understand both the nature and tone of your responses. It is clear to me that we cannot share constructive discussion here. Still, I look forward to the opportunity in other areas.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    It is clear to me that we cannot share constructive discussion here. Still, I look forward to the opportunity in other areas.
    I'm just really confused as to why you're choosing to be so incredibly hard on DrmDoc for simply providing an accurate representation of the facts. That boggles my mind. I'm not willing to give up on discussion with you, and if you're willing to continue... it would help if you could clarify for me why you are dismissing his contributions as obfuscation and subterfuge. I see nothing of the sort, but I wonder if it's just because I'm rather familiar with this topic from my university experience.

    I mean seriously... I shared a link which robustly addresses pretty much every major point of this thread... supporting my comments from a few weeks ago, and those of DrmDoc recently. So, where's the problem, exactly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow

    http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf
    We examine the recent application of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability.

    <...>

    Intelligence has several meanings, largely based on the context in which the term is used. Generally referring to competence and accomplishment, in neuroscience intelligence is typically referred to as general cognitive ability and quantified as Spearman’s g—after its first proponent, Charles Spearman.

    <...>

    Functional MRI, for example, can be used to build a more mechanistic model of intelligence because it can localize brain systems involved during cognitive tasks. The activation of specific neural systems in the frontal and parietal lobes correlates with g, which suggests that these regions interact to contribute to g (Prabhakaran et al. 1997, 2001; Duncan et al. 2000; Gray et al. 2002).

    A contrary view of intelligence holds that important intellectual abilities are poorly assessed or entirely missed by standardized intelligence tests. Sternberg (1999) proposed a triarchic theory of intelligence, in which practical and creative intelligence are regarded on par with analytic skills. For Sternberg, analytic intelligence denotes one of three primary intellectual skills, namely one that is similar to the g factor—the ability to recognize and apply logical relations. Equally fundamental, however, are practical intelligence, which denotes pragmatic and social skills, and creative intelligence, or the ability to come up with imaginative solutions to problems rather than applying familiar logical rules or book knowledge. Social or emotion-related abilities have also been argued to be essential ingredients in mental function (Salovey et al. 2002).

    A still broader view of intelligence has been popularized by Gardner (2000). Gardner posits at least seven types of intelligence (mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal). The case for multiple intelligences has been supported by studies of brain lesions that cause very specific neurological deficits but leave many cognitive abilities intact (e.g., speech or visuospatial skills). Gardner considers that proponents of the g factor confuse intelligence with a highly specific type of scholastic performance.

    The most negative view of IQ testing is that inherent biases make cognitive tests a poor measure of individual competence. Detractors of IQ tests say that the ability to answer some questions may depend on a person’s upbringing or cultural background, and that the questions assume a familiarity or agreement with certain cultural norms. Situational factors may also impair performance (Steele & Aronson 1995; Gould 1996, p. 166; Baumeister et al. 2002; Schmader & Johns 2004).

    <...>

    A recent meta-analysis (including a total of 1375 subjects) found that total brain volume and IQ were correlated significantly in all but 1 of 28 MRI studies, with an estimated correlation of 0.33 (McDaniel & Nguyen 2002). This finding implies that ∼10% of the population variability in IQ can be predicted from brain volume measures alone.

    <...>

    Recently, we found that intellectual functionc(g) was significantly linked with differences in frontal gray matter volumes, which were determined primarily by genetic factors (Thompson et al. 2001a). Posthuma et al. (2002) extended these findings using a cross-twin cross-trait (bivariate genetic) analysis to compute genetic correlations. They demonstrated that the linkage between gray matter volumes and g is mediated by a common set of genes. Haier et al. (2004) used voxel-based morphometry in two independent samples to identify substantial gray matter correlates of IQ. More gray matter was associated with higher IQ in all lobes, underscoring a distributed model of the neural basis of intelligence. Intriguingly, the strongest correlations are typically found between IQand frontal gray matter volumes (Thompson et al. 2001a, Haier et al. 2004), the same brain regions that are under greatest genetic control. Frontal brain regions play a key role in working memory, executive function, and attentional processes, and their structure has rapidly expanded in recent primate evolution, consistent with their role in reasoning and intellectual function.

    <...>

    Intelligence therefore depends, to some extent, on structural differences in the brain that are under very strong genetic control. This indicates a partly neuroanatomical (structural) explanation for the high heritability of intelligence.

    Given the above, it is WHOLLY valid to suggest that the lack of differences in neural function is a VERY strong indicator for a lack of differences in intelligence potential.
    Okay. I noticed a couple of things. (1) They are using IQ (which you discount as a valid test) to validate the accuracy of their brain mapping. And (2) the article states that it mostly genetic, not environmental. For example, these quotes do not seem to support your contention that environmental factors account for measured differences:
    We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure
    that is likewise under strong genetic control. Other factors, such as the
    environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant
    appears to genetic.
    Our potential seems largely predetermined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Okay. I noticed a couple of things. (1) They are using IQ (which you discount as a valid test) to validate the accuracy of their brain mapping.
    IQs are mentioned, but so too are their limitations. That's the point. Not only do they talk about the various theories and types of intelligence, but they explicitly refer to other standardized tests such as Spearman’s g. I also quoted a bit about why standardized tests are rather problematic (supporting my and DrmDoc's claim), and why IQ specifically has so many problems. Implicit in your comment is that IQ is the sole measure being used to validate their mapping results, and that is most certainly not the case. Further, even when they do use IQ, that usage is done with a recognition of its inherent limitations and flaws... limitations and flaws which I pointed out very early in this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    And (2) the article states that it mostly genetic, not environmental.
    Actually, it discusses how potential is genetic and the environment is what impacts the fulfillment of that potential, precisely as has been argued here in this thread.



    From the link:

    Individuals’ IQs vary, but the data presented in this review and elsewhere do not lead us to conclude that our intelligence is dictated solely by genes. Instead genetic interactions with the environment suggest that enriched environments will help everyone achieve their potential, but not to equality. Our potential seems largely predetermined.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    For example, these quotes do not seem to support your contention that environmental factors account for measured differences:
    Harold - I made no such contention, but I will say that it's obvious to pretty much everybody that genetics and environment both play a role in this, and that there are no significant deviations across "races" in said potentials. What IS rather interesting is the differences in the role played by those potentials in different socioeconomic conditions.



    Turkheimer et al. (2003) found that environmental factors made a much bigger difference in the determination of childhood IQ in impoverished families relative to those with higher socioeconomic status. The heritability of IQ at the low end of the wealth spectrum was just 0.10 on a scale of zero to one, but it was 0.72 for families of high socioeconomic status. The importance of environmental influences on IQ was four times stronger in the poorest families than in the higher status families, which suggests that nature matters more on the high end of socioeconomic status and nurture matters more on the low end. The genetic contribution to intelligence therefore differs in different environments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    there are no significant deviations across "races" in said potentials.
    Here is the part that I don't think you have demonstrated. The article quoted in the previous post on brain mapping did not mention race.

    Earlier you posted something written by Richard Nisbett, but that is only one opinion. What about the differing opinions that are referred to in the Wikipedia article?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Harold - I made no such contention, but I will say that it's obvious to pretty much everybody that genetics and environment both play a role in this
    Even to DrmDoc? He seems to be saying that genetics play no role at all (or rather, that there's no evidence that genetic plays a role, an argument loosely based upon claiming that "you can't measure intelligence"). See this quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    All I am suggesting is that the evidence in brain study does not support the idea or possibility of a genetically expressed intellectual distinction between members of humanity.
    I've tried to clarify my position:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    Note that in these last few posts I've been defending the idea that intelligence has a significant genetic component, and not saying anything about race (more exactly, I'm saying that a good deal of variation in intelligence between individuals is explained by genetic differences, which seems to be a majority view in the concerned fields).
    If DrmDoc disagrees with that, he certainly hasn't made any effort to clarify his position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •