Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: IQ differences between races

  1. #1 IQ differences between races 
    Iq
    Iq is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Computer desk
    Posts
    6
    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)."

    The paper, "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, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

    "Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

    "Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

    The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
    Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
    The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the same in all races, and race differences are most pronounced on more heritable abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
    Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
    Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
    Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
    IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages - Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
    Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.
    Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
    Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
    In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.

    Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Iq
    Iq is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Computer desk
    Posts
    6
    I've tried to debate with people like this and the main points they make are:

    -Africans have smaller brains, and as a result are less intelligent

    -Africans have more testosterone and therefore more prone to commiting crime

    -Sickle Cellanemia is exclusive to african populations and whites can't get this disease, prooving that racial differences do exist

    -Africans are genetically predisposed to comitting crimes

    I know most of this stuff is bogus but does anybody here have some reading material I could use to refute their claims?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Well, the study does imply that cultural differences do not occur by 3-yrs-old; enculturalization [did I just make that word up? I hope so, it looks very strange] begins no later than birth.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Without knowing what the tests consisted of, it's difficult to make an impartial judgement. I have to say that the direct linking of skin colour to IQ has "confirmation bias" written all over it.

    "It's nothing to do with education" they cry, and yet white kids from wealthy backgrounds are more likely to have had stimulation in the form of those kiddy sets, videos of the best CGI movies and of their favourite shows to watch over and over again. How much work was done to eliminate differences in societal background and overall affluence was there? All they talk about is "maternal education" without quantifying exactly what that means.

    No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
    The "culture-only" theory may well have hoped for differences from those programmes, but there's no scientific basis for claiming that they would have "predicted" an improvement on that basis. I've no doubt that Blacks test with lower IQs here in Britain where there never has been white/black segregation. The cultural bias isn't removed just because you happen to have dealt with a particularly massive racial injustice. It's inherent to the IQ test.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Brain size have nothing to do with how good you can score on a an IQ test.
    Einstein had a relativly small brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Iq
    I know most of this stuff is bogus but does anybody here have some reading material I could use to refute their claims?
    Have you read the original paper AND the references? And taken a good look at the data? Expectations DO effect interpretation.

    Read up on IQ testing.

    And, of course, read The Mismeasure of Man.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Iq
    I've tried to debate with people like this and the main points they make are:

    -Africans have smaller brains, and as a result are less intelligent

    -Africans have more testosterone and therefore more prone to commiting crime

    -Sickle Cellanemia is exclusive to african populations and whites can't get this disease, prooving that racial differences do exist

    -Africans are genetically predisposed to comitting crimes

    I know most of this stuff is bogus but does anybody here have some reading material I could use to refute their claims?

    How do you judge the intelligents of a group of people?
    Who are you comparing them to ?
    What lens are you using ?
    What will be measured will be decided by the one holding the yardstick. Saying the one race has a superior I.Q. is rascist, period.
    The very act of measuring is racists, period.

    The strength of the human race lies in its diversity.

    Science was shown us there is not enough genetic difference in any race to classify one race over another in evolutionary terms.
    we are all homo-sapiens.

    What needs to be understood is the strength of your genetics and intelligents is not derived by what race you come from, but the diversity of your genetic and cultural background.

    We have arrived in a time of evolutionary convergence.
    This is the great confluence of diversity and with it conflict over control about who’s views will rule the day. It is time we learned there are underling principals at work here.

    The future of human kind will be derived from understanding the principles of creativly integrating diversity.
    ---------------------
    -------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    For a long time I refused to acknowedge significant differences due to genetics, considering my philosophical outlook it is not hard to understand why. However, I am afraid that this is sticking my head in the sand. As a pragmatist (of the Charles Sanders Pierce variety), the fact of genetic difference is a very hard one to swallow. The sociological effects are horrible. Therefore I am committed to de-emphasizing the difference in every way I can at the very least. In the end, we have to say that what IQ tests measure has to do what tools we are given in life but in the end what matters is what we do with them. In a card game it is not just the cards we are dealt that determines victory but the skill with which we make decisions and play the cards that we are dealt.

    I gave up on a PHD in physics because in the end I lacked the will and determination. I have no doubt that others with less innate ability succeeded where I failed because they had the determination which I lacked.

    Furthermore what an IQ test measures is not the same as how smart we are. Smart means many different things. When I told people that I was studying physics or am teaching physics they often say how smart I am, but I am inclined to tell them to look at the job market and think again. I believe that we are all smart in our own way and we are all stupid in our own unique ways as well.

    Teaching math and physic at ITT technical institute I am teaching people who for whatever reason (genetic or upbringing) do not have the greatest innate abilities in mathematics. But to take this as a reason to give up our ambitions is pretty lame. While working with these students, I have come to the conclusion that people have some misconceptions about mathematics. It is true that some people can do a great deal of math in their head. But no matter how much you can do in your head you can use the tecniques of mathematics using symbols on paper to extend what you can do in head to do a great deal more. A physics professor in juggling all the variables of a problem he is working on has to rely on what he has written, simply because it won't all fit in his head at once. Therefore if he is sloppy in what he has written down he will end up believing what he has written incorrectly and become lost. With the careful use of the techniques of mathematics with a pencil and paper there really is no limit to what we can do.

    Not only is diversity a great source of strength but technology is quickly making up for the genetic differences in our innate abilities as well. The person who can add 6 digits numbers in his head instantly no longer impresses us quite so much anymore, after all anyone can do this with a two dollar calculator these days.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Science was shown us there is not enough genetic difference in any race to classify one race over another in evolutionary terms.
    we are all homo-sapiens.
    I believe that conclusion to have been motivated by political correctness and the dogma of cultural relativism. You should ask yourself, if aliens captured people of different races, would they not classify them, as biologists, on the basis of skin pigmentation and eye shape? To say nothing of overall physique and average height. I'm not against retaining the single species classification of Homo sapiens sapiens, but don't tell me that conclusion was objectively reached in the same way it would be for any other creature.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

    Smart means many different things. When I told people that I was studying physics or am teaching physics they often say how smart I am, but I am inclined to tell them to look at the job market and think again. I believe that we are all smart in our own way and we are all stupid in our own unique ways as well.
    There's a debate in the UK because there's a distinct falling off in Physics teaching and of qualification at high school level in Physics as a subject - primarily, it seems, because the subject is too hard for the current generation of teachers. And yet here we are, typing into our computers, connected by networks, and going home to watch our Digital TVs. This is all down to knowledge of physics. The people in favour of more physics education seem to be stuck on talking about Einstein and Rutherford and Planck and Clerk Maxwell and Stephen Hawking, whereas Physics has more and different applications today than it has ever had. Never mind the creation of the Universe, how about building the next generation of workers in the biggest growth industry of the last half century?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    I'm not against retaining the single species classification of Homo sapiens sapiens, but don't tell me that conclusion was objectively reached in the same way it would be for any other creature.

    Of course, I could be wrong.
    I think you are.
    The motivation for investigating the issue may have been a reach for political correctness, but the objective observation is that there are more genetic variations between individuals of a single 'race' than there are between the races.

    Metatron states "What needs to be understood is the strength of your genetics and intelligents is not derived by what race you come from, but the diversity of your genetic and cultural background." But that is exactly what the study is refuting. You may not like what the study shows, but attacking the authors, saying it 'just isn't so', or similar fatuous responses, will not make their conclusions go away. For that you need to question their methodology, or find a different interpretation of the observations.

    And at the end of it all you may find, surprise surprise, there is a difference in how well one group does in a test of questionable significance that was created by another group that does rather well at it. And apples fall under the influence of gravity and Dean Martin was often drunk. So?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 I can't get this article off my mind. 
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    In response to the OP, you do not need more information to challenge this article yet.

    First, let’s consider the paper’s conclusion, as reported: the apex of the curve of IQ test scores correlates to race. After all, there are phenotypical differences; perhaps some are neurological. What would that mean, and what would we do with the information?

    It would mean that we need to find how brain function differs and how to modify education and testing techniques. Eh, fine, let’s look into it.

    But let’s keep in mind that the curves overlap!. Lots of kids would benefit.

    Now, let's examine the article:
    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)."
    How accurately and precisely do MRIs measures the size of the brain? I am willing to believe it an accurate and precise measure of brain-size, but I’m not taking it on faith.

    They may have examined 10 categories of evidence, but they examined only one type of evidence, reported IQ scores.

    How was it concluded that the differences were ‘largely genetic’ if the study was designed to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)"? Why wasn't it concluded that the difference were equally attributable to genetics and culture?

    The paper, "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, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.
    The paper refers to IQ; I must assume that this means IQ scores, in which case the studies address test-taking ability, as well as, [in my opinion] ‘Cognitive Ability’. Any study that does not address this is intellectually dishonest. In fact, there more I consider that title, the more it bothers me; if they were reviewing IQ score studies, why didn’t they use that term in the title?

    "Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
    Why did they use the word ‘consistently’? A quick reading would give the impression that the difference has been consistent; has it, or has the gap narrowed? If the gap has changed, has the tested population changed? If so, how?

    "Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."
    What other variables?
    Poor education has not exerted on effect by age three?! Rushton must mean schooling, and be referring to the inequal access to good schools, but he implies that cultural bias will not have had an effect on a three year old; I very much doubt that.

    And, to repeat, only one type of evidence was used, IQ scores.

    The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
    What is the average score for Blacks in neither the U.S. nor sub-Saharan Africa? How and by whom are the test administered in these areas?

    Does the average for those of East Asian descent vary between East Asian and U.S. residents? Or between those who did and did not learn to read & write in ideograms in early childhood? Or speak in a tonal language in early childhood?

    Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
    How else do the gaps vary, in addition to the Backward Digit Span test?
    For that matter, what is the Backward Digit Span test, and why is it considered a better measure of the General Intelligence Factor than the Forward Digit Span test?
    The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the same in all races, and race differences are most pronounced on more heritable abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
    How is heritability of IQ being measured? And what kind of twin studies? Even identical twins raised in completely different environments from birth, which I believe must be a very small population, share the same neo-natal environment.
    Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
    A correlation of 0.4 is significant? Really? To me, that seems barely high enough to bother doing more research to see if there is a correlation, but I am willing to be instructed on the point. But, 0.4?

    Is faster processing of information a reasonable measure of intelligence?
    If so, do more neurons and synapses process information faster?
    If so, do larger brains contain more neurons and synapses, or could they contain longer neurons and wider synapses, which, if I remember my neuorphysiology correctly, would process information more slowly?

    And is MRI more accurate than filling an empty skull with pebbles?
    Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
    The point here? Do the authors really believe that the adopted children of white middle class parents experience no cultural bias bases on race? Even if children of non-European descent did experience the same culture as their adoptive parents, the study does not specify that the children are adopted at birth; and even if the children were adopted at birth, pre-natal environment might still have an effect on the abilities tested by IQ tests.

    But I do not accept the assumption that children of significant Asian and African descent experience the same social expectations as children of primarily European descent in the Americas.
    Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
    This is the best argument that IQ scores are a product of culture; any one who does not recognize that does know much about racism in the U.S. or South Africa of the twentieth century [I am assuming most of the studies were conducted then].
    IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages - Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
    Why does this support hereditary rather than cultural effects?
    Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.
    I’m sorry; they did measure something other than IQ scores.
    See above; what is the evidence that this is hereditary rather than cultural?
    Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
    This just sounds like socio-biology.
    Having been raised in New England, I know that the superiority of those who live in a cold climate is cultural, not genetic.
    Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
    Well, no, that’s just wrong; even if a couple of decades of such programs were adequate to redress the oppression of centuries, they do not acknowledge the effect of different expectations.

    If I may interject a personal note [yes, I know, annectodal evidence isn’t], I know the effect of the expectations of instructors and other authority figures is real and very strong; I have benefited greatly from positive expectations in my life.
    In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.

    Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework.
    Once all these questions have been answered so as to refute any accusations of racial bias, examine the raw data, including how the tests were administered.

    Once I am convinced that the collection the data, and the interpretation of the data, and the conclusions drawn from the data are not tainted by bias, I will be willingly to consider additional research into whether possible neurological differences associated with racial pheontypes are significant.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    I'm not against retaining the single species classification of Homo sapiens sapiens, but don't tell me that conclusion was objectively reached in the same way it would be for any other creature.

    Of course, I could be wrong.
    I think you are.
    The motivation for investigating the issue may have been a reach for political correctness, but the objective observation is that there are more genetic variations between individuals of a single 'race' than there are between the races.

    Metatron states "What needs to be understood is the strength of your genetics and intelligents is not derived by what race you come from, but the diversity of your genetic and cultural background." But that is exactly what the study is refuting. You may not like what the study shows, but attacking the authors, saying it 'just isn't so', or similar fatuous responses, will not make their conclusions go away. For that you need to question their methodology, or find a different interpretation of the observations.

    And at the end of it all you may find, surprise surprise, there is a difference in how well one group does in a test of questionable significance that was created by another group that does rather well at it. And apples fall under the influence of gravity and Dean Martin was often drunk. So?

    You cannot define a person's mind with an I.Q. test. No one can measure another humans creative potenial.
    It's way too complex to be reduced to numbers. I.Q. test are bias and too narrow of a lens.

    Opposition to IQ testing
    Many scientists disagree with the practice of psychometrics in general. In The Mismeasure of Man, Professor Stephen Jay Gould strongly disputes the basis of psychometrics as a form of scientific racism, objecting that it is:

    ...the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups--races, classes, or sexes--are innately inferior and deserve their status. (pp. 24-25).

    Also, as mitchellmckain pointed out this particularly ability is not as important as it use to be.
    Information can know be accessed by anyone with a computer. We are all genius now. What counts now is creativity cooperation and integration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    But the IQ test was not originally designed to give a single score as a measure of a person's ability; it was designed to determine in what areas people has naturally high ability, and in which areas they need additional help.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    But the IQ test was not originally designed to give a single score as a measure of a person's ability; it was designed to determine in what areas people has naturally high ability, and in which areas they need additional help.
    Tell that to a child that gets stigmatized as slow by these test.
    it is also a tool to homogenize students into a "group think" atmosphere under the fear of being removed from the group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    But the IQ test was not originally designed to give a single score as a measure of a person's ability; it was designed to determine in what areas people has naturally high ability, and in which areas they need additional help.
    Tell that to a child that gets stigmatized as slow by these test.
    it is also a tool to homogenize students into a "group think" atmosphere under the fear of being removed from the group.
    Why are you jumping down my throat? How does my quote support the use of single digit IQ scores?
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Tell that to a child that gets stigmatized as slow by these test. it is also a tool to homogenize students into a "group think" atmosphere under the fear of being removed from the group.
    How exactly do you believe this happens? homgenize students into a group think atmosphere. What are you babbling about? For once, when we are discussing an important subject, could you try it without the jargon and the surplus emotion.
    Who is homgenising students?
    How can knowledge of their own IQ create fear of being removed from the group?
    You are being obscure to the point of inanity. Please clarify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    But the IQ test was not originally designed to give a single score as a measure of a person's ability; it was designed to determine in what areas people has naturally high ability, and in which areas they need additional help.
    Tell that to a child that gets stigmatized as slow by these test.
    it is also a tool to homogenize students into a "group think" atmosphere under the fear of being removed from the group.
    [quote][quote="jWhy are you jumping down my throat? How does my quote support the use of single digit IQ scores?[/quote]
    [quote]


    Once
    Quote Originally Posted by "j[b
    I[/b] am convinced that the collection the data, and the interpretation of the data, and the conclusions drawn from the data are not tainted by bias, I will be willingly to consider additional research into whether possible neurological differences associated with racial pheontypes are significant.
    Your not qualified, and neither are you Ophiolite your playing god like Hitler read Mein Kampf you idiots!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    What is race? How does the human race distinguish within itself? Race can not be distinguished by blood type based on the fact that no scientific empirical evidence has been shown of such differences. The American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) revisions of the 1966 draft UNESCO statement on race include : pure races in the sense of genetically homogenous populations do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

    Definition of race: (a) a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock (b) a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race> (c) an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also: a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group (d) a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

    WWWebster Dictionary 1997Merriam Webster, Incorporated

    Throughout history, the ideology of race has encompassed many cultural constructs and social systems. One construct of culture is war and justifications for its existence. Race has been systemically tied to the rationalization of war and serve as a primary method to recognize the enemy. Race is also constructed as power to justify the demand of supremacy and control over another based on their phenotypic traits and assumed genotypic makeup. Power is thought to be a possession inherent in certain races in that it is their given right, much like the divine rights of kings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Metatron, I will not stand for you referring to other members as "idiots." Consider this a direct warning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Metatron, I will not stand for you referring to other members as "idiots." Consider this a direct warning.
    Ophiolite wrote;
    you are a bit of an asshole

    Ophiolite wrote;
    when faced with this putrefying asshole.
    These insults are profane in nature and directed to me. Why do you not moderate equally for everyone?
    Why do you give free passes to people that support your views?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I didn't read those posts. Contrary to what you might think, I don't read them all. Moreover, I don't recall getting the pm or email from you reporting them. Nor did I receive it from other members. I also WON'T be party to the "he started it" game. If you want to cry about that, you should have PM'd me or another mod to begin with. I will only moderate/warn based on those threads which I've read.

    Furthermore, this will be the last post in this thread on the subject, I only respond here so that all will be able to read the warning and have opportunity to heed it.

    To all that have issued direct insults to other members, I warn ye.

    If anyone has questions or concerns, pm or email me. DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD.

    Case closed.

    And so is this thread.

    EDIT: I reopened it assuming that a 'cooling off' period may have transpired. Please be civil. Name calling and childish behavior are pet peeves with me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    [quote=Metatron]
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    But the IQ test was not originally designed to give a single score as a measure of a person's ability; it was designed to determine in what areas people has naturally high ability, and in which areas they need additional help.
    Tell that to a child that gets stigmatized as slow by these test.
    it is also a tool to homogenize students into a "group think" atmosphere under the fear of being removed from the group.
    [quote][quote="jWhy are you jumping down my throat? How does my quote support the use of single digit IQ scores?[/quote]


    Once
    Quote Originally Posted by "j[b
    I[/b] am convinced that the collection the data, and the interpretation of the data, and the conclusions drawn from the data are not tainted by bias, I will be willingly to consider additional research into whether possible neurological differences associated with racial pheontypes are significant.
    Your not qualified, and neither are you Ophiolite your playing god like Hitler read Mein Kampf you idiots!
    You might try reading my posts. To characterize my position as Hitleresque is completely indefensible.

    There is nothing in any of my posts that indicate that I believe a single value IQ score is perfect measure of cognitive ability.

    There is nothing in any of my posts that indicate that I believe there is a racial-based gradient of cognitive ability.

    If you are offended by the use of 'race' to describe different groups of humans with very broad phenotypical similarities, such as skin pigmentation, I think your position reasonable, and ask that you suggest a term to use. 'Race' is a sociological reality, and needs to be discussed.

    We are trying to address the OP's original question:
    "I know most of this stuff is bogus but does anybody here have some reading material I could use to refute their claims?"
    We were addressing that issue; I found several dubious statements in the article, and pointed out several possible of sources of bias in the study. I also pointed out that the very title of the study indicated bias, as the study defined cognitive ability primarily as single value IQ scores.

    Do I think that single value IQ scores are completely meaningless? No; I think that people with high scores are usually pretty smart. And I think that people with lower scores are usually bad at taking tests.

    Do I think that IQ tests can be used to improve the strategies for educating individuals? Oh, yes; I know children whose scholastic performance was dramatically improved when testing indicated where they needed extra work. A child whose pattern recognition skills are poor needs more help in developing pattern recognition skills when learning to read.

    Do I think that children who score poorly on IQ tests are stupid? No, I think they need extra training and possibly different types of training in order to receive the education necessary to stand a fair chance of succeeding in an industrial or post-industrial economy.

    But here is the issue where I am willing to be controversial; maybe, just as skin pigmentation and skull shape has variations that can be very broadly correlated to what is commnly referred to as 'race', maybe there are subtle variations in brain structure that very broadly correlate; maybe these variations mean that some people process information differently, i.e. some process information received visually better than that received aurally.

    What would this mean? That the repetiore of early education techniques need to be expanded; that's nothing new. If this were true, some children of all 'races' would benefit from the new techniques, because the curves would overlap.

    Do I believe that there are neurological variations that correlate significantly to 'race'? Well, no, I don't. I think that if there is a single factor, other than early education and diet, that contributes significantly more than all others to the testing gap, that factor is expectation.

    However, I am not going to completely dismiss the possibility because such findings could be mis-used by racist societies. Racist societies can misuse anything; if there is a difference, let's find it, and do a better job educating the children. But the quoted study has not convinced me there is a difference.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Your not qualified, and neither are you Ophiolite your playing god like Hitler read Mein Kampf you idiots!
    I am at a complete loss to know what you are talking about. (No change there, then.)
    What is it I am not qualified to do (think? say? pontificate upon?)
    What are your qualifications in this mysterious area?
    In what way am I playing God?
    In what way am I like Hitler? (Apart from occasionally sporting a rather dapper moustache.)

    I have read Mein Kampf (although only in an English translation). I don't see the relevance to whatever point you are trying to make. But then I don't see your point.

    I am happy to conduct a dialogue/discussion/debate with you, but to do so I must understand your terms of reference. They are currently obscure. I ask again for clarification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I think you are [wrong].
    The motivation for investigating the issue may have been a reach for political correctness, but the objective observation is that there are more genetic variations between individuals of a single 'race' than there are between the races.
    Wouldn't it be the lack of genetic variation within a race that would more determine what constituted a variety within a species? The "white race", specifically the Northern Europeans, have, it seems to me, a far greater preponderance of genetic variation between the individuals than any other race, having more variation in height, build, skin colour, hair colour and type (curly or straight) and eye colour, than any other variety of humanity. This very genetic variation between individuals, itself is a clear demarcation between that variety and the other varieties of human.

    Having said that, I now re-read the original quotation and realise that I misunderstood it:
    Science was shown us there is not enough genetic difference in any race to classify one race over another in evolutionary terms.
    we are all homo-sapiens.
    No, there is not enough genetic difference to classify one race over another in evolutionary terms. I think I read it to mean that there wasn't enough difference to classify one race from another, and that was the conclusion I was claiming to have been inspired by political correctness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,401
    In reference to the notion that Europeans are the most diverse, it may seem that way to you Silas, but it turns out you are wrong. The greatest genetic variation is within the natives of sub-Saharan Africa. This is consistent with the Out of Africa hypothesis of human origin.

    You do realise that to a native of Beijing or of Rangoon, all Europeans look pretty much the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    And yet I don't find zoologists and taxonomists waiting for DNA analysis before making their classifications. Well, maybe I'm wrong, perhaps they do nowadays, though it must be a bit of a pain for them to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You do realise that to a native of Beijing or of Rangoon, all Europeans look pretty much the same?
    Er, you do realise that I'm not talking about facial recognition and other means of personally differentiating between individuals, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    And yet I don't find zoologists and taxonomists waiting for DNA analysis before making their classifications.
    Oh, dear. I feel like I am hounding you. Not my intent at all. But apparently that is exactly what they are doing now.
    Taxonomy has undergone a revolution as a result of gene analysis. Major changes have been made at all levels of classification from the Kingdoms to Species. The changes are ongoing. It is occuring for living and for fossil species (whose positions are deduced from closest living relatives).

    Er, you do realise that I'm not talking about facial recognition and other means of personally differentiating between individuals, right?
    No, that wasn't clear. Quite separate from the demonstrable genetic diversity present in Africans and comparably absent in non-Africans, I just did not recognise your description of European diversity from my own observations.
    Obviously I noticed that hair colour and eye colour differ, but look at the range of facial structure, hair character, skin texture in East Asians. Every bit as diverse as amongst the Europeans, but a not a patch on sub-Saharan Africa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •