Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[fuelair]

Not sure where you get that for pornography, a large number of studies and projects have been done - especially since the late 1940's. Except those done by people with an ax to grind on to chop it up and burn it, the evidence is heavily for it being mostly harmless except for persons who have deficiencies in certain types of mental function where sex is a consideration. There is a lot more to this and I have too many other interests to go on and on with this.......

Note, my specialty is the type and scope of the porn over time. Many things go in and out of favor - mostly a cycling of things of most interest to the general public.

Couple of fun points here though: Japan and Germany are both countries with cleanliness concerns that are well ingrained yet a reasonably large percent of their porn material (app. 25-35%) involves waste material. Countries such as France, Germany and Italy go big for priest and nun (with or without civilians as it were) or preachers (not Catholic). The US, of course, is big on most everything so can't be specific for it. There is more but I suspect forum management would not be happy if I clarified.

On the bright side, it is correct though.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

IQ superiority is THE core metric race supremacists have historically used. It's the primary core feature that distinguishes us from cousin ape species.

Actually, Nazi-ideology had it that Arians were less smart than "The Jews", but more physically fit and willing to fight.
Hitler feared that, unless stopped, their superior intelligence would inevitably let "the jewish race" take over the world. And the stopping had to be done with brute force because, obviously, the Germanic Race was to dumb to outsmart them.

 

[angrysoba]

Can anyone provide the best evidence with links that IQ tests are not biased?

The claim that "racial group A" may have a difference in average IQ than "racial group B", in part as a result of nature, and not entirely because of nurture, is obviously a target-rich environment.

What, if anything, is a "race" anyway? Is it a social construct or a biological concept? If we are only considering self-reported "race" then are we capturing anything meaningful?
What is "intelligence" anyway? Do IQ tests reliably represent intelligence? Are IQ tests culturally biased?
How can we disentangle nature from nurture? Etc...

All of these are questions that are probably not settled definitively and for most people the mere existence of the doubt is sufficient to say we cannot and should not try to assert the claim above.

But what if those questions were settled and it became possible to assert the claim truthfully? Is it not a matter of empirical fact in that case? For many people it would be very unwelcome, and I think that I prefer the idea that it is meaningless to assert it. That said, I think if it is true, then we just have to accept it, just like we may have to accept other "inconvenient truths". We cannot just pick and choose those that we wish were true. Not if we have any respect for truth.

Now, having said that, what people then decide to do as a result of this is another matter. It is then that I agree with you that people will attempt to put such things to nefarious uses. And that is what should be resisted.

 

[kellyb]

My own intuitive sense (how's that for stellar skepticism, huh? lol) is that if there are differences, they really are just differences, in that no one perfectly "controlled" (by economic status, etc) ethnic group will consistently score better or worse according to all possible metrics and tests of intelligence.

It's the nature of the tests that interests me the most in this regard, because I think the capacity for bias is extraordinary. For example, if you were to let Temple Grandin devise an IQ test, I bet you'd see a higher correlation between autism and high IQ.

If you were to have an Amazonian tribe with little contact with the larger world devise one, who the heck knows what demographic would score highest there?

Etc and so on.

 

[Roboramma]

Here you go:[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180404/7bd2dc0bb171f33bd8eaba95de6686d5.jpg[/qimg]

I haven’t disputed that. But Harris hasn’t made any claim of superiority, nor has anyone in this thread. Again, the bit of my post that you cut:

But that’s not what you said was racist. You said that to make a purely empirical statement about group differences in the context of other people having a judgement about the value of the trait that differs, is racist.

Note the part I’ve highlighted. If I point out that two groups have different skin tones and someone else says that one skin tone is superior to another, does that make me racist?

 

[Roboramma]

My own intuitive sense (how's that for stellar skepticism, huh? lol) is that if there are differences, they really are just differences, in that no one perfectly "controlled" (by economic status, etc) ethnic group will consistently score better or worse according to all possible metrics and tests of intelligence.

It's the nature of the tests that interests me the most in this regard, because I think the capacity for bias is extraordinary. For example, if you were to let Temple Grandin devise an IQ test, I bet you'd see a higher correlation between autism and high IQ.

If you were to have an Amazonian tribe with little contact with the larger world devise one, who the heck knows what demographic would score highest there?

Etc and so on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Research in the field of behavioral genetics has established that the construct of g is highly heritable. It has a number of other biological correlates, including brain size. It is also a significant predictor of individual differences in many social outcomes, particularly in education and employment. The most widely accepted contemporary theories of intelligence incorporate the g factor.

 

[kellyb]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Is the predictive value in education, employment, and income the sole or primary validation of legitimacy when it comes to the g factor?

 

[kellyb]

The wiki article in general IQ exclusively or almost exclusively cites this book for it's validation claims regarding employment outcomes, income, scholastic achievement, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_g_Factor:_The_Science_of_Mental_Ability

Does anyone have it, or has anyone here read it? Or know if the relevant information contained within it is available on the web somewhere?

 

[d4m10n]

I haven’t disputed that. But Harris hasn’t made any claim of superiority, nor has anyone in this thread.

Harris doesn’t believe that it is better for people to have higher intelligence and more potential cognitive abilities? Murray doesn’t believe that, either? Okay, if you say so, but I really doubt that people can be indifferent to such a vital set of attributes in any modern increasingly cognitive economy.

 

[Giz]

Harris doesn’t believe that it is better for people to have higher intelligence and more potential cognitive abilities? Murray doesn’t believe that, either? Okay, if you say so, but I really doubt that people can be indifferent to such a vital set of attributes in any modern increasingly cognitive economy.

Should genetic research into cognition be prohibited?

 

[kellyb]

Harris doesn’t believe that it is better for people to have higher intelligence and more potential cognitive abilities?.

They'd argue that it's better, but not that they're better, I bet.

 

[d4m10n]

Should genetic research into cognition be prohibited?

Of course not. We’re going to need artificial enhancement to keep up with the thinking machines.

 

[Giz]

Of course not. We’re going to need artificial enhancement to keep up with the thinking machines.

Oh really?

Firstly, as genes are hereditary, are you not worried about racist findings?

Secondly, if augmentations become possible, can you guarantee that they are performed proportionally to all ethnicities (otherwise a specific ethnicity may become stereotyped as the unaugmented “inferiors”)?

Just ban it. Only way to be safe.

 

[kellyb]

If they're simply correlating genes to the g factor as it's currently understood and tested for, I have a feeling it's going to be the genetics of wealthier white men.

 

[kellyb]

I think genetic and other enhancements in cognition (and medical technological enhancements of all sorts) are probable destined to be useful toys for the super rich.

 

[d4m10n]

Firstly, as genes are hereditary, are you not worried about racist findings?

Not particularly...don't see any reason to perform cognitive research on racially distinct population samples in particular. Plenty of other relevant research to be done.

Secondly, if augmentations become possible, can you guarantee that they are performed proportionally to all ethnicities (otherwise a specific ethnicity may become stereotyped as the unaugmented “inferiors”)?

Even if everyone on Earth was a uniform shade of tan, unaugmented folks would still be seen as inferior, on account of their actual cognitive inferiority.

 

[baron]

My own intuitive sense (how's that for stellar skepticism, huh? lol) is that if there are differences, they really are just differences, in that no one perfectly "controlled" (by economic status, etc) ethnic group will consistently score better or worse according to all possible metrics and tests of intelligence.

My view is that there are almost certainly IQ differences between ethnic groups, but this is no more than an academic point of interest. The knowledge cannot and should not have practical application and therefore cannot be a measure of superiority. People who use it in this way either have an agenda or are too stupid to understand the concept of averages.

 

[Giz]

Not particularly...don't see any reason to perform cognitive research on racially distinct population samples in particular. Plenty of other relevant research to be done.
.

Not suggesting research racially distinct populations. But hereditary characteristics are unlikely to be completely uniformally distributed between the various different groupings of family trees.

Even if everyone on Earth was a uniform shade of tan, unaugmented folks would still be seen as inferior, on account of their actual cognitive inferiority.

Not what I was saying at all. My point was typecasting ethnicities because their prevalence (or lack of) augmentation. You jumped to talking about individuals whose augmentation status is known. That’s like me saying; lif ethnicity X has proportionately more felons, isn’t there a risk of racist stereotyping?”. And you replying, “well, felons will always be stereotyped as criminals on account of their criminality “.

 

[d4m10n]

It strikes me as really odd to base public policy on the possibility of people reasoning badly. I'm not seeing any way to prevent stereotyping or other hasty generalizations. About all we can do is teach people to reason carefully, instead of indulging in such shortcuts.

 

[angrysoba]

It strikes me as really odd to base public policy on the possibility of people reasoning badly. I'm not seeing any way to prevent stereotyping or other hasty generalizations. About all we can do is teach people to reason carefully, instead of indulging in such shortcuts.

You should take your own advice.