Science as racism?

[Jekyll]

For the 120-IQ parent group, their black kids' average 100 for IQ; wheras, the white kids average 110. So, regression to the mean is twice as strong for black kids, because the black kids are regressing to their group mean of 85-- a longer distance away; whereas, white kids are regressing to their group mean of 100-- a shorter distance away (and hence less regression).

Just the opposite happens for matched parents with IQs of 70-- regression up to the mean is twice as strong for the kids with white parents!

The black kids' IQ is now 78 (half the difference up to their true mean) and the white kids IQ is now 85 -- more regression for whites because the distance to their true mean (100) is now farther.

Any gouldists out there who can suggest an environmental or cultural explanation that accounts for this pattern of regression to the mean?

Oooh, ooh! Me! Me!

You're just restating the known data about IQ testing in slightly more convoluted manner*. This novel testing still fails to eliminate peer support, teachers behaviour and cultural expectation which could plausibly drag the group mean down. As such all the standard criticisms still stand.

The same results would hold for a comparison of the heights of adults in a malnourished environment verses the heights of well fed adults.

*Regression to the mean is needed to preserve normal distributions within populations, and this idea dates back to Galton in the middle of the 19th century.

 

[Dave1001]

Biracials smarter than white people?

Here's a gem buried in on of Rushton's papers. I read this to say that all things equal, white people will have smarter kids if they procreate with black people than with other white people, because of the advantages of hybrid vigor:


http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PAID-1999.pdf

Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression -unlike Black-White differences: A reply to Flynn

J. Philippe Rushton, 1988

"An alternative hypothesis is hybrid vigor. This is the opposite of inbreeding depression and occurs because genes for intelligence are dominant in the Mendelian sense due to their adaptive value (Jensen, 1983). The more out-breeding there is, the greater the probability that a dominant gene for high IQ will occur. Hybrid vigor, however, is a much weaker effect than inbreeding depression."

 

[Dancing David]

It's interesting that this is a press release by Rushton. Dancing David, how did you come across it?

My big question is how is race determined in the recent tests? Self-identification? What about all the research by population geneticists showing that there is considerable african-european admixture in America? And how are latinos (a huge portion of the American public today) categorized and how do they impact this data?

I believe I found a link at http://www.fair.org and it linked to a blog that linked to the article.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't understand what you mean with "if the black white gap is real". Are you refering to a cultural gap or a difference in average IQ? Does "real" mean in this case mean "existing" or "caused by innate differences" ?

Wouldn't the same effect occur if the differences in average IQ are real, but caused by cultural influence?

The article alleges that the gap is 80% hereditary in the study.

I feel that personal circumstance, family history and social/culture account for the major impact.

 

[bpesta22]

Just as an example of how utterly shoddy these people's work is:

When they say "Asian," what do they mean? Did these people ever go to, you know, Asia, and adminster any tests?

Why... no. They have deduced the IQ of half the planet from the sample which chose to emigrate to California.

First-class science here, folks! We don't need no stinking data!

Jesus Christ Yahzi, it cannot be the case that your arm chair cleverness invalidates what the science here is doing. This is worse than a strawman as you're too lazy apparently to even skim through an article to see what's been done.

The assumptions you make here illustrate how naive your knowledge of the area is. I rarely respond directly to your points because it's clear when you speak (on this specific topic) you just don't understand it. Independent of who is right or wrong here, you just don't understand it.

All you gots to do is actually read one of the articles. This is pure intellectual laziness couched smugly. It's the worst trait a so-called skeptic can possess. If you spent two minutes searching through the rushton and jensen article, you would see that your claims here are nothing but ignorant.

Let me do the work for you:

From R&J:

Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in ****Japan and Hong Kong,**** White children in Britain and Ireland, and Black children in South Africa (summarized by Lynn & Vanhannen, 2002, pp. 66–67). The Progressive Matrices were given as a
nonverbal test of intelligence, along with the simple, choice, and odd-man-out
tasks.

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984).

*Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 yearsof age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition...

..141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age

...A study by...examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium.

*Not just in the United States but around the world, East Asians and Blacks fall at the two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate, not only on mean cognitive test scores and brain size measures but also on 60 life-history variables
that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

*Moreover, the three-way pattern of mean Black–White–East Asian group differences occurs worldwide on culture-fair reaction time measures, which all children can do in less than 1 s

*Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points
higher than their adoptive national norms.

*************

The studies on black IQ (versus asian) are much more common. Look through the reference section of the article to see how many of these studies were done globally-- in africa-- versus just for races within the USA.


For those still interested, here is how they define race:

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although
he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximumlikelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.







Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

 

[bpesta22]

Oooh, ooh! Me! Me!

You're just restating the known data about IQ testing in slightly more convoluted manner*. This novel testing still fails to eliminate peer support, teachers behaviour and cultural expectation which could plausibly drag the group mean down. As such all the standard criticisms still stand.

The same results would hold for a comparison of the heights of adults in a malnourished environment verses the heights of well fed adults.

*Regression to the mean is needed to preserve normal distributions within populations, and this idea dates back to Galton in the middle of the 19th century.

edit: Ah, I had an idea. Let me retract this specific offer to you re $50. I will make a more general one here in another thread, where if you're interested, you can accept.



Yes, Galton, Darwin's cousin, first to do this type of stuff, mentioned on the first page of the Rushton and Jensen article.

I urge you to spend an hour skimming through the Rushton and Jensen article. If you can't get it, pm me and I will email it to you.

I think the answer to your example is provided therein, and I think one hour spent reading it will convince you that the arguments levied against the data herein are strawmans.

In fact, if you read the article, and post a detailed honest critique of it here-- open-minded skeptical like, I will donate 50$ to the JREF (with my paycheck coming at the end of November) in your name.

 

[Steven Howard]

If these guys are racist it's odd that they-- in the same 2 page article, though not talked about in the media discussion of it-- argue the asian mean IQ is 106.

So, they're the particular blend of white racists who think they're better than blacks but not quite as good as Asians?

Is it your assertion that "Asians are smart" is not a commonly held racial stereotype?

 

[bpesta22]

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

 

[Jekyll]

edit: Ah, I had an idea. Let me retract this specific offer to you re $50. I will make a more general one here in another thread, where if you're interested, you can accept.



Yes, Galton, Darwin's cousin, first to do this type of stuff, mentioned on the first page of the Rushton and Jensen article.

I urge you to spend an hour skimming through the Rushton and Jensen article. If you can't get it, pm me and I will email it to you.

I think the answer to your example is provided therein, and I think one hour spent reading it will convince you that the arguments levied against the data herein are strawmans.

In fact, if you read the article, and post a detailed honest critique of it here-- open-minded skeptical like, I will donate 50$ to the JREF (with my paycheck coming at the end of November) in your name.

That's a nice offer.

It's 60 pages long, but then I probably will end up reading anyway, having read the mismeasure of man a couple of weeks ago.

However, if you could give an off the cuff explanation of why the behaviour regarding the regression to the mean is inconsistent with an environmentally dampened IQ, I'd appreciate it.

Count me in as a maybe for the paper review, I'll get back to you after the weekend.

 

[Katana]

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

I don't think it's odd if you have good reason to do so. However, if you're presented with solid data to support the contention of one race being, on average, more intelligent (or as having higher scores on intelligence tests), than another, then simply discounting the argument as racism is ignorance.

As for your previous comments, I have appreciated your insight and obviously superior knowledge on this topic. I never intended to present myself as an expert, and my comments were based only on what I read in the press release, which I stated very early on. I did not see the link to the two-page article, but I also did not actively seek out the article either which, I admit, I should have.

 

[Steven Howard]

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

I'm not attributing motives to anyone. Just to show that it's possible to simultaneously a.) be a racist; and b.) believe that (some) Asians are smarter than whites based on IQ tests, here's a link to a post on Stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1619402&postcount=1

Whites have the highest IQ out of any other race right, higher than Indians, Pakistanis, Southeast Asians, Arabs, way higher than Sub-Saharan Africans, Mestizo’s, aboriginals, Native-Americans. Though do we get a snag when are presented with Japanese, Koreans, Chinese * ?
(*Specific provinces of china)

I don't think so, because IQ is not be all and end all of great culture and civilization. Hypocritically though, the multi-cults will use IQ stats against our cause (saying we aren’t smartest), and yet condemn us if we use the same IQ stats when we say others like Black Africans are borderline-retarded.

 

[bpesta22]

I don't think it's odd if you have good reason to do so. However, if you're presented with solid data to support the contention of one race being, on average, more intelligent (or as having higher scores on intelligence tests), than another, then simply discounting the argument as racism is ignorance.

As for your previous comments, I have appreciated your insight and obviously superior knowledge on this topic. I never intended to present myself as an expert, and my comments were based only on what I read in the press release, which I stated very early on. I did not see the link to the two-page article, but I also did not actively seek out the article either which, I admit, I should have.

Katana-- thanks. I didn't have you in mind for signaling out.

I think the we are entitled to our opinions but not our facts idea should hold here. We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area (accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong) before our opinions hold any weight.

 

[bpesta22]

I'm not attributing motives to anyone. Just to show that it's possible to simultaneously a.) be a racist; and b.) believe that (some) Asians are smarter than whites based on IQ tests, here's a link to a post on Stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1619402&postcount=1

Points taken.

I guess I'm interested in what the science says versus how some nazi interprets what he thinks the sciencs says.

 

[Katana]

Katana-- thanks. I didn't have you in mind for signaling out.

I think the we are entitled to our opinions but not our facts idea should hold here. We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area (accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong) before our opinions hold any weight.

Agreed.

 

[Yahzi]

Jesus Christ Yahzi,

Oooh, I've been promoted.

it cannot be the case that your arm chair cleverness invalidates what the science here is doing.

It cannot be the case that you think the nonsense you have presented is actual science.

Just look at it:

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in

A non-IQ test on a small sample size. You think that counts?

Show me where they adminster an actual IQ test to children who could not speak English.

But no, toss a few tests of any kind at a small sample, and just extrapolate the results. "We know what they would test as because we know the test is right. And how do we know the test is right? Because it says what they would test as!"

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268

Cranial volume?

You report this as if it had any relation to IQ at all?

You cite phrenology, and yet you wonder why everybody laughs at you.

adopted... adopted... adopted

I can make up a thousand reasons why an adopted child of a different race might have incentive to test differently. Has your research attempted to rule out any of them - other than by divine fiat, I mean.

also on 60 life-history variables that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

And of course, culture has nothing to do with these variables.

Why, indeed, the last variable asserts that culture is a product of racial, genetic IQ!

In all honesty: how can you look at this and not see the presumption of racism?

For those still interested, here is how they define race:

Why, look, folks, it's the good old social theory of race.

And people kept telling me such simplistic racist nonsense was dead.

Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and measures.

Only on "almost all?"

Gotta leave room for our ubermensch race, of course.

Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

You cite penis-measuring idiots and you think I am doing a disservice?

Listen, if you wanted to have an actual conversation, you had your chance. But you simply ignored my gorilla example every time I presented it, finally admitting you weren't paying attention. And now you quote your heroes, also busy ignoring it. You assert that these brilliant fellows have considered every angle, even while you admit they are wholly ignorant of basic biological research.

And in the beginning, you pretended you weren't a racist, that you did not endorse the racist claim that White people are genetically superior to Black people. Yet every fact you cite, every conclusion you endorse, leads back to this. Why did you feel the need to hide your racism? Why do you think your being dishonest about your position is not a disservice to rational inquiry?

 

[Yahzi]

We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area

How about the fact that male gorillas can delay the onset of puberty (and the consequent doubling of their weight) for up to nine years based solely on social cues?

Do you think that fact has any bearing whatsoever on how social cues could affect human development?

Would you like to explain how you know that such biological effects do not occur in human beings? As I recall, your previous response was to simply dismiss it as ludicrous, out of hand.

Do you think this qualifies as:

(accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong)

 

[bpesta22]

Again Yahzi, how about reading the article. The across country research they talk about is on people who speak whatever language the country speaks, and the test was developed by people in the same culture as the test taker.

Calling a sample size of 1000 small just illustrates you are wholly ignorant of anything relevant to this area.

 

[bpesta22]

And calling cranial capacity comparisons as they relate to IQ prhrenology is yet another yahzi strawman. Should I cite the recent meta-analysis on brain size and IQ?

 

[Dave1001]

From R&J:

Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in ****Japan and Hong Kong,**** White children in Britain and Ireland, and Black children in South Africa (summarized by Lynn & Vanhannen, 2002, pp. 66–67). The Progressive Matrices were given as a
nonverbal test of intelligence, along with the simple, choice, and odd-man-out
tasks.

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984).

*Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 yearsof age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition...

..141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age

...A study by...examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium.

*Not just in the United States but around the world, East Asians and Blacks fall at the two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate, not only on mean cognitive test scores and brain size measures but also on 60 life-history variables
that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

*Moreover, the three-way pattern of mean Black–White–East Asian group differences occurs worldwide on culture-fair reaction time measures, which all children can do in less than 1 s

*Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points
higher than their adoptive national norms.

*************

The studies on black IQ (versus asian) are much more common. Look through the reference section of the article to see how many of these studies were done globally-- in africa-- versus just for races within the USA.


For those still interested, here is how they define race:

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although
he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximumlikelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.

Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

Fascinating. Where do Latinos fit into this? Indians from India? Middle Easterners?

 

[andyandy]

And calling cranial capacity comparisons as they relate to IQ prhrenology is yet another yahzi strawman. Should I cite the recent meta-analysis on brain size and IQ?

does it conclude that both H sap sapiens (100,000-c.30,000 years ago) and H neanderthals (c. cultural explosion) had a higher IQ than modern day H sap sapiens?