Let's Talk About Race

[Bjorn]

This explains why I could never beat this little black kid at Mortal Kombat at the arcade.

No, it doesn't.

Based on the posts here, you should have been faster deciding what button to hit (getting a head start), while he should have been able to move his hand faster once he finally decided where to move it.

Sorry - if you lost, he was just better!

 

[Bjorn]

JeffR

Just out of curiosity, has a good argument been made that fast neurons are "better" when there is no time limit? In other words, what if the time limit on IQ tests was removed so that intelligence was measured based on whether or not the test subject can get the right answer rather than how long it takes to get it?

'I'm just as intelligent, but need more time'?

I don't know, it is (I think) part of the IQ game to be able to solve problems fast, not just solve them. If we try to train monkeys to open a padlock to get some bananas, I think we view the fastest one to understand it as more intelligent than the slowest one.

Is the slow one getting less bananas in the end? Well, the early bird gets the worm (for mice however, it is the second one that gets the cheese).

 

[EvilYeti]

3) What is it about black culture or enviornment that makes them fast motor-wise, but slow cognitive-wise. Why does this flip flop in white culture.

First, let me preface this my saying I don't buy the results or validity of this test.

That said, if the test is valid and the results are as you have stated, I would think the answer would be to look at our comparitive culutral history.

Up until very recently, blacks have survived primarily based on their motor skills. First in Africa, where tribal warfare and a hunter/gatherer lifestyle favored the strong and agile. Next in the New World, where slaves were chosen based on strength and stamina, not intellect.

White culture on the other hand, has been domestic long enough that natural selection would favor higher cognitive abilities.

Or something like that.

 

[jj]

White culture on the other hand, has been domestic long enough that natural selection would favor higher cognitive abilities.

Or something like that.

Are you saying we've been domesticated?

The whole idea of ignoring background, nutrition, training, etc, for these tests won't be addressed. Again.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are both genetic and developmental differences, and that the best anyone has managed to do, even with a wild reach, is account for 25% of the difference by race. And that's not controlling for correlated things like prenatal nutrition, etc, even.

But we've seen this discussion once, and it's rather obvious we have a couple of people here with an axe that needs some dulling.

 

[bpesta22]

Just out of curiosity, has a good argument been made that fast neurons are "better" when there is no time limit? In other words, what if the time limit on IQ tests was removed so that intelligence was measured based on whether or not the test subject can get the right answer rather than how long it takes to get it?

Also, has it been proved that neuron reaction time is genetic or is it possible that it is learned or trained over time and therefore could be effected by cultural influences?

Just asking. I haven't read the materials you are referring to but these are some of the questions that come to mind.

BTW, I work as an engineer and have several co-workers who are much faster on the uptake than I am, but in the end the work they produce is no better than mine (as near as I can tell, anyway). We all have a similar amount and type of experience doing our jobs. I know that they are faster at processing some information than I am, but are they really smarter? I don't know.

Well, many of the subtests on the WAIS
are untimed-- vocabulary, for example, correlates with scores on this light bulb task.

However, if one were to partial out the contribution cognitive speed makes to scores on traditional IQ tests, the validites of the IQ tests would crash. IQ tests predict because they measure general intelligence (g) which is correlated strongly with-- and may indeed be-- cognitive speed.

Based on some of the replies, I need to clarify: I'm not claiming all blacks are sub par in intelligence, and that all whites are smarter. There are millions of black people who are smarter than 10s of millions of white people.

However, there is a mean difference favoring whites of about 1 standard deviation. This means that the average white person is in about the 83rd% of the IQ distribution for blacks.

Finally, your job anecdote is entirely consistent with the IQ lit: The relationship between IQ and job performance is non linear. Having the minimum amount of iq needed to be an engineer is critical to success as an engineer (no one with a 90 IQ will ever be a chemical engineer, for example).

Once you have the minimum level of IQ needed to do the job, having more than that does not help.

You may work with enigineers who are smarter than you, but their job performance is the same as yours because all the engineers are smart enough to be engineers!

 

[Guest]

Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?

Could it be that the 'more or less random' human breeding has been more or less between people from the same 'race' and hence not so random after all?

I've seen people claiming that 'Asians' in the US are consistently scoring higher than 'whites' on University admission tests. If it is correct, how come?

And how come those dang Kenyans keep winning the Boston marathon? Like 12 out of the last 13, or something....

 

[hammegk]

I think it's pretty obvious that there are both genetic and developmental differences, and that the best anyone has managed to do, even with a wild reach, is account for 25% of the difference by race. And that's not controlling for correlated things like prenatal nutrition, etc, even.

I think it's pretty obvious that you have no trouble with data analysis to get whatever result you want.

What citations would you provide that gets your "25%" under 50%, with actual best estimates at 75%? Also I notice your use of the term "race"; how are you defining it?

Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australian perhaps?

 

[Bjorn]

And how come those dang Kenyans keep winning the Boston marathon? Like 12 out of the last 13, or something....

They live and train in high altitudes, 'forcing' the body to produce more red blood cells (which again transport more oxygen to the muscles).

Since it was discovered that living in high altitudes for a long time made wonders for some athletes, it has become quite common to move to such areas for extended periods before important competitions.

It has even been experimented with houses with artificially 'thin' air to get the same effect while staying 'at home'.

 

[JeffR]

Finally, your job anecdote is entirely consistent with the IQ lit: The relationship between IQ and job performance is non linear. Having the minimum amount of iq needed to be an engineer is critical to success as an engineer (no one with a 90 IQ will ever be a chemical engineer, for example).

My anecdote was a bad example and I wish I hadn't brought it up. I am well aware of factors other than level of intelligence that explain why some of my co-workers seem faster on the uptake than I am, so that part of my post was way off topic.

 

[Clancie]

I'm puzzled by the discussion. I don't understand making generalizations about (inaccurately called) "races", since

1. There seems to be no universally agreed upon definition of "intelligence" in any case;

2. What would be the reason for trying to generalize about the intelligence of people in groups (what some want to continue, inaccurately, to call "races")?

Since we know nothing we say will be true for all members of the group (even if we could adequately define the "group" and define "intelligence", which no one has) what's the point?

3. I notice none of the generalizations offered here about groups/"races" are backed up by any scientific studies. Seems generalizations like that should be supported by lots of evidence, if they're going to have any meaning at all.

4. Personally, I prefer Howard Gardner's theory of (12) "Multiple Intelligences".

And I think the idea of intelligence, however its defined or "measured", is only of interest when applied to individuals. (Though, again, in the real world, all I can see that matters in terms of intelligence is what you do with it).

 

[JeffR]

They live and train in high altitudes, 'forcing' the body to produce more red blood cells (which again transport more oxygen to the muscles).

There's more to it I think. If generation after generation lives in the same environment, you'd expect that natural selection would work to make the population genetically adapted to those conditions. So Kenyans may indeed be genetically superior when it comes to long distance running.

This was explored in the book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It a couple of years ago. I have not read it so I'm not endorsing it. I did hear the author interviewed a couple of times and he seemed rational and without an axe to grind other than trying to break the taboo against discussing this stuff.

If I recall correctly, the title is a bit misleading as the book is not about black atheletes specifically. For example (he says) northern Europeans dominate some of the strength sports.

 

[Smalso]

I'm still not sure of what we mean when we say "intelligence." We were sitting in a bar one day watching Jeopardy on the teevee. They hit the right catagories and I was answering almost every question correctly...or providing the right question for the answers they gave. Anthoo, some guy piped up with, "Damn, man, you're smart. What's your I.Q.?" Damned if I know; and what's that got to do with it? Jeopardy once defined its concept as not a measure of the intelligence of the players, but the quick recall of specific facts. So, what makes a person "smart"? Is it having a good memory? Is it the ability quickly to recall specific information? Is it the ability to use information in practical applications? Certainly, it would seem that a person with a good memory would be a good speller, but some of the "smartest" people I know can't spell for poot. Somebody help me out, here.

 

[Guest]

I'm puzzled by the discussion. I don't understand making generalizations about (inaccurately called) "races", since

1. There seems to be no universally agreed upon definition of "intelligence" in any case;

2. What would be the reason for trying to generalize about the intelligence of people in groups (what some want to continue, inaccurately, to call "races")?

Since we know nothing we say will be true for all members of the group (even if we could adequately define the "group" and define "intelligence", which no one has) what's the point?

3. I notice none of the generalizations offered here about groups/"races" are backed up by any scientific studies. Seems generalizations like that should be supported by lots of evidence, if they're going to have any meaning at all.

4. Personally, I prefer Howard Gardner's theory of (12) "Multiple Intelligences".

And I think the idea of intelligence, however its defined or "measured", is only of interest when applied to individuals. (Though, again, in the real world, all I can see that matters in terms of intelligence is what you do with it).

Clancy, a favorite tactic at Stormfront is to talk about what inventions and discoveries each "race" has contributed to mankind. This is supposedly an indication of intelligence. No matter how hard I tried, the WNs would not acknowledge a single accomplishment or invention by a "black." They claimed each accomplishment or invention was based on the previous work of a white man, or was not a significant contribution.


Seriously, if all of you guys went to Stormfront, I think we could wipe the floor with them. It seems whenever there is a drive to go to a paranormal site, like survivalscience, a lot of people are happy to jump on the bandwagon. Exercise in futility or not. Yet when there are matters far more threatening to critical thinking and our society, folks seem to get intimidated by the swastikas and automatic weapons.

 

[bpesta22]

I'm puzzled by the discussion. I don't understand making generalizations about (inaccurately called) "races", since

1. There seems to be no universally agreed upon definition of "intelligence" in any case;


we might not agree on the definition of intelligence, but that doesn't mean we can't measure it. I don't think a more valid measure of many important life outcomes exists than the GOF IQ test.


2. What would be the reason for trying to generalize about the intelligence of people in groups (what some want to continue, inaccurately, to call "races")?

Since we know nothing we say will be true for all members of the group (even if we could adequately define the "group" and define "intelligence", which no one has) what's the point?


Geez. Group level prediction-- even with errors at the individual level--has tons of practical applications. This whole race difference on IQ tests has shaped US discrimination law (for example-- see the issue of adverse impact and job relatedness)



3. I notice none of the generalizations offered here about groups/"races" are backed up by any scientific studies. Seems generalizations like that should be supported by lots of evidence, if they're going to have any meaning at all.

I could cite gobs of them-- in fact I already have. Please do a search if interested in the cites.



4. Personally, I prefer Howard Gardner's theory of (12) "Multiple Intelligences".

It's a nice theory for sure, but until Howard can devise separate (valid and reliable) tests of each type of intelligence, AND do it so these tests dont also measure (just) g, AND show that these non-g measures of "iq" predict anything important, the theory is worthless.

Good luck, considering the positive manifold!



And I think the idea of intelligence, however its defined or "measured", is only of interest when applied to individuals. (Though, again, in the real world, all I can see that matters in terms of intelligence is what you do with it).

The validity between IQ and job performance-- as just one example-- save companies millions if not billions of dollars by increasing selection accuracy. Plug the numbers into any utility formula and the benefits of using IQ are amazing!

 

[bpesta22]

I'm still not sure of what we mean when we say "intelligence." We were sitting in a bar one day watching Jeopardy on the teevee. They hit the right catagories and I was answering almost every question correctly...or providing the right question for the answers they gave. Anthoo, some guy piped up with, "Damn, man, you're smart. What's your I.Q.?" Damned if I know; and what's that got to do with it? Jeopardy once defined its concept as not a measure of the intelligence of the players, but the quick recall of specific facts. So, what makes a person "smart"? Is it having a good memory? Is it the ability quickly to recall specific information? Is it the ability to use information in practical applications? Certainly, it would seem that a person with a good memory would be a good speller, but some of the "smartest" people I know can't spell for poot. Somebody help me out, here.

Intelligence is Spearman's g, which seems to be some combination of information processing speed and working memory capacity.

It increases from birth to maturity; decreases in old age; shows large individual differences; predicts important social outcomes; and has a large genetic component.

So, all of your examples-- except spelling-- are reasonable definitions of IQ (spelling, as it turns out, is one of the few mental measures that does not correlate with g).

 

[Clancie]

originally posted by bpesta

"...the validity between IQ and job performance...."

bpesta,

Do you have studies you can reference that correlate IQ and job performance? I've never seen one and my (admittedly limited) real-life experience suggests otherwise.

originally posted by LukeT
Clancy, a favorite tactic at Stormfront is to talk about what inventions and discoveries each "race" has contributed to mankind. This is supposedly an indication of intelligence. No matter how hard I tried, the WNs would not acknowledge a single accomplishment or invention by a "black." They claimed each accomplishment or invention was based on the previous work of a white man, or was not a significant contribution.

Thanks for the explanation. I've never heard of Stormfront. I'm sure its good for them to be exposed to another viewpoint, but it sounds like a rather hopeless fight, if they're as "out there" and irrational as it sounds.

Exercise in futility or not. Yet when there are matters far more threatening to critical thinking and our society, folks seem to get intimidated by the swastikas and automatic weapons.

Well, it does certainly sound like an exercise in futility, but good not to let their statements go unchallenged if you've got the energy for it.

It must be frustrating though, knowing there's absolutely nothing you can say that will change any of their ideas, since they're not based on reason of any kind to begin with.

But, then again, maybe your arguments reach some lurkers. You never know....

 

[Clancie]

Re: intelligence. Here's a little quiz about it that might be of interest:

http://www.alleydog.com/quizzes/intelligencequiz.asp

 

[Guest]

Well, it does certainly sound like an exercise in futility, but good not to let their statements go unchallenged if you've got the energy for it.

It must be frustrating though, knowing there's absolutely nothing you can say that will change any of their ideas, since they're not based on reason of any kind to begin with.

But, then again, maybe your arguments reach some lurkers. You never know....

Lurkers are one reason I went there. And there were a lot of fence-sitters, too. But I also think the WNs need to hear other white people, and not just representatives of the "races" they don't like, tell them they are full of crap. Especially right-wing white people.

In fact, the hardest thing to do over there was to convince them that I really am as white as they are. And a conservative Republican. With blond hair and blue eyes. They refused to believe it.

 

[aerosolben]

In fact, the hardest thing to do over there was to convince them that I really am as white as they are. And a conservative Republican. With blond hair and blue eyes. They refused to believe it.

Maybe I should go post a picture of myself, then. I also have blonde hair and blue eyes, and I'm tall and have distinct German facial features; I was once called the "poster child for the Aryan race" as a nickname.

 

[bpesta22]

Here are some Good cites-- the last two deal specifically with job performance (so too does the 1995 Hunt article, and the Barrett article)

American Psychological Association (1997). Comments on Neisser et al. (1996). American Psychologist, 52, 69-81.

Barrett, G., & Depinet, R. (1991). A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than
intelligence. American Psychologist, 1012-1021.

Halpern, D. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist, 52, 1091-1102.

Hunt, E. (2000). Let?s hear it for crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 123-130.

Hunt, E. (1995). The role of intelligence in modern society. American Scientist, 83, 356-368.

Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2000). Racial and gender bias in ability and achievement tests: Resolving the apparent paradox. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 151-158.

Jensen, A. (2000). Testing: The dilemma of group differences. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 121-127.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, W., Brody, N., Ceci, S., Halpern, D., Loehlin, J., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.

Reynolds, C. (2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 144-150.

**Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

**Wagner, R. (1997). Intelligence, training and employment. American Psychologist, 52, 1059-1069.