Let's Talk About Race

[Earthborn]

I don't think IQ bashers can have their cake and eat it too. If IQ tests are culturally biased (i.e., measure something besides IQ) then why do tests scores predict equally well for whites and blacks?

Assuming for a moment that it is true: perhaps because society is also culturally biased?

You could assume that not only are qualities that some cultures have not measured by IQ tests, they are also not valued by society.

However I don't believe IQ is such a good measure of future success

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

DD,

You are missing the point.

The point ios that the concept of race is based on the assumption that there are distinct, clearly demarkated groups, distinguished by grouped multiple characteristics; blacks for example are supposed to have darker skin, different nose shape and hair texture, muscle composition and tendon structure, etc.

The problem is that while those individual characteristics do vary regionally and ethnically, they don't generally vary together. They happen to mostly vary in group in USA (yes, I know you are not american) because USA's predominant ethnic groups include europeans and central africans. However, if you look at the world population, using that specific group of features to delineate races, makes no sense.

Skin color and muscle composition vary largely independently of each other; so do skin color and facial features or (to a lesser extent) hair texture.

Central africans and australian aborigines are a perfect example why the morphological delineation of races based on arbitrary grouping of characteristics is a totally stupid thing.

 

[bpesta22]

Assuming for a moment that it is true: perhaps because society is also culturally biased?

You could assume that not only are qualities that some cultures have not measured by IQ tests, they are also not valued by society.

No offense, but your arguments remind me of a creationist trying to explain the fossil record.

I'm not a big fan of parsimony, but how bad would your world view be shattered if indeed the race difference was real, and was caused by biology or genetics?

However I don't believe IQ is such a good measure of future success

That's like saying "I don't believe in evolution"-- as if your belief on the subject had any affect on its truth or falsity.

Just to review, the correlation between iq and:

1) grade point average = .50

2) years education = .55

3) Socioeconomic status (i.e., income) = .33

4) Job performance .3 to .5 (few others do as well, none as cheaply)

5) teenage pregnancy and juvenile delinquency rates, -.19

Odds the average Ph.D. has a lower IQ than the average high school grad-- 100:1.

Find any other single measure of anything ever tested for that predicts so much and so well as IQ does.

 

[bpesta22]

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?

I have data on gmat scores and gpas
in our mba program. The asians by far kick butt on the gmat, especially the math section. And, this is with a relatively small sample.

When it comes to visuo-spatial IQ, the Asian race is tops.

 

[Clancie]

There are quite a few studies that conclude emotional intelligence is far more important for most career achievement than IQ is. Here's one link:

http://sq.4mg.com/r_iq_ei.htm

 

[LucyR]

This makes me want to run over to stormfront and say people aren't being racist enough! I mean, we mix in the aryans in with all those whites in south africa or Israel or Austrlia

What exactly do you mean?

 

[Earthborn]

No offense, but your arguments remind me of a creationist trying to explain the fossil record.

Oh? I don't see the similarity.

I'm not a big fan of parsimony, but how bad would your world view be shattered if indeed the race difference was real, and was caused by biology or genetics?

Not much, I think. I would still believe that people should be judged as individuals and not based on their 'race'. If they are judged equally/objectively and people in one group tends to make on average different decisions in their life than another, I would think it is irrelevant that they do.

That's like saying "I don't believe in evolution"-- as if your belief on the subject had any affect on its truth or falsity.

Is 'I am not convinced' a more acceptable formulation?

Just to review, the correlation between iq and:

1) grade point average = .50

2) years education = .55

3) Socioeconomic status (i.e., income) = .33

4) Job performance .3 to .5 (few others do as well, none as cheaply)

5) teenage pregnancy and juvenile delinquency rates, -.19

Odds the average Ph.D. has a lower IQ than the average high school grad-- 100:1.

Nice figures. Where did you get them? And how exactly do they show that IQ isn't largely environmental?

 

[Incitatus]

Regarding the Barrett article cited above:

Which do you think would be a better predictor of job performance for a truck driver: An actual driving test, or a g-loaded attention (i.e. IQ) test?

Yes, but ... all other factors being equal, would you hire a person with a 90 IQ or one withh a 110 IQ?

 

[bpesta22]

There are quite a few studies that conclude emotional intelligence is far more important for most career achievement than IQ is. Here's one link:

http://sq.4mg.com/r_iq_ei.htm

Eeeek. Emotional IQ is wrong on so many levels.

Junk science.

Let's see a top tier journal article showing emotional IQ explains unique variance in job performance-- i.e., variance not already predicted by IQ or any of the big 5 personality traits (esp. conscientiousness).

With regard to the stats in your link, the glass is half full or it's half empty.

If iq correlates only .4 (e.g.) with job performance, then indeed it's true that 84% of the variance in job performance is *not* explained by one's intelligence.

However, tell that to any corporation looking to save a ton of money by hiring qualified people / not hiring unqualified people.

The utility of a .40 correlation for selection, combined with the relative inexpense of an IQ test, can save an organization gobs of money in the long run.

g makes Bill Gates drool-- the selection criterion at microsoft is select for general mental ability above all other things.

 

[bpesta22]

Yes, but ... all other factors being equal, would you hire a person with a 90 IQ or one withh a 110 IQ?

Depends on the job. I'd probably want the 90 for a janitor and the 110 for say a cop (though 110 may be at the high end for cops).

 

[bpesta22]

Oh? I don't see the similarity.Not much, I think. I would still believe that people should be judged as individuals and not based on their 'race'. If they are judged equally/objectively and people in one group tends to make on average different decisions in their life than another, I would think it is irrelevant that they do.Is 'I am not convinced' a more acceptable formulation?Nice figures. Where did you get them? And how exactly do they show that IQ isn't largely environmental?

I agree too-- judge people as individuals, without regard to race color national origin gender religion disability sexual preference, etc.

But, I think it's ostrich-like to ignore good scientific data, even when it suggests something politically incorrect.

With regard to my correlations, I posted them only to counter your belief that IQ does not predict future success.

Assuming my correlations are accurate, how can you not be convinced (esp. considering no other single measure predicts like IQ does)?

See the Neisser article above for the cite on these correlations.

 

[Earthborn]

I agree too-- judge people as individuals, without regard to race color national origin gender religion disability sexual preference, etc.

Hurray, we agree on something.

But, I think it's ostrich-like to ignore good scientific data, even when it suggests something politically incorrect.

Again, I agree! However, I think not considering changeable enviromental factors, or not considering the invalidity of a test that shows something 'politically incorrect' is equally dangerous. It could mean that policies are made on the wrong assumptions.

Assuming my correlations are accurate, how can you not be convinced (esp. considering no other single measure predicts like IQ does)?

Assuming they are correct, it still leaves a few questions: were the tests done while these people were still in school and later compared to their careers: if so it is a predictor.

If the tests are done when these people already made their careers, it may very well be a test of the qualities these people learned during their career and may be influenced by the confidence they have because of their position.

Something can only 'predict' something if it gives the right answer before it happened.

See the Neisser article above for the cite on these correlations.

I think it is very cheap of you to only cite magazine articles, when you know full well we aren't going to dash over to the library to check them out. More importantly, when you know full well that most of us across various oceans will have difficulty even getting access to them.

I suggest you show a website accessible to us all that supports your position.

 

[bpesta22]

[/B]

The Neisser article is on line-- I've posted a link to it here before.

For a topic this controversial and important, I think links to info on the net are not the best source.

Everything I cited above, for example, is published in a top tier peer reviewed journal.

And, American Psycholigist is a journal-- not a magainze-- with the Neisser article having the full support of the APA.

I'll be gone all day, so til tomorrow!

Best

B

 

[Earthborn]

The Neisser article is on line-- I've posted a link to it here before.

Oh? Anyone who noticed it? I can't find any link by bpesta22... Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I'm pretty sure I looked carefully.

For a topic this controversial and important, I think links to info on the net are not the best source.

Depends on the site.

And, American Psycholigist is a journal-- not a magainze

I suppose it is printed on paper and has a few staples in the middle. For someone who isn't 'moedertalig' English and doesn't know all the subtle differences in meaning in the English language, it is pretty much the same thing.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Victor Danilchenko:

The point ios that the concept of race is based on the assumption that there are distinct, clearly demarkated groups, distinguished by grouped multiple characteristics; blacks for example are supposed to have darker skin, different nose shape and hair texture, muscle composition and tendon structure, etc.

I don't consider "blacks" a race. A best, it could be considered a superset of races with dark skin.

The problem is that while those individual characteristics do vary regionally and ethnically, they don't generally vary together. They happen to mostly vary in group in USA (yes, I know you are not american) because USA's predominant ethnic groups include europeans and central africans. However, if you look at the world population, using that specific group of features to delineate races, makes no sense.

I agree that with the increased interbreeding between previously geographically seperated groups, the term "race", as applied to the human species, is slowly loosing its usefulness.

Skin color and muscle composition vary largely independently of each other; so do skin color and facial features or (to a lesser extent) hair texture.

What is the relevance of this observation? A Collie and a Labrador Retriever probably weigh about the same and have similar color of fur, but are nevertheless seperate subspecies.

Central africans and australian aborigines are a perfect example why the morphological delineation of races based on arbitrary grouping of characteristics is a totally stupid thing.

I don't see why it is a "totally stupid thing". Can you expand on that?

 

[Tmy]

Race isnt always such a constant.

For example if you have one white parent and one black parent you are of mixed race. Yet society will most likely tag you as "black". So if you are taking an IQ test you will list yourself as black. How do you measure this persons score statistically? genetically he's 1/2 white. If he does poorly on the IQ test how can you claim its because he's black.

Id argue that AMerican Blacks are a separate race all together due to years of cross breeding wh other races. Just compare your average US black wh a black person from Africa. There are noticable differences.

 

[Checkmite]

Yes, but ... all other factors being equal, would you hire a person with a 90 IQ or one withh a 110 IQ?

Which one will:

• Get the job done,
• Understand that I am his boss,
• Not be distracted, and
• Score more "points" for my company in as many ways possible?

I don't know of a lot of employers who give IQ tests, or even care about their employee's IQ.

 

[Bjorn]

Nope. Tall doesn't mean athletic, it just means tall.

Taller usually means heavier and stronger (and better basket player and boxers), but let's skip the definition of athletic..

We all come from the same genetic stock. Literally. All people on earth, with exception of many parts of Africa descend from the same group of people that left Africa many thousands of years ago. In order for any of these people to be bred more or less intelligent, selective breeding, such as we do with dogs and horses, would have to have taken place. It never did.

If that is true, how come masais are taller than pygmes? Where did all the other differences come from?

Aren't these differences proving just what you are claiming didn't happen - there was a selective breeding going on, based on things like the chances of survival or at least the chances of being able to reproduce if you were born with certain qualities. So, stronger people, or smarter people, or those with some other preferable ability, survived and had kids.

If breeding made differences between groups of people, as in taller/smaller, fairer/darker, stronger/weaker - why is it so f****** politically uncorrect to suggest that there might be differences also in that organ called a brain?

 

[Dancing David]

1) If traditional paper and pencil IQ tests dont really measure IQ, why do they correlate with basic information processing speed, as shown in the Hick task (indeed why do the correlate with every important social variable as well, and why do they correlate with the speed wich which a single neuron in the brain fires)?

I have yet to see any proof that IQ tests are significant to anything other than IQ tests. They don't predict who will do well in school, they have zero social skills and are basicaly irrelevant to anything.
This hicks test you make reference to: did they test more than ten thousand people, when were the tests done and by whom?

Scientific testing has many inate biasis and should be takedn very carefully in the social sciences.

Peace
dancing David

 

[Dancing David]

There's a rich literature on controlling for everything environmental, and the kitchen sink, yet still finding race differences.

This is an interesting comment: how do you control for childhood? Say you have a one child family but both parents work two jobs and don't have time to do homework.
Or you live in a loud apartment building where the noise level is distracting and you can't sleep.
What if you have to raise your youinger sibling and have no time for homework?

These are all factors involving a single variable: ability to do homework, how are you going to control for that? (IE there sure are a lot of other variables)

Peace
dancing David