Racist partially right?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Thinking about it, most of the non-Caucasions I know are mixed-race. This is a trend that is projected to increase. How do they fit into this picture?

 

[Carn]

A 36 IQ points is vastly greater than is possible. It would mean, if true, that the average Black man is mentally retarded, and that there should be practically no Blacks smart enough to be, say, lawyers or physicians. This is simply not in accordance with the obvious facts.

The IQ claim of 63 was for Ethopia, so not for all blacks. For all blacks they are around 80-90.

Only for aboriginies and bushmen the IQ claims were 57 and 61. This would at least mean, that their thinking is vastly different from average IQ 100 populations. And this of course could have economic and political consequences.

 

[GlennB]

The IQ claim of 63 was for Ethopia, so not for all blacks. For all blacks they are around 80-90.

Only for aboriginies and bushmen the IQ claims were 57 and 61. This would at least mean, that their thinking is vastly different from average IQ 100 populations. And this of course could have economic and political consequences.

Have the Australian aborigines "IQ tested" by demonstrating their ability to find food, water and shelter in the bush. Then you might find their IQ is averaging 120 while Europeans in the same boat would be down at 50.

Europeans, EastAsians and others are trained from an early age in the very skills required to score well in typical IQ tests.

 

[PhantomWolf]

IQ tests tend to be biased towards certain demographics. How can you test a person's IQ when they have never even experienced most of the situations the test used to test?

 

[PhantomWolf]

IQ tests tend to be biased towards certain demographics. How can you test a person's IQ when they have never even experienced most of the situations the test used to test?

For instance. What number comes next in this sequence?

Pick from these....

Can't do it? You can't be very intelligent then, the answer is easy.

 

[Carn]

Have the Australian aborigines "IQ tested" by demonstrating their ability to find food, water and shelter in the bush. Then you might find their IQ is averaging 120 while Europeans in the same boat would be down at 50.

Europeans, EastAsians and others are trained from an early age in the very skills required to score well in typical IQ tests.

Even if, this does not make the Problem vanish. In case you did not notice politicians spend billions in an attempt to bring all underdeveloped countries or "under performing" minorities to a somewhat western industrial society standard.

Therefore if some groups or countries have on average low ability in the skills necessary in such societies (so a lower average IQ), the attempt to bring them on par with western industrialized society will fail.

Now - and i said that in the opening post, so all that remarks "they never learned that" just show, that the poster cannot read - the reason might be a lack in good education towards those skills or effects from the social and cultural background or upbringing.
Or it could be genetic.
Or a combination of those.

If its mainly bad education, then it would be wise to funnel more of those billions into the education systems of the underdeveloped countries. If it mainly has to do with upbringing or cultural background, there is little one can do from the outside, short of invasion and reeducation camps for all those parents, who bring their children up in a way, which leads to such a lack of skills necessary for an improvement of the situation of the country. As that would be deeply immoral, the only other choice would be to be patient and influence the society in the underdeveloped country slowly in the right direction.
And if it mainly has to do with genetics, one would have to give up the attempt, to bring western standards to such countries, because it will not work, unless the genes change and that can take a long time.

So even if those test only test the skills necessary for a industrialized society, such large differences would have a large influence upon deleopment possiblities of such countries/groups and they could determine the succes of failuere of economic aid policies.

 

[uk_dave]

Would anyone care to explain what intelligence is? And then explain how to quantify it.

Yes, but you wouldn't understand.


(hey, someone had to say it!!)

 

[FireGarden]

A 36 IQ points is vastly greater than is possible. It would mean, if true, that the average Black man is mentally retarded, and that there should be practically no Blacks smart enough to be, say, lawyers or physicians. This is simply not in accordance with the obvious facts.

As I asked before, quoting Nicholas Mackintosh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

"Can anyone seriously accept Lynn's conclusion that the majority of San Bushmen, whose average IQ is 54, are mentally retarded?"

He goes on to say that Lynn has no problem concluding that the average Bushman has the mental age of an 8-year old European child.

This site lists some other IQs given by Lynn in his book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book))

Non-Bushmen Sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62), Bushmen and Pygmies (54), Homo Erectus (50), Apes (22), and Monkeys (12).

They don't give the standard deviations, which is usually 15.
95% of a population are between 2 SDs of the mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule
5% aren't, that's 2.5% either side.

So, according to Lynn, how many Apes are smarter than Bushmen? How does the mental ability of their children compare with adult apes? Here's wiki on Apes and language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language

If anybody thinks this could have gone unnoticed without scientific investigation, they're going to have to convince me of a thing or two. And it'll take more than stories like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stion-posed-IQ-tests--chimps-cleverer-us.html



Then there are the complaints regarding Lynn's methodology, some of which I've already quoted.

 

[Eddie Dane]

The value of these test, which are designed for specific people froma specific environment can be tasted as follows:

Have a Sub-Saharan African take an IQ test, see how he scores
Dump a Western office worker in Sub-Saharan Africa and see how long he manages to stay alive.

Jared Diamond studied bushmen in Borneo and found that on average, they can visually identify 1100 plants as either useful, medicinal or poisonous.

 

[Carn]

As I asked before, quoting Nicholas Mackintosh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

"Can anyone seriously accept Lynn's conclusion that the majority of San Bushmen, whose average IQ is 54, are mentally retarded?"

He goes on to say that Lynn has no problem concluding that the average Bushman has the mental age of an 8-year old European child.

If one just assumes, that IQ measures "industrialized society skills and abilities" then the numbers could be true, would have a relevant political effect, but would not mean, that bushmen are mentally retarded.

And it does not refute, the idea that IQ and "intelligence" are correlated. Considering, that all animals manage to survive in nature and have IQs below 10, i do not see, how the ability "can survive alone in african wilderness" and "has IQ of 54" is a contradiction.

They don't give the standard deviations, which is usually 15.

You cannot take the error bars from test where the average is 100. The standard deviation is probably not 15 but more about 15%. So Apes IQ 22+-3 and

So, according to Lynn, how many Apes are smarter than Bushmen?

[/QUOTE]
no ape smarter than a slightly dull bushmen according to Lynns numbers.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I cannot resist suggesting that perhaps the proper use of the comma is in itself one possible indicator of intelligence.

 

[Carn]

I cannot resist suggesting that perhaps the proper use of the comma is in itself one possible indicator of intelligence.

Of course language skill is a measure of intelligence, fortunately for me its no the only one.

Do you think the habit of completely ignoring the content of some statement and only attacking the speaker/writer is among the few measures of character?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Of course language skill is a measure of intelligence, fortunately for me its no the only one.

Do you think the habit of completely ignoring the content of some statement and only attacking the speaker/writer is among the few measures of character?

As for character, I have none therefore the question of measurement doesn't arise.

 

[FireGarden]

If one just assumes, that IQ measures "industrialized society skills and abilities" then the numbers could be true, would have a relevant political effect, but would not mean, that bushmen are mentally retarded.

You can't dodge the claim by assuming what you wish about IQ.

Lynn takes IQ data from tests, where available. That implies he is using the IQ scale as everyone knows it. At least as a starting point. Where does he say that he has abandoned it? Where does he define the scale he moves on to? If he doesn't, then I reckon he is still using the IQ scale everyone else uses. In that, mental retardation has been defined as an IQ under 70:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

Which is why a qualified psychologist asks: "Can anyone seriously accept Lynn's conclusion that the majority of San Bushmen, whose average IQ is 54, are mentally retarded?" (Quoted earlier from wiki).

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)

Mackintosh expresses astonishment that Lynn infers elsewhere that Kalahari bushmen, with an average measured IQ of 54, should be regarded as mentally retarded; and that an 8 year old European child with the equivalent mental age would have no problems surviving in the same desert environment.

So it seems that Lynn is aware of what his numbers say, but doesn't dodge it. Unlike you.

And it does not refute, the idea that IQ and "intelligence" are correlated. Considering, that all animals manage to survive in nature and have IQs below 10, i do not see, how the ability "can survive alone in african wilderness" and "has IQ of 54" is a contradiction.

The point in question is: do the adults of average IQ 54 in the group have a mental age of an average European 8 year old?

You cannot take the error bars from test where the average is 100. The standard deviation is probably not 15 but more about 15%. So Apes IQ 22+-3 and

I can accept that the SD isn't going to be 15, and may well scale in a roughly linear fashion. But the SDs don't seem to be listed.



What do you think of this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)

Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.

Which I also quoted before.

 

[Thunder]

I think racists and bigots are inferior, both in the intellectual and the cultural sense.

 

[GlennB]

Therefore if some groups or countries have on average low ability in the skills necessary in such societies (so a lower average IQ), the attempt to bring them on par with western industrialized society will fail.

My bolding.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you've just defined IQ as being a measure of "the skills necessary in such [industrialised] societies"

Such an argument is circular, as has been pointed out already. Going back to your o/p and "these values are - if one has a definition of IQ - either accurate or inaccurate" then you seem to have moved from an apparently enquiring, sceptical position to a dogmatic one.

 

[Juniversal]

I'm black and to this day i'm pretty bad at math lol. The math section of an IQ test would likely bring my overall score down a good deal. On the other hand my (fraternal twin) brother is great at math and has always been a much better student than me.


I also had to go to summer school a few times during my time in middle school and high school and quite possibly wouldn't have scored very highly on an IQ test. Naturally I have never been a fan of the Herrnstein and Murray/J. Philippe Rushton styled arguments that certain groups are essentially "born failures" due to inhereted IQ because it ignores individual potential and has a very convienent way of dealing with exceptions with goal post moving.

Point out that Africans in the U.S. tend to be successful and their response is "the more intelligent Africans make it to the U.S." (an argument i've heard used before). Point out that East Indians in the U.S. are very prosperous and their response is "not ALL members of said group are of low intelligence".

 

[Carn]

You can't dodge the claim by assuming what you wish about IQ.

I used that assumption in that argument for 3 reasons.
First someone above argued, that the IQ test of bushmen are meaningless, because it just measures a skills in a industrilized society. As i argued, this would not mean IQ test are meningless, if they show a large average difference and if that difference is caused by genetics, its bad luck for some countries to establish a high tech industry. So even with that changed definition, my initial claim/concern would remain valied:
If the IQ differences are so great and if IQ measures something relevant for success in an area important for society (intelligence, academic skill, you choose) and if they are to a relevant part due to genetics this way, some societies/groups are in a pretty bad position to be successful and nobody would be responsible or could do much about it.(And i would have to add another complain to my list about this mess called universe. I mentally keep that list, in case i ever meet someone responsible for it.)

Of these 2 conditions the evidence for the first is weak (effectively only one source with as you note questionable samples and what IQ test actually measure is questionable and how to conduct them) and the evidence against it is non-existant as far as i know, there simply seems to be no study which has results like europe 101, asia 102, bushmen 97, aborigines 102, ...

Second it avoids the implicit conclusion that bushmen are mentally retarded. Someone born and growing up in industrialized society, who has an IQ of less than 70 is likely mentally retarded. Whether the IQ 70 criteria for mentally retarded is of any use for people born and grown up in a nearly stone age technological society is questionable, as those people obviously can take care of themselves, while mentally retarded often have problems doing so. I thought discussion could be nicer, if we avoid this conclusion.
But why could it be excluded, that bushmen living in our society would be at loss and would need help as a mentally retarded? How do we know, that our mentally retarded would be unfit to survive in the bushmen society, if they had beeen born and grown up there?

Third reason, at least the definition of IQ is then far less vague and it is easier to argue for or against the claim that IQ measures such abilities. (Its still quite vague, but a lot better than "intelligence")

But the SDs don't seem to be listed.

Question is, are they just not listed or did Lynn not try to estimate them?
If the latter is true, i would rank it among the worst errors of Lynn.

What do you think of this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)

Pretty bad for my trust in Lynns numbers.

Why does not somebody simply make better IQ test to refute Lynns numbers?

I think with well designed IQ test most of the groups scoring bad with Lynn, would score a lot closer to 100, probably above 80.

@thunder
Unfortunately i think, that although most racists would score below 100 a few would score quite high. You cannot organize the slaughter of millions of people and the conquest of 3/4 of Europe without some clever heads leading.

 

[gumboot]

Having done any number of IQ tests, the thing that stands out to me is that they're heavily dependent on cultural context. Depending on the type of categories, some moreso than others (ones with a "Social" category are probably the most glaringly obvious).

The only way I can possibly see that you could argue any genetic difference in IQ between ethnic groups is to test people of different genetic ethnic groups that are all now part of the same cultural ethnic group - for example if you want to test the IQ difference between Africans and Europeans you need to test people from these ethnic groups who were born and grew up in the same general community and culture - say Americans and African-Americans, both from the USA, or something like that.

There's certainly differences between difference "races" of people, that's undeniable. And those differences undeniably mean that some races manage better in certain circumstances than others. for example my fair skin is ill suited to the heat of Africa compared to the darker skin of an African.

But to make comparisons about who is "better" you have to know what context you're measuring and have a common ground for measurement. With skin performance in sunlight, that's fairly straight forward. But as IQ tests are designed to test the average IQ of a specific group of people they're necessarily designed for that specific group of people, and trying to test others outside that group doesn't work.

Unless you can come up with an IQ test that's sufficiently generic it works for any human being, you can't compare IQs across difference cultures or races. And I personally don't think it's possible to come up with such an IQ test.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As for character, I have none therefore the question of measurement doesn't arise.

Pshaw, you are quite a character.

@Carn:

Quit while you are ahead.

IQ can be useful in some cases, but for example can't measure empathy.

Using it for some selected purposes is perhaps a good idea. Applying it as a generalization is a great way to fool yourself.