Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic [W:957]

[Tomfoolery]

A cursory read was enough to tell me “who the racists are in this thread.” Scientific racism is scientific racism, no matter how you dress it up. Personally, I find fault with a system of measuring an entire group of people whose score keeps shifting. Psychometrics initially told us 100 years ago that the inferior black race had a particular IQ yet 100 years later we see that it’s a different score. This pseudoscience causes huge damage and yet we continue to find one truism – intelligent people raised on a particular and abhorrent set of assumptions will continue to create tests and theories that support those assumptions. Pretentions about objectivity in studying the human race are a poor substitute for true science so please, don’t lecture me about “honest discussion.”

I’m done here.

Excellent use of discrimination.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Who was it that based part of his argument on physical performance of Kenyan / Ethiopian runners? If there's a strawman - you created it I'm afraid.





No, I think "thee" most fallacious" attempt at debate is ad hominem and you two are a lovely pair of bookends.

Now, if we can leave your childishness aside - can you tell me what the ultimate goal of your argument is, (I'm asking seriously) is it to bring back eugenics/ reduce spending on lower IQ races (why put them through school if they're (to use hicup's phrase) "dumb" / / ship them off US soil? I'd really like to know.

Varying. For some it is merely the belief they are elevated as individuals by belonging to an intelligent race, others are politically animated to do in affirmative action policies based on race and feel this forwards their argument. Others are deep seeded racists based upon their upbringing and find message boards afford a unique opportunity to vent their anger and torment their detractors which is otherwise unavailable to them for obvious reasons. It simply gives them joy to say African Americans and Mexicans are less intelligent than whites.

Of course this all misses the mark insofar as making a cogent and effective argument for dismantling the welfare state, our modest affirmative action programs or race preferences in government contracting, for example. The fact that intelligence could be associated with race does not mean historical oppression did not exist and should not be redressed in some fashion.

Sadly, there is a body of "work" which can be harvested to satisfy these untoward aims.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Accusing someone of "making absurd self promoting lies about their background" and "creating sock puppets" without a single shred of evidence seems rather "absurd" to me_

Unless of course you have a psychic link to the ouija board gods and therefore don't require proof for your opinions and accusations__Do you have connections to the spirit world Tomfoolery?

And exactly why do you see a problem with this???

Oh I wish I were in the land of cotton ...

Please chump, your bio-CV speaks for itself. Craven and delusional. Keep your racism here, other boards will thank you. So you are claiming that you did not harvest that photo? I believe you know what evidence exists that you stole it.

 

[Hicup]

That was retarded, straw man laden and your previous reasoning remains circular. And it's spelled counselor, retard. I will get past insinuating I may be smarter than you, I know I am, both because I am generally smarter than everyone around me and you are a damned fool based upon your poor, slipshod posting.

Okey dokey, Cookie...



Tim-

 

[Hicup]

Varying. For some it is merely the belief they are elevated as individuals by belonging to an intelligent race, others are politically animated to do in affirmative action policies based on race and feel this forwards their argument. Others are deep seeded racists based upon their upbringing and find message boards afford a unique opportunity to vent their anger and torment their detractors which is otherwise unavailable to them for obvious reasons. It simply gives them joy to say African Americans and Mexicans are less intelligent than whites.

Of course this all misses the mark insofar as making a cogent and effective argument for dismantling the welfare state, our modest affirmative action programs or race preferences in government contracting, for example. The fact that intelligence could be associated with race does not mean historical oppression did not exist and should not be redressed in some fashion.

Sadly, there is a body of "work" which can be harvested to satisfy these untoward aims.

Give me some examples of how a standard IQ test skews results in favor of any one particular race? If you can't, then your entire pretentious argument is missing a key evidentiary threshold. In sum, you cannot back up your claim that IQ tests are not a key indication of intelligent capacity. If IQ tests are skewed to provide a certain outcome among different races then so too are psychological diagnostic tests, but no one is suggesting that MMPI test are skewed in favor of a particular race or creed.

Oh, and this whole business about everyone being a racist is getting old, cookie. How long do you plan to keep it up? Is anyone listening to you?


Tim-

 

[Tomfoolery]

Give me some examples of how a standard IQ test skews results in favor of any one particular race? If you can't, then your entire pretentious argument is missing a key evidentiary threshold. In sum, you cannot back up your claim that IQ tests are not a key indication of intelligent capacity. If IQ tests are skewed to provide a certain outcome among different races then so too are psychological diagnostic tests, but no one is suggesting that MMPI test are skewed in favor of a particular race or creed.

Oh, and this whole business about everyone being a racist is getting old, cookie. How long do you plan to keep it up? Is anyone listening to you?


Tim-

Straw man argument.

 

[Hicup]

Straw man argument.

I suppose any cogent argument is a straw man when you don't believe race actually exists, eh? Dude, you're such a phoney and amatuer. Any attempt at an actual debate and you go all goo goo and weak in the knees. You're not comfortable in an actual debate, you're much better when you can throw rhetorical spit-balls at people and fake apathy on the pretext that you're so much smarter than everyone else in the room in response.

Like I said, I had you pegged the moment you entered this particular room, now go away child, no one is going to push sunshine up your arse in this forum.


Tim-

 

[Tomfoolery]

I suppose any cogent argument is a straw man when you don't believe race actually exists, eh? Dude, you're such a phoney and amatuer. Any attempt at an actual debate and you go all goo goo and weak in the knees. You're not comfortable in an actual debate, you're much better when you can throw rhetorical spit-balls at people and fake apathy on the pretext that you're so much smarter than everyone else in the room in response.

Like I said, I had you pegged the moment you entered this particular room, now go away child, no one is going to push sunshine up your arse in this forum.


Tim-

Another straw man argument. And that race may not exist as such does not make all arguments straw men arguments. You hoist yourself on your own petard, repeatedly. You make me appear a genius by comparison. You need to carefully read the language of your erstwhile adversary else you appear deficient, not to me, but to your presumed audience. I already know you are somewhat challenged. Your IQ is about 90, I speculate.

Tell me, exactly where did I affirmatively claim "race does not exist." Although I am fully aware that is a belief en vogue in some anthropology circles, ((and so too the reactionary histrionics it engendered in the racist mllieu) I nowhere took a stand on that, and several other things you have imputed to me based upon what you have apparently read others say. The only thing I represent to you is a composite of all the prejudices you have created in your feeble mind about what an objectionable liberal might be like. Well I represent one other thing to you, a threat to your self esteem.

Continue in your fantasy. It's funny.

 

[Hicup]

Another straw man argument. And that race may not exist as such does not make all arguments straw men arguments. You hoist yourself on your own petard, repeatedly. You are a dolt, you make me appear a genius by comparison. You need to carefully read the language of your earstwhile adversary else you appear deficient, not to me, but to your presumed audience. I already know you are somewhat challenged. Your IQ is about 95, I speculate.

Post# 876 you said the following:

That initial judgment requires a valid test. Surely you see you assumed we had isolated the two subgroups somehow

Then, am I not to infer that you think that the premise "IQ tests are valid in measuring certain aspects of intelligence in humans" to be invalid, as opposed to valid? I assumed this is what you meant as it is after all what you wrote, and what appears to be your main criticism of my hypothesis. I followed with a challenge to you to show me how my premise is incorrect by asking you for examples of exactly how IQ tests skew results in favor of certain subset groups, or populations of humans.

My premise hinges on the notion that IQ tests are generally valid, or more accurately, non-biased both racially and culturally, and that as a result we can glean information from the data that gives us (Me) a baseline to add and or remove controllable variables to make predictions based on the correlations statistically.

So, Cookie, how is it a straw man?


Tim-

 

[Tomfoolery]

The subgroup I was referring to were the smart and the less smart, not race. Those were your groups. So, no, your inference was an error. Good lord, you can't even recall your own posts, much less mine.

 

[Hicup]

The subgroup I was referring to were the smart and the less smart, not race. Those were your groups. So, no, your inference was an error. Good lord, you can't even recall your own posts, much less mine.

Ah, I see, so then, IQ tests are valid? One step at a time, and I'll walk you through it. Are they valid or are they not?

Tim-

 

[Tomfoolery]

Ah, I see, so then, IQ tests are valid? One step at a time, and I'll walk you through it. Are they valid or are they not?

Tim-

Beauty before brains? OK sure, lead on adonnis. Ans. I am no expert so I am speaking out of school. That said, intelligence is an ephemral, elusive and broad concept. I would speculate that experts who have spent generations have developed written tests which capture certain aspects of human behavior which bear upon categories subsumed within the larger Venn diagramm we might call "intelligence." So with those caveats, and perhaps more, written tests may be valid in the main at capturing those limited things, subject also to extreme bias.

By the by, you won't spare your hypo my ridicule, but persist you may...

I'll interject little things along the way to maintain my own interest. Do you suppose a bushman would know what to make of origami lain flat?

 

[Hicup]

Beauty before brains? OK sure, lead on adonnis. Ans. I am no expert so I am speaking out of school. That said, intelligence is an ephemral, elusive and broad concept. I would speculate that experts who have spent generations have developed written tests which capture certain aspects of human behavior which bear upon categories subsumed within the larger Venn diagramm we might call "intelligence." So with those caveats, and perhaps more, written tests may be valid in the main at capturing those limited things, subject also to extreme bias.

By the by, you won't spare your hypo my ridicule, but persist you may...

I'll interject little things along the way to maintain my own interest. Do you suppose a bushman would know what to make of origami lain flat?

So, IQ tests are valid but limited in measuring true intelligence; therefore no meaningful predictive qualities exist outside the realm of subjective analysis. Therefore, by virtue of its limitations and subjectivity, my premise that there are average dumb people, and average smart people cannot be accepted as a truth premise? As a result (logically) since my premise is not true (According to you) neither can my conclusions be true.

Does that about sum it up?

Do you think your average Japanese Origami artist would know what a tree rub is? Two can play that game.

Which group would the Bushman belong to, similarly what group what the origami artist belong to?



Tim-

 

[ecofarm]

Hicup (or should I refer to you as Tim?), we had an origami artist on this very site who might answer your question, but he got struck by lightning a few times and got banned (separate events). Long live OneMale.

 

[Tomfoolery]

So, IQ tests are valid but limited in measuring true intelligence;-

Tim, it's getting beyond merely tiresome rectifying your habit of shoving words in my mouth. Do you think obvious framing of issues makes you slick? Newsflash, it doesn't. it makes you either foolish or unethical. I am, on a foregoing basis going to stop quoting you at the precise point you err first. I stop reading the moment that happens and point it out to you. Notice here what you said. It is merely 10 words before you lie. I can't discuss an issue with someone who is going to do that. Do you see what I mean? I did not say IQ measures true intelligence at all. Why did you just lie? Don't even paraphrase me if you are that unfaithful to meaning.

Seriously, I need to quit with you. This can go nowhere. best to your endeavors, whatever they are.... Wow. (eyeroll)

 

[Empirica]

Oh I wish I were in the land of cotton ...

Please chump, your bio-CV speaks for itself. Craven and delusional. Keep your racism here, other boards will thank you. So you are claiming that you did not harvest that photo? I believe you know what evidence exists that you stole it.

"stole it"???__That photo was taken of me by an old boyfriend who posted it on the internet as a prank and later sent me the link for a laugh_

What made it so funny to both of us was the fact that he always jokingly referred to me as a sexy nerd, but who could of imagined it would cause this much excitement_

You obviously don't like me and the things you choose to believe about me reflects that, making you the victim of the hate from which you draw your conclusions_

And for some reason, people who can't defend their position in a debate will many times resort to personal attacks to deflect attention away from the defeat they are suffering at the hands of an opponent_

For example, my personal history and physical appearance have absolutely nothing to do with "Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic" which happens to be the subject of this thread_

Personally, I don't understand why you people obsess over this kind of stuff cuz none of us actually know diddly-squat about each other so what difference does it even make?!

I'll see you in the land of cotton, good times there are not forgotten__(you need to get a life dude)

 

[Tomfoolery]

"stole it"???__That photo was taken of me by an old boyfriend who posted it on the internet as a prank and later sent me the link for a laugh_

What made it so funny to both of us was the fact that he always jokingly referred to me as a sexy nerd, but who could of imagined it would cause this much excitement_

You obviously don't like me and the things you choose to believe about me reflects that, making you the victim of the hate from which you draw your conclusions_

And for some reason, people who can't defend their position in a debate will many times resort to personal attacks to deflect attention away from the defeat they are suffering at the hands of an opponent_

For example, my personal history and physical appearance have absolutely nothing to do with "Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic" which happens to be the subject of this thread_

Personally, I don't understand why you people obsess over this kind of stuff cuz none of us actually know diddly-squat about each other so what difference does it even make?!

I'll see you in the land of cotton, good times there are not forgotten__(you need to get a life dude)

I know that's your story, liar. Do you also stand by the story that your father owns a retrofitted ice cutting yacht? Sell stupid to someone stupid, you fraud. And when you catch me lending fraudulent ethos to my positions in any way, you WILL let me know, won't you, cotton?

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=28840&page=105

 

[Tomfoolery]

I'm not sure if you think I am someone else who has ever posted here with a sock, I am not. I have posted under packwolfdt elsewhere, and a few others, but never here.

 

[Hicup]

Tim, it's getting beyond merely tiresome rectifying your habit of shoving words in my mouth. Do you think obvious framing of issues makes you slick? Newsflash, it doesn't. it makes you either foolish or unethical. I am, on a foregoing basis going to stop quoting you at the precise point you err first. I stop reading the moment that happens and point it out to you. Notice here what you said. It is merely 10 words before you lie. I can't discuss an issue with someone who is going to do that. Do you see what I mean? I did not say IQ measures true intelligence at all. Why did you just lie? Don't even paraphrase me if you are that unfaithful to meaning.

Seriously, I need to quit with you. This can go nowhere. best to your endeavors, whatever they are.... Wow. (eyeroll)

Hehe.. Oh please don't go away mad bro..

You wrote the following:

Ans. I am no expert so I am speaking out of school. That said, intelligence is an ephemral, elusive and broad concept. I would speculate that experts who have spent generations have developed written tests which capture certain aspects of human behavior which bear upon categories subsumed within the larger Venn diagramm we might call "intelligence." So with those caveats, and perhaps more, written tests may be valid in the main at capturing those limited things, subject also to extreme bias.

Now, what did you mean by that, specifically the following.

That said, intelligence is an ephemral, elusive and broad concept

Well ok, so says you, but regardless of the use of unnecessary adjectives that first do not follow from each other, nor apply to the concept of intelligence in any way I've ever heard, but I digress..

The you say this:

I would speculate that experts who have spent generations have developed written tests which capture certain aspects of human behavior which bear upon categories subsumed within the larger Venn diagramm we might call "intelligence."

Notwithstanding the redundancy of your sentence structure, is understanding and cognition a behavior in your estimation? Do you see why i have no choice but to infer upon your meaning when you're displaying a profound mischaracterization of the concepts we're discussing?

Then this:

So with those caveats, and perhaps more, written tests may be valid in the main at capturing those limited things, subject also to extreme bias.

Um.. What limited things?

See now why deciphering your intellect is a chore because you seem bent on sounding really super duper smart that you actually lose yourself in your own idioms?

How else can I glean actual tangible information from you if you are consistently making no sense?

i would ask any other member here that read what I quoted as meaning anything other than what I infered what you were actually trying to suggest.

The nut-shell is that you agree that (I guess) IQ tests have been developed over generations to measure some form of intelligence that the designers over those generations have agreed accurately measure intelligence, but that intelligence itself is too broad a term and difficult thing to describe, let alone measure? Now, if that doesn't just about sum up your argument then please do try again.

Pleas enlighten me.


Tim-

 

[Tomfoolery]

I can't help you. You are ignorant.

1. Multple adjectives are are not supposed to follow from one another.
2. Multiple adjectives that do not mean the same thing are not redundant.
3. My sentence structure was not in the least bit redundant.
4. My lay stab at discussing intelligence in no way lent itself to admiting "real" intelligence was captured in tests, you apparently are simply too ignorant to understand.
5. I believe in objective evidence and that problem solving is the sine qua non of intelligence, thus intelligence is measured by behavior, not subjective thought. (By the way, "cognition and understanding" IS far more redundant than anything I said, fool, and both are manifested in behavior, whether by taking a written test or by building a ****ing gun on an alien planet to shoot an interplanetary reptile. So yes, IT is manifested by behavior.
6. You can glean information from me only if you buy a dictionary and bring your brain to the party.
7. That I am obscure to you does not alter my content, I suggest you are simply ignorant. Again, buy a dictionary.

 

[Tomfoolery]

The questions one must ask themselves are this. Could a person, representative of a demographic of an average intelligence, design an intelligence test that would otherwise have those with an average higher intelligence score more poorly on? Conversly, could the opposite be true? Could a person representing a demographic of average higher intelligence, design a test that would otherwise have the person of average lower intelligence, score more poorly on?

The answer is yes to the latter, and no to the former. The former could never happen, the latter almost exclusively would happen. Therefore, IQ is a repeatable, and demonstratable measure for intelligence that will produce consistent results within, and without any variables you wish to include, and control for. It's a real thing that tells us that, whatever, and however you wish to define intelligence, there are measurable differences between certain subset groups of humans.


Tim-

:lol:

So, how do we determine who is in the smart group and who is initially in your stupid group, Einstein, or does God hand the tests down on stone tablets? Still think I'm cookie? Dope.

 

[PrometheusBound]

You admit your half baked hypothesis has zero scientific support. Thanks for that. I disregard hypothetical tests with presumed results employing circular reasoning that are unsupported by science. And you misspelled fray in that idiom you used. Errors of this nature (phonetic spelling) tend to allow perceptive readers to stereotype you and it diminishes your credibility. I for one simply find it reinforces my estimation of you based upon your absurd assertions.

You are correct. I am very smart due to heredity, environment and as proven by testing and in professional and educational achievement. As a perceptive person, I notice those who frequent message boards promoting or supporting racist causes invariably have the benefit of none of these traits. They appear to be covering an inferiority complex and hope that by buoying their race to elevate themselves. It does not work that way.

I already explained the logical deficiency of your idea. Read it over and over until it takes.

Your support of the dumbbell side of the Bell Curve makes you a self-hating High IQ, just like the Unabomber. He hated the technological achievements of his own kind, which got us out of the subhuman forest life he chose to live in. I grew up a few miles from him, at the same time in the same kind of neighborhood. Anyone who got high grades was mercilessly attacked and isolated, so all the Unabomber's theories revealed was a subconscious resentment of the pain and isolation his High IQ had brought down upon him, instead of a pride that High IQs had created all our prosperity and everything that prevents us from living like animals and other inferior beings. Though self-haters show a pathetic lack of pride, I feel no pity for them, because of their cowardice in refusing to lash out at the powers who set up such insulting ingratitude.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Your support of the dumbbell side of the Bell Curve makes you a self-hating High IQ, just like the Unabomber. He hated the technological achievements of his own kind, which got us out of the subhuman forest life he chose to live in. I grew up a few miles from him, at the same time in the same kind of neighborhood. Anyone who got high grades was mercilessly attacked and isolated, so all the Unabomber's theories revealed was a subconscious resentment of the pain and isolation his High IQ had brought down upon him, instead of a pride that High IQs had created all our prosperity and everything that prevents us from living like animals and other inferior beings. Though self-haters show a pathetic lack of pride, I feel no pity for them, because of their cowardice in refusing to lash out at the powers who set up such insulting ingratitude.

OK, that was entertaining. LMAO. "bla blah blah...ergo you are like the unibomber." You perhaps need to celebrate the achievments perspiration has enabled, and not lionize inspiration so much. That and gain a bit of empathy. Whatever else is accomplished here, at least I can say I did not pile on the disadvantaged en mass.

Let's suppose what you say is true, that does not get me online explaining to strangers that dumb people suck and a smart person /dumb person dichotomy is a natural imperative, or that the less intelligent are useless flak littering the road to progress.

 

[nota bene]

Are you a grad student, Tomfoolery? I ask because of your tone.

 

[mbig]

Yes, but he hasn't even touched me or a Single one of my meaty posts. In fact he hasn't refuted any of your posts except call them speculation, which they admittedly are, if logical. He's just a Burden Shifter, demanding proof for what is admittedly not proveable.
This debate is about evidence. One side has 100 consistent years of it, the other has apologism ranging from language dissociation (on IQ/Intelligence/Race) to apologism of other sorts about those numbers.

political correctness

...or rather it is simply not vocalizing hurtful and false generalizations or epithets towards historically disadvantaged minorities, females or homosexuals because polite people care and have a bit of class. But you can stick to a more complicated psychological theory if it enables you to avoid having class, empathy and intelligent discretion.

So you still, and conspicuously, have NO On Topic Replies to me in the string. (or even off topic, for that matter!)
Just two words from my sig was your 'reply' even when confronted.
You have have taken No positions on the issue at hand, in fact, conspicuously skirted them for unassailable anti-positions and baseless semantic/gramatic condescension.
You merely continue your personal attacks/Insults spit at Hicup and Empirica: "Liar", "Dope", "Ignorant", "Retard", etc.