What is a racist?

[SmartCat]

Actually, that is not true. I suspect that you are going to hold with the now debunked theory that heredity alone informs IQ, because that fits with your general attitude toward blacks. Researchers base their findings on what they know, and others add to it. If you are open to scientific studies and their findings, you need to continue having an open mind to new findings. Nothing is set in stone in science. We need to keep up.

In The Bell Curve Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray estimate that IQ is caused 60% by genes, and 40% by environment. Other estimates have placed that at 80% and 20%.

 

[MaryP]

In The Bell Curve Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray estimate that IQ is caused 60% by genes, and 40% by environment. Other estimates have placed that at 80% and 20%.

The Bell Curve has been highly controversial since it was published. Some of the reasons for questioning their analysis is listed here.

Human Intelligence: The Bell Curve

 

[ultmd]

You do not prove that by asserting it.

:lamo...says the white nationalist who uses bat-crap-crazy rightwing conspiracy sites (like Rense.com) to "prove" his arguments. You're the one posting OPINION pieces that you can't back up with your own words, remember?

Actually, I posted links previously. You ignored them, or (like most of your ilk) you just didn't read them (because you people HATE to read).

Professor Rushton documented his assertions. He was harassed. He was never disproved.

Post #209.

Start there, and we can go forward.

Rushton's "assertions" have been largely discredited. Some have been found to be completely fabricated. He has lost all credibility within professional circles when he began to decline requests to see his data and methods. There is virtually no one in academic circles who trusts Rushton's work, anymore. Literally, NO ONE. If he weren't already tenured, in fact, he'd be gone from his academic post. And he'd be ok with that, honestly; because he gets most of his financial resources from partisan right-wing pseudo-think tanks anyway.

His assertions are obviously true to anyone with extensive experience with the three major races.

DUMB COMMENT! People like you might think that your personal experiences with "the 3 major races" are relevant, but you're delusional. NO ONE with any extensive PROFESSIONAL/ACADEMIC experience gives a flip about the anecdotal experiences of people like you. Sorry, but it's true.

On several occasions on Debate politics I have documented that whites and Orientals tend to be more intelligent than Negroes, and that we have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy. That is just what Professor Rushton said.

And you're just as bigoted as he. The only difference is that Rushton knows he's a fraud. You don't.

Glad we could clear that up.

There is no inherently superior "race" of human beings. The very few professionals out there who argue otherwise, are all "coincidentally" conservative white nationalists, like you. And you people simply do not count.

 

[ultmd]

In The Bell Curve Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray estimate that IQ is caused 60% by genes, and 40% by environment. Other estimates have placed that at 80% and 20%.

Actually, the preponderance of studies show an range of between 40% and 70% of intelligence being linked to genetics. But the truth is that there are no conclusive studies to answer that question.

But in Murray's case, ever wondered (or bothered to learn) if those "estimates" were EVER supported with objective data or research?

Of course not. That's not the goal of people like you.

But the FACT is that those were baseless assertions offered up (without solicitation) by Murray. When asked to support his claims, Murray refused to reply to multiple requests of his peers. He simply ignored them.

Yes, Murray and Rushton are an ignominious pair, for sure. People in academics know this, and understand why.

 

[smallvoice]

Today's trumpist/Republican party is racist.

Couldn’t answer his question, I see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ultmd]

Everything you said here is wrong.

There is a high correlation between the IQs of identical twins, even if they are raised in different families.

This is true, but highly selective use of that body of research, G4N. For example, studies also show that identical twins raised apart has less similar IQ's than those raised together. Studies also show that school attendance correlates positively with IQ. And studies show that children who are breast-fed score higher on IQ tests than those who are not.

I could go on and on, but the point NOT that genetics play no role in intelligence. The point is that studies generally fail to support the hypothesis that genetics determine IQ and/or explain IQ differences among "races" of humans. Race, itself, is not even a valid scientific construct, but that's another debate for another thread.

And you do not understand regression towards the mean. Medium height parents can have a tall child. And extremely tall parents can have an even taller child. This is about statistical tendencies. IN GENERAL, if parents are extreme on any trait, their children will TEND to be less extreme on that trait.

LOL, trust me (or not), I fully understand the subject matter here. I'm not sure you do, however.

And NO..."IN GENERAL"...that is NOT the case, for the reasons I've already laid out. You're not quoting from an published literature. You're offering me your personal opinions. And in this case, you're just flat wrong, primarily because you insist on making the same mistake of equating the genetics of stature to the genetics of intelligence. Stature is closely very tied to genetics. Two tall parents are MUCH more likely to have tall offspring, than shorter offspring. But two parents with higher-than-average intelligence are NOT as likely to produce similarly intelligent offspring. We know this for some of the very same reasons that I've noted, above.

 

[Logical1]

A racist is ANYONE winning an argument with a liberal.

 

[SmartCat]

The Bell Curve has been highly controversial since it was published. Some of the reasons for questioning their analysis is listed here.

Human Intelligence: The Bell Curve

Anyone can find something on the internet they want to believe. If you cannot present the information in that argument in your own words, you do not understand it.

 

[SmartCat]

The Bell Curve has been highly controversial since it was published. Some of the reasons for questioning their analysis is listed here.

Human Intelligence: The Bell Curve

I was surprised to find this in that article:

"Affirmative Action in Higher Education - The edge given to minority applicants to college and graduate school is an extremely large advantage that puts them in a separate admissions process. Asians are a conspicuously unprotected minority due in large part to their above average intelligence scores. The cost of affirmative action in higher education includes the psychological consequences of students admitted under affirmative action programs, at lower cognitive ability levels, being seen as a low proportion of the overall student population, but a high proportion of the students doing poorly in school. This can lead to increased racial animosity and the high black dropout rate on American campuses. The authors recommend a color-blind affirmative action, giving preference to members of disadvantaged groups when qualifications are similar.

"Affirmative Action in the Workplace - Affirmative action programs in the workplace have had some impact, on some kinds of jobs, in some settings, during the 1960ís and 70ís, but have not had the decisive impact that is commonly asserted in political rhetoric. action does produce large racial discrepancies in job performance in a given workplace. Blacks have been overrepresented in white collar and professional occupations relative to the number of candidates in the IQ range from which these jobs are usually filled. The data suggest that aggressive affirmative action does produce large racial discrepancies in job performance in a given workplace. The authors recommend a color-blind affirmative action, giving preference to members of disadvantaged groups when qualifications are similar."

---------

I was surprised to find these paragraphs in the essay. I expected it to be a screed against The Bell Curve.

In my first job as a computer programmer my computer shop hired a black programmer. It soon became obvious that he could not do his job, he did not try, and he did not care. He spent much of the day listening to sports events using a portable radio and an ear phone. He would do this during business meetings, and when our boss was talking to him.

When I learned that he was being paid twice what I was, I discussed the matter with our boss. Our boss told me, "When I received my position as the supervisor of this computer shop I was told that I would be evaluated by my ability to attract and keep blacks. I was also told that I was supposed to expect less from them."

This is the reality of affirmative action. It does not create opportunities for qualified blacks who would otherwise be rejected because of white racism. It generates white racism by advancing blacks to positions they do not deserve. In those positions they reinforce negative stereotypes and cause resentment.

 

[SmartCat]

Actually, the preponderance of studies show an range of between 40% and 70% of intelligence being linked to genetics. But the truth is that there are no conclusive studies to answer that question.

But in Murray's case, ever wondered (or bothered to learn) if those "estimates" were EVER supported with objective data or research?

Of course not. That's not the goal of people like you.

But the FACT is that those were baseless assertions offered up (without solicitation) by Murray. When asked to support his claims, Murray refused to reply to multiple requests of his peers. He simply ignored them.

Yes, Murray and Rushton are an ignominious pair, for sure. People in academics know this, and understand why.

The Bell Curve has been condemned by journalists and social scientists who lack the expertise to evaluate it. Most of these are content to jump and down, and wave their arms shouting, "It's racist!" It's racist!"

Scientists who specialize in the scientific study of intelligence differences nearly always defend The Bell Curve, even at risk to their careers.

----------

The Dana Foundation, "Pretending that Intelligence Doesn’t Matter," Published: July 1, 2000, Author: Linda S. Gottfredson, Ph.D.

What scientists studying intelligence have discovered, in essence, is that people differ greatly in intelligence and those differences affect our life chances. Our different IQs persist throughout our lives because we each inherit different versions of the genes for intelligence. These natural variations in mental capability make some degree of social inequality inevitable in a free society...

Reactions to The Bell Curve ranged from high praise to low blows, but most journalists and academics who spoke publicly condemned it. Accused of promoting pseudoscience, the authors, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, actually built their analyses on hard facts about intelli*gence—facts found in any good textbook on the subject.3 It was the critics themselves who tended to be spouting nonsense.

Dismayed by the media disinformation attending The Bell Curve controversy, 52 prominent researchers from 34 universities and research centers published a Wall Street Journal editorial page statement in 1994 called “Mainstream Science on Intelligence.” These scientists, the antithesis of ideologues, have published thousands of scientific articles and hundreds of books defining the frontiers of intelligence research. They include many recipients of coveted awards and many past presidents of major scientific associations. Appearing several months into the firestorm over The Bell Curve, the joint statement simply recited the most settled facts in the field, facts that had been depicted over and over again in news and commen*tary as “controversial” or “discredited.” A second consensus statement appeared two years later in the form of an official task force report from the most pertinent scientific organization, the American Psychological Association. “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns” offered essentially the same portrait of mainstream scientific opinion on the nature, origins, and predictive value of intelligence. Both statements suggested that The Bell Curve’s portrayal of intelligence was basically accurate.4 Neither statement had any discernible impact on media reporting.

Pretending that Intelligence Doesn’t Matter | Dana Foundation

 

[SmartCat]

The hysterical response to The Bell Curve is one of several reasons I am convinced that the assertions in it are valid. If those who pretend to disagree with The Bell Curve really thought that way they would not try to prevent Charles Murray from speaking at colleges. They know that Charles Murray is right. They are afraid of political changes that will occur if laws are based on The Bell Curve.

 

[HK.227]

I do not want anyone to be discriminated against on the basis of race alone. I think it is perfectly legitimate to discriminate on the basis of what correlates with race. For example, Negroes tend to be less intelligent than whites and Orientals. Therefore few Negroes should be admitted to college. Few should be hired for jobs that require superior intelligence. Intelligent blacks should go to college. They should be given intellectually demanding jobs, but there should be no affirmative action.

I'm going to do something unheard of and regurgitate an argument of "the other side of the aisle", and the basis of the reasoning behind it.

First. Those intelligence estimates are based on IQ scores. Well, IQ doesn't actually measure intelligence, it measures your reasoning level compared to your current academic level (school age). There are a lot factors that can impact your level of reasoning on an academic level. Good schools. Bad schools. Good homes. Bad homes. Genetic dispostion determines a large part of the score, but not all of it. This of course means that some groups will have less optimal circumstances for achieving a high score, and so suffer a disadvantage.

Second. This does not change that the average member of one such group will be less fit for positions requiring a high score.

Third. But it does raise the question of how fair it is that those positions are one of the major prerequirement for raising yourself out of the situation that disadvantages you for achieving them in the first place. And how a level academic playing field will tend to keep those groups in their disadvantaged position (even if you eliminate all other unfair factors).

Fourth. However, as a hopeless right winger, one valid (and usually ignored) concern that I need to interject here, is that there is a big difference between giving a group a leg up versus handing out attractive positions like candy to people who don't deserve them, solely on basis of group affiliation. So naturally there must be a balance, and in any case, any such undeserving individuals are unlikely to help raise up their group in the first place. These are factors that can corrupt and undermine the entire system, besides causing friction between affirmative and non-affirmative groups. Preventing them should have high priority, before people who only have hammers start looking for nails.

 

[Hypothetical]

Why not? Accusations of racism are frequent. Why should we not discuss the definition of racism?

because then you force radical progressives to actually define it, which is out of line with how they like to use the term.

i stand by the dictionary definition myself, posted at the beginning.

 

[Triton]

I'm going to do something unheard of and regurgitate an argument of "the other side of the aisle", and the basis of the reasoning behind it.

First. Those intelligence estimates are based on IQ scores. Well, IQ doesn't actually measure intelligence, it measures your reasoning level compared to your current academic level (school age). There are a lot factors that can impact your level of reasoning on an academic level. Good schools. Bad schools. Good homes. Bad homes. Genetic dispostion determines a large part of the score, but not all of it. This of course means that some groups will have less optimal circumstances for achieving a high score, and so suffer a disadvantage.

Second. This does not change that the average member of one such group will be less fit for positions requiring a high score.

Third. But it does raise the question of how fair it is that those positions are one of the major prerequirement for raising yourself out of the situation that disadvantages you for achieving them in the first place. And how a level academic playing field will tend to keep those groups in their disadvantaged position (even if you eliminate all other unfair factors).

Fourth. However, as a hopeless right winger, one valid (and usually ignored) concern that I need to interject here, is that there is a big difference between giving a group a leg up versus handing out attractive positions like candy to people who don't deserve them, solely on basis of group affiliation. So naturally there must be a balance, and in any case, any such undeserving individuals are unlikely to help raise up their group in the first place. These are factors that can corrupt and undermine the entire system, besides causing friction between affirmative and non-affirmative groups. Preventing them should have high priority, before people who only have hammers start looking for nails.

Culture Fair IQ tests generalize for everything except maybe age, but usually age is considered in the calculation. I agree that tests like WAIS might be problematic as they test for vocabulary and also some mental math.

 

[HK.227]

Culture Fair IQ tests generalize for everything except maybe age, but usually age is considered in the calculation. I agree that tests like WAIS might be problematic as they test for vocabulary and also some mental math.

Fair point, but on a purely personal note, I'm one of the people who don't accept the ability of Cattell type tests to eliminate all significant cultural- and socially based deviations.

 

[Triton]

Fair point, but on a purely personal note, I'm one of the people who don't accept the ability of Cattell type tests to eliminate all significant cultural- and socially based deviations.

You don't have to. I know "appeal to authority" and "appeal to population" are fallacies, but let's be reasonable. Are all the psychologists who put faith in IQ testing wrong or is there a chance that your assessment of IQ testing is wrong?

 

[HK.227]

You don't have to. I know "appeal to authority" and "appeal to population" are fallacies, but let's be reasonable. Are all the psychologists who put faith in IQ testing wrong or is there a chance that your assessment of IQ testing is wrong?

Sure I could be wrong.
However... there is no concensus akin to what you imply re. near-perfection of IQ tests.

 

[Triton]

Sure I could be wrong.
However... there is no concensus akin to what you imply re. near-perfection of IQ tests.

I know there is no consensus as psychologists are also influenced by their political beliefs. The question is what does the data say about IQ in relation to academic skill? How does on determine if academic skill increases IQ or IQ simply is a good predictor of academic skill? You will have children who score high on IQ tests and go on to do well academically, but the opposite has almost never (if ever) been demonstrated to my knowledge.

 

[HK.227]

I know there is no consensus as psychologists are also influenced by their political beliefs. The question is what does the data say about IQ in relation to academic skill? How does on determine if academic skill increases IQ or IQ simply is a good predictor of academic skill? You will have children who score high on IQ tests and go on to do well academically, but the opposite has almost never (if ever) been demonstrated to my knowledge.

I do not disagre in the slightest. That is the entire reason for the existence of the IQ test, and they are very good at predicting academic performance.
But we are talking about pre-existing factors other than your genetically inherited baseline intellect that can impact the score *and* the subsequent academic performance.
Will you do better on an IQ test if your parents got you a private tutor? Will you do worse if you can't do homework because you have to fetch water 15 miles away? These are factor that are difficult to accurately correct for, especially when you have to do it for an entire group rather than an individual.

 

[Triton]

I do not disagre in the slightest. That is the entire reason for the existence of the IQ test, and they are very good at predicting academic performance.
But we are talking about pre-existing factors other than your genetically inherited baseline intellect that can impact the score *and* the subsequent academic performance.
Will you do better on an IQ test if your parents got you a private tutor? Will you do worse if you can't do homework because you have to fetch water 15 miles away? These are factor that are difficult to accurately correct for, especially when you have to do it for an entire group rather than an individual.

The point of culture fair type IQ tests is that you can correct for this. While practicing mental math might help you on some sorts of IQ tests, it is hard to study for something like this:

Spoiler

As far as I know, no type of "brain training" has been devised which allows you to solve this type of problem more easily. You can practice these types of tests and score higher on your 2nd, 3rd (and so on) attempts but if you haven't done them before, no amount of homework will really help you.

 

[HK.227]

The point of culture fair type IQ tests is that you can correct for this. While practicing mental math might help you on some sorts of IQ tests, it is hard to study for something like this:

Spoiler

As far as I know, no type of "brain training" has been devised which allows you to solve this type of problem more easily. You can practice these types of tests and score higher on your 2nd, 3rd (and so on) attempts but if you haven't done them before, no amount of homework will really help you.

That is what the Cattell disagreement is about.
(And the asnwer is top: blank, circle, square. Bottom: square, blank, blank)

 

[Triton]

That is what the Cattell disagreement is about.
(And the asnwer is top: blank, circle, square. Bottom: square, blank, blank)

Correct answer.

I would be interested to see how one "studies" for such a test beyond what I mentioned. The reason practicing such tests increases scores isn't the complex: you have a limited amount of time, so when you do it the 1st time, you spend more time on the easy problems, but the second time you know the answer and you can simply skip them and spend your time on the harder ones.

 

[HK.227]

Correct answer.
I would be interested to see how one "studies" for such a test beyond what I mentioned. The reason practicing such tests increases scores isn't the complex: you have a limited amount of time, so when you do it the 1st time, you spend more time on the easy problems, but the second time you know the answer and you can simply skip them and spend your time on the harder ones.

I'm sure there is some effect, but neurologically speaking, there are "modes" of thinking your brain can be in. I'm pretty certain that the mode used for academic thinking rubs off on the solving of other abstract problems that are not exactly identical to what you are studying, but I'm getting into deep water on that.

Have you ever played Mah-Jong by the way? It is excellent training for quickly recognizing visual patterns. Much better than Solitaire or Minesweeper. I would wager that being expert on those could give one a slight edge.
Or one could do what some Mensa applicants do, and do these types of test over and over until one is satisfied with the score.

 

[SmartCat]

I'm going to do something unheard of and regurgitate an argument of "the other side of the aisle", and the basis of the reasoning behind it.

First. Those intelligence estimates are based on IQ scores. Well, IQ doesn't actually measure intelligence, it measures your reasoning level compared to your current academic level (school age). There are a lot factors that can impact your level of reasoning on an academic level. Good schools. Bad schools. Good homes. Bad homes. Genetic dispostion determines a large part of the score, but not all of it. This of course means that some groups will have less optimal circumstances for achieving a high score, and so suffer a disadvantage.

Second. This does not change that the average member of one such group will be less fit for positions requiring a high score.

Third. But it does raise the question of how fair it is that those positions are one of the major prerequirement for raising yourself out of the situation that disadvantages you for achieving them in the first place. And how a level academic playing field will tend to keep those groups in their disadvantaged position (even if you eliminate all other unfair factors).

Fourth. However, as a hopeless right winger, one valid (and usually ignored) concern that I need to interject here, is that there is a big difference between giving a group a leg up versus handing out attractive positions like candy to people who don't deserve them, solely on basis of group affiliation. So naturally there must be a balance, and in any case, any such undeserving individuals are unlikely to help raise up their group in the first place. These are factors that can corrupt and undermine the entire system, besides causing friction between affirmative and non-affirmative groups. Preventing them should have high priority, before people who only have hammers start looking for nails.

Since the U.S. military began IQ testing during the First World War IQ tests have established their validity in accurately predicting academic and economic success, as well as other desirable outcomes in life. Social scientists and journalists dispute that. Those who make a scientific study of intelligence differences know that it is true. Intelligence matters. Members of some races tend to have more of it than members of other races.

 

[HK.227]

Since the U.S. military began IQ testing during the First World War IQ tests have established their validity in accurately predicting academic and economic success, as well as other desirable outcomes in life. Social scientists and journalists dispute that. Those who make a scientific study of intelligence differences know that it is true. Intelligence matters. Members of some races tend to have more of it than members of other races.

The validity of IQ testing is not in question, only the circumstances surrounding them. Triton and I have been discussing this for the last several posts.