What's wrong with a real discussion of IQ?

[ttwtt78640]

It's really a difficult topic to discuss, because it's almost inevitable that the findings are picked up by people who leave the academic realm and instead either misinterpret them and/or draw the wrong conclusions, because of political or social agendas and or the need to confirm the own view. That happens both on the side of racists and "political correctness" advocates.

There was an interview with an expert I read the other day, who claimed many studies suggest there are indeed significant race differences when it comes to the IQ on average. IIRC, in America, the average IQ of Jews was 108, East Asians 106, whites 103, Hispanics 89 and African Americans 85.

But what does that tell us? Basically nothing. It doesn't answer the question how much of it is genetic, and how much is nurture (studies seem to suggest the influence of genes on IQ is at ca. 58% -- which leaves a lot of room for improving nurture factors). It doesn't allow any conclusion regarding any given individual, as these numbers are just average IQs (there are still many blacks with IQs of 130+ and many East Asians with IQs below 70). And even if it was possible to draw conclusions on entire racial groups, that still doesn't mean there was any justification for different treatment of these groups, right?

Yet racists draw these conclusions. And PC advocates attack these studies and the experts, because they think asking these questions is racism already.

You are correct in your basic argument, that treatment shoud never be based on race/ethnicity, but surely treatment can be based on the IQ factor (or any other measurable difference) alone. It is simply silly to waste limited resources placing folks with very low IQs in higher education facilities over those with higher IQs. Just as it would be silly to expect small, short, fat folks to excel at basketball. In our quest for "diversity" we now try to invent "standards" that mask diffferences in ability rather than simply admit that their are, indeed, limitations to any given individual's abilities.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Because IQ's are not indicative of intelligence.

That's quite true - but that doesn't matter, because the 'official' results would become part of the social gestalt, and the race that scored lower would become an underclass. That, sir, is reality.

 

[specklebang]

Because IQ's are not indicative of intelligence.

Thank you. They are a test of extrapolative ability, nothing more.

Extrapolation and intelligence are only vaguely related. Some of the dumbest people I ever met were in MENSA.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I'm of the opinion that if you give any number of licensed, Board Certified physicians an IQ test, across the racial, ethnic boundaries, it will make no difference. They'll score similarly.

The problem with IQ tests is that they test our school systems -- and the effectiveness of inner-city schools. They aren't working, so IQ tests will reflect that.

Very true - all things being equal (such as schools and social status and income and health), they'll score similarly. As you say, IQ tests score our school systems and not our intelligence. But you know as well as I do that this wouldn't matter one whit to those who would use the scores to their own racist ends.

 

[MaggieD]

Very true - all things being equal (such as schools and social status and income and health), they'll score similarly. As you say, IQ tests score our school systems and not our intelligence. But you know as well as I do that this wouldn't matter one whit to those who would use the scores to their own racist ends.

Even if you test very young childre with what we would consider "age-appropriate questions," those with intact families and parents who value education will have primed their children to do better than those families who do not -- just by virtue of environment.

I completely agree with you and what you're posting in this thread.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You can talk about it but will likely be labeled a racist, bigot or some other such term for daring to buck political correctness. People have no difficulty accepting that athletic ability and resistance to disease are traits controlled largely by genetics, yet any suggestion (proven or not) that other factors are genetic as well is not "cool".

Just because something is politically correct doesn't mean that it's wrong or impractical. Sometimes it's a very, very good thing that something's politically correct. Mind you, I'm not saying 'always' - for instance, it's politically incorrect to support more nuclear plants, to say that Iran and Iraq have very, very good reason to hate us, and to say that Bradley Manning richly deserves a very, very long prison sentence...but these are my stated opinions.

BUT discussion of the differences of IQ between the races is politically incorrect...AND it is rightly verboten in mass media. Just because something's politically correct doesn't mean that it's wrong.

 

[Hypersonic]

I'm of the opinion that if you give any number of licensed, Board Certified physicians an IQ test, across the racial, ethnic boundaries, it will make no difference. They'll score similarly.

The problem with IQ tests is that they test our school systems -- and the effectiveness of inner-city schools. They aren't working, so IQ tests will reflect that.

IQ tests don't work because they are racially biased point blank period.

 

[Goshin]

Thank you. They are a test of extrapolative ability, nothing more.

Extrapolation and intelligence are only vaguely related. Some of the dumbest people I ever met were in MENSA.

Damn, that is true. In point of fact I have yet to meet anyone who bragged of being in MENSA who wasn't an idiot when it comes to any sort of practical matter relating to everyday life.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why Can't We Talk About IQ? - Jason Richwine, Politico

Political correctness should not impede the search for real solutions.eace

Okay I read the entire article, and it appears that the author is claiming IQ testing is a valid scientific measure of intelligence. That it provides consistent evidence that there is an inherent hierarchy of intelligence; with Northern Asiatics at the top, Europeans next with everyone else somewhere between them and Sub-Saharan groups at the bottom. He opines that facts are facts and people should not let personal emotions interfere with these realities.

The problem I have with his position, and I thereby run the risk of upsetting my friends in the psychological community, is that Psychology is simply a pseudo-science. It's entire foundation is based upon the accumulation of personal observations, which are then formulated into statistical projections in order to support theories based on such observations. Then people are either sized to fit within categories already created by such theories, or into new categories propounded by new theories. Often, genetics is falsely cited as the basis for many such positions.

Hard science is based on repeatable proof. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observations. It is then supported or refuted in Hard Science by experimentation, in pseudo-science by observation. A scientific theory is a group of hypothesis that has been supported by repeated testing. A pseudo-scientific theory is a group of hypothesis which are supported by repeated observations. If any hypothesis in a theory is debunked, the theory fails.

However a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation proven by systematic methodology where all testing achieves the exact same result. Pseudo-science fact is something that most people engaged in the work come to believe is true, despite variations in their observations.

In hard science it is ALWAYS the case that in a vacumm absent friction, an object in motion will remain in motion perpetually, while an object at rest will remain at rest perpetually; this is consistent unless something else acts to stop or move such obejcts. This test, infinitely repeated, always provides the same results.

In the specific case of IQ, numerous sub-saharan's are capable of achieving higher individual IQ scores than many North-Asiatics. Yet psychologists use "statistical values" demonstrating a higher over-all chance in North-Asiatics of achieving such scores as somehow equating to an innate IQ superiority for the racial class.

If ALL sub-saharans do not achieve lower test scores than ALL North-Asiatics, then statistical claims of inherent inferiority in intelligence based on race is debunked. Therefore, acceptance of the validity of IQ testing "statistics" among psychologists to support such theories is an example of Pseudo-science.

 

[Paschendale]

Ever notice how when someone says "let's have real discussion about ____", it always ends up being racist?

 

[German guy]

You are correct in your basic argument, that treatment shoud never be based on race/ethnicity, but surely treatment can be based on the IQ factor (or any other measurable difference) alone. It is simply silly to waste limited resources placing folks with very low IQs in higher education facilities over those with higher IQs. Just as it would be silly to expect small, short, fat folks to excel at basketball. In our quest for "diversity" we now try to invent "standards" that mask diffferences in ability rather than simply admit that their are, indeed, limitations to any given individual's abilities.

On this, I have to disagree strongly. The IQ, although it is something that to my knowledge can be measured more or less reliably, is not the only factor playing a role in academic success. This number doesn't mean anything, it does not say how good someone is at something, it says nothing about other valuable character qualities required on many fields -- many scientists agree that "the IQ is just what the IQ test measures", nothing else.

For example, there are many different dimensions of intelligence the test measures, and people can score very different results on different fields. Mathematic talent, language talent, memory, three-dimensional grasp, and so on -- some people are very good at one of these things, but bad at the others, and thus get a relatively low IQ result.

Also, IQ in a test situation does not say anything about qualities like motivation for certain tasks or ambition, it doesn't say anything about competence in social situations and leadership skills, and it doesn't say anything about stamina or power of endurance. But all of these traits are necessary conditions for many tasks.

I'd assume that for an academic carreer, a person with a lower IQ (but not too low, obviously) but lots of stamina and motivation is better suited than an IQ genious, who is irratic, lacks ambition and cannot be motivated to work on any task for longer than an hour. For a leadership position, lower IQ can be well made up for with lots of social competence. And for becoming a mathematician, you don't need to be a language talent. There are always people with "insular talents", who are brilliant at one certain task but below average on most others.

The IQ is just one number. But individual qualities and talents have many dimensions and cannot be sufficiently reflected by a single number.

That's why the IQ should not be treated as an important factor in any such considerations. Make individual tests! If someone wants to study mathematics, test him for his mathematic skills. Want to know his leadership skills? Test him for that. And so on. That will provide a much better picture of an individuals talents. At best, I think, an IQ is suited to discover cases of wasted talent. When you find a "problem kid" at school gets bad grades, but has a very high IQ, that might point you to consider to other probems with that child than "he's just dumb", which helps solving them.

 

[Medusa]

Tell us what you think of Howard Gardner's seminal work on the subject. Do us a favor and don't cut and paste.

l dont think he knows gardner and his theory

 

[Jack Hays]

Look, Jack - I'm fairly sure that there's no malicious intent in your OP, but that exact moment that a society accepts that one race is less intelligent than another race, in that moment, the so-called 'less intelligent' race officially becomes an underclass, to be shunned in society and in business by those not of that race...and the young people of that race would become all the more rebellious and would take their frustration out on those not of their race.

Now I figure that you never had any intention for such to happen...but that's what WOULD happen, as anyone who grew up in the MS Delta can tell you from first-hand experience - for nowhere else in America is there such an entrenchment of social classes based on race.

I mean, really, Jack - what's going to happen on a college campus when it says there in the textbook that due to biology, Hispanics and/or blacks are more likely to have lower IQ's? While a merely objective discussion by real scientists of differences in intelligence between the races might sound reasonable, in the modern day that such discussions are almost impossible to keep secret, the moment such discussions become public would greatly - and irrevocably - damage the fabric of society. One (or more) race becomes an underclass - permanently, mind you - and the friction between that race and the favored race (especially among young men with Constitutionally-guaranteed access to firearms) will often turn deadly. You REALLY don't want to go there.

So...yes, there ARE subjects that are never, ever wise to broach. This is one of them.

The data is the data.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you believe it's of the utmost importance, Jack?

I think we should not be afraid.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm of the opinion that if you give any number of licensed, Board Certified physicians an IQ test, across the racial, ethnic boundaries, it will make no difference. They'll score similarly.

The problem with IQ tests is that they test our school systems -- and the effectiveness of inner-city schools. They aren't working, so IQ tests will reflect that.

If you have data that would support that assertion then it would add value to the discussion.eace

 

[MaggieD]

If you have data that would support that assertion then it would add value to the discussion.eace

Here's a summary of what one IQ test covers:

•Verbal - Comprehension of similar words or opposites, analogies, and relationships.
•Arithmetic & Mathematical - Comprehension of math equations, patterns, and more.
•Spatial - Comprehension of patterns, analogies, relationships, visualizations, and more.

If you didn't learn math in school, you're going to do crappy on that portion of the test. Analogies and relationships? That we learn in school as well. Most of them test knowledge -- not the ability to learn. Two very different animals.

 

[Jack Hays]

Okay I read the entire article, and it appears that the author is claiming IQ testing is a valid scientific measure of intelligence. That it provides consistent evidence that there is an inherent hierarchy of intelligence; with Northern Asiatics at the top, Europeans next with everyone else somewhere between them and Sub-Saharan groups at the bottom. He opines that facts are facts and people should not let personal emotions interfere with these realities.

The problem I have with his position, and I thereby run the risk of upsetting my friends in the psychological community, is that Psychology is simply a pseudo-science. It's entire foundation is based upon the accumulation of personal observations, which are then formulated into statistical projections in order to support theories based on such observations. Then people are either sized to fit within categories already created by such theories, or into new categories propounded by new theories. Often, genetics is falsely cited as the basis for many such positions.

Hard science is based on repeatable proof. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observations. It is then supported or refuted in Hard Science by experimentation, in pseudo-science by observation. A scientific theory is a group of hypothesis that has been supported by repeated testing. A pseudo-scientific theory is a group of hypothesis which are supported by repeated observations. If any hypothesis in a theory is debunked, the theory fails.

However a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation proven by systematic methodology where all testing achieves the exact same result. Pseudo-science fact is something that most people engaged in the work come to believe is true, despite variations in their observations.

In hard science it is ALWAYS the case that in a vacumm absent friction, an object in motion will remain in motion perpetually, while an object at rest will remain at rest perpetually; this is consistent unless something else acts to stop or move such obejcts. This test, infinitely repeated, always provides the same results.

In the specific case of IQ, numerous sub-saharan's are capable of achieving higher individual IQ scores than many North-Asiatics. Yet psychologists use "statistical values" demonstrating a higher over-all chance in North-Asiatics of achieving such scores as somehow equating to an innate IQ superiority for the racial class.

If ALL sub-saharans do not achieve lower test scores than ALL North-Asiatics, then statistical claims of inherent inferiority in intelligence based on race is debunked. Therefore, acceptance of the validity of IQ testing "statistics" among psychologists to support such theories is an example of Pseudo-science.

So far as I'm aware, no one claims more than a statistical likelihood, with no meaning regarding any individual test.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's a summary of what one IQ test covers:



If you didn't learn math in school, you're going to do crappy on that portion of the test. Analogies and relationships? That we learn in school as well. Most of them test knowledge -- not the ability to learn. Two very different animals.

Not so in the research under discussion here.

 

[MaggieD]

Not so in the research under discussion here.

Okay, I'm not interested enough to follow this thread, frankly. I don't buy the OP's assertion, if I read it correctly, that different races have different potentials to learn. *shrug*

I don't believe there's a test on the planet that can determine that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Okay, I'm not interested enough to follow this thread, frankly. I don't buy the OP's assertion, if I read it correctly, that different races have different potentials to learn. *shrug*

I don't believe there's a test on the planet that can determine that.

Then you are correct that you're not interested enough to be in the discussion.eace

 

[Captain Adverse]

So far as I'm aware, no one claims more than a statistical likelihood, with no meaning regarding any individual test.eace

Therefore, making sweeping claims that create stereotypes on such "evidence" has no real scientific basis. The article you cited was authored by someone who seems to think it does. That's the answer to your question. At best, it may serve as a couseling tool to help each individual tested consider a focus on his or her interests and strengths. That's all.

 

[jag2594]

Why Can't We Talk About IQ? - Jason Richwine, Politico

Political correctness should not impede the search for real solutions.eace

Read more: Opinion: Why can

For example, virtually all psychologists believe there is a general mental ability factor (referred to colloquially as “intelligence”) that explains much of an individual’s performance on cognitive tests. IQ tests approximately measure this general factor. Psychologists recognize that a person’s IQ score, which is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, usually remains stable upon reaching adolescence. And they know that IQ scores are correlated with educational attainment, income, and many other socioeconomic outcomes.

Is this cite ?

In terms of group differences, people of northeast Asian descent have higher average IQ scores than people of European lineage, who in turn have higher average scores than people of sub-Saharan African descent. The average score for Hispanic Americans falls somewhere between the white and black American averages. Psychologists have tested and long rejected the notion that score differences can be explained simply by biased test questions. It is possible that genetic factors could influence IQ differences among ethnic groups, but many scientists are withholding judgment until DNA studies are able to link specific gene combinations with IQ.

is this cite? Or is he just generalizing that people will believe him.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994WSJmainstream.pdf

The fact that the professors just "signed off" and there is not real studies suggest that something is fishy. This was written in 1994, science has come a long way from that. NON Coding DNA is a uprising Theme in Biochemistry. Epigenetic studies are every where, regeneration of the brain is being studied. He seems to have a determinism attitude towards science, but everything in the present seems to discredit his ideas.

Regeneration and plasticity in the ... [J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

Reprogramming metastatic tumour cells with em... [Nat Rev Cancer. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Whether it's due to their culture ....or due to genetics ....the Han Chinese (92% of China's population) are the smartest people on earth....the end.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Whether it's due to their culture ....or due to genetics ....the Han Chinese (92% of China's population) are the smartest people on earth....the end.

I could argue that since they have always been the largest population group on Earth they had a higher probability of genius level individual mutations. Those individuals were responsible for all the advances the rest of the "common non-smartest" Han depended on. I could, but I won't end your story that way. LOL

 

[rathi]

IQ scores don't measure genetic anything. This is empirically proved by the fact that average scores have been increasing since the test was created. Human genetics have not changed in that time period, so the test clearly doesn't measure genetic factors.

Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Racists are invariably as ignorant as they are immoral and always try and cover their incompetence by whining about political correctness.