IQ differences and racism

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
No, not really! Though the rapid processing of sensory data sometimes leads to improved hand-eye coordination, this is not always the case. Also, the visualisation of 3d objects in ones mind, abilities to create connections and properly define entities, all of these are parts of standard IQ tests, AFAI've seen.

And none of those things have anything to do with the ability to rapidly analyze sensory imput, now do they?

Yes, and being charming is part of social intelligence. What's the problem with this?

Social intelliegence is not a part of IQ tests, last time I looked.

I am assuming that everyone knows numbers, for the sake of this discussion. Call me an ethnocentric shauvenist.

Already done. It goes to the heart of the problem which you denied, whcih is that who makes the test matters- because test assume shared cultural experiences that might not exist and will mean lower scores for those who don't share them.

So let's summarize:

-No testing of skills.
-Testing of analytical power of recognizing and making the connections between entities in a described situation.
-Testing of the ability to socially interact ( preferrably with people of different cultural background).
- Testing of visualisation.

I think those are present quite well in IQ tests.

IQ tests do NOT test the ability to interact socially- measuring that would be far too subjective to make a worthwhile part of any standardized exam.

Of course skills are part of the test- at the minimum, they test literacy-the smartest illiterate person will fail an IQ exam-back to the "who made the test" problem. Any test that asks any math questions assumes a fair amount of math lietarcy, which is a skill itself as well.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sandman
If you believe in racial traits, then presumably a dark-skinned person with a sharp mind and a poor running ability is less black than fastfooted but slow-witted person with the same skin colour.

Their ancestors couldn't outrun the fleet of foot white diluters of black purity.

[Az]

*head explodes*

[GePap]

We are all gathered together to mourn Azazel, who in the failed attempt to back up a collapsing arguement suffered a terrible and bloody death.

[Q Classic]

it says Asians are superior, so I don't mind.

[Ramo]

My take is this: since intelligence is partly/largely/totally determined by genetics (as is skin color, hair, resistance to diseases, etc), then it is likely that there are measurable differences between the various races.

There are well-understood selection mechanisms for the creation of genetic differences in skin color, hair, and resistances to disease between huuman populations. The same is certainly not true for "intelligence." So your assertion is bull****.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aneeshm
So now you're saying that balcks are not of the same culture as white amreicans?

If you were an American, you'd realize you were talking out of your butt. Black and White Americans do have some shared culture, which comes from being American, be even excepting for a moment that there are mutliple White (and Black) cultures in the U.S., only a fool would think, that Whites and Blacks have identical culture. The differences aren't the same as between someone from Karala or New Dehli, but not only do they exist, they affect the way we relate to each other.

[Az]

We are all gathered together to mourn Azazel, who in the failed attempt to back up a collapsing arguement suffered a terrible and bloody death.

Sorry to disappoint you, you've x-posted with me, actually.

I am not going to reply to each of your points, just to the last one, because I've posted a summary and you replied to it:

IQ tests do NOT test the ability to interact socially- measuring that would be far too subjective to make a worthwhile part of any standardized exam.

says you.

Of course skills are part of the test- at the minimum, they test literacy-the smartest illiterate person will fail an IQ exam-back to the "who made the test" problem. Any test that asks any math questions assumes a fair amount of math literacy, which is a skill itself as well.

It seems that at times you're an annoying bastard. I guess breathing is a skill tested as well, because people who don't breathe are at a natural disadvantage. Ok, especially for you, the tests will be readfor the recipient by an sexless computer voice, and the test will be entirely visual. WRT math solving questions, you don't have to have them on an intelligence test.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

says you.

Its pretty simple to see why this would not work in a stardardized exam, but I will develop this later.

It seems that at times you're an annoying bastard. I guess breathing is a skill tested as well, because people who don't breathe are at a natural disadvantage. Ok, especially for you, the tests will be readfor the recipient by an sexless computer voice, and the test will be entirely visual. WRT math solving questions, you don't have to have them on an intelligence test.

No breathing is not a skill- it is genetically hardwired. Man kind was illiterate for 99% of its hitory. It certainly did breathe for 100% of its existance. You see how silly examples just sink your arguement?

You want a simple, non-culturally biased exam? Then do exams like those we do for animals:

Place hungry individuals in a room- have a wonderful smelling stew on top of a tower in the middle of the room. Strewn around the room are object and tools that would enable people to reach the food in a variety of ways. Measure how long it took people to get the food.

Oh, and for those who insist of thinking the tests are not biased and that this data is meaningful. Well, who says race is the cause? There are obvious historical exmaples of negative pressures being applied on both the black and azkhenazi communities, NO?

For the Jews, the pressures probably got rid of the "dumber" members of the group rather strenously. For blacks, intelligence would NOT be a plus- remember that domesticated versions of animals are less intelligent that their wild ancestors.

(I hope that was start enough for everyone).

[Seeker]

if it's all a matter of "certain neurotransmitters" like this article suggests then why don't we just inject ourselves with something to raise the level/activity of these neurotransmitters?

If we would just inject kids with currently unknown stimulants and drugs, all our problems would be solved!

I am one of those who believe that 'g' may exist, but is made up of components.

The '50% of any mental acuity test measures g' sounds like BS to anyone who has written an LSAT.

The LSAT is divided into different tests, Logical Reasoning, Analytical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, etc. Ones score can vary WILDLY between these different areas, like mine did. Someone might be very good at Analytical, but suck at Logical, or vice versa, which implies to me that inteligence is specialized and compartmentalized.

my LSAT was only 160, so what do I know anyway?

[OzzyKP]

I am always amazed when this topic comes up. Someone produces facts that blacks (or other racial groups) have lower IQ, or peform worse on various tests, and then everyone jumps on that person for making such a statement. Generally the responses break down into these areas:

1. The test is culturally biased, is designed by a bunch of upper-middle-class white males, and cannot be trusted to reliably test intelligence or other categories. Many tests and researchers are actually racist, and are pushing some ulterior political goal.

2. The poor showing on the test isn't an intrisic, genetic disability in a certain race, they are purely environmental. If the black man was wealthy, went to good schools, lived in safe communities and had proper support he'd score just as well as anyone else.

3. The tests don't matter, and are merely used as justification for racism and discrimination. Whether they are true or not, to talk about it only leads to bad consequences. People should be accepted and respected because they are people, not because they can get a good score on a test.

4. Sure they may have lower IQ, but they have many other positive skills and qualities in other areas and should be valued and respected for those.


To these people who make these arguments I say: You are right. 100%. All the above arguments describe part of the problem that leads to these tests.

What baffles me is when these same exact people blindly accept data showing youth to be inferior, or less mature, or less rational, or dumber, or anything else. When I make the EXACT same arguments as those above, then I get yelled at for being some crazy kid who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

So which is it? Are intelligence tests, and rationality tests and such innacurate measures of a person's worth (young/old & white/black) and should be discarded with discredited racial science of a century ago? Or are blacks and youth truly inferior because the tests say so?

Because frankly, if you can look at data showing one group of people (blacks) is less smart and say it is biased and doesn't matter, and yet look at data showing of another group of people (youth) is less smart and say it is 100% correct and provides justification for laws X, Y, Z, then I think it is your ability to think clearly and reason competently that should be examined.

This is a glaring contradiction that many people haven't had the courage to address. If environmental factors and biased tests can produce results saying Blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites, couldn't it be a possability that environmental factors and biased tests are the reasons behind a lot of these "studies" and "facts" that show youth are less rational than adults?

Why are people afraid to accept that possability?

[Thorn]

I asked God why he made people so stupid, he told me he didn't, but people chose to breed too close in the gene pool to their families.... and that's whats screwed up so many people today.....

[Japher]

Place hungry individuals in a room- have a wonderful smelling stew on top of a tower in the middle of the room. Strewn around the room are object and tools that would enable people to reach the food in a variety of ways. Measure how long it took people to get the food.

What kind of stew? If it's Borsch, forget it. Beef Stew, maybe... Split Pea? Nope.

Cultural biases or even sexual biases do and have existed in these tests, and every effort should be made to remove them, except where language is concerned.

Intelligence is the ability to learn, interpret, and reason information given to you. You can divide it up into what Seeker's LSAT does, or into any number of catagories. We CAN define it, measuring is a little more difficult because we have been using a bowl of sweet smelling watercrest soup, when to many blacks, chinese, and most rednecks, watercrest soup is not sweet smelling.

You catch my drift?

[Kidlicious]

There is way too much energy being devoted to this racist troll.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There is way too much energy being devoted to this racist troll.

Why is it a troll? If people will accept races are physically different, why can't they be mentally different?

And cut the cr@p about IQ tests etc. thats not the point. I'm saying different not better.

There are a lot a spatial/ pattern recognition tests where Aborigines do much better than whites, why would you suppose that was? Or are tests 'racist'?