Interesting musings on IQ and the Wealth of Nations

[Heraclitus]

But these are hardly 'races', throughout history this would be rather things like families, tribes, clans, nations, realms, states etc.

BeBro race is nothing more than an extended somewhat inbred family. Sure maps for genes can show many different divisons, but genetic clusters match the traditional notion of races all to well for comfort (with unexpected exceptions like Finns being somewhat genetically distinct from other Europeans but still mind you closer than other non-European).


Also when measuring HBD-related non-genetic things its hard not to notice certain nations clustering together. Race is just as valid a divisor as "clan" or "nation" or even "familiy" (esp. considering many family members don't have gentic realtion to each other) yet we use some of these unquestioned.

[Heraclitus]

Not for its own sake, no. It will merely have the pleasant side effect of eliminating neurotic and self-defeating racial institutions.

However the problem is that apearance wise we won't ever be uniform without selective pressures.

[Caligastia]

Not for its own sake, no. It will merely have the pleasant side effect of eliminating neurotic and self-defeating racial institutions.

Which is as good a reason as any.

[Caligastia]

The problem is that apearance wise we won't ever be uniform without selective pressures.

I don't think we'll ever be uniform, but in the distant future I would expect racial blending to make today's groupings impossible to detect at a glance.

[Heraclitus]

Esp. if you don't like "denial of human biological diversity" - isn't it exactly denying diversity to think that people share basic characteristics along broad racial lines (if that is what you mean)?

Actually after rereading your question I have to change my answer somewhat. Race is just one of the fields where human diversity is being denied for ideological purposes. Differences between the genders are also part of this (example we often hear of how women are underrepresented at the top of our society but we don't hear about how they are underrepresented at its bottom). Also education policies ("no child left behind") don't seem to take into account that the only way for *all* children to reach a proficiency standard is to lower that standard. Sure you can say we are all literate but as soon as you start looking at things like reading comprehension problems start to show.

[DaShi]

Nobody is arguing that environment isn't a huge factor. Where is the evidence that it is the only factor?

You are arguing for priority over environment.

Quite the opposite. I want to get rid of laws based on race - racial preferences, etc. I support equality under the law and equal standards applied to all.

This is bull**** and you know it. Even if one race were found to have genetically lower intelligence, this does not excuse you to treat them as second class citizens. And don't tell me that this is not what you are saying, because that is exactly what you are saying. Say something else, if you don't want to say that then.

[DaShi]

Maybe. And you magnificently miss the point.

I'm trying to point to the moon - and you're fixating on my finger.

No, I merely dismissed how ridiculous your claims were by demonstrating the ignorance of you only example.

Well, if you refuse to engage me entirely, I don't think there's much more that I can say.

If bigots can be reasoned with, there would be no bigotry.

[aneeshm]

No, I merely dismissed how ridiculous your claims were by demonstrating the ignorance of you only example.

Ignoring the egregious grammatical error in your criticism of 'me' example, the empirical evidence actually exists. When we look at marathon running and sprinting, we see clear indications that it is the differences in the proportion of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle, along with other differentially selected traits, which gives different sub-races of blacks their unique advantages in these sports. Further, the empirical evidence relevant to the specific example I mentioned is outlined in the link I (repeatedly) posted, and also exists on the Wikipedia.

[aneeshm]

You are arguing for priority over environment.

So is the American Psychological Association, if their 1996 statement is any indication of their consensus. Along with the 2004 meta-analytic study.

This is bull**** and you know it. Even if one race were found to have genetically lower intelligence, this does not excuse you to treat them as second class citizens. And don't tell me that this is not what you are saying, because that is exactly what you are saying. Say something else, if you don't want to say that then.

I've just read the above. In the original post, it was said in response to:

Quite the opposite. I want to get rid of laws based on race - racial preferences, etc. I support equality under the law and equal standards applied to all.

I'm genuinely mystified as to how you can go from what you were replying to, to what you actually said. I don't see the connection. How exactly is the elimination of racial preferences and the imposition of legal equality and generally equal standards in any way equivalent to treating any group as second-class citizens?

I could, as an explanation for this outburst, assume here that you're saying that the application of equal standards is actually unfair to some races, as those races will not be as capable of other races as meeting those standards in statistical terms, and that such application is, in its consequences, tantamount to treating them as second-class citizens, but this seems so completely out of line with what you have said previously on this topic that I find it hard to credit your words with this interpretation of them.

[DaShi]

Of course. The question is not one of nature versus nurture; it revolves around the relative importance of the two. As it turns out, it isn't constant over the life of an individual. For instance, in children, around 45% of the variation in IQ can be explained by heredity; in adults, between 75% and 85%. Basically, the influence of environment wanes as people grow older.

This result, by the way, is applicable to a large number of cognitive variables, including what could be considered the second-most important predictor of lifetime success, conscientiousness; we can say with some confidence that, in the general case, the effects of environment wane over the person's lifetime.

If you want these results yourself, you are free to check out Wikpedia and the quoted references. They are all "respectable", in the sense that they are beyond attack as far as the credibility of the source is concerned. These numbers are not mine; the 0.45 and 0.75 figures for children and post-adolescents come from a 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association, and the higher figure of 0.85 comes from a 2004 meta-analysis.

I read the articles and they do not say so clearly that environment can be dismissed because the environment of early childhood development likely have a long term impact on intelligence. What you are trying to claim is that those early effects of environment disappear as someone gets older. Without that your entire argument falls flat on its ignorant and biased face.

Furthermore, the evidence at this point is quite incontrovertible that, even controlling for all the confounding factors you have noted (socio-economic background, educational level, etc.), the black IQ is one standard deviation lower than the white IQ. The SAT scores (which I consider a good enough proxy for IQ) of the cohort of the wealthiest of (rather, the children of the wealthiest of) blacks were just below the scores of the cohort of the poorest whites.

I read your articles here as well. While you cite this statistic, you don't mention the explanations for it. Numerous social factors are considered that were not controlled for, while heredity is dismissed because "despite endless speculation, no one has found genetic evidence indicating that blacks have less innate intellectual ability than whites." I guess you missed that part in your research.

The problem is further complicated by regression to the mean among high-IQ blacks; this is why black students given exactly the same opportunities as white students tend to perform worse.

That's a bold conclusion to make. As I already stated there are factors that you have overlooked and that heredity information has not be found. The studied means between white and black IQ's cannot be treated as genetic differences given the current evidence. Therefore, blacks may be regressing to a lower mean than whites, but you can not claim that it is because of genetic deficiencies.

Again, you are free to check the Wikipedia; the mass of references is there for you perusal.

Done. Conclusion: You are either extremely dishonest or extremely stupid.

[DaShi]

So is the American Psychological Association, if their 1996 statement is any indication of their consensus. Along with the 2004 meta-analytic study.



I've just read the above. In the original post, it was said in response to:



I'm genuinely mystified as to how you can go from what you were replying to, to what you actually said. I don't see the connection. How exactly is the elimination of racial preferences and the imposition of legal equality and generally equal standards in any way equivalent to treating any group as second-class citizens?

I could, as an explanation for this outburst, assume here that you're saying that the application of equal standards is actually unfair to some races, as those races will not be as capable of other races as meeting those standards in statistical terms, and that such application is, in its consequences, tantamount to treating them as second-class citizens, but this seems so completely out of line with what you have said previously on this topic that I find it hard to credit your words with this interpretation of them.

This is probably because I am responding to Cali's argument in entirety. Like Ben, you don't seem to be able to think beyond the immediate moment. Hence, your other error above.

[Heraclitus]

You are arguing for priority over environment.




This is bull**** and you know it. Even if one race were found to have genetically lower intelligence, this does not excuse you to treat them as second class citizens. And don't tell me that this is not what you are saying, because that is exactly what you are saying. Say something else, if you don't want to say that then.

You are such a douchebag. Please quote where he said citizens should be discriminated based on race? I have seen no such thing in this entire thread!!

I could, as an explanation for this outburst, assume here that you're saying that the application of equal standards is actually unfair to some races, as those races will not be as capable of other races as meeting those standards in statistical terms, and that such application is, in its consequences, tantamount to treating them as second-class citizens, but this seems so completely out of line with what you have said previously on this topic that I find it hard to credit your words with this interpretation of them.

I think this is what his real position is. I suspect he desires equality of outcome regardless of any sort of ilusions of meritocracy but loaths to sole this cognitive dissonance.


Ok DaShi have you ever heard of thesting your hypothesis in the worst of possible worlds? Now this is hypothetical I'm not asking you to change your mind. Ready? Lets call this scenario Dystopia:
Ok, in the world of Dystopia Black genotype (genetic) IQ is a standard deviation lower than that of Whites. Their incomes, accumulated wealth, education and employment where consisten with what a group of Whites of the same IQ would have. If in such a world they have affirmative action identical to what we have here. Is affirmative action racist in such a world?

[DaShi]

:sigh: Because that is exactly what will happen if you apply his kind of "equality."

[Caligastia]

This is probably because I am responding to Cali's argument in entirety..

What the heck are you on about? I explained my position, but you refuse to accept it. You'll have to elaborate if you want to make any sense.

[DaShi]

It's one post above you. Made simple for all to understand.