How to prepare for the coming science of genetic racial variations, and a summary of the full case for the genetics of racial differences in intellige

[AthenaAwakened]

:mod:

Bless you my child.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

OK, at this point, you are welcome to believe that the intelligence tests don't effectively measure intelligence.

Am I welcome too? Because that is my beef even with brain scan that show people who do well taking the test will have more activity than those who don't under MRI scans. (I see this as a self confirming bias)

But it does make me wonder if cuckoo clock hobbyist's brains come alive when they are making cuckoo clocks?

It recognizes that the race-IQ gaps exist.

As I said above one of the questions on the 1970s test was about which animals belong on a farm. I wonder how urban children did on this question.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I generally make sense of evolutionary adaptations in terms of CONTINUING selective pressures across vast expanses of time, not just singular events in the ancestral lineages.

Selective pressures are a series of continuous events occuring over multiple generations. Aggressive tribes forcing faster dislocation are no more singular events than aggressive lions forcing faster gazelle running are.

I figure the number of migrations, even if there was more than one of them, would be small relative to the number of generations that never migrated. The number of generations that explains genetic racial variations would be on the order of 5000 (100,000 years divided by 20 years per generation). But, there would be far less than 5,000 generations participating in the chain of migrations from Africa to Europe, for example, or even Africa to South America.

 

[fromderinside]

Why would Sowell say that? It is known we aren't isolated enough to be actual candidates for race development by a long shot and the study of the genetics of intelligence hasn't even gotten past the array found in our capability for language which is somehow related to FOXP2.

The only way Sowell ethically or morally could say that is if he is suffering from blindness and selection bias disorder at the same time. I'm suspicious. Is he relying on intelligence testing among humans and phenotypology? If so. Explained.

Atta boy DrZoidberg​.

One need not believe that races are genetic before accepting the existence of the racial IQ gaps. Even for those who argue that races are merely cultural, the race-IQ gaps exist, and they are likewise victims of the extreme public taboo.

Wow.

So the farmers of Alabama are less intelligent to the farmers of Iowa because their cultures are different even though IQ tests are based on the premise that it is an inherited trait and largely not variable over age. You do see the problems here I hope.

Atta boy Tom Sawyer

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Selective pressures are a series of continuous events occuring over multiple generations. Aggressive tribes forcing faster dislocation are no more singular events than aggressive lions forcing faster gazelle running are.

I figure the number of migrations, even if there was more than one of them, would be small relative to the number of generations that never migrated. The number of generations that explains genetic racial variations would be on the order of 5000 (100,000 years divided by 20 years per generation). But, there would be far less than 5,000 generations participating in the chain of migrations from Africa to Europe, for example, or even Africa to South America.

Nah, each sucessive generation only had to move about a quarter of a mile to get away from the invading tribe. The ancestors of the black people were genetically lazy as well and it took them a while to follow. It was a long term, gradual shift.

 

[ApostateAbe]

One need not believe that races are genetic before accepting the existence of the racial IQ gaps. Even for those who argue that races are merely cultural, the race-IQ gaps exist, and they are likewise victims of the extreme public taboo.

Wow.

So the farmers of Alabama are less intelligent to the farmers of Iowa because their cultures are different even though IQ tests are based on the premise that it is an inherited trait and largely not variable over age. You do see the problems here I hope.

Kinda, and it seems to be a different but related topic. I don't know about the IQ differences between farmers in Iowa and farmers in Alabama, so I have no useful opinion on the matter.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I figure the number of migrations, even if there was more than one of them, would be small relative to the number of generations that never migrated. The number of generations that explains genetic racial variations would be on the order of 5000 (100,000 years divided by 20 years per generation). But, there would be far less than 5,000 generations participating in the chain of migrations from Africa to Europe, for example, or even Africa to South America.

Nah, each sucessive generation only had to move about a quarter of a mile to get away from the invading tribe. The ancestors of the black people were genetically lazy as well and it took them a while to follow. It was a long term, gradual shift.

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the average size of the territory of a primitive tribe, but I could be wrong.

 

[Axulus]

Because the test isn't perfect, it therefore measures nothing at all and is useless?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nah, each sucessive generation only had to move about a quarter of a mile to get away from the invading tribe. The ancestors of the black people were genetically lazy as well and it took them a while to follow. It was a long term, gradual shift.

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the average size of the territory of a primitive tribe, but I could be wrong.

Well, the white tribes roamed widely, sure. The black ones, however, were genetically predisposed to remaining in their own ghetto areas.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the average size of the territory of a primitive tribe, but I could be wrong.

Well, the white tribes roamed widely, sure. The black ones, however, were genetically predisposed to remaining in their own ghetto areas.

May be some truth to that. In tropical regions with plentiful resources, tribal territories could be small. In northern climates with scarce resources, tribal territories would need to be vaster.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Because the test isn't perfect, it therefore measures nothing at all and is useless?

Nope. Like the GRE measures how well you do on the GRE, IQ tests measure how well you do on IQ tests.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, the white tribes roamed widely, sure. The black ones, however, were genetically predisposed to remaining in their own ghetto areas.

May be some truth to that. In tropical regions with plentiful resources, tribal territories could be small. In northern climates with scarce resources, tribal territories would need to be vaster.

What about the Sahara and Kalahari?

 

[ApostateAbe]

May be some truth to that. In tropical regions with plentiful resources, tribal territories could be small. In northern climates with scarce resources, tribal territories would need to be vaster.

What about the Sahara and Kalahari?

I would expect larger tribal territories for the desert regions, but it is still purely a guess in my part.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What about the Sahara and Kalahari?

I would expect larger tribal territories for the desert regions, but it is still purely a guess in my part.

If there only was some way of figuring that out.

 

[arkirk]

An argument that does nothing, however, to lend any credence to what you're saying.




And so, predictably, you demonstrate you didn't understand my question after all.

Remember, the 'proof' that "everyone in academia accepts this race IQ gap exists"; is nothing more than a pile of books *you* have gathered. This, is the fallacy of selection bias.

"EVERYONE in the world loves pudding!"

"What? On what do you base this claim?"

"Look at all these photos of people enjoying pudding! How can you argue with that?!"

"But these are all YOUR photos!"

"What's your point? I'm totally being fair here. Look, here's the stack of photos of people enjoying chocolate pudding. And here's a stack of photos of people enjoying other kinds of pudding! See? Totally fair and balanced."

"...But you just selected for photos of people eating pudding! What of all the photos of people not eating pudding? And these photos don't even show that these people love pudding, just that they ate it at least once!"

The left stack of books are in the same political camp as you. They are anti-racists. They accept that the race IQ gaps exist, but they explain it in ways that you would prefer.

That's a pretty bold statement given that I have not stated my political camp.

It's also hopelessly one-dimensional. To you, there is only a binary division here. When you've already decided the answer to the question for yourself, you can divide the stack of books in 'for' and 'against', but you can not conceive or acknowledge the possibility that not only might the 'for' and 'against' books not be either of those things, but the very question itself might be wrong to begin with.

Put it simpler terms: when you've already decided that the sky is blue and that's that, you have no need to learn that the sky in fact doesn't have any color and that the 'blue' is in fact wavelengths being absorbed by atmospheric particles and then radiated outward.

"All biologists accept evolution by natural selection, even when they don't agree with the general theory of evolution. I have a tall stack of books written by young-Earth creationist biologists, and even they, every one of them, explicitly accept microevolution by Darwinian natural selection."

"Selection bias."

"WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT??"

Is the IQ test a creation of people with an agenda of social definition of INTELLIGENCE? They write a test that measures a type of response to their test they call INTELLIGENCE. The test is culture dependent. So are the results. It is their starting assumptions before a single test was ever taken that renders their results inaccurate at best and absolutely pointless in the worst case scenarios. The makers of these tests struggle to remove cultural bias and cultural expectations but they always seem to fail at it. Maybe they are not as INTELLIGENT as they think they are.

OK, at this point, you are welcome to believe that the intelligence tests don't effectively measure intelligence. I take that to be the lowest and most out-of-touch criticism (advocated exclusively among the critics who are NOT psychologists, such as Stephen J. Gould). But, it is a step forward. It recognizes that the race-IQ gaps exist.

Lowest? Most out of touch? Your idea, based on your acceptance of the criteria of the test makers. People will score higher or lower based on their alignment with the cutlure of the test maker and also their particular mental condition. If you give a test, there will be a bell curve...so what? The entire exercise is skewed by the expectations of the test makers of how they think an intelligent person would respond. They assign scoring values based on these expectations. Psychologists have done a lot of screwy things in the name of Psychology, including oversee CIA torture. IQ is a measure of cultural adaptation and there are differences within a culture that reflect things like the individual's acceptance of the culture and also the health condition of the brain. I tend to think of this as a high level problem as yet not adequately addressed.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I found a set of tribal maps of Africa that generally seems to confirm the hypothesis, though the sources of most of them are questionable.

http://imgarcade.com/1/ethnic-map-of-africa/

 

[Axulus]

Because the test isn't perfect, it therefore measures nothing at all and is useless?

Nope. Like the GRE measures how well you do on the GRE, IQ tests measure how well you do on IQ tests.

And what do you make of the evidence that how well one does on these IQ tests (even as a child) is a better predictor of future financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Figure from Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, 1994, page 134, showing that a person's income has a much stronger relationship to IQ than his or her parent's income, meaning you are much more likely to be in poverty as an adult if you born with a low IQ than if you are born poor. There were many hot disagreements of the inferences about race, but nobody seriously challenged the authors' analysis of the data about the relationship between IQ and income. The data is available for anyone's analysis here: https://www.nlsinfo.org/investigator/pages/search.jsp

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Nope. Like the GRE measures how well you do on the GRE, IQ tests measure how well you do on IQ tests.

And what do you make of the evidence that how well one does on these IQ tests (even as a child) is a better predictor of future financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level?

Could you please post where you hear IQ is a better predictor of financial income as opposed to parental socioeconomic status? Even Malcom Gladwell says that socioeconomic status is the best predictor of income.

And the studies I am finding relating IQ with financial gain are based upon "estimated" IQs of military individuals when they were teens without regard to socioeconomic status of parents.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

2012 UK twins study concluding Socioeconomic correlation with IQ test scores in children. - Not genetic.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030320

http://www.ascd.org/publications/researchbrief/v2n21/toc.aspx

The effect of environment on the IQ of young children can be significant, particularly for children living in poverty. As the influence of poverty decreases, the importance of environmental conditions as a limiting factor on intelligence also decreases. By addressing the environmental issues created by poverty, it may be possible to weaken the link between low socioeconomic status and poor student performance on IQ (and other) tests.

What this is telling me is that socioeconomics plays a role in low test scores and low income potential. Being that low IQ scores are a result of socioeconomic environments, one would expect a correlation.

________

An interesting read without citations:
http://www.sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=37684&cn=1272