I can understand if you say one culture is better than other for you. For me the culture that will support freedom of speech, co operation, community, non violent, equal opportunities for all - will be a better culture than a culture that support violence, fanatic religion, separation and hate of others etc'. But - I would like to live in a world where I choose which community to live in. I based on what is best for me. I don't see IQ as something that important that I will define people by and decide who is better who is not. I will decide who is better human being by being the best human being - the one who live to support others and follow love and not ego and fear. This is the most important thing and not IQ. You can have the highest IQ and be a psychopath, so?
I don't understand why you put so much emphases on it, sorry. Would you like to live in a society if only people with high IQ, or a society that respect each other and support each other?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Don't you begin any encounter with a new person by asking them what their IQ is? :) I don't even know what my own IQ is. IQ is not important to me personally. In my life, I've been both brilliant and and idiotic.
What fascinates me about this topic is that a fact that is so pregnant with policy implications for society is so totally suppressed that (1) no one discusses it, (2) no one is allowed to discuss it, and (3) no one is objecting to the false propaganda and the censorship.
Accepting or denying facts does not indicate anything about you except... your intelligence! If one race really is genetically more intelligent than another race, then accepting that fact does not make you a racist.
One of the topics that I might like to explore is whether racism is a bad thing. We all, of course, know that it is a Very Bad Thing. But is it, really? Who knows, since that is another topic that is prohibited and so never explored.
Well you are exploring it now and you also found some articles about it - so it's not really prohibited...
I don't know about false propaganda about this subject of IQ and race. I never really heard any propaganda around this subject.
You keep saying - one race is more "intelligent" - without really exploring this word. The actual sentence should be - One race has more IQ - which is a Western measurement that focuses on the left side of the brain and refer to math, logic thinking etc' - than other race. Yes, most likely a race that uses this kind of intelligence in their every day life will also be better in it. On the other hand - in Jungle lows intelligence (Let's call it JQ) the other race is much better than the first race. It doesn't mean anything to me.. IQ is a measurement developed by western white men.. I rest my case :-)
The Rushton Jensen (2005) article disposes of those objections. It is filled with numerous citations of studies that test those ideas. The consistent finding is that measured IQ is associated with a variety of intelligence measures that cannot be influenced by culture bias or by any environmental factor. Many scientists in many studies have explored all of that by cleverly looking at adopted children, at twins, at trends over the life cycle, and at many other ways of testing alternative explanations for what is observed.
You'd have to read the paper, as well as survey the literature that has emerged in response to it. The intelligence difference really exists, apparently. The question now is what are the policy implications? Should government allow employers to hire based upon race? Etc.
I don't think you answered my questions. IQ measures one kind of intelligence. Are you saying there is only one intelligence than? In other words - it's ok to be a psychopath, as long as you have high IQ... Also it's better for any employer, no matter what the job is, to employ a psychopath with high IQ, than really nice person, reliable, friendly, with lower level of IQ.. this is what you actually saying.
I feel like I am repeating myself and we are not going anywhere with it.. By the way, scientists are again mostly western white man, ruled by left brain so it doesn't really helps. And no, I have no intention of reading it - again because IQ doesn't interest me that much. I might read about emotional intelligence though.. more interesting for me.
I'm not saying any of that. What I am saying is that "intelligence", defined as general mental aptitude, i.e. how well and how quickly the brain processes stimuli, does definitely vary by race and that these difference in the average intelligence of races is partly genetic.
"Intelligence" has a particular meaning that is reflected in the various ways that it is measured. For example, some studies use simple nonverbal tasks that all children find easy and that all children complete in about one second. Those studies measure "reaction times" and "movement times" and find statistically significant differences across race. The nature of what is being tested is very closely related to the number of neurons in the brain, how quickly they fire, and how complex the folding of the brain tissue is. These tests are measuring the performance of the brain at such a "low level" that the race differences have implications for all of the nine kinds of "intelligence". The tests are not culture biased and are not verbal or language biased.
What I think is happening here is that you really don't want to accept the hypothesis that the data seem to be supporting. That's ok. I'm just here for pleasant conversation. But if you wanted to "go somewhere further" with this, the next step would be for you to take a look at enough of the article to see for yourself the nature of the evidence and form your own opinion regarding whether the authors are biased.
And one more thing - I don't know why you keep mentioning governments and employers as even today, for a lot of different jobs, you do need to past tests.. look at the universities system - you need to have high marks in tests to get accepted.
Just using that as an important example of a policy question. In the United States it is illegal for an employer to ask about race or to consider race in any employment or supervisory decision, such as hiring, salary, promotion, job assignment, or really any other kind of significant decision.
Administering intelligence tests is, AFAIK, never done in connection with hiring or promoting or any similar decision. Such testing would be prohibitively expensive. It's much cheaper to just look at the resume, note that the person has a name and an address that suggests that he or she is African American, and pass over that resume. In the United States, that would be totally illegal. The policy question is whether it should be illegal. If sub-Sahara Africans really are morons for genetic reasons, then there are arguments on both sides, even if one is focusing solely on justice.
So far you only mentioned IQ test. You didn't mention brain tests.
I have no problem discussing it.
The article that you are reading - the research, how reliable is it? Are you aware of any researches that contradict it?
Second, going back to employers. Let's assume for the argument that it is true about white men - we are talking statistically right? so you agree that there are black man that smarter than white man - how will you know if you as an employer refuse to hire black men in general? second, again back to employment - you are saying that you are not saying what I said about psychopaths - but you are still going back to employers. What kind of qualities employers look for? is intelligence the only one?
Rushton and Jensen (2005) is densely packed with information since it is a survey article covering 30 years of research on a very active and passionately debated hypothesis set in motion by Jensen (1969). I am reading it as we converse. There are literally ten different categories of evidence in their review.
A Google search turned up hundreds of scholarly articles and books that cite the article. I downloaded a PDF copy of Wicherts (2009), which argues in opposition (that genetics plays no role).
Reliability: I am a trained social scientist, so I know some statistics and know how to read scholarly articles. But I'm not familiar with the particular statistical methods used in this field and I am completely unfamiliar with what appears to be an extensive literature that will take me months to become familiar with. After I finish Rushton (2005), I will focus on finding the latest articles on this topic to see what the scientists in this field think currently. There definitely is opposition. I suspect that "partially genetics" is winning but won't know until I review the latest articles.
The overlap is there but the difference is shocking. Only one out of 6 sub-Sahara Africans score above the median White person.
For most jobs, intelligence isn't really going to be a major consideration for an employer. But intelligence does correlate with social skills, propensity to commit crime, reliability, etc. Race is so easy to observe, and allegedly is such a strong "signal" of the hidden unknowns that employers do care about, that employers would definitely consider race if they are allowed to do so.
Keep in mind that even if IQ measured only one of the nine kinds of "intelligence", it might well be highly correlated with all nine kinds. If you have more synapses and they fire faster, you are not just going to be better at math. You might well be better at everything.
I might be an extreme example of just that. My aptitude tests as a boy of about 12 were very high across about a dozen different kinds of aptitude. (I was in approximately the same percentile in every category.) My parents told me at the time that this was unusual; that most people are particularly gifted in one or two areas and are much lower in the remaining categories.
Ref:
Jelte M. Wicherts ⁎, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans" (2009)