Liberal Creationism, or: Yippee, It’s Bell-Curve Time Again!

turtles

in the sea
What about concocting tests for purposes of proving that there is no innate correlation between skin colour and intelligence? Or rather, for purposes of finding out whether there is or not. And if there is no innate correlation, then that should be the result that it turns up. And if research suggests that there is an innate difference when there isn't, then it should be easy to pick holes in the methodology - which I thought was what had already happened with IQ tests.

You seem to be saying "of course there is no innate difference. But doing research that might prove that would be an attempt to justify racism."
The thing is that the racial classifications that they are using are the exact same ones that have been used by racists to discriminate against people in the first place. It's not the research methods and statistics that they use that are faulty, it's the classification of people along pre-determined racial lines that's problematic.

If they were really interested in the relationship between genetics and intelligence, what would really be reasonable would be to take a sampling of the entire genetic pool of the human race and subdivide it into groups based on actual genetic similarity, and then compare intelligence (finding something better than IQ tests would be a good idea too). It's following these classifications of race which have an unquestionable racist origin that makes this such bad research.

Edit: I should also add that even if they use a more scientific grouping of genetic similarity, that STILL wouldn't get rid of cultural/economic factors. They'd really have to run the tests on cross sections within similar social and economic groups, so for example middle-class germans or working-class brazillians...
 
Last edited:

matt b

Indexing all opinion
So black people tend to have black kids and white people tend to have white kids...why, exactly? Coincidence? Force of habit? :slanted:

oh for fuck's sake. 'race' is a meaningless term scientifically. it is used, as padraig rightly points out by racists to create 'difference'.

colour of skin=race in your book?
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Another hilarious round of Vimothizing on race...

The human genome mapping has finally laid to rest any idea of "Jewishness" as a racially-based identity--they've traced all Ashkenazis to a set of four common matriarchal ancestors, none of whom bear any genetic relationship to Semitic people.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Oh yeah, and IQ tests don't measure anything but your ability to score highly on IQ tests.

The type of "intelligence" they measure is a very limited and "left-brained" type that only takes a person so far in life.

Most of my ancestors were illiterate people with what seems like serious ADD and other learning disabilities looking back who ended up owning crime on the east coast. You don't have to possess a high score on an IQ tests to have traits that help you shore up resources from an "evolutionary" standpoint.
 
You don't have to possess a high score on an IQ tests to have traits that help you shore up resources from an "evolutionary" standpoint.

Indeed.

reabozo.jpg


Say 'ello to my 'lil ancestor fren'
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Oh yeah, and IQ tests don't measure anything but your ability to score highly on IQ tests.

The type of "intelligence" they measure is a very limited and "left-brained" type that only takes a person so far in life.

From the article I linked to earlier:

The theory that [Harvard zoology professor] Gould is attacking usually goes under the name of general intelligence. Its advocates, practitioners of the hybrid psychological-statistical discipline known as psychometrics, argue simply that while individuals differ in their abilities in a wide range of intellectual realms, a relationship exists among these variations that can be attributed to a common factor. This common factor is what the psychometricians label general intelligence, or g.

A brief example will illustrate the evidence they adduce for this proposition. Suppose a group of students takes a set of ten, timed mental-ability tests, five based on verbal materials (such as choosing antonyms) and five based on spatial materials (such as drawing paths through mazes). Each student will receive ten scores, and each student will have a unique profile of scores, higher on some tests than others.

Now suppose we correlate mathematically the students' scores on the five verbal tests. We will probably find them positively, though not perfectly, correlated--that is, the score on one will predict reasonably well the scores on the others. With the aid of a statistical procedure known as factor analysis, we can examine the pattern of these positive correlations and infer that they can be explained by the existence of a common factor, the most logical candidate being the "verbal ability" of the students who took the tests. Analogous results would likely occur if we factor-analyzed the set of five spatial tests.

What if we combined all ten tests in a single analysis, looking at all the possible correlations? Most likely we would find separate verbal and spatial factors at work. But those factors themselves will almost always be correlated. A superordinate, or "general," factor--g--can then be extracted to account for the commonalities across all the tests, though this factor will be revealed more by some tests than by others; such tests, known as "highly g-loaded," are taken as especially good measures of general intelligence.

[...]

Scientists make bad dictionary writers and worse philosophers. Their main skills are in constructing experiments and generating explanations for what they observe. Neither of these endeavors requires agreement on what the words involved "mean" in any deep or absolute sense, only on ways of converting the elements of the theory at issue into operations that can be carried out in an experiment and repeated later if necessary. Measurement is the most important such operation; as Kelvin pointed out long ago, without a way to measure something it cannot be studied scientifically.

This is why the oft-repeated phrase, "intelligence is nothing more than what intelligence tests measure," is, as an objection, merely a tautology. The truth is that as long as intelligence can be reliably measured--it can be, with a variety of tests--and validly applied--it can be, to predict a variety of outcomes--it is intelligence. If we suddenly started calling it "cognitive ability," "cognitive efficiency," or even "the tendency to perform well on mental tests," it would still have the same scientific properties. Nothing about the natural world would change.​

I’m definitely going to read that American Psychological Association report now!
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
this is a bullshit, reductionist argument that fails to take into consideration that the set of traits tested for in IQ and other intelligence tests are often of no use in a completely different environment. The artificial context created by the tests themselves are not easily mapped onto (or replicated in) real world situations
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
this is a bullshit, reductionist argument that fails to take into consideration that the set of traits tested for in IQ and other intelligence tests are often of no use in a completely different environment. The artificial context created by the tests themselves are not easily mapped onto (or replicated in) real world situations

I disagree. But whatever it is they are gauging, and whichever imperfections they are encumbered with, they are still important in so far as a great many people clearly find them a useful indicator of mental dexterity.

Here is the report I shall be referring to henceforth. It is a compilation of recent years’ most important scientific findings on the subject; it also forms the basis for the Slate series. A lot of text, but this is as good a summary as you are likely to get of the hereditarians’ position on the subject.

On Race

Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate & Audette, 2001). However, we believe these constructs are meaningful because the empirical findings documented in this article have been confirmed across cultures and methodologies for decades. The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and measures. [...] (p. 237 f)​

[...] The currently most commonly accepted view of human origins, the “Out-of-Africa” theory, posits that Homo sapiens arose in Africa about 150,000 years ago, expanded northward beyond Africa about 100,000 years ago, with a European–East Asian split about 41,000 years ago (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994; Stringer & McKie, 1996). In Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000) maximum likelihood tree devised on the basis of molecular genetic markers, the most distant group was the Africans, with Europeans and Asians being closer. Cavalli-Sforza observed, “All world trees place the earliest split between Africans and non-Africans, which is expected given that all humans originated in Africa” (p. 72). This is also the conclusion of other reviewers (e.g., Risch et al., 2002).

Evolutionary selection pressures were different in the hot savanna where Africans lived than in the cold northern regions Europeans experienced, or the even colder Arctic regions of East Asians. These ecological differences affected not only morphology but also behavior. It has been proposed that the farther north the populations migrated out of Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters (Rushton, 2000). As these populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians, the ecological pressures selected for larger brains, slower rates of maturation, and lower levels of testosterone—with concomitant reductions in sexual potency, aggressiveness, and impulsivity; increases in family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule following, and longevity; and the other characteristics listed in Table 3. The fact that the three-way pattern in IQ, brain size, and other traits is not unique to the United States but occurs internationally is consistent with a single, general (genetic–evolutionary) theory, whereas culture-only theory must invoke a number of highly localized, specific explanations.

As Homo sapiens migrated further away from Africa, the random genetic mutations that occur at a constant rate in all living species accumulated, along with the adaptive changes. The resulting differences in allele frequencies are sufficient for numerous and extensive genetic investigations to yield essentially the same picture and identify the same major racial groupings as did the morphological markers of classical anthropology. The greatest genetic divergence within the human species is between Africans (who have had the most time for random mutations to accumulate) and non-Africans (Cavalli-Sforza 2000; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993). Jensen (1998b, pp. 517–520) carried out a principal-components analysis of data on genetic markers from Nei and Roychoudhury (1993) and found the familiar clustering of races: (a) East Asians, (b) Europeans and East Indians, (c) South Asians and Pacific Islanders, (d) Africans, (e) North and South Amerindians and Eskimos, and (f) Aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans. Howells’s (1993) analysis of betweengroups variation in craniometric data also revealed a similar population tree. The genetic hypothesis is consistent with the latest findings on human origins and genetic variation, whereas culture-only theory is indifferent to them (Crow, 2002). (p. 265 f)​
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
On Socio-Economic Factors

The most frequently stated culture-only hypothesis is that the mean IQ differences are due to SES [Socio-Economic Status]. In fact, controlling for SES only reduces the mean Black–White group difference in IQ by about a third, around 5 IQ points. The genetic perspective does not regard this control for SES as being entirely environmental. It holds that the parents’ socioeconomic level in part reflects their genetic differences in intelligence. Moreover, according to the culture-only theory, as Black groups advance up the socioeconomic ladder, their children should be less exposed to environmental deficits and therefore should do better and, by extension, close the distance separating the Black mean with the White. In fact, the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference in IQ for higher SES levels, when measured in standard deviations, is larger (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 286–289). (p. 267)​

On Cultural Factors

Other nongenetic hypotheses are that standard IQ tests are culturally biased because the test items are not equally familiar and motivating to all groups or that they only measure familiarity with middle-class language or culture. However, despite attempts to equate items for familiarity and culture-fairness, no “culturefair” test has eliminated the mean group difference. American Blacks actually have higher average scores on culturally loaded tests than on culturally reduced tests, which is the opposite to what is found for some other groups such as Mexican Indians and East Asians. (The mean Black–White group differences are greatest on the g factor, regardless of the type of test from which g is extracted; see Section 4.) Moreover, the three-way pattern of mean Black–White–East Asian group differences occurs worldwide on culture-fair reaction time measures, which
all children can do in less than 1 s (see Section 3).

Subsequent culture-only hypotheses have pointed to specific aspects of deprivation as possible determinants of IQ. These include the following: (a) lack of reading material in the home, (b) poor cultural amenities in the home, (c) weak structural integrity of the home, (d) foreign language in the home, (e) low preschool attendance, (f) no encyclopedia in the home, (g) low level of parental education, (h) little time spent on homework, (i) low parental educational desires for child, (j) low parental interest in school work, (k) negative child self-concept (self-esteem), and (l) low child interest in school and reading. However, both within-race kinship studies and across-race adoption studies show that these environmental variables have increasingly smaller effects on the adoptees’ IQ as they reach adolescence (see Sections 5 and 7). Moreover, other studies found that
American Indians and East Asians averaged higher in IQ than Blacks, even though they averaged lower on these proposed causal factors (Coleman et al., 1966, p. 20). Another example comes from the Inuit, who live above the Arctic Circle and have higher average IQs than do either American or Jamaican Blacks (Berry, 1966; MacArthur, 1968) even though their socioeconomic conditions are extremely poor and unemployment is high (P. E. Vernon, 1965, 1979). (p. 267)​
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Wait a minute here. The first problem with this report is that recent findings seem to completely debunk the idea that we "all originated in africa", and that, in fact, there seems to be evidence of homo sapiens evolving in parallels at the same time around the earliest signs of human life we can find in Africa.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
More on Cultural Factors

Some culture-only theorists propose that SES should not be assessed in terms of crude material measures but must be seen as a complex of attitudes, aspirations, self-images, and societal stereotypes (Loury, 2002; Ogbu, 2002; Sowell, 1994). Some of these types of cultural factors have been tested as well. Matching Black and White children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators again reduces the mean group IQ difference but does not eliminate it. Black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 286–289; Jensen, 1998b, pp. 357–360). This is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean (see Section 10).

Other culture-only hypotheses have invoked Black role models, test anxiety, self-esteem, and racial stress as causal agents, but none of these have ever been consistently confirmed (Jensen, 1980, 1998b). Other ideas, such as stereotype threat (Steele, 1997), involuntary-minorities-are-castes (Ogbu, 2002), and race stigma (Loury, 2002), do not explain the low IQ of Africans south of the Sahara, where Blacks are in the majority. Nor is there any evidence from analyses of large archival data sets that unique minority-specific factors such as the history of slavery, White racism, lowered expectations, or heightened stress make cultural influences stronger for one group than for another (see Section 5). Neither can racial stigmatization (Loury, 2002) explain why East Asians average higher in IQ and brain size than Whites. A progressive theory of racial group differences must address all the known facts. (p. 268)​
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
White kids still score higher on IQ tests, even when you "adjust" for socio-economic differences by errmm having the same scientists create "culturally unbiased" tests?

This argument amounts to "white people are "smarter" at IQ tests, black men can dance and jump high"
Which would probably be fine with me if you didn't drag genes into it.
 
Last edited:

Guybrush

Dittohead
On Transracial Adoption

Transracial adoption studies provide one of the best methods for resolving the question of group differences in mean IQ. The above-average IQ scores of Black adoptees at age 7 confirmed the culture-only predictions. The results of the follow-up testing at age 17 were more ambiguous. The hereditarian model predicted that when the longitudinal study was carried out, the Black–White difference would emerge (based on the increasing size of the genetic effect on IQ with age), and this is one interpretation of the data, though a culture-only interpretation is also plausible. However, support for the hereditarian model again comes from adding the East Asian data to the mix. Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points higher than their adoptive national norms. The culture-only model cannot explain that finding. Further, it argues against the culture-only hypothesis that the high performance of East Asian children is due to “trying harder” or other cultural values emphasized by East Asian families. (p. 275 f) [But one example.]​
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Thats’s all for now. Your counter-arguments are appallingly lame thus far, Nomadologist. :D More on this tomorrow.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
On Transracial Adoption

Transracial adoption studies provide one of the best methods for resolving the question of group differences in mean IQ. The above-average IQ scores of Black adoptees at age 7 confirmed the culture-only predictions. The results of the follow-up testing at age 17 were more ambiguous. The hereditarian model predicted that when the longitudinal study was carried out, the Black–White difference would emerge (based on the increasing size of the genetic effect on IQ with age), and this is one interpretation of the data, though a culture-only interpretation is also plausible. However, support for the hereditarian model again comes from adding the East Asian data to the mix. Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points higher than their adoptive national norms. The culture-only model cannot explain that finding. Further, it argues against the culture-only hypothesis that the high performance of East Asian children is due to “trying harder” or other cultural values emphasized by East Asian families. (p. 275 f) [But one example.]​

How many times were these studies conducted, and by whom under whose auspices? Have these studies been replicated by anyone?

I highly doubt it.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
why does *anyone* still believe that it makes sense to talk about IQ as if it actually measured something real??? Why should/would/could there be a unary measure of "general intelligence"? Has anyone read Gould's Mismeasure of Man?

I have read Gould's book but still believe that IQ tests measure something real. Def. agree with Guybrush's earlier posts on the matter.

It's also clear from experience that some people are 'generally' a lot smarter than others. The highest fliers at school were ahead of the others at every subject. The lowest performers could not have matched high performers at any academic discipline, even if they had renounced all others to concentrate their efforts.

If IQ tests were of no use, then business (not talking about criminal firms here), education (British schools routinely use Cognitive Ability Tests, Verbal Reasoning and Non-Verbal Reasoning Tests to identify under-achievers) and the vast majority of psychologists (not the ones with a high profile purportedly abusing their position to spread propaganda) would not have any use for them.

If anyone thinks that you can train for IQ tests, then I issue a challenge: take the MENSA test and post a photo of your score up here (which has to be 130+ to prevent blatant cheating). Take it again after a month of training and improve by 40 points. Shouldn't be hard - right? ;)
 
Last edited:

zhao

there are no accidents
cmon we all know the real measure of intelligence lies in someones taste in music. likes indie = stupid. likes grime/dubstep = smart!
 

vimothy

yurp
Another hilarious round of Vimothizing on race...

Firstly, I don't believe I've ever written anything about race on this board, but feel free to back up your bullshit with evidence.

Secondly, I haven't written even anything about race here. I simply noted that HMLT was talking nonsense, as usual. Jews as a "race" do not equal Jews as a religion, as should be obvious to all.

The human genome mapping has finally laid to rest any idea of "Jewishness" as a racially-based identity--

Ok, fine -- there is no Jewish race and Jews do not share a common genetic heritage. I'd be happy to see some sort of a link rather than your usual pronouncements, but never mind. I'll take your word for it.

they've traced all Ashkenazis to a set of four common matriarchal ancestors, none of whom bear any genetic relationship to Semitic people.

Wait a mintue, didn't you just say the exact opposite?
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Ok, fine -- there is no Jewish race and Jews do not share a common genetic heritage. I'd be happy to see some sort of a link rather than your usual pronouncements, but never mind. I'll take your word for it.

to clarify- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE
 
Top