Race and IQ?

[Endercreeper01]

One notable difference between the races is IQ. It seems that race and IQ have some sort of connection to each other. Studies such as described here have shown a difference between IQ in races. Most notably, blacks have been shown to be less intelligent than whites overall, with an average IQ of 86, compared to the white IQ of 100.However blacks have their advantages too, as they are stronger and more athletic than other races.

However, the differences do not appear to be a result of environmental factors. They seem to be related to genetics or ancestry. It could be that it has to do with the way that different populations develop in their respective geographical regions. 

My question is how these differences could have evolved naturally. It doesn't seem like there should be any reasons for these differences to develop, except as a result of environmental conditions where the different races developed.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[nevim]

I think you should reconsider the title of this thread and perhaps rename it ‘Let the shit hit the fan’.

[koti]

2 minutes ago, nevim said:

I think you should reconsider the title of this thread and perhaps rename it ‘Let the shit diarrhea hit the fan’.

 

[nevim]

 Yeah, much better - couldn’t remember how to spell it

[Scott of the Antares]

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

blacks have been shown to be less intelligent than whites overall, with an average IQ of 86, compared to the white IQ of 100.

Going to have to lob in a ‘citation needed’ please.

[Endercreeper01]

2 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Going to have to lob in a ‘citation needed’ please.

It's in my post. 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Studies such as described here have shown a difference between IQ in races.

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Most notably, blacks have been shown to be less intelligent than whites overall,

https://xkcd.com/285/
Also, re. "Race and IQ"

You will need to start by defining race and iltelligence.

 

[Endercreeper01]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

https://xkcd.com/285/
Also, re. "Race and IQ"

You will need to start by defining race and iltelligence.

 

Race and intelligence already have commonly agreed upon notions.

And the citation is in my post. I thought I just told somebody else this...

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Studies such as described here have shown a difference between IQ in races.

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

One notable difference between the races is IQ. It seems that race and IQ have some sort of connection to each other. Studies such as described here have shown a difference between IQ in races. Most notably, blacks have been shown to be less intelligent than whites overall, with an average IQ of 86, compared to the white IQ of 100.However blacks have their advantages too, as they are stronger and more athletic than other races.

Speaking just for myself, I have during my experiences in my  life so far, noticed a connection between those despicable human beings we could call racists and bigots, and those that seemingly believe in some form of higher power and religion.

And we all know in this day and age of technological advancement and the Internet, how many will use the Internet to spread their evil and such. The Internet is obviously a great boon for society in general, but I'm sure most of us also realise it is and can be used to spread many forms of nonsense, anti science propaganda, racism, bigotry, and sexism etc etc

The real truth behind the ridiculous insinuation put in the OP, is that what really determines  IQ's are essentially environmental  and socio-economical factors and many other forms of inequality and certainly not race. 

Obviously also some individuals like bearing their shortcomings and less than desirable qualities like a badge of honour. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by beecee

[CharonY]

I am pretty sure that the studies in question will be from Rushton and/or Murray. There are a lot of counterpoints, a good overview is here. A major criticism to Rushton et al.'s work is that it does a lot of extrapolation and does not account well for non-genetic factors in his theoretical framework. E.g. he routinely ignored the fact that certain Asian groups from economically challenged regions as well as indigenous Americans have lower IQ scores.

One interesting aspect that has come up in the last years are aspects such as the fact that the IQ gap is closing over the last years (essentially the Flynn effect is stronger for the black community than for the white) as well as other aspects including e.g. the role of literacy training. But no, stating the opinions of one research group as hard fact is overselling their results to a large degree.

Marks Psychol Rep. 2010 Jun;106(3):643-64:

Quote

In eight analyses, population mean full scale IQ and literacy scores yielded correlations ranging from .79 to .99. In cohort studies, significantly larger improvements in IQ occurred in the lower half of the IQ distribution, affecting the distribution variance and skewness in the predicted manner. In addition, three Verbal subscales on the WAIS show the largest Flynn effect sizes and all four Verbal subscales are among those showing the highest racial IQ differences. This pattern of findings supports the hypothesis that both secular and racial differences in intelligence test scores have an environmental explanation: secular and racial differences in IQ are an artifact of variation in literacy skills. These findings suggest that racial IQ distributions will converge if opportunities are equalized for different population groups to achieve the same high level of literacy skills.

 

[Endercreeper01]

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

Speaking just for myself, I have during my experiences in my  life so far, noticed a connection between those despicable human beings we could call racists and bigots, and those that seemingly believe in some form of higher power and religion.

And we all know in this day and age of technological advancement and the Internet, how many will use the Internet to spread their evil and such. The Internet is obviously a great boon for society in general, but I'm sure most of us also realise it is and can be used to spread many forms of nonsense, anti science propaganda, racism, bigotry, and sexism etc etc

The real truth behind the ridiculous insinuation put in the OP, is that what really determines  IQ's are essentially environmental  and socio-economical factors and many other forms of inequality and certainly not race. 

Obviously also some individuals like bearing their shortcomings and less than desirable qualities like a badge of honour. 

You can call me a bigot all you want, and it still won't raise the black IQ above 86.

According to this, it seems there is some genetic component to such differences.

Quote

The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black–White differences in mean IQ.

In fact, the gap only grows larger when looking at African countries. The IQ goes down to 70 for Africans. 

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am pretty sure that the studies in question will be from Rushton and/or Murray. There are a lot of counterpoints, a good overview is here. A major criticism to Rushton et al.'s work is that it does a lot of extrapolation and does not account well for non-genetic factors in his theoretical framework. E.g. he routinely ignored the fact that certain Asian groups from economically challenged regions as well as indigenous Americans have lower IQ scores.

One interesting aspect that has come up in the last years are aspects such as the fact that the IQ gap is closing over the last years (essentially the Flynn effect is stronger for the black community than for the white) as well as other aspects including e.g. the role of literacy training. But no, stating the opinions of one research group as hard fact is overselling their results to a large degree.

Marks Psychol Rep. 2010 Jun;106(3):643-64:

 

When such findings are paralleled by factors such as brain size, it becomes obvious that there are hereditary factors involved.

Quote

Mean Race–IQ Differences Are Paralleled by a Matrix of Other Traits and Behaviors (Section 10) A suite of over 60 life-history variables, including rate of two-egg twinning, speed of maturation and longevity, personality and temperament, family stability and crime, sexual behavior and fertility, as well as intelligence and brain size, have been identified on which East Asian and African groups consistently average at the two ends of a continuum, with European groups intermediate, regardless of where they presently live. This race– behavior matrix constitutes a series of novel predictions derived from an evolutionary theory of the origin of races that were tested and confirmed. The culture-only model has only partially addressed this race– behavior matrix, with (sometimes contradictory) supplementary hypotheses. Our score for Section 10: hereditarian model (++); culture-only model (–)

And I don't see what environmental factors would lower the black IQ to 86.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You can call me a bigot all you want, and it still won't raise the black IQ above 86.

 

And I don't see what environmental factors would lower the black IQ to 86.

Your second obtuse avoidance statement seems to confirm the first in my opinion of course.

[Endercreeper01]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your second obtuse avoidance statement seems to confirm the first in my opinion of course.

I don't have a problem with that.

[beecee]

Just now, Endercreeper01 said:

I don't have a problem with that.

Obviously.

[CharonY]

40 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

And I don't see what environmental factors would lower the black IQ to 86.

Because you seem to ignore the link above and  perhaps think that the value is a fixed measure. However, as we know  IQ scores for everyone has changed over years, and the gap has been closing over the last decades (something that Rushton et al. tend to dispute). The fact that you do not see a connection does not mean that you can just dismiss them without informing yourself on that matter. 

Your quote above also highlighted the fact that the authors overstate their claims, again, by ignoring that among Asian groups these "consistent" differences they found are, in fact not consistent. On top of it, Folks like Wicherts et al. have found serious flaws in the data on African populations. There are a series of papers from them (and book chapters), but I would be honestly (and positively) surprised if you were interested in reading them.

[Sensei]

Studies which don't take into account e.g. material status of parents, their own level of education, can result in inappropriate conclusions.

Parents with better education, who have time and willingness to teach their children, talking to, discussing with them (not just giving orders!), giving them interesting games, books, interesting toys to play, which develop their intelligence, will have obviously higher intelligence than kids of material poor, uneducated parents with limited horizons..

In development of brain, there is important diet, in either pregnancy and childhood. Richer parents have more money for more diverse diet.

ps. To estimate influence of environment there should be performed large scale studies, IQ tests on single-cell same-sex twins, separated in early childhood, which have been placed in dramatically different environments..

ps2. The number of children also plays a role, how much time parents can spend with each of them.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Sensei

[Endercreeper01]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Because you seem to ignore the link above and  perhaps think that the value is a fixed measure. However, as we know  IQ scores for everyone has changed over years, and the gap has been closing over the last decades (something that Rushton et al. tend to dispute). The fact that you do not see a connection does not mean that you can just dismiss them without informing yourself on that matter. 

Your quote above also highlighted the fact that the authors overstate their claims, again, by ignoring that among Asian groups these "consistent" differences they found are, in fact not consistent. On top of it, Folks like Wicherts et al. have found serious flaws in the data on African populations. There are a series of papers from them (and book chapters), but I would be honestly (and positively) surprised if you were interested in reading them.

The gap is still significant even if it has been closed by 4 points. A gap of 10 points is still a large gap in IQ. The gap has only been closing as a result of the Flynn effect.

What would be so different about the environments of African Americans than white Americans that could possibly lead to a 10 pint IQ difference? 

My quote does not highlight any non-consistent finding regarding Asians.

The data consistently results in findings of races differing in IQ.

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Studies which don't take into account e.g. material status of parents, their own level of education, can result in inappropriate conclusions.

Parents with better education, who have time and willingness to teach their children, talking to, discussing with them (not just giving orders!), giving them interesting games, books, interesting toys to play, which develop their intelligence, will have obviously higher intelligence than kids of material poor, uneducated parents with limited horizons..

In development of brain, there is important diet, in either pregnancy and childhood. Richer parents have more money for more diverse diet.

ps. To estimate influence of environment there should be performed large scale studies, IQ tests on single-cell same-sex twins, separated in early childhood, which have been placed in dramatically different environments..

ps2. The number of children also plays a role, how much time parents can spend with each of them.

Studies have consistently shown otherwise, in that environment is clearly not a factor.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

My quote does not highlight any non-consistent finding regarding Asians.

Geez, if you only read one source it is obvious why you won't find inconsistencies. My point is the following. Rushton has stated that there are clear and consistent differences between blacks, whites and Asians for a large set of traits. And he further claims that for all these massively divergent traits (including rather weird ones like temperament) he claims that they all follow the same pattern with black on one end, Asians on the other and whites in the middle. 

However, everyone working with epidemiological data will be massively surprised that things fall into such neat categories as virtually no other epidemiological data does. The most obvious one that I have mentioned a few times is that indigenous Americans who are usually placed closer to Asian populations score lower rather than higher than white folks. Rushton also propsed that different human popualtions have different fertilty and propagation strategies, with Asians having the longest gestation time and highest IQ. Yet, when looking at the data we find that certain Asian subgroups (including Hmong, Cambodians) are actually placed lower than whites in certain factors. I.e. the sweeping generalization that Rushton made is inconsistent with recent findings and puts the dominant role of genetics into question. But since you have so far ignored even the simple linked article I linked earlier, it is clear that a discussion is not to be had here.

[YaDinghus]

Are we really entertainig this idea, even by contradicting it?

[StringJunky]

I think the OP should be advised to look up past discussions on this topic,.

[Endercreeper01]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Geez, if you only read one source it is obvious why you won't find inconsistencies. My point is the following. Rushton has stated that there are clear and consistent differences between blacks, whites and Asians for a large set of traits. And he further claims that for all these massively divergent traits (including rather weird ones like temperament) he claims that they all follow the same pattern with black on one end, Asians on the other and whites in the middle. 

However, everyone working with epidemiological data will be massively surprised that things fall into such neat categories as virtually no other epidemiological data does. The most obvious one that I have mentioned a few times is that indigenous Americans who are usually placed closer to Asian populations score lower rather than higher than white folks. Rushton also propsed that different human popualtions have different fertilty and propagation strategies, with Asians having the longest gestation time and highest IQ. Yet, when looking at the data we find that certain Asian subgroups (including Hmong, Cambodians) are actually placed lower than whites in certain factors. I.e. the sweeping generalization that Rushton made is inconsistent with recent findings and puts the dominant role of genetics into question. But since you have so far ignored even the simple linked article I linked earlier, it is clear that a discussion is not to be had here.

It does not mean that the factors are not genetic if there are inconsistencies with the Asian population. The Asian IQ is a mere 5 point average higher than the white IQ, which doesn't seem like a big difference. Therefore it doesn't cause questions about the role in genetics to find inconsistencies in the Asian population, because of a small IQ gap. Consistencies are still present with the white and black populations.

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

 A gap of 10 points is still a large gap in IQ. 

And yet you say:

50 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

 The Asian IQ is a mere 5 point average higher than the white IQ, which doesn't seem like a big difference. 

in the space of 5 points it's gone from "large" to "mere" I sense you are trying to semantically magnify the effect that whites are cleverer than blacks but diminish the effect that Asians are cleverer than whites. I sense you have a racist agenda.

[mistermack]

This is the problem with calling psychology a science. It gives respectability to concepts like IQ which are actually really fuzzy. 

You then get the phenomenon where blacks are gaining IQ points as social conditions change. If IQ was a direct measure of intelligence, that would be impossible. 

Psychology is as much art as science. Lots of guesswork and imagination go into it. You have to take it with a pinch of salt, and extract the useful and discard the bull.

[Ten oz]

15 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

One notable difference between the races is IQ. It seems that race and IQ have some sort of connection to each other. Studies such as described here have shown a difference between IQ in races. Most notably, blacks have been shown to be less intelligent than whites overall, with an average IQ of 86, compared to the white IQ of 100.However blacks have their advantages too, as they are stronger and more athletic than other races.

However, the differences do not appear to be a result of environmental factors. They seem to be related to genetics or ancestry. It could be that it has to do with the way that different populations develop in their respective geographical regions. 

My question is how these differences could have evolved naturally. It doesn't seem like there should be any reasons for these differences to develop, except as a result of environmental conditions where the different races developed.

CharonY has done a good job addressing the science on this and StringJunky had an excellent point about previous discussion on this issue. You don't seem interested in either. So I will take a different approach. Let's pretend you are right. IQ tests are terrific ways to fundamentally evaluate an individuals capacity to process, learn, use, and understand knowledge. Let's also pretend Race is a clear cut thing and everyone fits neatly into a racial category. Then lets ignore other all other factors that can impact IQ like age, health, lifestyle, and etc.What do the averages say about you specifically? People on average having a specific IQ score does not mean you have that IQ score. Even accepting all your conditions as true one still must be evaluated as an individual. Accepting all your conditions as true there are still many black people far above the average and many white people far below the white average. 

[YaDinghus]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

This is the problem with calling psychology a science. It gives respectability to concepts like IQ which are actually really fuzzy. 

You then get the phenomenon where blacks are gaining IQ points as social conditions change. If IQ was a direct measure of intelligence, that would be impossible. 

Psychology is as much art as science. Lots of guesswork and imagination go into it. You have to take it with a pinch of salt, and extract the useful and discard the bull.

Psychology has become a 'solid' science in recent decades - it's come a long way since Sigmund Freud. Yes there is still a lot of guesswork involved, but this guesswork is now structured around evidence and falsifiable theories, and not just 'what sounds good'. Also IQ tests have been refined to reflect pattern recognition and logic as opposed to cultural knowledge and learnd skills. This might be one reason why black and latin particupants in IQ tests used to score lower than white people, because they couldn't compete on the cultural knowledge sections that were designed to test a white person's intelligence. It doesn't explain why Asians would have scored better than white people, though