Race and IQ?

[mistermack]

Psychologists will naturally defend their field, but from where I'm looking, psychology has gone from absolute junk science to highly suspect.

And the core problem is that people involved massively over claim. About the only thing you can claim for an IQ test, is that the high scorers are good at doing that type of test. Once you go any further, you're just guessing. 

I'm nearly 68, and I can remember in my young days people were firmly convinced that no white man would ever be world heavyweight champion boxer ever again. And at the time, it seemed a quite persuasive notion. The facts on the ground were undeniable. It really became the perceived wisdom by boxing "experts" who had a lifetime of experience.

Then along came the Klitchko brothers, and they showed just how ridiculous it is to give any weight to short term racial trends. 

In terms of genetics, the entire human race is very closely related. There just isn't enough genetic difference for there to be a noticeable intelligence difference. The only real genetic difference between whites and sub-Saharan black dna is a little bit of Neanderthal dna in the whites, that blacks don't have. It's not very likely that that is enough to make an inherent intelligence difference. And if anything, modern humans were very slightly more intellectual than Neanderthals. That's if you go by the artwork and tool technology. But that's probably as misleading as an IQ test.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Psychologists will naturally defend their field, but from where I'm looking, psychology has gone from absolute junk science to highly suspect.

And the core problem is that people involved massively over claim. About the only thing you can claim for an IQ test, is that the high scorers are good at doing that type of test. Once you go any further, you're just guessing. 

IQ tests were originally designed for subjects with specific cognitive deficits and they are a way  of finding which parts of the cognition set are problematic and need assistance with. They were not intended to measure people with normal cognition. It's a tool for a specialist not a layman.

Edited June 5, 2018 by StringJunky

[Endercreeper01]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In terms of genetics, the entire human race is very closely related. There just isn't enough genetic difference for there to be a noticeable intelligence difference. The only real genetic difference between whites and sub-Saharan black dna is a little bit of Neanderthal dna in the whites, that blacks don't have. It's not very likely that that is enough to make an inherent intelligence difference. And if anything, modern humans were very slightly more intellectual than Neanderthals. That's if you go by the artwork and tool technology. But that's probably as misleading as an IQ test.

Humans and chimpanzees share about 99% DNA, and humans are much more intelligent than chimpanzees.

There is still much room for difference within a small percentage of DNA difference.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Humans and chimpanzees share about 99% DNA, and humans are much more intelligent than chimpanzees.

Only by our own metric. What's not intelligence about this?:

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Humans and chimpanzees share about 99% DNA, and humans are much more intelligent than chimpanzees.

There is still much room for difference within a small percentage of DNA difference.

 

All your posts just seem to strive for a reason to feel superior to others, I look forward to the day you realise, there's only one person you are capable of being superior too; I'll let you guess whom that might be.

[mistermack]

In any case, the 99% figure is misleading. In fact, the difference between a human and a chimp is twelve times as great as the difference between two humans.

The more important contrast, is the evolutionary time back to the most recent common ancestor. With humans and chimps, it's about seven million years. With Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, it's more like 70,000 years separation, which is not much of a blip in evolutionary terms.

[YaDinghus]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

All your posts just seem to strive for a reason to feel superior to others, I look forward to the day you realise, there's only one person you are capable of being superior too; I'll let you guess whom that might be.

I wonder what they are trying to compensate

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

All your posts just seem to strive for a reason to feel superior to others, I look forward to the day you realise, there's only one person you are capable of being superior too; I'll let you guess whom that might be.

Everybody, so far, who has promoted such a view has this need to feel special.

[YaDinghus]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In any case, the 99% figure is misleading. In fact, the difference between a human and a chimp is twelve times as great as the difference between two humans.

The more important contrast, is the evolutionary time back to the most recent common ancestor. With humans and chimps, it's about seven million years. With Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, it's more like 70,000 years separation, which is not much of a blip in evolutionary terms.

70ka ago the first now europeans supposedly left Africa, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened multiple times over again. Consider the Murish invasion of the Iberian Peninsula during the middle ages and the spread of Islam in Europe until the Reconquista (Wikipedia)

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Everybody, so far, who has promoted such a view has this need to feel special.

Paradoxically, they are. 

[StringJunky]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Paradoxically, they are. 

Yeah.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Psychologists will naturally defend their field, but from where I'm looking, psychology has gone from absolute junk science to highly suspect.

I think that is too much a of a generalization. There is pretty good work out there, including folks who have systematically tested the bias in IQ tests, for example. Unfortunately it is the folks with weak data who tend to inflate the importance and accuracy of their results.

 

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

He should know that black ones are slightly bigger on average, but it's not worth worrying about. 

Ironically that is also a stereotype that has not really a lot substance.

[Endercreeper01]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Maybe it's a bit of penis envy that's nagging at Endercreeper? Has some woman been unkind in his past? 

He should know that black ones are slightly bigger on average, but it's not worth worrying about. 

I've never heard of an insult like that, you must be a very creative person to come up with something like that.

54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that is too much a of a generalization. There is pretty good work out there, including folks who have systematically tested the bias in IQ tests, for example. Unfortunately it is the folks with weak data who tend to inflate the importance and accuracy of their results.

A 14 to a 10 point difference is still a significant difference. What would be so different about the environments of African Americans compared to white Americans that would cause a 10 point IQ difference?  It doesn't seem like there is anything that could, so it is most likely genetic and/or hereditary.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

A 14 to a 10 point difference is still a significant difference. What would be so different about the environments of African Americans compared to white Americans that would cause a 10 point IQ difference? 

 

Poverty.

5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

so it is most likely genetic and/or hereditary.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I look forward to the day you realise, there's only one person you are capable of being superior too; I'll let you guess whom that might be.

I can wait...

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

We're done here. I have hidden a number of insults, as they are against rule 2.1 and are also off-topic.

Hanging one's hat on a single study published by a racist and relying on other racist studies is not a direction compatible with this site. Anyone with such an agenda can take it elsewhere.