Race and Intelligence

[Memammal]

Your sources are laughable. Would you like to reference a panel of academic psychologists? Try the APA for example.

The sources that I used reported the findings of scientific studies. They may be laughable (and in fact, may refer to the same study), but the findings are not.

 

I added a PS to my previous post re the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study

Edited May 27, 2016 by Memammal

[Mikemikev]

My sources reported the results of scientific studies. They may be laughable, but the studies are not.

So why can't you reference an association of academic psychologists saying IQ is invalid? (Hint: because they don't)

 

Try this: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mikemikev

[EdEarl]

You summarize 30 years first.

 

This thread is nonsense, bye.

[Mikemikev]

You summarize 30 years first.

 

This thread is nonsense, bye.

I did, post 3.

 

Re Minnesota

MTRAS IQs reverted to population in adulthood.

A source above (a newspaper) claims IQ is flawed because it doesn't capture all ability. Nobody claimed it did.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Memammal]

In the book that I referred to earlier, Scott Atran, Anthropologist, Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris wrote the following re IQ:

 

There is no reason to believe, and much reason not to believe, that the measure of a so-called "IQ" in any way reflects some basic cognitive capacity or "natural kind" of the human mind. The domain-general measure of IQ isn't motivated by any recent discovery of cognitive or developmental psychology...

IQ is a general measure of socially acceptable categorization and reasoning skills. IQ tests were designed in behaviorism's heydey, when there was little interest in cognitive structure...

Nobody has the slightest causal account of how and why genes, singly or in combination, might affect IQ. I don't think it's because the problem is too hard but because IQ is a specious rather than a natural kind.

[Mikemikev]

In the book that I referred to earlier, Scott Atran, Anthropologist, Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris wrote the following re IQ:

 

There is no reason to believe, and much reason not to believe, that the measure of a so-called "IQ" in any way reflects some basic cognitive capacity or "natural kind" of the human mind. The domain-general measure of IQ isn't motivated by any recent discovery of cognitive or developmental psychology...

IQ is a general measure of socially acceptable categorization and reasoning skills. IQ tests were designed in behaviorism's heydey, when there was little interest in cognitive structure...

Nobody has the slightest causal account of how and why genes, singly or in combination, might affect IQ. I don't think it's because the problem is too hard but because IQ is a specious rather than a natural kind.

 

I'm certain you can copy paste a lot of quotes where people doubt the validity of IQ. Your above quote appears to just dismiss it, without actually engaging on its points of validity, such as predictive validity and stability. Can you put together an argument against IQ, without copy pasting cherry picked people who agree with your pre ordained conclusion?

 

Try reading the APA paper, and respond to that.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mikemikev

[iNow]

So presumably you have some data showing no correlation between race and intelligence? Or is your "science" based on parroting the politically correct position du jour?

You're missing the point. Genetics plays a role in intelligence, but that is not based on melanin content in the skin. The concept of race is more of a social construct, and while sometimes useful as a simple classification, does not apply to the broader concept of intelligence (which is itself extremely difficult to define since it comes in so many forms).

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87551-did-humans-evolve-into-separate-races-that-differ-in-mental-traits/?p=919522

[Mikemikev]

You're missing the point. Genetics plays a role in intelligence, but that is not based on melanin content in the skin. The concept of race is more of a social construct, and while sometimes useful as a simple classification, does not apply to the broader concept of intelligence (which is itself extremely difficult to define since it comes in so many forms).

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87551-did-humans-evolve-into-separate-races-that-differ-in-mental-traits/?p=919522

 

Can you quote me claiming the genetic role in intelligence is based on melanin content in the skin? Or is that some cheap strawman nonsense you made up?

[iNow]

Fair enough. If it's not melanin content, then you need to define race (and more precisely than "same as Darwin did based on ancestry." Ancestry is a different concept entirely from race, yet you're conflating them. Define race (if you're not using skin color, then what?) and we'll go from there.

[Mikemikev]

Fair enough. If it's not melanin content, then you need to define race (and more precisely than "same as Darwin did based on ancestry." Ancestry is a different concept entirely from race, yet you're conflating them. Define race (if you're not using skin color, then what?) and we'll go from there.

It's defined by shared ancestry. This is how biological taxonomy is defined. What confuses you about it? Race is just a short word meaning "a group which shares ancestry versus other groups at the infrasubspecific level".

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mikemikev

[iNow]

Me: Race is not the same concept as ancestry. Will you define race without conflating it with ancestry?

You: It's defined by shared ancestry. What confuses you?

 

Well... I share ancestry with wolves, too, if one goes back far enough. Also fish and insects and bacteria. How is that helpful?

 

HINT: It's not. You're talking bollocks.

[Mikemikev]

Me: Race is not the same concept as ancestry. Will you define race without conflating it with ancestry?You: It's defined by shared ancestry. What confuses you?Well... I share ancestry with wolves, too, if one goes back far enough. Also fish and insects and bacteria. How is that helpful?HINT: It's not. You're talking bollocks.

Ah I see what's confusing you. Organisms are grouped by degree of shared ancestry, not whether they ever shared any ancestry at all.

 

PS. You fail high school biology.

Posters in the thread can look at this reference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zbrmn39/revision

[iNow]

I can see you have no interest in addressing this topic seriously. If you do, then kindly please answer this question.

 

You say that organisms are grouped by degree of shared ancestry. In context of homo sapiens and this category you keep calling race, where specifically does the grouping begin and end? What are the objective thresholds you're using for your categorization (since you've already shared it's unrelated to skin color)?

[Mikemikev]

I can see you have no interest in addressing this topic seriously.

How dare you say this? I do not have to tolerate condescension from an ignoramus. I am happy to ignore your nonsense. Watch your step.

 

If you do, then kindly please answer this question.You say that organisms are grouped by degree of shared ancestry. In context of homo sapiens and this category you keep calling race, where specifically does the grouping begin and end? What are the objective thresholds you're using for your categorization (since you've already shared it's unrelated to skin color)?

It doesn't "begin or end". Organisms are more or less related. The taxonomy scales to any level. Ancestry can be inferred from genetic or phenetic similarity. Both methods agree well.

[iNow]

Organisms are more or less related. The taxonomy scales to any level. Ancestry can be inferred from genetic or phenetic similarity.

You continue to evade the question. Nobody disputes that organisms are "more or less related."

 

The question to you is how you're categorizing race and where is the split between one and another?

Since you've now introduced new terms, I will also ask what genetic and/or phenotypic differences you believe signify the threshold between one race and another?

 

Do feel free to lash out at me emotionally and embarrass yourself like a mediocre troll, or alternatively stand by your convictions and attempt to address my question seriously.

Edited May 27, 2016 by iNow

[Mikemikev]

You continue to evade the question. Nobody disputes that organisms are "more or less related."The question to you is how you're categorizing race and where is the split between one and another?Since you've now introduced new terms, I will also ask what genetic and/or phenotypic differences you believe signify the threshold between one race and another?Do feel free to lash out at me emotionally and embarrass yourself like a mediocre troll, or alternatively stand by your convictions and attempt to address my question seriously.

No I'm just becoming more precise to lower myself to your level of ignorance. How dare you accuse me of not discussing seriously when you cannot understand the difference between relative shared ancestry and any shared ancestry, which all organisms have.

 

Ancestry has been inferred by non metric skull traits a la Blumenbach, visual inspection by all of us, and genetic similarity. Genetic similarity is the best method, but they tend to agree pretty well. Known personal history and self identified race matches genetic race very well.

[DrmDoc]

It's observed that intelligence measured by IQ differs consistently by nation and race. Is this due to genetics or the environment and culture, or some combination? What arguments and data support your view?

 

If you are trying to present a view of one group of people being genetically superior or inferior to another in this forum, you will be as successful here as a creationist's vie for the Nobel Prize in Science. The veil of science in this racially charged area of discussion is transparently racist and unforgivingly ignorant. Genetically, all humanity shares the same ancestry and intellectual potential. No convincing contrary genetic evidence has ever presented or existed in any arena of cogent, empirical, universally accepted science; therefore, one may only conclude your efforts here are likely personal. If I may inquire, is this personal?

[iNow]

No I'm just becoming more precise to lower myself to your level of ignorance. How dare you accuse me of not discussing seriously when you cannot understand the difference between relative shared ancestry and any shared ancestry, which all organisms have.

 

Ancestry has been inferred by non metric skull traits a la Blumenbach, visual inspection by all of us, and genetic similarity. Genetic similarity is the best method, but they tend to agree pretty well. Known personal history and self identified race matches genetic race very well.

Precisely as I thought. You're not worth anyone's time. Appreciate the quick confirmation.

[StringJunky]

No I'm just becoming more precise to lower myself to your level of ignorance. How dare you accuse me of not discussing seriously when you cannot understand the difference between relative shared ancestry and any shared ancestry, which all organisms have.

 

Ancestry has been inferred by non metric skull traits a la Blumenbach, visual inspection by all of us, and genetic similarity. Genetic similarity is the best method, but they tend to agree pretty well. Known personal history and self identified race matches genetic race very well.

We are one race; the human race.

[Mikemikev]

We are one race; the human race.

Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies.

 

I apologise, I seem to have come across a forum of absolute morons.

 

Carry on as you were.

[iNow]

[Mikemikev]

If you are trying to present a view of one group of people being genetically superior or inferior to another in this forum, you will be as successful here as a creationist's vie for the Nobel Prize in Science. The veil of science in this racially charged area of discussion is transparently racist and unforgivingly ignorant. Genetically, all humanity shares the same ancestry and intellectual potential. No convincing contrary genetic evidence has ever presented or existed in any arena of cogent, empirical, universally accepted science; therefore, one may only conclude your efforts here are likely personal. If I may inquire, is this personal?

You write some nonsense about us all sharing the same ancestry, add your fantasy belief we are all the same intellectually, hypocritically and falsely claim I have no evidence, then launch into the usual attempted ad hominem. Why not engage on the points I raised, such as consistent IQ differences? What is your explanation?

[DrmDoc]

You write some nonsense about us all sharing the same ancestry, add your fantasy belief we are all the same intellectually, hypocritically and falsely claim I have no evidence, then launch into the usual attempted ad hominem. Why not engage on the points I raised, such as consistent IQ differences? What is your explanation?

 

Seriously, is this personal? What injustice have you or your ancestors suffered that has incited such ire and vitriol?

[Mikemikev]

Seriously, is this personal? What injustice have you or your ancestors suffered that has incited such ire and vitriol?

 

You are making an ad hominem argument. This is because you are incapable of addressing the question.

[StringJunky]

Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies.

 

I apologise, I seem to have come across a forum of absolute morons.

 

Carry on as you were.

I do miss being a child; everything so cut and dried and black and white