Black IQ

[bigdjiver]

... I'm desperately trying to recall some doggerel lines "I hid my [something] and it did grow" - can't quite get it, but it's about how things which are forced out of the open can fester when it might be better to let them stay in plain sight when the boil can be lanced.

I hid my wrath, my wrath did grow. William Blake

William Blake ... Doggerel ... Hmmm

[David Franklin]

As somebody wrote and I recently read, the way to deal with despicable arguments and opinions is to present better arguments.

Yeah, I've noticed how well that's been working for you in the religion threads (*).

Couldn't resist that 1-liner, but there's a serious point behind it. It's pretty clear you regard most (all?) of the "religious people" on the forum as mistaken, and giving in to irrationality rather than logic and reason. You have made hundreds of posts on the subject. It's clear you think your arguments are correct and well presented. And yet I don't think you have caused anyone to change their mind. What makes you think it would be any different in this case?

(*) Not that I'm saying the religious arguments are despicable, you understand.

[Ghost]

But I absolutely disagree with you about not permitting statements that might have harmful consequences. Think it through - isn't it clear that it would make meaningful dialogue on matters of morals, ethics and politics virtually impossible.

Well for me it comes down to is the dialogue actually meaningful? If it could be scientifically proven that people possessing gene X have lower intelligence than everyone else, that could be useful, provided a meaningful definition of intelligence could be determined. I fail to see what actual positive use his research in its current form can be put to I can however see a number of negative uses it can be put to.

It's the ambiguity that I object to. Proving that persons with Gene X are shorter or are more likely to have dark hair or brown eyes are all fairly easy to agree on and so disprove. Intelligence is a nebullous term.

Focussing on the bigger issue of censorship, it's a balancing act of both sides rights. Is it worth giving fascists a public forum to incite hatred in the hope that they can be convinced otherwise through discourse?

[bigdjiver]

...I fail to see what actual positive use his research in its current form can be put to ...

How many universities to build per head of population.

... Is it worth giving fascists a public forum to incite hatred in the hope that they can be convinced otherwise through discourse?...

Has anybody measured the average IQ of fascists?

[Ghost]

How many universities to build per head of population.

My old art teacher got a very high score in an IQ test by going through it and answering the ones she knew. And then giving what she thought was the most incorrect answer to the others.

Besides he'd need to conduct similar research on every other genetic / ethnic group before you could do this. And then show that doing well at IQ tests had a direct correlation to doing well at all subjects in University.

I've always found it notable that Universities don't ask for your IQ.

Has anybody measured the average IQ of fascists?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite high in some cases. There's a lot of very clever twisted logic used.

[Barry Shnikov]

Yeah, I've noticed how well that's been working for you in the religion threads (*).

Couldn't resist that 1-liner, but there's a serious point behind it. It's pretty clear you regard most (all?) of the "religious people" on the forum as mistaken, and giving in to irrationality rather than logic and reason. You have made hundreds of posts on the subject. It's clear you think your arguments are correct and well presented. And yet I don't think you have caused anyone to change their mind. What makes you think it would be any different in this case?

(*) Not that I'm saying the religious arguments are despicable, you understand.

All true, and well observed.

First, we don't know whether people reading my arguments have been persuaded. You were expecting, maybe, a light bulb over their head, "OH . MY . GOD! Barry's right!" I wasn't

Second - I presume that you are not suggesting that unacceptable arguments should be banned just 'cos one guy posting in a dance forum may not be able to present arguments that cure people of magical thinking?

[Barry Shnikov]

Focussing on the bigger issue of censorship, it's a balancing act of both sides rights. Is it worth giving fascists a public forum to incite hatred in the hope that they can be convinced otherwise through discourse?

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether it is better to risk that they go off and persuade each other not only that everything they believe is true, and also that the reason they are forbidden from saying out loud is because of a conspiracy against them rather than because they aren't able to persuade the uncommitted in open debate.

[Barry Shnikov]

Besides he'd need to conduct similar research on every other genetic / ethnic group before you could do this. And then show that doing well at IQ tests had a direct correlation to doing well at all subjects in University.

All being done.

I do not assert that there is a measurable difference of average IQ between the races or ethnic groups. I simply assert that it is not something that a scientist (or in fact any person) should be censured, reprimanded, admonished and hounded for saying.

It's interesting, though, that so far neither here nor elsewhere has anybody made the one response which would be unanswerable.

"This research shows definitively that it is not the case. Now shut up."

It would appear to be a clear possibility that the thesis Watson mused about is correct. All the more reason why he should not be treated the way he has been for saying it out loud.

I don't know Watson, but I think that if there were definitive research showing that he was wrong then he should be happy to say 'OK, well good, I'm glad we've cleared that up.'

His comment about 'anybody who has black people working for him knows its true' is a little bit worrying, however.

[Ghost]

"This research shows definitively that it is not the case. Now shut up."

But this comes back to what does IQ actually measure. Stereotypically jobs which need high intelligence are scientists, doctors and lawyers . So if his research was correct I would expect it to be impossible for "sub-saharan" people to do these jobs. I don't believe this is the case.

The other simple test is this Forum. Look at posts of people you haven't met. Can you clearly see who is "sub-saharan"?

His comment about 'anybody who has black people working for him knows its true' is a little bit worrying, however.

Yeah but to be fair he did seem to be saying that was a misquote.

[bigdjiver]

How many universities to build per head of population...

My old art teacher got a very high score in an IQ test by going through it and answering the ones she knew. And then giving what she thought was the most incorrect answer to the others.

Besides he'd need to conduct similar research on every other genetic / ethnic group before you could do this. And then show that doing well at IQ tests had a direct correlation to doing well at all subjects in University.

I've always found it notable that Universities don't ask for your IQ...

They recruit achieving high school grads, or equivalent.

IQ Scores - AssessmentPsychology.com

Your Art teacher might have been bright enough to realise that one way an IQ test designer might try to decrease the effect of guesswork would be to design questions where the most likely looking answer was the wrong one.

re IQ of fascists:

I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite high in some cases. There's a lot of very clever twisted logic used. ...

Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley (Winchester College & Sandhurst) and Goebels were two very bright cookies. which is the point. It is not the average IQ of a population that matters so much, it is the diversity of it. It only takes one to point the way, and any number can follow. If there is a large percentage of the population that cannot see beyond a teaspoonful of pigment it is something that can be exploited.
Most relationships are with one person, and it is their characteristics that matter, not what N zillion others with similarities are like.

[Ghost]

They recruit achieving high school grads, or equivalent.

That's what I find odd about his research. Why not use actual exam results?
For example had his research found that absolutely no sub-saharans acheived GCSE results above grade C last year that would be far more useful. I'm also puzzled as to how he's reached his 80/20 figure of genetic / environment

re IQ of fascists:
Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley (Winchester College & Sandhurst) and Goebels were two very bright cookies. which is the point. It is not the average IQ of a population that matters so much, it is the diversity of it. It only takes one to point the way, and any number can follow. If there is a large percentage of the population that cannot see beyond a teaspoonful of pigment it is something that can be exploited.
Most relationships are with one person, and it is their characteristics that matter, not what N zillion others with similarities are like.

[Caro]

I'm amazed to see that the obvious wasn't pointed out more in this thread.

back to the old chestnut, is IQ a true reflection of intelligence?

Here's a question.

Thoughtful answers only, no knee-jerk responses.

What actually is wrong with saying that black people are - as a result of genetic differences - less intelligent than white people?

As NZM has said

There's no reason why they can't be. The tricky part is proving/disproving it conclusively.

To accept Dr Watson's conclusions on the relative intelligence of various groups, you'd have to accept that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence.
I'm flabbergasted to see how many people are naive enough to believe such a statement.

IQ measures some aspects of intelligence, of acquirable capabilities in fact. It is heavily correlated to other variables, such as education. Can one be intelligent with no education ? Without a doubt. Can one be unintelligent with considerable amount of education? Trust I don't need to answer that one.

In fact, that's what IQ tests were originally developped for (identify which children needed more attention at school), so it's hardly a surprise to find that in modern IQ tests, highly educated recipients score more than low educated ones.


So IMO Dr Watson's research merely proves that Sub-saharian people, on average, score less in conventional IQ tests than Europeans. Hardly surprising when you consider average education levels.
And that's just considering one correlated variable, i.e. Education. To see details about some others, look here. (Note however that they use those stats to argue that IQ, and therefore intelligence, determines education level, while I argue the opposite stance, which is that education level determines IQ, and that IQ isn't a valid measure of intelligence).


Now design a test that would measure intelligence (assuming you can define it first, and you find measurable indicators for it) in a way that shows no correlation with the Environment (in the broadest sense, education, social origin, culture etc) and then you would be able to draw conclusions on the relative intelligence of different groups based on their genetics characteristics. However, those being also intimately linked to Environment biais (i.e. repartition of various genes in various populations), this is impossible to do.


However, there was something genuinely interesting behind what Dr Watson said (or the idea I think is behind what he phrased very awkwardly):
Generally speaking, we are trying to understand and solve 'black' problems (read subsaharian) with a 'white' mind (read non subsaharian). My experience of cultural differences in subsaharian Africa is such that I believe that doing that is bound to failure. Hence somehow I join Dr Watson's initial concerns about the future of Africa.

[Barry Shnikov]

{snip thoughtful comments about IQ}

The research that is being done is largely being done in the US and the researchers are doing everything they can think of to ensure that the results are informative in respect of intelligence and are not biased by social class (of which educational opportunity is an element).

The original results were quite stark but everyone immediately weighed in with criticism about how the IQ test fails to take account of this or that. Like good scientists (which they may or may not be) the researchers began refining their techniques to see if, when properly accounting for this and that, the differences would disappear.

Apparently, they don't.

I would take issue with your statement that the IQ test is not a useful indicator of intelligence. I don't think any of the scientists in the field consider that the IQ test says everything useful about intelligence, but it's a longstanding and robust tool that provides helpful information - and their sure ain't anything better that's come along.

Finally, you too didn't answer my question. What is wrong with making the statement "the average IQ of black people is lower than the average IQ of white people"? Other than asking the maker of the statement to back it up with evidence, why should we criticise him or her? Isn't it possible that it is true, and shouldn't we seek to find out if it is true, and if it is true, should we acknowledge the fact or hide from it?

[Barry Shnikov]

But this comes back to what does IQ actually measure. Stereotypically jobs which need high intelligence are scientists, doctors and lawyers . So if his research was correct I would expect it to be impossible for "sub-saharan" people to do these jobs. I don't believe this is the case.

***. We are talking about average IQs. Your statement would only be valid if it was suggested that all black IQs were lower than average white ones. I'm sure you could have thought that through for yourself.

If, say, average white IQ is 105 and average black 1Q is 95, what does that tell you about the top five percentiles?

Er, nothing, that's what. Every reason to suppose there are plenty of black people with 140+ IQs.

See, this makes me wonder if this is the problem. If the statement (which I've written so many times I'm not going to again) about average IQs is so misunderstood, perhaps that's why the reaction is so over the top.

[David Bailey]

Yeah but to be fair he did seem to be saying that was a misquote.

He said it was "out of context" I believe, not an actual misquote?

"Out of context" seems to be the standard wiggle-out clause meaning "Oops, err, didn't mean to say that, it slipped out" or something.

However, if it's an actual misquote, I'd expect him to sue the backsides off the Times... but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[Barry Shnikov]

But this comes back to what does IQ actually measure. Stereotypically jobs which need high intelligence are scientists, doctors and lawyers . So if his research was correct I would expect it to be impossible for "sub-saharan" people to do these jobs. I don't believe this is the case.

The other simple test is this Forum. Look at posts of people you haven't met. Can you clearly see who is "sub-saharan"?


Yeah but to be fair he did seem to be saying that was a misquote.

Re-reading your post, it seems to me that you are reading into the situation something which I think is wrong, and is part of the basis for my question.

If it were suggested that any ethnic group has shorter legs, more difficulty coping with infection, is taller, has a less responsive sense of smell, is more prone to myopia, this isn't something that provokes such outrage. But because it is IQ (and partly because it is black people) everyone flies off into a moral panic.

Being less intelligent isn't the same as being worth less, any more than having white skin prevents you from going shirtless in the equatorial sun. It just requires a different approach.

[Barry Shnikov]

I hid my wrath, my wrath did grow. William Blake

William Blake ... Doggerel ... Hmmm

Most poets write doggerel; it's not a criticism unless you are levelling it at something which is claimed to be poetry, when it becomes a criticism.

Shakespeare wrote doggerel, as did Pope. They did it deliberately, for effect.

But thanks for the citation.

[bigdjiver]

Here's a question.

Thoughtful answers only, no knee-jerk responses.

What actually is wrong with saying that black people are - as a result of genetic differences - less intelligent than white people?

Let me guess that you are talking that the average of a sample of "black" men and "white" men. What is your motivation for telling us this?

What colour is the most intelligent man or woman on this planet?

Why are you not mentioning the intelligence of the Chinese and Japanese?

[Ghost]

***. We are talking about average IQs. Your statement would only be valid if it was suggested that all black IQs were lower than average white ones. I'm sure you could have thought that through for yourself.

Yup which is another reason I'm unhappy with the research. Is the average the mean, median or mode? I hadn't really intended grade C to represent an average "white" grade. I just meant that such a result would be more conclusive and less "fuzzy"

If, say, average white IQ is 105 and average black 1Q is 95, what does that tell you about the top five percentiles?

Er, nothing, that's what. Every reason to suppose there are plenty of black people with 140+ IQs.

Possibly I've misunderstood, but if the premise is that sub-saharans are genetically less intelligent, then surely the top 5% also has to be less intelligent too.

See, this makes me wonder if this is the problem. If the statement (which I've written so many times I'm not going to again) about average IQs is so misunderstood, perhaps that's why the reaction is so over the top.

The fact that it is so easily misunderstood and easy to manipulate is my main problem with his research, hence my example of using actual test scores.

I think a large part of the problem is also that if group A have blue eyes or shorter legs, it doesn't really change the way they're treated. However if you could conclusively prove that a specific group genetically had significantly less intelligence (and frankly a 5% shift on an average value is nothing) that would have serious repercusions on how that group was treated (Look at Essex Girls ). Because of this there is a much greater burden on any scientist doing research along these lines to be sure they're right and the evidence is fair, unbiased, incontrevertible, and very clearly expressed. Frankly I don't feel he's acheived any of these.

[Ghost]

What colour is the most intelligent man or woman on this planet?

Christ, Buddha, Lao Tze and Mohammed were all tanned.