Black IQ

[Barry Shnikov]

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?

This is why grammar is important - can't work out what you mean. (There seems to be no main verb.)
My motivation is to show that James Watson's words have caused an outbreak of politically correct hysteria. He may be right, he may be wrong. But why has he been savagely castigated?

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

Why is that important? What colour is the woman with the largest ears on the planet?

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

Many reasons. I don't know anything about that, for one. But most importantly

I AM ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW JAMES WATSON HAS BEEN TREATED BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAID.

He didn't mention any other ethnic groupings, so that isn't relevant to my query.

[Barry Shnikov]

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.

Ah, OK. You have problems with basic statistics.

4 people, 4 IQs:

B1 = 75; B2 = 115 > average IQ = 95
W1 = 110; W2 = 100 > average IQ = 105

Highest IQ is B2 - 115.

It is completely erroneous to conclude that a population with a lower average IQ also has a lower number of high IQs, let alone what you appeared to be saying was that it might have no high IQs.

[Caro]

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).

Yet they fail, as in every study IQ will be correlated with social class: and it's hardly surprising, whoever believes that everybody's got the same chances in life needs to open their eyes.
That's my point, IQ cannot be used with the purpose to show linkage between IQ test scores (which some call intelligence) and genetic characteristics (which also are linked with social class; at least at the scale of the US).

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.

To be honest, I don't even see the point in wanting to measure a concept as broad as intelligence ? I can understand the point of wanting to measure ability to learn, memorise, use language, understand spatial relationships, ease with algebra, etc, at least in a school environment (and some in a professional context too).
But trying to find out who is the most intelligent ? Surely the most intelligent is the one who managed to adapt best and make the most of their environment, and that might require slightly different abilities depending on whether you are Paris Hilton or a kid in an African village with no water.

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"?

I did, I think I'm not the only one either, there's nothing wrong with such a statement (note that you have shifted from 'intelligence' to 'average IQ' now), if only that it would be truly hard to back up with robust evidence because of our inability to define what 'black' and what 'white' is (see DJ's points on ethnic groups).

[Barry Shnikov]

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.

It isn't Watson's research, but apart from that, I think you're right about the burden of scientists work in this area to ensure that their research is good and their protocols well-designed, etc. But beyond that, the plain fact is that if there are parts of the populace with lower average IQs don't we need to know that in order to take appropriate steps?

[Ghost]

Ah, OK. You have problems with basic statistics.

4 people, 4 IQs:

B1 = 75; B2 = 115 > average IQ = 95
W1 = 110; W2 = 100 > average IQ = 105

Highest IQ is B2 - 115.

It is completely erroneous to conclude that a population with a lower average IQ also has a lower number of high IQs, let alone what you appeared to be saying was that it might have no high IQs.

I know. I was actually going to write some similar maths. Using your figures, the B group have a lower average IQ, but they also contain members who IQ is higher than the W group. So

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

saying that they are less intelligent is a manipulation of statistics.

[Sugarfoot]

creativity[/I], which is a bit like saying it doesn't take account of athletic ability.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the current IQ test based more on left brain function than right and therefore bias towards our modern society. Being creative utilises the right brain more and should be included as intelligence. After all….it is the creative people who generally start thing off. The so called intelligent left brainers market it, bottle it and sell it.

[NZ Monkey]

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.

While this is a very good point, and one which I personally believe as well, there is a small problem with voicing that opinion in a less-than-tactful way.

Here in the western First World countries, we live in an environment where being smart is considered the "measure of the man" in many respects. Society places value on academic ability and achievement. Lawyers, doctors and accountants command respect and often the financial rewards that everybody wishes they had. No parent dreams of their child becoming a plumber - despite the fact that they perform a function at least as important to society and pay packets that can match these other professions.

Telling a large group of people that they're less intelligent than another one (particularly if they happen to be a minority in the first place) is tantamount to telling them that they are less important to society as a whole in such places. You're telling them that they are lesser people. I know that might well not be the intention of the statement, but one has to consider how the statement will be perceived if one intends to get a point across. In this case, that was done poorly.

They have a right to speak about their findings, but given the blunt delivery I find it hard to be sympathetic about the abuse they've been taking over the issue.

I also still doubt the findings validity but that's an issue for another day.

[NZ Monkey]

But beyond that, the plain fact is that if there are parts of the populace with lower average IQs don't we need to know that in order to take appropriate steps?

By "parts of the population" do you mean sub-Saharan black people specifically, or are you thinking more generally?

Although I don't have any figures on populations, I find it hard to believe that there are statistically significant numbers of sub-Saharan black people in the upper middle and higher classes in either the UK or the USA. In other words, should we really be targeting race as an issue here or socio-economic status? I think the latter probably has a much higher influence on IQ's than race does but it is much more difficult to target since it covers a greater range of people.

The next question, which would almost certainly be contentious, is whether we should take steps to increase the IQ of certain groups*, or at least how far we should take those steps. The world will always need street sweepers and people to serve you a side order of fries. In any population, 50% of the people in it will be of "below average" IQ. Raising the average IQ is a good thing in my opinion but I suspect that unless there are clear gains in the fight against crime by targeting the lower sections then the most valuable approach to society is in moving the middle.

* I we probably should, but I also think that in many cases there are seriously diminishing returns as well. Certain cultures (not just racially oriented ones) are resistant to the idea that they could and should improve their lot. For some reason, the people who who fight the hardest to maintain their position in society often seem to be the ones at the bottom.....

[bigdjiver]

...He didn't mention any other ethnic groupings, so that isn't relevant to my query.

Either Dr. Watson, or the people reporting selectively what he has said, are fostering racial tensions, probably with intent.

If average intelligence matters then it matters that the white population are less intelligent than another ethnic group. Whatever we dish out as a consequence of those differences we have to be prepared to accept because of those differences.

Sunlight is a factor in causing skin cancer. The black pigment protects against the harmful UV rays. In Africa being black is a better survival characteristic than being intelligent. Being able to sprint better is a more important survival characteristic than being over intelligent.

Even in the white part of the world, at present, it seems possible that being over intelligent is not a good genetic characteristic. The less intelligent amongst the indigenous UK population seem to be breeding faster and more vigorously that those with high IQ's.

Intelligence has given a species that cannot be trusted not to misuse a pointed stick weapons of mass destruction.

[Dreadful Scathe]

No parent dreams of their child becoming a plumber - despite the fact that they perform a function at least as important to society and pay packets that can match these other professions.

That must be a difference between Scotland and NZ then, because a plumber is no less a profession than doctor here. Perhaps in the upper classes and the colonies its still seen as working class or something Or maybe you're just posh

Telling a large group of people that they're less intelligent than another one (particularly if they happen to be a minority in the first place) is tantamount to telling them that they are less important to society as a whole in such places. You're telling them that they are lesser people.

Absolute nonsense. Every group is different in someway from another group - the concept that one is lesser than another because of that difference is something not implied by the difference itself. Women drivers are statistically better drivers and get cheaper insurance - I don't feel any less of a driver because of that. If people choose to be offended by averages, statistics or generalisations, that says their group is the "weaker" , thats up to them - but really...get a life

The big annoyance with this sort of Political Correctness is that the media is reporting this as if we should automatically be offended by the statement. If the statement was about intelligence associated with hair colour rather than skin colour, it would not be treated with the same HOW DARE HE attitude. Why? There is no good reason for this difference.

I know that might well not be the intention of the statement, but one has to consider how the statement will be perceived if one intends to get a point across. In this case, that was done poorly.

They have a right to speak about their findings, but given the blunt delivery I find it hard to be sympathetic about the abuse they've been taking over the issue.

You are guilty of reading WAAAAY to much into this. Someone made a comment about intelligence in a particular group in an interview, it was reported, apparently out of context by other media, and you are using language like the above, and attaching legs it doesn't have. Hysteria

[David Bailey]

My motivation is to show that James Watson's words have caused an outbreak of politically correct hysteria. He may be right, he may be wrong. But why has he been savagely castigated?

Because he's made comments which, as read, have racist connotations - specifically the "anyone who has to deal with black employees knows..." comment, which if correctly-quoted, sounds like racist garbage to me.

Based on that comment, it sounds very much like he has racist views, and is using his "research" to reinforce those views.

Rightly or wrongly, those comments provide fodder to BNP material - "See? We told you all along, now a Nobel Laureate is agreeing with us" - and he has a greater responsibility than others to be careful with his words in this sort of area. He's big enough and old enough to know better, in other words.

[NZ Monkey]

I think you're reading waaaaay to much into what I wrote DS

That must be a difference between Scotland and NZ then, because a plumber is no less a profession than doctor here. Perhaps in the upper classes and the colonies its still seen as working class or something Or maybe you're just posh

If you'll notice - I said they are just as important and earn just as much. Of course they're a profession. They don't quite have the same esteem that a doctor does because of it though.

Absolute nonsense. Every group is different in someway from another group - the concept that one is lesser than another because of that difference is something not implied by the difference itself. Women drivers are statistically better drivers and get cheaper insurance - I don't feel any less of a driver because of that. If people choose to be offended by averages, statistics or generalisations, that says their group is the "weaker" , thats up to them - but really...get a life

If you rate someone by how far they can chuck a spear then the schmuk who can't chuck it as far is considered lesser for it.

I KNOW that life is more complicated than that, but it's still an element of the way society perceives things that are important. That matters.

Personally, it rubs me that as a driver who has never had an accident and only a single speeding ticket I pay considerably more in insurance than my neighbour who drives like a lunatic just because she's a woman. Perhaps I should get a life - but you can't tell me that's fair on a personal level.

Someone made a comment about intelligence in a particular group in an interview, it was reported, apparently out of context by other media, and you are using language like the above, and attaching legs it doesn't have. Hysteria

Not really hysteria DS. If it was reported out of context by other media then it's the fault of the media that there is any sort of furor. I feel no sympathy for the media. Actually, they're not coping much flak at all and making bundles off it. I'm in the wrong profession

[Gus]

Based on that comment, it sounds very much like he has racist views, and is using his "research" to reinforce those views.

So ... if there is research that shows that minority group X is significantly more likely to carry and use firearms and minority group Y are running 70% of the sex-slave industry in the UK, majority group Delta are predominantly responsible for Cocaine supply and minority group Alpha are carriers of disease Omega ... should all this be buried?

At what stage do we stop be a nation of free thinkers and when do we have to start kow-towing to the PC brigade and the vocal 'human-rights etc.' minority? Oh, sorry ... we already have.

[Dreadful Scathe]

If you'll notice - I said they are just as important and earn just as much. Of course they're a profession. They don't quite have the same esteem that a doctor does because of it though.

Thats my point, they DO have as much esteem as a doctor. And all I was trying to do was highlight the different perceptions even in 2 "western" societies.

If you rate someone by how far they can chuck a spear then the schmuk who can't chuck it as far is considered lesser for it.

No, not "lesser overall" which is what you seemed to be applying by your use of the word "lesser" before. Just because you can chuck a spear a shorter distance doesn't mean you can't be better in some other way. Its the distance thats lesser, not you.

As for schmuk - isn't that Yiddish for "pen1s"

Personally, it rubs me that as a driver who has never had an accident and only a single speeding ticket I pay considerably more in insurance than my neighbour who drives like a lunatic just because she's a woman. Perhaps I should get a life - but you can't tell me that's fair on a personal level.

You're missing the point - statistically they ARE better drivers - but YOU personally are a better driver than many of them. Applying statistics to "women" as a group is not insulting or harmful to you personally.

It is unfortunate it costs you money of course but thats a different issue - and I agree with you, I think thats a form of discrimination. Imagine if white people were statistically better drivers and paid a lesser premium because of that ? ooooh the uproar. (and if we use the catch-all label of black vs white - one of those groups WILL be statistically better drivers than the other )

Not really hysteria DS. If it was reported out of context by other media then it's the fault of the media that there is any sort of furor.

No, its up to us to disseminate information. You don't see me furthering the hysteria

[David Franklin]

Ah, OK. You have problems with basic statistics.

4 people, 4 IQs:

B1 = 75; B2 = 115 > average IQ = 95
W1 = 110; W2 = 100 > average IQ = 105

Highest IQ is B2 - 115.

It is completely erroneous to conclude that a population with a lower average IQ also has a lower number of high IQs

Problem is, it's not completely erroneous. In fact, unless the IQs are following a completely non-standard distribution curve(*), it's almost certainly correct.

IQs are supposed to be normally distributed with a standard deviation of around 16 (Stanford-Binet test). Roughly speaking, the standard deviation gives an idea of the 'spread' of the distribution. Only 16% of people will be one standard deviation above (or below) the mean. And that %age falls very quickly. Only 2% are 2 s.d. above the mean, 0.1% are 3 s.d. above, and a tiny 0.003% are 4 s.d. above the mean.

Now the paper Watson seems to be using as a source claims the average IQ in Equatorial New Guinea to be 59. If correct (and I am more than a little dubious), then you would find less than 1% of people having a "normal" IQ of 100 or better, and even the 0.003% with an IQ 4 s.d. above the mean would only equate to an IQ of 123. To put it into context, that would be something like the top 5% of the UK population. So the UK would have (per capita) roughly 15000 times as many people with an IQ > 123.

Now there are some assumptions made there, and IQ measurements are notoriously unreliable when you get a long way from the mean. But if those figures are even close to being correct, you can see why some commentators are saying they can't be ignored.

(*) IQ tests are specifically adjusted so that the scores are normally distributed. But I'm sure this normalisation is done for a western population, so it is possible that the distribution is very different in Africa. If it were, however, I think it is something that should definitely have been mentioned in the studies as it would be completely natural to assume a normal distribution unless told otherwise.

[David Bailey]

So ... if there is research that shows that minority group X is significantly more likely to carry and use firearms and minority group Y are running 70% of the sex-slave industry in the UK, majority group Delta are predominantly responsible for Cocaine supply and minority group Alpha are carriers of disease Omega ... should all this be buried?

Did I say that?

Or are you reading between the lines here?

If someone says "Anyone who's worked with black people knows they're stupider than white people" - which is pretty close to what Watson said - would you call that free thinking, valid research, or a racist comment?

Personally I think it's racism.

At what stage do we stop be a nation of free thinkers and when do we have to start kow-towing to the PC brigade and the vocal 'human-rights etc.' minority? Oh, sorry ... we already have.

Yes, the reaction is predictable, and some people have a vested interest in stirring things up, and yes sometimes it's ridiculous - as I said earlier in the thread, the furore over Larry Summers and his forced resignation is one of the latter type.

But Watson's got form, he seems to like to stir things up, and sometimes this just goes too far.

[Barry Shnikov]

Either Dr. Watson, or the people reporting selectively what he has said, are fostering racial tensions, probably with intent.

Whoosh!

On what do you base that assertion? Has Watson a history (highly possible that he has) of being tinged with racism? Or is that a post hoc argument?

[Barry Shnikov]

Because he's made comments which, as read, have racist connotations - specifically the "anyone who has to deal with black employees knows..." comment, which if correctly-quoted, sounds like racist garbage to me.

Based on that comment, it sounds very much like he has racist views, and is using his "research" to reinforce those views.

Rightly or wrongly, those comments provide fodder to BNP material - "See? We told you all along, now a Nobel Laureate is agreeing with us" - and he has a greater responsibility than others to be careful with his words in this sort of area. He's big enough and old enough to know better, in other words.

For the last time - WATSON HASN'T DONE THIS RESEARCH. It's nothing to do with him, except he commented on it.

[Barry Shnikov]

Absolute nonsense. Every group is different in someway from another group - the concept that one is lesser than another because of that difference is something not implied by the difference itself. Women drivers are statistically better drivers and get cheaper insurance - I don't feel any less of a driver because of that. If people choose to be offended by averages, statistics or generalisations, that says their group is the "weaker" , thats up to them - but really...get a life

I'm getting pretty sick of you saying in one paragraph what I've been struggling to articulate for 50 posts. Just stop it, will you? Puts me in a bad light.

[David Bailey]

For the last time - WATSON HASN'T DONE THIS RESEARCH. It's nothing to do with him, except he commented on it.

Errr, yes... Watson made the comments I reported, that's what I'm talking about, not the research. And I thought those comments, and the reaction to them, was what we were discussing?

Why, what are you talking about?