![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteThe more I think about it, the more I agree with you.Originally Posted by DavidJames
But most of the furore I have seen appears to focus on the simple allegation of an IQ differential.
I hadn't seen anything about him having a particular paper in mind - where did you see that?
Thinking further, what I found when googling was research that suggested about a 10% point difference.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you.
But most of the furore I have seen appears to focus on the simple allegation of an IQ differential.
Hope that's cleared it up for you!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?
Sorry, I think I inferred it (I think there was a mention of the paper in one report, but I actually think it was the journalist made the reference).
But the paper I'm thinking of (IQ and the Wealth of Nations) basically says much the same thing as Watson. It is a very well known (and controversial paper) and I find it inconceivable a researcher in the field would be unaware of it.
If you follow the link, you'll see a lot of criticism of the results and the ways the IQ are meaured. But what you won't find (or at least I haven't found) is any paper saying "We did our own measurements of IQ in Africa and got significantly different results from Dr Lynn et al".
I think the whole discussion is very different if you are talking about differences of 30 IQ points v.s. 10 IQ points. Even 10 points is a significant difference, but there's enough individual variation that you probably just accept "people vary" and leave it at that. But 30+ points really is a very big difference.
Yes, I agree. Your figure from the previous post of average IQ = 59 blew my socks off; it is difficult to see how a country could function if drawing from such an IQ pool.
But here is the essence of one of the problems. If that is true, then we do need to factor it into our thinking. Handing assistance money over to a country like that means we need to take it into account. But if every time someone mentions the possibility of race-based IQ differentials the world reacts with stern disapprovale and threatened dismissal, cancelling lectures and so forth, scientists with a healthy self-regard are going to give it a wide berth.
Presuambly it's acceptable to state that different cultures think in different ways? So surely it's more a matter of understanding how a specific culture responds. For example, if they chose to spend aid money on building armies, what does it matter if they have high IQs or not?
as you said yourself...
By saying 'black people have on average an IQ inferior to white people' (1) - he would merely present a fact established in his research - which some may question on various levels (sampling groups, definition of black and white, etc).
By saying 'black people are less intelligent than white people' (2) (which is what he said if I'm not mistaken), he's drawing his own conclusion from the fact above - and hence exposes himself to some degree of controversy (replacing 'IQ test scores' with 'intelligence' is a big -and erronous AFAIC- statement).
It's, to say the least, a cumbersome thing to do.
Now adding the bit about 'people who have black employees' (3) is indicative to me of a very simplistic mind, and to be honest a statement which would definately diminish the credit of any of his work to my eyes.
I don't think so, as I explained if he had said sentence (1) on its own, I doubt there would be much fuss today. But he said version (2), which would cause controversy in the world that we live in (that's just a fact) and added a very stupid statement (3) to back it up.
Last edited by Caro; 22nd-October-2007 at 12:43 PM.
Which is one of the reasons I doubt the figure (or at least that it is a culturally unbiased measure of intelligence).
Agreed, "it it's true". And if there really is that level of difference, you can understand scientists thinking "I know this is going to open a can of worms. But we have to talk about this."But here is the essence of one of the problems. If that is true, then we do need to factor it into our thinking. Handing assistance money over to a country like that means we need to take it into account. But if every time someone mentions the possibility of race-based IQ differentials the world reacts with stern disapprovale and threatened dismissal, cancelling lectures and so forth, scientists with a healthy self-regard are going to give it a wide berth.
If it's true. I must admit, I would really really like it to be proved not to be true. I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Given that, the difficulty of finding any rebuttals using hard data (i.e. "we measured and got different results" rather than "we haven't done our own tests, but we're sure Dr Lynn's results are rubbish anyhow") is worrying. But it may well be part of the political climate, that no-one wants (or can get permission) to do the relevant tests.
All my personal experience (and possibly prejudice thereof) makes me think that differences that large are going to be far more to do with environment than anything else. My feeling about "intelligence" is that an individual will have an "upper limit" to what they can understand/solve however you train them, but below that upper limit, training can make a big difference. In other words, even if the tests are culturally unbiased, someone who has spent their life worrying about the fundamental issues of food, shelter, keeping their mouth shut and not getting shot, is not going to do nearly as well as someone from the West. But even if that's true, I suspect the training has to happen more-or-less from birth. In which case it's a problem that can solve itself over time, but it will be with us for many years.
Of course, however you slice it, the "Those of us who have worked with black employees..." quote was stupid and makes Watson look like a bigot.
I believe it wasn't his research, he was merely passing on information for an interview and has been cold-shouldered because of it.
Why ? It really doesn't matter. If we separate "white" and "black" into 2 groups and accurately (or inaccurately) calculate intelligence - one of the groups is going to be smarter overall than the other. Theres perhaps a slim chance of a "draw" in the same way tossing a coin could see it land on its edgeThe whole thing is as useful as spending money to find out what bread to use for perfect "beans on toast", or as useful as Victoria Beckhams auto-biography
Not the point of this thread though. The point is someone made a comment that may or may not be true and its a bigger deal than it should be. Really, I don't know why I'm even replying anymore
I agree that simply finding one group is cleverer than another doesn't mean a lot. But finding a big difference between groups would matter a lot more. I think finding that the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is <70 would actually make quite a lot of difference (in terms of things like what aid is appropriate, what's the best way of moving the country forwards etc.)Why ? It really doesn't matter. If we separate "white" and "black" into 2 groups and accurately (or inaccurately) calculate intelligence - one of the groups is going to be smarter overall than the other. Theres perhaps a slim chance of a "draw" in the same way tossing a coin could see it land on its edge
In terms of me not wishing it to be true: If it's not true, then many millions of people will turn out to be significantly more intelligent than if it is true. I prefer the first scenario. I really don't care about where they come from or what their skin colour is, though I think it is probably better for a global society if extremes aren't concentrated in one place.
My point is the research only proved a difference in IQ test scores - making the step to say this is equal to intelligence is one of the reasons (but not the main one) of the controversy today.
The other (and most important one I think) is trying to back that up with a very stupid argument (on the employers of black people). That's the most shocking bit of it all, the fact it comes from a so-called 'scientist' created the uproar.
In summary, this was a very cumbersome, and overall, pretty stupid, way to express some concerns drawn (rightly or not) from some piece of research on IQ scores.
As DJ said, you'd expect an experienced and respected scientist to know better - unless he just wanted to draw attention on himself and his new book.
Last edited by Caro; 22nd-October-2007 at 01:48 PM.
Agreed. I've tried to keep the distinction between IQ and intelligence clear, or at least to imply the caveat "assuming IQ measures what it claims", but brevity and laziness means I haven't done so consistently. IQ is such a nice short convenient term that it's tempting to forget it's a load of rubbish...
I think anyone reading all the posts I've made will know what I'm getting at, but looking back, some of my replies are very easy to quote out of context. Which is another interesting comment on the start of this thread, I guess.
Last edited by David Franklin; 22nd-October-2007 at 01:51 PM.
A few years back Watson created another furore, when he was alleged to have said a woman should be allowed to abort if the foetus was found to have a putative "homosexual gene". Predictably, gay rights groups and pro-lifers went ballistic. Watson's defense was to take the total freedom of choice line, namely that if science could detect something reliably, a woman should be able to abort on that basis, and not have society draw a line on what was acceptable or not. For example, a basketball fan finding out her baby was likely to be too short to play basketball.
Good grief.
Good grief yourself.
Easy to point that out when, as you are quite correct, that research is from Richard Lynn, and have nothing else to disagree with.
Ok then replace the first 'his' by 'a piece of' and the same stands.
Can someone please save me from my current rep score? It's not true you know.
Anyone notice this piece in the Sunday Times?
Thing is, does this prove Watson's point, or disprove it?
Thanks for that.Anyone notice this piece in the Sunday Times?
Thing is, does this prove Watson's point, or disprove it?
I would put money on Watson declining to change his view as a result of this finding. He may be a bit doddering these days but he's clearly a scientist.
If anything, he could point to the fact that there will always be exceptions to statistically-based conclusions.
Statistics can be manipulated to show ANYTHING.
What about that Ron Meadows who used statistics to show that 2 cot deaths in the same household was highly improbable? Thus the babies must have been murdered.
I can't understand why we are even discussing it.
It's utter tosh, which is why I didn't bother to post before.
I think "utter tosh" is pretty much the general consensus. The point of the thread though is why a simple comment (tosh or otherwise) is treated like olde worlde blasphemy. Whats wrong with Watson being dismissed with sensible comments like "he may have a point but the statistics also show..." and "Watson made a stupid comment, lets move on my tea's ready" etc...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks