Well Aaron, nobody that leans towards the socioeconomic determinants denies that there is a gap. They are saying that there is no evidence to support the genetic-leaning people’s case on the matter. However, I agree that even if there was evidence for a link, the academia would do anything to suppress it. I had a psychology textbook from a few years ago and this sentiment is exactly why I think the genetic-leaning people’s case will never be taken seriously no matter if it is correct or not:
“Perhaps one of the most controversial and troubling findings in the study of intelligence is that average IQ scores differ among races…Over the years, some sectors of society have attempted to use these findings in a misguided, and at times even malicious, attempt to argue that some races are innately superior to others. For instance, in 1994, Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray touched off a bitter dispute when they published a book called The Bell Curve.”
This is dumb for two reasons. Using the word “troubling” is a loaded emotional term and suggests that this author already has a bias against the possibility that there may be a racial-genetic factor involved. Secondly, “for instance” in front of the sentence that demonized people as being idiotic racists implies that Hernstein and Murray were involved in the racial disputes that went forth. They also spent 4 sub-headings telling us why it isn’t racially determined with no retort from the opposing point of view (which there are plenty of dissenting voices in the psychological community).
Again, I lean towards the people who think that it’s socioeconomic in nature, but the bias against the geneticist camp is overwhelming. So even if the latter were correct, it would never gain traction.
It’s kind of a non issue. We are concerned on the sociological level with wealth maximization as the issue, and think that - in some form or another the market mechanism is what leads to wealth maximization, and that when people speak of wants needs and ends this is more or less at the bottom of things, and the only real way to solve things of this nature (in some form or another - as kind of the “meta” outlook on things, as it were).
That said, it is amusing to watch some libertarians talk in a rather apologetic obfuscating language to help with thier aesthetics and get really passionate about their pet theology…be it quasi/closet racists or loopy leftists. It’s a funny little dance they do.
That said - anyone who actually uses language like “white people are smarter than black people” and thinks they are saying something useful - is an arch fool. The language and actual power mechanisms that matter in sociology simply won’t allow for such statements to exist for any applicable use- and on a personal note, I think that is a good thing, and in no way do I consider myself a leftist.
The stereotypical pseudo-elitist attitude you get in a few right wingers is pretty much a self deluded confession of defeat and irrelevance.
The idea that race affects IQ is not pseudoscience… I have no doubt whatsoever that African Americans are not as intelligent as White Americans or Asian Americans on average.
First, IQ is not intelligence. As the inventor of “IQ” stated, intelligence cannot be reduced to a single number; minds are complex and not superposable like simple line segments are. Calling IQ a measure of someone’s intelligence is not science.
Second, what is the average of a 10cm-wide square and a 20-cm wide square? It’s a 15.8cm-wide square if you consider area to be important; it’s a 15cm-wide suqare if you consider width to be important, or it can be other values. With two simple physical quantities, arriving at an “average” already presents a connundrum. Now how in the hell do you average two contrived, soft-science quantities with undefined dimensions (units)? Averaging two quantities of knowledge is difficult enough, but it’s even harder with ill-defined ratios. What’s the average of an 80-year old genius and 10-year old retard? Would it be a 45-year old ordinary person? Or something else?
Anyone with Physics 101 background knows that ignoring units yields meaningless computations of no scientific worth. Playing games with numbers is a job for pseudoeconomists / econometricists, NOT actual scientists.
Third, why does any of this even matter? There are probably tons of dumb people whose labors have objective exchange values far exceeding yours.
I agree with you guys. IQ may demonstrate a certain type of intelligence, but it begs the question, what does “intelligence” actually mean? Ability to learn? Actual knowledge? It being based on standardized testing, when averaged on a mass scale, it’ll probably overlook individual variables.
With all due respect to you as a person, statistically the person is correct. With regard to the IQ scores on ethnicities, certain asymmetries exist that can be used as policy making premises, given an end goal of intelligent civil population
The argument isnt about singe people, or anecdotal groups. It is about aggregates. And as far as description of ethnic aggregates goes, there exist statistically significant asymmetries in IQ, hence for the policy end of aggregate IQ increase, ethnic discrimination is correct. Discussions over the definition of IQ or the technicals of measuring IQ are a red herring, a non sequitur, they do not address the argument that the would-be ethnicist is trying to make. Now what the ethnicist argument is good for, or what other implications it has, is a different topic. But given the preferences that the ethnicist has, his conclusions are correct.
How are they red herrings, exactly? If the justification is a statistical claim about “average IQ” of different groups, and “IQ” is implied to be an accurate measure of intelligence, then it’s perfectly legitimate to attack the efficacy of the “IQ” concept - it’s the very foundation for the statistical claim.
The argument isnt about singe people, or anecdotal groups.
Until I can make a profit or exploit some type of information for grouping people into such and such a category it is meaningless gibberish and / or metaphysical masturbations of the intellectual class to stir up a rabble for their benefit, honors, and amusements.
Groups are how the individual categorizes and utilizes them, not the other way around.
So what IQ tests measure is irellevant?? So if IQ tests measured one’s attraction to puppies then this would not change the validity of what the racists say?
Definition is the most important part of any science, claim, or discussion.
for the policy end of aggregate IQ increase, ethnic discrimination is correct
Not really. To boost society’s IQ scores, you’d have to test for the low-IQ individuals and then sterilize or murder them.
Whereas your suggestion is clearly suboptimal. Because even if you succeeded at genociding everyone with the wrong skin color, you’d wind up having to switch to my approach anyway.
I’m not sure a high-IQ society would be that great. At best, you’d have a bunch of nuclear engineers cleaning their own toilets and mowing their own lawns. At worst, you’d have a bunch of mental patients who can recite 1 million digits of pi.
Another fly in the ointment is that increasing society’s IQ is impossible since 100 is DEFINED as the average