Philosophical Vegan Forum

I was quite surprised to see this article. I would have assumed that IQ and race/ethnicity had no or smaller correlation. However I checked into it for a few hours yesterday after I saw this article and it appears that the correlation is real and not in scientific dispute.

I realized some of my points below have been touched on above already by others but just wanted to summarize my thoughts.

While there is some doubt and dispute about the relationship between IQ and intelligence, it seemed to me that there probably is a correlation between the two, and perhaps quite a strong one. There are results out there that have found/claimed correlations if you give people a test on a problem solving task that is entirely unrelated to the type of intelligence (logical reasoning, maths etc) tested on IQ tests. There is also the fact that IQ predicts things like career success, even avoidance of death and other things.

There is an argument that since the IQ test was designed by whites and then tested on blacks to demonstrate their inferior intelligence it may be biased in some way. It may test the type of "intelligence" prized by whites. I remember as kids my brothers and sisters used to design games. And the person designing the game tended to win it. However this argument does not really explain why people from Japan, China and other Asian countries are outscoring Europeans. Jews also beat other whites. Overall, this argument seems to be more of an emotional and hopeful one since we want it to be true that there are no real racial differences in IQ. But it doesn't seem to work.

It does seem that education, healthcare and nutrition possibly have an effect on IQ. And it does seem that blacks in American have worse education/health/nutrition that whites. Of course, sub-saharan Africans (who also score poorly on IQ tests according to some sources) also have worse education/health/nutrition. Given that IQ is hereditable, it's also possible that worse education, health and nutrition could start to exaggerate IQ differences across populations, compounding them over generations (I don't know enough about genetics to be able to say if this is a sound point or not for sure).

I think this is the most likely explanation for at least part of the difference. The Flynn effect also suggests that whites of 2 generations ago had about the same IQ as blacks now, and it's probably fair to say that blacks now, at least in Sub-saharan African and possibly in deprived areas of America, have about the same education and health and nutrition levels of whites 2 generations ago.

Related to the above arguments, there is also a relationship between class and IQ. Since blacks are on average in the lower classes in the US, and blacks in Africa have living standards that would put most of them in the lower class by Western standards, it can be argued that the reported average lower IQ of blacks is simply due to the average class that they are currently in. Since black skin I believe is just protection against sunburn and other effects of the sun, while white skin is needed to absorb vitamin D in other climates, it doesn't really make sense that skin colour specifically is related to IQ (although this argued may not work as decisively when we consider race to be more than colour; there are also differences in physical characteristics).

Why talk about it? It may very likely be counter productive to raise this issue at all, since it will lead to more racism and embolden white supremacists and so on, and make black people feel angry and damage race relations. However on the other hand there is a broad argument that the truth is almost always good, and secrecy is almost always bad, that I subscribe to, and we should not be shutting down the truth. There is a specific argument that's possible here also, that achieving racial equality may require equality of nutrition, education and health care from birth presumably funded by the government in addition to affirmative action policies. Affirmative action may not work as a stand alone policy if some races have lower IQ due to disadvantages of health and nutrition. That is not a conclusion I'm making so much as a possible valid debate that could be started.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm Not at all controversial. Anyone who has studies a bit of psych testing knows that Stanford Binet type tests are among the most valid and reliable tests available.

The claim you're making here is easily refuted, there are a variety of scientists that have argued against the notion of general intelligence and/or the ability to test for it. For example, Gould's book Mismeasure of Man.

There are two basic forms of criticism regarding IQ testing. Firstly some argue against the very notion of generalized intelligence (e.g., Gould) while others may agree that such a property exists but that there is no good way to evaluate it cross-culturally.

The Stanford Binet tests is reliable but suggesting that its "valid" is incoherent (tests aren't valid or invalid). The question is whether the test accurately measures a real property and that is the key source of controversy.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm That is exactily what I mean by bullshit excuse.

I still have no idea what you mean by this nor are you addressing anything that was discussed.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm IQ tests measure intelligence and not "perceived intelligence." It is not a subjective test.

You're ignoring the point, behavioral traits can impact intelligence by enforcing the sorts of behaviors that tend to develop greater intelligence. This was something you seemed to dispute.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm You are severely under estimating analysts ability of controlling for such variables.

Its not just a matter of the mathematics but having good data-sets. People have found correlations between personality traits and intelligence but the overall picture is not clear.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm There are good reasons to help people out of poverty and conditions that are difficult to break out of. Are you saying that some impoverished people deserve more help than others? If so you have a lot more explaining to do.

I'm suggesting that the reason for the poverty is an important consideration. Ethnic groups have been primarily marginalized out of some sort of racist ideology and those ideologies are still alive and well throughout the world. So, yes, some impoverished people would deserve more help than others because they are being actively marginalized by a subset of society.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm ??????? I wrote that it should be merit based.

But its not which is just the issue.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:02 am The claim you're making here is easily refuted, there are a variety of scientists that have argued against the notion of general intelligence and/or the ability to test for it. For example, Gould's book Mismeasure of Man.

There are two basic forms of criticism regarding IQ testing. Firstly some argue against the very notion of generalized intelligence (e.g., Gould) while others may agree that such a property exists but that there is no good way to evaluate it cross-culturally.

I am aware of such criticism and i totally disagree with such claims. One thing that can't be disputed is the correlation between IQ scores and career success (i.e. higher pay) and this seems to be irrelevant of race, i.e, a white person with an IQ score of 90 makes the same, on average, as a black person with an IQ score of 90.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:02 amThe Stanford Binet tests is reliable but suggesting that its "valid" is incoherent (tests aren't valid or invalid). The question is whether the test accurately measures a real property and that is the key source of controversy.

Yes and the term for that is "valid."

" When people talk about psychological tests, they often ask whether the test is valid or not. What exactly does this mean? Validity is a measure of how well a test measures what it claims to measure."

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm That is exactily what I mean by bullshit excuse.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:02 amI still have no idea what you mean by this nor are you addressing anything that was discussed.

It is bullshit to claim that the creators of current IQ tests would design them in such a way that it would favor their own race at the expense of another race (especially since the creators where Caucasian which is not the highest scoring race).

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:02 amYou're ignoring the point, behavioral traits can impact intelligence by enforcing the sorts of behaviors that tend to develop greater intelligence. This was something you seemed to dispute.

OK, so please give me an example of a behavioral trait not affected by intelligence that affects intelligence.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:02 amIts not just a matter of the mathematics but having good data-sets. People have found correlations between personality traits and intelligence but the overall picture is not clear.

What are some of these personality traits (that are unique or more prevalent in a specific race) that affect IQ?

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:02 am Ethnic groups have been primarily marginalized out of some sort of racist ideology and those ideologies are still alive and well throughout the world. So, yes, some impoverished people would deserve more help than others because they are being actively marginalized by a subset of society.

Do you believe Jews and Asians deserve special treatment too? They have been victims of bigotry in the past. If not, I think what you are suggesting is that people of lower IQ deserve more help. I agree with this at the educational level but I don't agree with this in the workplace.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm ??????? I wrote that it should be merit based.

But its not which is just the issue.
[/quote]

I know. In the U.S. white men are being turned down jobs and promotions in favor of women and minorities who may be less qualified for the job.

@Jamie in Chile . I agree with everything that you wrote except perhaps this:

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:36 pmSince blacks are on average in the lower classes in the US, and blacks in Africa have living standards that would put most of them in the lower class by Western standards, it can be argued that the reported average lower IQ of blacks is simply due to the average class that they are currently in.

Social class was controlled for in "the Bell Curve" and subsequent publications.

For the record, I don't think the facts about IQ of some races are a good argument against affirmative action because there is such a BIG gap between the number of some minority races in certain countries (e.g. US, UK, China, but many many others).

Let me put it this way. If there are 15% blacks in a certain country but only 5% of the top positions (professors, major media influencers, rich and successful businessman, politicians) are black then you could perhaps argue it doesn't have to be precisely 15% as long as it's somewhat closer to that but it doesn't seem to make any sense to try and argue against affirmative action while it's down at 5%.

Jebus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:20 am I am aware of such criticism and i totally disagree with such claims. One thing that can't be disputed is the correlation between IQ scores and career success (i.e. higher pay) and this seems to be irrelevant of race, i.e, a white person with an IQ score of 90 makes the same, on average, as a black person with an IQ score of 90.

So you're aware of the criticism but discount and pretend there is no controversy because you disagree with the criticism?

The correlation between currently defined racial groups and IQ are well-established but what you mentioned is not. There aren't many studies that have looked at real world outcomes between races when conditioning on IQ. But even if this correlation was well established it wouldn't tell us that much.

Jebus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:20 am " When people talk about psychological tests, they often ask whether the test is valid or not. What exactly does this mean? Validity is a measure of how well a test measures what it claims to measure."

As I I said, the term is largely incoherent in this context. How do you determine how well IQ tests measure general intelligence unless you have some alternate measure of general intelligence that you can gauge? One major criticism of IQ testing is that its not falsifiable.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm It is bullshit to claim that the creators of current IQ tests would design them in such a way that it would favor their own race at the expense of another race (especially since the creators where Caucasian which is not the highest scoring race).

Why would that be bullshit? Firstly I didn't say anything about intent, the tests could have built in bias without anybody ever intending it. Secondly IQ testing was developed in a period when racism was the norm so the idea that some researchers may have intentionally biased the tests isn't that outlandish. Though that wasn't the point of my comment.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm OK, so please give me an example of a behavioral trait not affected by intelligence that affects intelligence.

A behavioral trait doesn't need to be entirely independent from intelligence to be a cause of higher intelligence, I made no claims about behavioral traits being independent of intelligence.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm Do you believe Jews and Asians deserve special treatment too? They have been victims of bigotry in the past. If not, I think what you are suggesting is that people of lower IQ deserve more help. I agree with this at the educational level but I don't agree with this in the workplace.

A group being a "victim of bigotry" in the past isn't what I'm discussing. For example just because there was a small number of Chinese laborers in the US that were victimized doesn't mean that current Chinese immigrants are at any disadvantage. That is because current Chinese immigrants aren't necessarily related to those laborers, it would only be the children of those laborers that may be disadvantaged not someone that immigrated here 20 years ago. In contrast the vast majority of blacks in the US have ancestors that were slaves and have been victims of various laws that have marginalized them.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:37 pm I know. In the U.S. white men are being turned down jobs and promotions in favor of women and minorities who may be less qualified for the job.

Based on what evidence? But if you think jobs and promotions go to the best qualified people you're not looking at the real world.

I hate discussing this topic in general (not only because I’m a black guy and therefore the target of this bullshit) but because IQ a complex area of neuroscience that is frequently co-opted by racists with explicit (or implicit) pseudoscientific biases.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:48 am I thought Stefan Molyneux did a good job talking about this issue without coming across as a bigot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0KKc6GbeNo&t=13s

Yikes, I won’t bother watching. Stefan Moloyneux is an alt-right conspiracy theorist who thinks the government is attempting to turn predominantly white countries into minorities. ”White genocide” as he calls it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TfAq3LrIjg&t=1288 His political views aren’t any better. He refuses to be friends with people who thinks he should have pay taxes, comparing it to being friends with people who want you to be shot. Not sure why you (or anyone) would consider him to a good source of information on the topic.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:48 am However, as Stefan Molyneux points out: How can we start working on solutions if we can't even pinpoint the problem?

Only most of the time, nut jobs like Molyneux are not merely “pointing out the problem” but deliberately (or implicitly) extrapolating beyond the data to justify their biases. What they mean to say is that racism doesn’t exist (or is justified) because blacks just aren’t as smart as whites anyway.

@Frank Quasar said it best here;

Some people use this as a descriptive talking point as if they're just trying to lay down stone cold facts, but implicitly they try to smuggle in some normative points on why some people should be treated differently or whatever their agenda may be.

These racists are not really interested in the wellbeing of blacks and other racial minorities. i.e., they’re trying to make the point, or prove their pet hypothesis that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Just look at how they talk about the scientific data, along with their bullshit slogan that “facts can’t be racist” even when their “facts” contain implicit unscientific assumptions, such the belief that IQ is influenced solely by genetics, even though there are numerous confounding variables (like environment, socioeconomics etc). Promoting these beliefs can do real harm, and only serves to vindicate racists and justify the unequal treatment of blacks and other social groups.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:48 am I have always worried about the implications of bringing this up for the following two reasons:


It will give racists some "see, I told you so" pleasure.
It may affect the self-confidence of some black people and make them assume that they are less intelligent than they actually are.

Correct. I hate when laymen discuss this topic because the nature of IQ and IQ tests is extremely complex and highly disputed (even amongst scientists). It's almost impossible to talk objectively about this without smuggling in some kind of personal presumption. And this can have real-world consequences in how blacks are treated (as I explained above). Even in carefully constructed studies, researchers can't control for all of the variables that impact a person's intelligence. Not sure why all these "race realists" think they've got it figured out.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:48 am However, as Stefan Molyneux points out: How can we start working on solutions if we can't even pinpoint the problem?

Second point: I think a better question is ; Should we or how should we be using IQ test scores?

Clinical psychologists have historically used IQ tests to diagnose learning disabilities in young children. For example, children who preform a standard deviation or more below their IQ scores are identified as disabled, but IQ testing can’t be used to determine *which* intervention will help the child to improve. Such results could lead to children being given the wrong “treatment” to improve their academic performance. Some psychologists think a child’s behavior in the classroom and at home can be a better indicator than IQ tests scores of a child's ability. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

There are other confounding variables that enforce achievement gaps in IQ testing; that is “stereotype threat,” a weird phenomenon that causes minority students (like blacks and women) to perform poorly on all sorts of academic tests. http://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype.aspx

This article found that black students performed comparably with white students when told that the test they were taking was “a laboratory problem-solving task” but that black students scored much lower when they were instructed that the test was meant to measure their intellectual ability. In other words, the prospect of social evaluation suppressed these students’ performance in intelligence. http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005 ... son_95.pdf

Thanks to racial pseudoscientists (like the one you linked to), who promote negative stereotypes about blacks being less smart, and about IQ being a “fixed” score, these can raise doubts and anxieties in black peoples’ minds resulting in poorer performance.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:48 am For example, one solution would be to encourage interracial procreation. The sooner humans merge into one race, the sooner racial IQ differences will go away.

The fact that you’d suggest this as the “solution” tells me you might be better off not discussing the issue.

There are many scientific critics, but there appears to be a consensus amongst psychologists that IQ tests are valid, and that genetics plays a role. The problem is how people understand what intelligence is, and how to use the data to optimize wellbeing. It’s fine to acknowledge that we all have different aptitudes for different things, but we need to stop seeing intelligence as some “fixed” purely genetic fate and see it as something that can develop given the right conditions. I think the way to go would be to increase the effectiveness of the education system, improving healthcare & nutrition, and promoting procreation amongst high-IQ individuals for blacks and other minority groups might help to increase their intelligence, and ultimately their quality of living.


EDIT: I managed to peek at that the video you linked and LOL'd immediately. Dave Ruben's YouTube channel is literally the bottom of the barrel of social commentary. He doesn't bring in guests to challenge their ideas and get at the truth, rather he wants to “agree” with everyone. He thinks all ideas are equally valid (they aren’t) and consistently platforms nutty right-wingers (Alex Epstein and yours truly, Molyneux) in an attempt to spite equally crazy fringe leftists. Rubin probably isn't even capable of countering any of Molyneux's bullshit claims. I find his content lazy at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

You're REALLY not giving me any good reasons to finish watching this clip.

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:56 amSo you're aware of the criticism but discount and pretend there is no controversy because you disagree with the criticism?

I am aware of the criticism.
I don't pretend there is no criticism.
I disagree with the criticism.

Is that clear enough for you?

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:56 amHow do you determine how well IQ tests measure general intelligence unless you have some alternate measure of general intelligence that you can gauge?

Couldn't you say that about all psychological tests? Should we exclude Psychology as a science altogether?

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:56 amIQ testing was developed in a period when racism was the norm so the idea that some researchers may have intentionally biased the tests isn't that outlandish.

The tests have been reviewed and revised multiple times over the years. Are you familiar with item analysis? Any item on an IQ test where one group of people outscore another group of people relative to the overall scores have since long been removed.

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:56 amjust because there was a small number of Chinese laborers in the US that were victimized doesn't mean that current Chinese immigrants are at any disadvantage. That is because current Chinese immigrants aren't necessarily related to those laborers, it would only be the children of those laborers that may be disadvantaged not someone that immigrated here 20 years ago. In contrast the vast majority of blacks in the US have ancestors that were slaves and have been victims of various laws that have marginalized them.

There is no doubt that the blacks (and perhaps the first Americans) were the groups that suffered the worst and most widespread amount of discrimination. However, wouldn't you expect to see at least some correlation with other groups that were ill treated at a lower level, such as the Irish, the Chinese, and the Japanese.

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:56 amif you think jobs and promotions go to the best qualified people you're not looking at the real world.

Why do you keep banging that point? I have been clear that I don't think jobs and promotions go to the best qualified people. I have said that they should go to the best qualified people.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pm I hate discussing this topic in general (not only because I’m a black guy and therefore the target of this bullshit) but because IQ a complex area of neuroscience that is frequently co-opted by racists with explicit (or implicit) pseudoscientific biases.

This introduction says it all. Why was it so important for you to mention your race in the first sentence? Does this somehow award you with some unique perspective on the matter?

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmIQ a complex area of neuroscience that is frequently co-opted by racists with explicit (or implicit) pseudoscientific biases.

The discussion was about the results of IQ tests. Nice try in muddying the waters by labeling the discussion "a complex area of neuroscience". Let's be clear about what we know for sure: IQ tests are very accurate in measuring IQ and IQ is by far the best predictor of income and career success.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmYikes, I won’t bother watching. Stefan Moloyneux is an alt-right conspiracy theorist who thinks the government is attempting to turn predominantly white countries into minorities. ”White genocide” as he calls it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TfAq3LrIjg&t=1288 His political views aren’t any better. He refuses to be friends with people who thinks he should have pay taxes, comparing it to being friends with people who want you to be shot. Not sure why you (or anyone) would consider him to a good source of information on the topic.

I had never seen or heard of him before. I just liked what he had to say about this particular topic.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmnut jobs like Molyneux are not merely “pointing out the problem” but deliberately (or implicitly) extrapolating beyond the data to justify their biases.

Why not specifically address the things he said instead of making personal attacks like that? Here you come across as someone who is desperate to defend a viewpoint without having anything to back it up.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pm@Frank Quasar said it best here;

Some people use this as a descriptive talking point as if they're just trying to lay down stone cold facts, but implicitly they try to smuggle in some normative points on why some people should be treated differently or whatever their agenda may be.

There are always "some people" who do and say stupid things. This comment could me meaningful if "some people" could be replaced with "most psychologists" or "most IQ test analysts"

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmThese racists are not really interested in the wellbeing of blacks and other racial minorities.

Please be clear on who you are referring to when you write "these racists"

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmIt's almost impossible to talk objectively about this without smuggling in some kind of personal presumption.

Your entire post makes this point clear.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmAnd this can have real-world consequences in how blacks are treated

Unfortunately this is one of the negative consequences of discussing this. However . . .

For how long can one expect to keep these findings secret from the mainstream?

Let's put more of a focus on merit based decision making. Let's find and punish people who make unfair decisions because of someone's race (i.e. people who ignore the fact that there is no job in the world who would be too difficult for everyone of a certain race.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmIQ testing can’t be used to determine *which* intervention will help the child to improve.

This has never been the goal of IQ testing. There are other tests for that.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmThere are other confounding variables that enforce achievement gaps in IQ testing; that is “stereotype threat,” a weird phenomenon that causes minority students (like blacks and women) to perform poorly on all sorts of academic tests. http://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype.aspx

If these results are true (I would love to see the sample size and whether subsequent tests have had similar results) it would suggest that schools need to focus more on an individual's self-confidence. People, as a whole, are not as smart as they think and this may be working to their advantage. Perhaps this "better than average" phenomenon does not apply to all racial groups and those who actually get it right (i.e those who are just as smart or smarter than they think they are) may suffer as a consequence.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:48 am For example, one solution would be to encourage interracial procreation. The sooner humans merge into one race, the sooner racial IQ differences will go away.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pm The fact that you’d suggest this as the “solution” tells me you might be better off not discussing the issue.

Again, you have demonstrated how closed minded you are about the issue. The above suggestion is actually one that would improve the IQ gap over time, but you refuse to acknowledge that because anyone who disagrees with you on this issue are people who are "better off not discussing the issue"

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:36 pmEDIT: I managed to peek at that the video you linked and LOL'd immediately. Dave Ruben's YouTube channel is literally the bottom of the barrel of social commentary. He doesn't bring in guests to challenge their ideas and get at the truth, rather he wants to “agree” with everyone. He thinks all ideas are equally valid (they aren’t) and consistently platforms nutty right-wingers (Alex Epstein and yours truly, Molyneux) in an attempt to spite equally crazy fringe leftists. Rubin probably isn't even capable of countering any of Molyneux's bullshit claims. I find his content lazy at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

I would be curious to see if you are capable of discussing any specific point mentioned in the video

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am This introduction says it all. Why was it so important for you to mention your race in the first sentence? Does this somehow award you with some unique perspective on the matter?

Absolutely it was important, given that this very topic is near always used as a weapon to target people like me.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 amThe discussion was about the results of IQ tests. Nice try in muddying the waters by labeling the discussion "a complex area of neuroscience".

You also asked;

However, as Stefam Molyneux points out: How can we start working on solutions if we can't even pinpoint the problem?

And working on some solution requires a full understanding of the results. And it’s just as complex trying to extrapolate on the results of IQ tests and deciding how to use them to optimize wellbeing.

Let's be clear about what we know for sure: IQ tests are very accurate in measuring IQ and IQ is by far the best predictor of income and career success.

I conceded that.

Lay Vegan wrote:There are many scientific critics, but there appears to be a consensus amongst psychologists that IQ tests are valid, and that genetics plays a role.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am Why not specifically address the things he said instead of making personal attacks like that? Here you come across as someone who is desperate to defend a viewpoint without having anything to back it up.

That IS addressing the statements he’s made in past videos. He likes to mention that blacks just aren’t as smart as whites to explain away racism and the poor social conditions that many of them are raised in. He’s not coming from a place of honesty, so it isn’t worth listening to his bullshit.

His statement at exactly 14 minutes and 54 seconds says it all “If the IQ differences are significantly genetic, it’s a tragedy, but it’s no one’s fault.” [then goes on to dismiss the possibility of racism because it implies negative judgment against higher scoring groups] https://youtu.be/T0KKc6GbeNo?t=14m36s What he’s implying is that racism against blacks either doesn’t exist, or isn’t to blame for black under performance. His claims throughout the video are factually wrong; in reality there is a multitude of factors can can contribute to test results. Since there are far too many confounding variables that can’t be controlled for in studies; it's near impossible to claim it's all or even “mostly” genetic.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am There are always "some people" who do and say stupid things. This comment could me meaningful if "some people" could be replaced with "most psychologists" or "most IQ test analysts”

Stefan Molyneux is not a psychologist. And neither is the vast majority of these “race realists.” They use these tests to support their biases, and act is if they're just laying out stone cold facts.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am Please be clear on who you are referring to when you write "these racists"

Self-proclaimed race realists/alt-righters who regurgitate the same nonsense rhetoric as Molyneux.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am Unfortunately this is one of the negative consequences of discussing this. However . . .

For how long can one expect to keep these findings secret from the mainstream?

Are these findings “secret?” And what do you expect ordinary people to do with such results?

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am Let's put more of a focus on merit based decision making. Let's find and punish people who make unfair decisions because of someone's race (i.e. people who ignore the fact that there is no job in the world who would be too difficult for everyone of a certain race.

I agree.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am This has never been the goal of IQ testing. There are other tests for that.

That’s precisely why some clinical psychologists don’t think IQ tests have much utility in that regard. In other words, some tests are considered useless.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am If these results are true (I would love to see the sample size and whether subsequent tests have had similar results) it would suggest that schools need to focus more on an individual's self-confidence. People, as a whole, are not as smart as they think and this may be working to their advantage. Perhaps this "better than average" phenomenon does not apply to all racial groups and those who actually get it right (i.e those who are just as smart or smarter than they think they are) may suffer as a consequence.

I linked the study so you can do some reading on your own time. Spencer, Steele, and Diane Quinn, PhD, also found that telling women that a math test does not show gender differences improved their test performance. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-08066-001 I was thinking more along the lines of eliminating negative stereotypes about blacks being of lower intelligence, and perhaps rethinking our notion of IQ being a fixed genetic lottery, and instead something that can develop given the right conditions. That’s why it’s so important that we don’t use test results as a way to “lock people in.” Stigma doesn’t just undermine intellectual performance, it can interferes with academic self-knowledge.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:39 am Again, you have demonstrated how closed minded you are about the issue. The above suggestion is actually one that would improve the IQ gap over time, but you refuse to acknowledge that because anyone who disagrees with you on this issue are people who are "better off not discussing the issue" |

I laughed at your answer because of how silly it is, and the fact that there are far more practicable solutions. Reread this;

Lay Vegan wrote:The problem is how people understand what intelligence is, and how to use the data to optimize wellbeing. It’s fine to acknowledge that we all have different aptitudes for different things, but we need to stop seeing intelligence as some “fixed” purely genetic fate and see it as something that can develop given the right conditions. I think the way to go would be to increase the effectiveness of the education system, improving healthcare & nutrition, and promoting procreation amongst high-IQ individuals for blacks and other minority groups might help to increase their intelligence, and ultimately their quality of living.

Instead of spending your time encouraging miscegenation (good luck convincing all those race realists) we could be actively improving the health, education, and nutrition of underachieving black folks, and encouraging high IQ blacks to have children.

This debate seems to be premised on the notion that IQ tests actually measure something worth measuring. But is this true? We have all observed that it's possible to be the so-called leader of the free world while simultaneously being arguably the dumbest person to set foot on the political stage for at least a few decades.