Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

It's simple, do you think the white race defined how you believe it to be defined is capable of being more intellectual than other races, specifically black races?

Again, I'm writing very clearly so there is no misunderstandings.

This is incorrect.

Asian IQ scores higher than Whites do.

 

[Dr.Parity]

This is incorrect.

Asian IQ scores higher than Whites do.

That's not the question I asked, try again.

 

[JordanN]

That's not the question I asked, try again.

What?

I just told you, Asian IQ is higher than Whites. What kind of question are you framing that I'm not allowed to answer? Asians score the highest on IQ tests.

 

[Dr.Parity]

What?

I just told you, Asian IQ is higher than Whites. What kind of question are you framing that I'm not allowed to answer?

Again, you're completely sidestepping the question and not answering what was written,

So here it is again,

It's simple, do you think the white race defined how you believe it to be defined is capable of being more intellectual than other races, specifically black races?

Again, I'm writing very clearly so there is no misunderstandings.

 

[ilfait]

Again, you're completely sidestepping the question and not answering what was written,

So here it is again,

It's simple, do you think the white race defined how you believe it to be defined is capable of being more intellectual than other races, specifically black races?

Again, I'm writing very clearly so there is no misunderstandings.

You're asking "do you believe that the white race, as you define it, is in general more intellectually capable than the black race as you define it", right?

 

[I_D]

Don't bother, Doc.

This guy seems have a superpower when it comes to misinterpreting posts.

I already said I'd avoid bothering to respond to him, but I'll try one more time, even though I know better:


This is as clear as I can make it:
Are Asian people inherently more intelligent than African people? Yes, or no?

 

[JordanN]

Again, I'm writing very clearly so there is no misunderstandings.

And I'll say it again. Asians score higher on IQ tests than Whites. What don't you understand from this post?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

That's the wrong chart, and it was found to not be methodologically consistent. I'm going to post the right, but it does shrink as economic status increases.

And why wouldn't it shrink, that would be mysterious as IQ is predictive of economic achievement. It stands to reason that individuals with high IQ of any race would be able to achieve higher economic status independent of their race.

What some posit is that there is a lower frequency of high IQ individuals in certain races as compared to others. One may imagine that if true that would make certain races less likely to achieve high economic success, as a result of individuals with high IQ being rarer in such populations. This is stated by some to be the real reason for differences in the proportion of successful individuals of the various races as opposed to racial discrimination being the cause of the different rates of success.

Some have postulated that when corrected for IQ racial differences in economic success vanish, showing that whatever discrimination exists must not be significant.

 

[Dr.Parity]

And I'll say it again. Asians score higher on IQ tests than Whites. What don't you understand from this post?

You're not answering the question, which I can only assume because you're afraid of the answer you know you logically have to give to be consistant with your views.

Considering everything you've posted is hosted and repeated by white supremacists and fascists, that your deflection that "Asians score higher on IQ's" is literally one of the most common deflections in discussions where white supremacists talk about race based intellectual ability, I'm going to chalk you up to what you clearly are.

Unless of course you want to prove my assumption wrong and answer the very clearly defined question I asked, but again, you willingness to avoid such a question speaks volumes to who you are and the obvious fear you feel from answering it.

Your entire ballgame is pretty much taken from the Stormfront playbook, it's a little too blatant, but the current GAF population and policy on "anything goes" does side with the ability to spew such insanity and be passed off as a genuine to the passing eye.

 

[JordanN]

You're not answering the question, which I can only assume because you're afraid of the answer you know you logically have to give to be consistant with your views.

Considering everything you've posted is hosted and repeated by white supremacists and fascists, that your deflection that "Asians score higher on IQ's" is literally one of the most common deflections in discussions where white supremacists talk about race based intellectual ability, I'm going to chalk you up to what you clearly are.

Unless of course you want to prove my assumption wrong and answer the very clearly defined question I asked, but again, you willingness to avoid such a question speaks volumes to who you are and the obvious fear you feel from answering it.

How is it a deflection? I'll let you read the source. Several Asian countries have IQ's higher than that of whites.
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....l-sciences-richard-lynn-and-tatu-vanhanen.pdf

 

[Dr.Parity]

Don't bother, Doc.

This guy seems have a superpower when it comes to misinterpreting posts.

I already said I'd avoid bothering to respond to him, but I'll try one more time, even though I know better:


This is as clear as I can make it:
Are Asian people inherently more intelligent than African people? Yes, or no?

This is actually the fallacy he wants to get you trapped in. Because if you agree that Asian's are "genetically" smarter than white people, you've just agreed to the idea of race based superiority, but not under the condition of "white supremacy".

It's a silly "gotcha" question that is used to trap people into their world view that there is some type of genetic race based superiority, which means you just opened up the can of worms of how they might have a point in "white supremacy"

 

[Dr.Parity]

How is it a deflection? I'll let you read the source. Several Asian countries have IQ's higher than that of whites.
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....l-sciences-richard-lynn-and-tatu-vanhanen.pdf

Hey wait, I think I've heard of this book before, it reminds me of...;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

Oh shit, it's the same authors! lets the academic verdict on this...

In a book review for the Journal of Economic Literature, Thomas Nechyba wrote that "such sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."[6]

Writing in the Economic Journal, Astrid Oline Ervik said that the book may be "thought provoking", but there is nothing that economists can learn from it. She criticized the book's authors for not establishing cross country comparability and reliability of IQ scores, for relying on simple bivariate correlations, for not considering or controlling for other hypotheses, and for confusing correlation with causation. Ervik stated, "The arguments put forward in the book to justify such comparisons [between the average IQ in different countries and their GDP] seem at best vague and unconvincing. At worst, passages in the book appear to be biased and unscientific...The authors fail to present convincing evidence and appear to jump to conclusions."[7]

Wait, this is my favorite part, you're gonna love it!

Edward Miller, an economics professor who has published many controversial papers on race and intelligence, gave the book positive reviews in two different White Nationalist publications, the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies and The Occidental Quarterly.[8][9]

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

It's a silly "gotcha" question that is used to trap people into their world view that there is some type of genetic race based superiority, which means you

Thing is china is trying to unravel the genetics of intelligence. They're not past embryo selection and genetic modification, from what I hear rumor is no qualms about playing god. Any difference if any between humans will pale to what is possible to achieve through embryo selection and genetic engineering.

There's also a global arms race to gain dominion over the algorithms of intelligence. Just like Usain Bolt the fastest human can't beat an electric Ferrari, computers endowed with intelligence will eventually far surpass any and all men.

Digital life will be impressive indeed, it will have immortality, intelligence, speed, strength, beauty beyond any that came before.

 

[I_D]

This is actually the fallacy he wants to get you trapped in. Because if you agree that Asian's are "genetically" smarter than white people, you've just agreed to the idea of race based superiority, but not under the condition of "white supremacy".

It's a silly "gotcha" question that is used to trap people into their world view that there is some type of genetic race based superiority, which means you just opened up the can of worms of how they might have a point in "white supremacy"

Dammit.
I wish you weren't right.

I was hoping to catch him in a trap, but you're absolutely right that he could turn this in the wrong direction.

I thought Doctors were supposed to make me feel better.

 

[TheMikado]

And why wouldn't it shrink, that would be mysterious as IQ is predictive of economic achievement. It stands to reason that individuals with high IQ of any race would be able to achieve higher economic status independent of their race.

What some posit is that there is a lower frequency of high IQ individuals in certain races as compared to others. One may imagine that if true that would make certain races less likely to achieve high economic success, as a result of individuals with high IQ being rarer in such populations. This is stated by some to be the real reason for differences in the proportion of successful individuals of the various races as opposed to racial discrimination being the cause of the different rates of success.

Some have postulated that when corrected for IQ racial differences in economic success vanish, showing that whatever discrimination exists must not be significant.

The issue is with the way IQ is measured, I.E for instance because IQ is a mean rather than a standard it means Black Americans, today have higher Average IQs (Raw IQ performance) than White Americans in the 70s and 80s. This means that 1, there is no cap for intelligence, and that 2) An average specific IQ performance would not be tied to a specific economic level because the mean IQ moves.

Its why the idea of this being a strict racial phenomena doesn't make sense. Because to put this in perspective: 100 years ago both black and white rates would have scored 30 points lower on the same tests. Meaning 60 and 70 points by comparisons to today. Well below the current averages for both. Thus how can it be that with such an increase in cognitive function being genetic, that both can move so much at the same time, in the same region. The gap does exist and persists but the IQ of the races are not static, they both move up. That why the discussion of IQ and specifically race is difficult because all average races have higher raw IQ scores than even the highest average IQ from only a few decades ago.

 

[Dr.Parity]

Thing is china is trying to unravel the genetics of intelligence. They're not past embryo selection and genetic modification, from what I hear rumor is no qualms about playing god. Any difference if any between humans will pale to what is possible to achieve through embryo selection and genetic engineering.

There's also a global arms race to gain dominion over the algorithms of intelligence. Just like Usain Bolt the fastest human can't beat an electric Ferrari, computers endowed with intelligence will eventually far surpass any and all men.

Digital life will be impressive indeed, it will have immortality, intelligence, speed, strength, beauty beyond any that came before.

The debate against CRISPR and all that stuff is real and important.

Trying to make smarter people via gene manipulation has zero basis in "race".

 

[TheMikado]

How is it a deflection? I'll let you read the source. Several Asian countries have IQ's higher than that of whites.
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....l-sciences-richard-lynn-and-tatu-vanhanen.pdf

But again you take this out of context because Asian IQs were NOT always higher than White IQs, this is a recent phenomena in only the last few decades because you dont understand what IQ is.

 

[Dr.Parity]

Dammit.
I wish you weren't right.

I was hoping to catch him in a trap, but you're absolutely right that he could turn this in the wrong direction.

It's not that he could turn it around, it's that he would.

It's one of the most common traps when white supremacists muddle the waters of "white supremacy"

Doctors tell you the truth, sometimes the truth is good, sometimes bad.

Part of me wanted JordanN to keep posting material that is supported and literally hosted by white nationalists and white supremacists, but I felt this song and dance had run it's course. But that doesn't mean people won't get suckered into his bullshit debate.

But we've already seen JordanN ignores anything that remotely challenges his ideals, or outright threatens the basis of his argument. So like always he'll ignore everything and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[JordanN]

But again you take this out of context because Asian IQs were NOT always higher than White IQs, this is a recent phenomena in only the last few decades because you dont understand what IQ is.

What is your source for this?

Both Europe/America and East Asia are economically comparable, perhaps with Europe/America leading the edge in wealth and premier schools. And yet IQ wise, several Asian countries have no problem scoring higher or just the same.
This is the same argument socio-economic is not changing the gaps among all races. China in particular, was ravished by communists and prior to that, Japan's massacring them in WW2. And yet both countries
still have higher IQ's than the U.S.

Oh yeah, and studies have shown that even when Koreans are adopted in white families, they still outperform other whites. It is indeed genetic.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The debate against CRISPR and all that stuff is real and important.

Trying to make smarter people via gene manipulation has zero basis in "race".

CRISPR is one way embryo selection is another far safer way. You may say it has no basis on race, but if culture, religion or what have you has one group abstaining from such tech while another embraces it, there will develop an extraordinary gap.

That said such genetic research can elucidate if there's any basis to potential differences. As once you have the genes, you can see their frequency in the various populations, and if there is any notable difference or not.

 

[Dr.Parity]

CRISPR is one way embryo selection is another far safer way. You may say it has no basis on race, but if culture, religion or what have you has one group abstaining from such tech while another embraces it, there will develop an extraordinary gap.

That said such genetic research can elucidate if there's any basis to potential differences. As once you have the genes, you can see their frequency in the various populations, and if there is any notable difference or not.

Again, there is no "race" gene to make someone smarter. Talking about gene manipulation in the context of "race based intelligence" literally has no basis in reality.

 

[ilfait]

computers endowed with intelligence will eventually far surpass any and all men.

I disagree. They'll perform some intelligence-related tasks far better than all men, but not all tasks that relate to intelligence, and in my opinion not the most important ones.

 

[I_D]

Part of me wanted JordanN to keep posting material that is supported and literally hosted by white nationalists and white supremacists, but I felt this song and dance had run it's course. But that doesn't mean people won't get suckered into his bullshit debate.

I did tell you not to bother.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Again, there is no "race" gene to make someone smarter. Talking about gene manipulation in the context of "race based intelligence" literally has no basis in reality.

No one is saying there is a 'race' gene, just that there are gene variants which may be more common in certain populations than others. For example curly hair vs straight hair. Red hair vs Blonde hair. Things as complex as intelligence or height are multi gene with many many genes contributing a small bit. But that does not mean that certain genetic variants may or may not be more common or more rare in certain populations.

You cannot claim that genetic variants related to intelligence are equally common across all populations. There may be white populations that are more intelligent and white populations that are less intelligent, black populations that are more intelligent and black populations that are less intelligent, asians populations that are more intelligent, and asian populations that are less intelligent.

 

[TheMikado]

What is your source for this?

Both Europe/America and East Asia are economically comparable, perhaps with Europe/America leading the edge in wealth and premier schools. And yet IQ wise, several Asian countries have no problem scoring higher or just the same.
This is the same argument socio-economic is not changing the gaps among all races. China in particular, was ravished by communists and prior to that, Japan's massacring them in WW2. And yet both countries
still have higher IQ's than the U.S.

Oh yeah, and studies have shown that even when Koreans are adopted in white families, they still outperform other whites. It is indeed genetic.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000901

Table 1. WISC-R IQs in China in 1985–1986 and 2011–2012.
1985–1986 national norm sample
99.7
2011–2012 sample
105.89

 

[JordanN]

But we've already seen JordanN ignores anything that remotely challenges his ideals, or outright threatens the basis of his argument. So like always he'll ignore everything and pretend it doesn't exist.

People make up false labels and then are surprised when I don't comform to them?
I told you that I said Asian IQ is higher than whites, but you spin this around and say it's "white supremacy".

I don't care about feelings as long as there's a real scientific argument behind it. The WW1 test predated just about every major research that came after it. When scientists later confirmed what the Army discovered in 1914 with complete accuracy, it no longer mattered what peoples excuses/feelings use to dismiss the data obtained.

I for one would be really sad if all this research was ended because people don't like hearing things that goes against their worldview. There should be more research on what intelligence is and why it varies among different races of people.

It is my belief that it benefits everyone. Why are people intelligent? Why wouldn't we want more intelligence if we can find the exact root of it?

 

[Dr.Parity]

No one is saying there is a 'race' gene, just that there are gene variants which may be more common in certain populations than others. For example curly hair vs straight hair. Red hair vs Blonde hair. Things as complex as intelligence or height are multi gene with many many genes contributing a small bit. But that does not mean that certain genetic variants may or may not be more common or more rare in certain populations.

You cannot claim that genetic variants related to intelligence are equally common across all populations. There may be white populations that are more intelligent and white populations that are less intelligent, black populations that are more intelligent and black populations that are less intelligent, asians populations that are more intelligent, and asian populations that are less intelligent.

So let me get this straight,

All around the globe, there is a wide range of levels of intelligence across the entire species of the human race? With smart people and dumb people?

Well I be damned!

 

[TheMikado]

No one is saying there is a 'race' gene, just that there are gene variants which may be more common in certain populations than others. For example curly hair vs straight hair. Red hair vs Blonde hair. Things as complex as intelligence or height are multi gene with many many genes contributing a small bit. But that does not mean that certain genetic variants may or may not be more common or more rare in certain populations.

You cannot claim that genetic variants related to intelligence are equally common across all populations. There may be white populations that are more intelligent and white populations that are less intelligent, black populations that are more intelligent and black populations that are less intelligent, asians populations that are more intelligent, and asian populations that are less intelligent.

Again our measure for "intelligence" i.e. Is 100% fluid. It's not the same year over year. It changes dramatically, so dramatically in such a short time that it becomes questionable as to its worth on a genetic level. Because you could come back a decade later and the raw scores of IQ for a population could have increase 7 points. That's why the race discussion is hard to have because people don't even understand how IQ tests work.

 

[Dr.Parity]

People make up false labels and then are surprised when I don't comform to them?
I told you that I said Asian IQ is higher than whites, but spin this around and say it's "white supremacy".

I don't care about feelings as long as there's a real scientific argument behind it. The WW1 test predated just about every major research that came after it. When scientists later confirmed what the Army discovered in 1914 with complete accuracy, it no longer mattered what peoples excuses/feelings use to dismiss the data obtained.

I for one would be really sad if all this research was ended because people don't like hearing things that goes against their worldview. There should be more research on what intelligence is and why it varies among different races of people.

It is my belief that it benefits everyone. Why are people intelligent? Why wouldn't we want more intelligence if we can find the exact root of it?

Just because you cite a book (which is heavily discredited and laughed at academically) doesn't mean it's actually scientific.

You got called out on your game, time to pack up your bags and go home son.

Oh who am I kidding, NeoGAF is the home to plenty of people like you now

 

[JordanN]

Just because you cite a book (which is heavily discredited and laughed at academically) doesn't mean it's actually scientific.

You got called out on your game, time to pack up your bags and go home son.

Oh who am I kidding, NeoGAF is the home to plenty of people like you now

So they discredited IQ scores? If I go to Africa, Asia, Europe and get people to do tests and report back the data it's wrong because....?
Like, that's exactly why I don't understand the controversy.

The tests are based exactly on people's ability to pick up patterns. If you can't do that, it's not the end of the world. It just means there are other people who can find patterns faster than others. Like, I know I'm not Einstein. I don't freak out that I'm not Einstein. But other people freak out when certain IQ scores are lower because...? Why get upset over facts?

And this is racist? No, it's purely an emotional argument to oppose this. Screaming "White supremacist!" when Asian countries consistently score higher just reinforces why we need to keep these tests going and not succumb to feelings.

If you want to believe it's all economic then go ahead. But these studies already confirmed even in 3rd world countries, they still score higher than others, but based on race. See? Why get upset over this instead of studying the causes?

 

[Dr.Parity]

I see a pattern, when you drift away from your PDF files you tend to ramble and become incoherent.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Again our measure for "intelligence" i.e. Is 100% fluid. It's not the same year over year. It changes dramatically, so dramatically in such a short time that it becomes questionable as to its worth on a genetic level. Because you could come back a decade later and the raw scores of IQ for a population could have increase 7 points. That's why the race discussion is hard to have because people don't even understand how IQ tests work.

So you claim that the same individual tested at different times with questions of a similar level of difficulty will have vast variation in either direction, without head injuries, trauma, etc?

The flynn effect petered out, and iqs are dropping. From what I've heard it is an intergenerational phenomenon. You seem to claim that the same generation experienced the Flynn effect, or no?

 

[TheMikado]

So you claim that the same individual tested at different times with questions of a similar level of difficulty will have vast variation in either direction, without head injuries, trauma, etc?

The flynn effect petered out, and iqs are dropping. From what I've heard it is an intergenerational phenomenon. You seem to claim that the same generation experienced the Flynn effect, or no?

No, the idea that the Flynn effect "petered out" is 100% false. generational gain are still being made at about a rate of 3 points per decade in the US. It didn't "peter out" but what we are finding is that the Flynn effect becomes less effective as you population has access to better prenatal care which many are identifying as a primary driver of cognitive development later in life.

The reason the average moves is because your population ages, new ones are born and get into testing age and old ones die. They aren't the same individuals. That's why you need to look at IQs in populations over time because of what it is.

 

[Dr.Parity]

Usually, if my sources start popping up on white nationalist book publications, I take pause and reconsider if they were properly vetted and academically sound.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Raven (2000) found that, as Flynn suggested, data interpreted as showing a decrease in many abilities with increasing age must be re-interpreted as showing that there has been a dramatic increase of these abilities with date of birth. On many tests this occurs at all levels of ability. -wiki

For whatever reason it seems humans were being born more capable generation upon generation. Could be nutrition, could be education, tech, could be epigenetics(epigenetics of germ cells can be changed based on nutrition, may be there's a mechanism to change ones related to brain development in response to parental exposure to more complex environments.).

IQ scores are falling and have been for decades, new study finds

-
Norwegian researchers analyzed the IQ scores of Norwegian men born between 1962 and 1991 and found that scores increased by almost 3 percentage points each decade for those born between 1962 to 1975 -- but then saw a steady decline among those born after 1975.
Similar studies in Denmark, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Estonia have demonstrated a similar downward trend in IQ scores, said Ole Rogeberg, a senior research fellow at the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Norway and co-author of the new study.
-
cnn 2018 source

 

[Dr.Parity]

Also, when your world view can easily be described as being Hereditarian, and the main supporter of that world view is the Pioneer Fund, and you're citing material that is favorable and embraced by white supremacists, then maybe there might be a pattern worth investigating.

Pioneer Fund is an American non-profit foundation established in 1937 "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences". The organization has been described as racist and "white supremacist" in nature,[1][2][3] and as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[4]

Hereditarianism is the doctrine or school of thought that heredity plays a significant role in determining human nature and character traits, such as intelligence and personality. Hereditarians believe in the power of genetics to explain human character traits and solve human social and political problems. Hereditarians adopt the view that an understanding of human evolution can extend the understanding of human nature. They have avowedly rejected the standard social science model.

Dang, JordanN just can't shake all these gosh darn racists!

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

An analysis of some 730,000 IQ test results by researchers from the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research in Norway reveals the Flynn effect hit its peak for people born during the mid-1970s, and has significantly declined ever since.

"This is the most convincing evidence yet of a reversal of the Flynn effect," psychologist Stuart Ritchie from the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the study, told The Times.

-sciencealert

 

[TheMikado]

snip

You didn't take the full article into account for either.

The researchers sourced their data from the IQ test scores of 18- to 19-year-old Norwegian men who took the tests as part of their national, compulsory military service.

Between the years 1970 to 2009, three decades of these young men (born between 1962 to 1991) were conscripted, resulting in over 730,000 IQ test results.

What the results show is that a turning point for the Flynn effect occurred for the post-1975 birth cohorts, equivalent to 7 fewer IQ score points per generation.

It's not the first time we've seen this kind of dip. Research by Flynn himself that looked at the IQs of British teenagers almost a decade ago observed a similar fall in test scores.

"It looks like there is something screwy among British teenagers," Flynn told The Telegraph at the time.

"While we have enriched the cognitive environment of children before their teenage years, the cognitive environment of the teenagers has not been enriched."

Although that kind of environmental attribution remains hypothetical, it's a possibility that's supported by the latest research – which, it's worth emphasising, comes from just one Norwegian sample (albeit a particularly huge one)."

Further from the CNN article:

(CNN)IQ scores have been steadily falling for the past few decades, and environmental factors are to blame, a new study says.
The research suggests that genes aren't what's driving the decline in IQ scores, according to the study, published Monday.
Norwegian researchers analyzed the IQ scores of Norwegian men born between 1962 and 1991 and found that scores increased by almost 3 percentage points each decade for those born between 1962 to 1975 -- but then saw a steady decline among those born after 1975.
Similar studies in Denmark, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Estonia have demonstrated a similar downward trend in IQ scores, said Ole Rogeberg, a senior research fellow at the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Norway and co-author of the new study.
Fluoride exposure in utero linked to lower IQ in kids, study says
"The causes in IQ increases over time and now the decline is due to environmental factors," said Rogeburg, who believes the change is not due to genetics.
"It's not that dumb people are having more kids than smart people, to put it crudely. It's something to do with the environment, because we're seeing the same differences within families," he said.
These environmental factors could include changes in the education system and media environment, nutrition, reading less and being online more, Rogeberg said.

So specifically, Teenager IQs are dropping., not children IQs which are increasing.

 

[I_D]

Let's try this again:

Are some races inherently smarter than other races? Yes or no?

 

[SatansReverence]

Further the gap is shrinking, meaning Black IQ rates are INCREASING AT A RATE FASTER THAN WHITE AMERICANS.

What the fuck are you even arguing?

You can screech all day about I.Q not being this or that and how it's normalised fucking blah blah but it doesn't change, or even for a moment refute, Jordans point. You even agreed to it.

 

[TheMikado]

What the fuck are you even arguing?

You can screech all day about I.Q not being this or that and how it's normalised fucking blah blah but it doesn't change, or even for a moment refute, Jordans point. You even agreed to it.

I see we once again have individuals who fail at reading comprehension. Go back and learn how IQ works and then you will understand. JordanN thinks IQ is a finite number meaning a 100 IQ today equals a 100 IQ 100 years ago which is 100% false and only fools who can not grasp the concept of what IQ actually is do not understand this.

 

[Dr.Parity]

What the fuck are you even arguing?

You can screech all day about I.Q not being this or that and how it's normalised fucking blah blah but it doesn't change, or even for a moment refute, Jordans point. You even agreed to it.

And what is JordanN's point? Or are you talking about Jordan Peterson's point? So confusing with these names

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

So specifically, Teenager IQs are dropping., not children IQs which are increasing.

?

So you claim that children are seeing a rising IQ by 3 points that not only is removed by teenage years but goes 10 points in the opposite direction and becomes negative 7 drop?

So on average IQs go up in children but then drop by ten points on average? That seems doubtful that on average there would be such a large drop.

It seems more reasonable that IQs have been dropping in children and that is what is being measured at a later age.

The idea that the complexity of questions that can be handled could go up and up without bound without ever reaching a peak limit, is something that some people would hope for, but it does not seem reasonable.

People also forget that environmental changes can allow genetic potential to be reached, in for example height, but it does not allow you to exceed potential limits

 

[SatansReverence]

I see we once again have individuals who fail at reading comprehension. Go back and learn how IQ works and then you will understand. JordanN thinks IQ is a finite number meaning a 100 IQ today equals a 100 IQ 100 years ago which is 100% false and only fools who can not grasp the concept of what IQ actually is do not understand this.

The irony of calling out reading comprehension when all you are doing is running a parallel argument because you don't even know what the discussion is about

 

[Cato]

The issue is with the way IQ is measured, I.E for instance because IQ is a mean rather than a standard it means Black Americans, today have higher Average IQs (Raw IQ performance) than White Americans in the 70s and 80s. This means that 1, there is no cap for intelligence, and that 2) An average specific IQ performance would not be tied to a specific economic level because the mean IQ moves.

Its why the idea of this being a strict racial phenomena doesn't make sense. Because to put this in perspective: 100 years ago both black and white rates would have scored 30 points lower on the same tests. Meaning 60 and 70 points by comparisons to today. Well below the current averages for both. Thus how can it be that with such an increase in cognitive function being genetic, that both can move so much at the same time, in the same region. The gap does exist and persists but the IQ of the races are not static, they both move up. That why the discussion of IQ and specifically race is difficult because all average races have higher raw IQ scores than even the highest average IQ from only a few decades ago.

It is both genetic and also based on environment. But the differences are present, we know that there is a difference and it should be uncontroversial.
I think the only grey area is how much of the delta between the races are due to genetics and how much are due to environment.

Your data point that the averages for everyone, blacks and whites, in the US has risen by 30 points in less than one century is a pretty strong indicator that environment may have a significant part in explaining the delta.
(Under the assumption that 100 years is way to short for developing significant genetic changes. I think we can all agree on that.)

Another datapoint that also suggests that environment plays a possibly huge role to explain the differences is the fact that africa-americans in the US have significantly higher scores than their relatives that remain in their origin area in Africa.
Again, I think 400 years of separation is WAY too short to develop significant genetic differences, so again, I think that is another datapoint that points to environment being a strong/possibly dominant cause for these deltas.


Personally I think there is likely also genetic differences between races that cause some part of difference in intelligence. Considering how huge the difference caused by environment is, I don't think the difference due to genetics is likely to be very big. In particular since the average has risen by 30 points for everyone in the last century. A rise that is much bigger than the difference when you just compare between races.

Regardless, it is all probably meaningless to look at the averages anyway. The only thing that matters are intelligence on an individual level.
No one cases, or should care, if one race is more intelligent than any other. Having higher or lower intelligence does not mean that one is a better/worse human.
If people think that, then as a different poster stated, that probably mean that they think that Down's Syndrome people are worth less than normal people.


No normal people care about group averages. So what if orientals are more intelligent than my race? I don't care, it doesn't affect me or my life. Why should I care?
The only thing I care about is my own intelligence on my personal level.

No one cares about whether some race is stronger physically than another race. No one cares about <insert any other group trait> either.
The only thing that matters is on the individual level and if a person is a good person or not.


This is not to say there are no genetic explanation of differences in IQ between races. There is, there is no doubt that there is. The side trying to pretend the difference is not there that and blindly claim there is NO difference is ignorant.
Anyway, who cares.

 

[Dr.Parity]

It is both genetic and also based on environment. But the differences are present, we know that there is a difference and it should be uncontroversial.
I think the only grey area is how much of the delta between the races are due to genetics and how much are due to environment.

Your data point that the averages for everyone, blacks and whites, in the US has risen by 30 points in less than one century is a pretty strong indicator that environment may have a significant part in explaining the delta.
(Under the assumption that 100 years is way to short for developing significant genetic changes. I think we can all agree on that.)

Another datapoint that also suggests that environment plays a possibly huge role to explain the differences is the fact that africa-americans in the US have significantly higher scores than their relatives that remain in their origin area in Africa.
Again, I think 400 years of separation is WAY too short to develop significant genetic differences, so again, I think that is another datapoint that points to environment being a strong/possibly dominant cause for these deltas.


Personally I think there is likely also genetic differences between races that cause some part of difference in intelligence. Considering how huge the difference caused by environment is, I don't think the difference due to genetics is likely to be very big. In particular since the average has risen by 30 points for everyone in the last century. A rise that is much bigger than the difference when you just compare between races.

Regardless, it is all probably meaningless to look at the averages anyway. The only thing that matters are intelligence on an individual level.
No one cases, or should care, if one race is more intelligent than any other. Having higher or lower intelligence does not mean that one is a better/worse human.
If people think that, then as a different poster stated, that probably mean that they think that Down's Syndrome people are worth less than normal people.


No normal people care about group averages. So what if orientals are more intelligent than my race? I don't care, it doesn't affect me or my life. Why should I care?
The only thing I care about is my own intelligence on my personal level.

No one cares about whether some race is stronger physically than another race. No one cares about <insert any other group trait> either.
The only thing that matters is on the individual level and if a person is a good person or not.


This is not to say there are no genetic explanation of differences in IQ between races. There is, there is no doubt that there is. The side trying to pretend the difference is not there that and blindly claim there is NO difference is ignorant.
Anyway, who cares.

Nope, you're going to have to source that from actual, mainstream scientists and articles, you can't hide behind generalities.

Your claim is not only highly questionable, but scientifically unfounded and extremely controversial in many fields.

Anyway, who cares.

The entire scientific body, that's who.

 

[TheMikado]

?

So you claim that children are seeing a rising IQ by 3 points that not only is removed by teenage years but goes 10 points in the opposite direction and becomes negative 7 drop?

So on average IQs go up in children but then drop by ten points on average? That seems doubtful that on average there would be such a large drop.

It seems more reasonable that IQs have been dropping in children and that is what is being measured at a later age.

The idea that the complexity of questions that can be handled could go up and up without bound without ever reaching a peak limit, is something that some people would hope for, but it does not seem reasonable.

People also forget that environmental changes can allow genetic potential to be reached, in for example height, but it does not allow you to exceed potential limits

I mean, I don't really have an answer to this because we can only go by the data, If we had to guess I would say children are reaching peak IQ levels faster and sooner in life due to modern environments but teenagers seem to show regression towards the end and immediately after formal school, whether its a case of industrialized nations hitting some natural peak is not something I can answer.

 

[SatansReverence]

Nope, you're going to have to source that from actual, mainstream scientists and articles, you can't hide behind generalities.

Your claim is not only highly questionable, but scientifically unfounded and extremely controversial in many fields.



The entire scientific body, that's who.

Read; The ones who agree with me only.

 

[Dr.Parity]

Read; The ones who agree with me only.

Read; not fringe groups who were debunked by peer review (who had peer review in the first place) and aren't funded by hate groups who are supported by white nationalists.

I know, it's quite a high standard!

There simply must be a source that fits such impossible standards, with so much defense and so many charts, I'm sure it has to be scientifically sound!

I'm talking basics, like, Scientific American, that's a good publication!

 

[TheMikado]

Nope, you're going to have to source that from actual, mainstream scientists and articles, you can't hide behind generalities.

Your claim is not only highly questionable, but scientifically unfounded and extremely controversial in many fields.



The entire scientific body, that's who.

IQ gaps exist, that's not really debatable.
What is debatable is their significance and measurement.

Again, the idea that your average black person now has a significantly higher IQ than that of whites pre-1950s without the any inherent economic benefits that we claim is associated with higher IQs begs the question on if raw IQ scores even matter since they change so rapidly and without enough causation to figure out what's actually going on. That's the problem. What does it all mean of we know its so fluid?

Further I agree that there may be some genetic variance, but it would be so small at the racial level that it would be near insignificant.

Here's a good read out.

And there are more examples like this. Here is the complete set:
This is just what scientists have done. In the results shown below, the closer the number is to 1.0, the more similar are the IQs. So if you and your twin score a 1.0, then you have the exact same IQ. A 0.0 means you have as different an IQ as possible. Here is a sampling of the data:

• Same person (tested twice) .95
• Identical twins—Reared together .86
• Identical twins—Reared apart .76
• Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
• Biological siblings—Reared together .47
• Unrelated children—Reared together .30
• Parent-child—Living together .42
• Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
• Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
• Biological siblings—Reared apart .24
• Parent-child—Living apart .22
• Adoptive parent – child – Living together 0.19

Thus you can see even a parent passing on IQ to a child isn't more more effective on IQ then an adoptive parent to a child.
In this case the passing on of genetic IQ would be so diluted after only 2-3 generations that IQ by racial or ethnic group would be so insignificant as a whole it would only account for less than 1% of your IQ, because a grandparent theoretically would only have many a 5% effect on their grandchilds IQ at best, let alone distant cousins or relative. Let alone entire racial groups.

Just so its understood, your actual genes do play a strong part of your IQ, but little of it is directly inheritable from your parents. As noted previously environmental factors particularly prenatal which affect genetic growth are a strong indicator of IQ. Thus the idea of racial groups being significant indicators of themselves does not jive with the research we know of raw inheritable IQ. Meaning if the parent-child IQ relationship is low its even more unlikely to result in multiple generational correlations of any real significance.

https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/intelligence-and-genetics