‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 > 
 
   
 

The background knowledge for genetic racial intelligence differences

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1840
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
12 February 2019 15:19
 

Unless a precise definition of intelligence can be agreed on, an IQ test score offers nothing more than an “I know it when I see it” perspective. Burt and everyone else explained this every which way, remarkably well.

A high IQ score seems to me to point toward superior intelligence. But my perception of the significance of an IQ score has been drilled into me by environmental influence. It lacks an anchor of any significance. “Intelligence” is a highly abstract concept with widely varying usages. Pursuing goals surrounding apprehension of the bio-essence of intelligence—sufficiently for researchers to be able to do their magic to achieve it—seems ridiculously naive and the direct opposite of actual intelligence until the word itself can be sorted with something approaching precision and viability for experimentation.

Keep in mind that IQ testing has a history in the assessment of intellectual disability. It was never designed to categorize smart-alecks like us. Surely, today’s cognitive psychologists and brain scientists could devise testing of intelligence more successfully than what an IQ test manages to exact. Until highly precise terms are coined (wherever necessary), Abel is running a fool’s errand.

A person who scores well on an IQ test can be highly intelligent but can also be quite stupid.

People who have perfect pitch are, on average, every bit as capable of academic and career success, so it’s obvious that a sensible way to improve intelligence would be to alter the genetic makeup of people who are tone deaf. A zillion such absurd tests/solutions could be devised.

I suspect that Abel’s polite and considerate brand of racism is disappointed in behavior rather than intelligence.

Someone please keep me off my keyboard for the next couple of weeks, as I’ll be recovering from hernia-repair surgery, starting tomorrow afternoon. I’d rather not opine while on pain meds which will no doubt deaden my inherent nastiness!

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15891
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 February 2019 16:53
 
Abel Dean - 12 February 2019 11:06 AM
hannahtoo - 11 February 2019 04:08 PM

Abel Dean:
Some speculated technologies are impossible. The possibility of the creation of smarter human beings is more than just a possibility. We already know beyond reasonable doubt that smarter human beings can be created, because nature has already created smarter human beings. If the barriers to human design you have in mind are either barriers in morals or barriers in knowledge, then those are obviously porous barriers.

True, however, the differences between us and archaic humans are largely cultural, not physical.  Our modern inheritance of reading and writing and math and technologies occupy brain power they used for hunting and way-finding and intimate knowledge of their environment.  That is, being modern “smart” is more about how a brain is used than having a better brain.

Children grow up acting smarter if they have a secure home life and good education.  Rather than pursuing brain engineering, It seems much less risky to me, and beneficial all around, to assure citizens have good healthcare and schooling, nurturing our nation’s children so that they can do their best.

Rather than trying to convince disadvantaged minorities that they are inherently inferior and should submit to genetic experiments, perhaps we should convince the wealthiest people that the best thing they could do with their money and talents is to help others. 

Monday nights I volunteer with a small tutoring group that helps struggling students.  The 5th grade girl I currently partner with is African American.  She is the daughter of a low income, divorced mom (dad had troubles with the law).  Besides giving her academic help, the group leader has linked the girl up with a local arts organization.  She takes piano lessons and had a minor part in the winter musical.  The goal is to support the young lady with broader relationships, as well as helping her develop her abilities.  There is a lot each of us can do to build bridges and foster community, to dispel fear and stave off despair.  Everyone can do a little.

I think this is where knowledge of within-group intelligence heritability has the most relevance. If we want to makes some whites smarter than the mean of whites, or if we want to make some blacks smarter than the mean of blacks, thereby raising each mean, then we already know for sure what it is mostly about: genetics. The within-group heritability of intelligence, taking all the heritability tests for IQ over a hundred years together, is 0.74. That’s high, but further perspective is brought by the fact that heritability increases as children grow from infants to adults. Among adults, intelligence has a within-group heritability of 0.8. That means 80% of the intelligence variations among adults are caused by genetic variations. This value is dependent on the current environments. Maybe we can isolate and tap into whatever is causing that remaining 20%. If we find it, then we can capitalize on it, and maybe we can increase any child’s IQ from 80 to 150, and, if it became common, then it would both drastically lower the heritability value of intelligence and solve almost every problem in the world all at once: we would have a world full of geniuses who would be far more capable of solving problems. But, it is unlikely. The likely reality is that environmental changes can affect variations of adult intelligence only within a narrow range. By my math, if the within-group heritability of adult IQ is 0.8, then the 95% error of measurement for phenotypic IQ supposing we were to estimate it by measuring only the genetic component of IQ is plus or minus 13 IQ points. So, supposing a genotypic IQ of 80, such a child would be 95% likely to grow up to have an IQ anywhere between 67 and 93. If he or she has all the luck and social advantages possible, then his or her IQ will be 93 as an adult, or maybe even a little higher. If his or her life has instead even more disadvantages than expected of a family with an average IQ of 80, then his or her adult IQ may drop down to 67, or maybe even a little lower. Hope for the a purely environmental focus is suggested by comparing past generations to current generations: we are much smarter now than we were before. But, even these differences may be a matter of heritable genotypic differences, not changes in traditional genetics, but changes in the heritable genetic expressions (epigenetics: still genetics). One way or the other, if we want to increase intelligence, then the numbers as they stand strongly suggest where our focus should be. Ideology, wishful thinking and Burt suggest one focus, and the numbers suggest another focus.

You keep repeating the same wrong things. Wise up, learn some math, learn some genetic.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
12 February 2019 16:57
 
hannahtoo - 12 February 2019 03:07 PM

I’d say my view is “we can do more to bring out the best in people,” and “intelligence is not the single most important factor in creating a good society.”  From what you say, we may not be so far in disagreement on these issues.

But then you countenance genetic experimentation on the unborn children of people of low IQ.  This is immoral.  And on other threads, you have said that judging individuals according to racial appearance is prudent.  This also is wrong.  This is where we differ.

Your graph is not helpful.  Of course, you can graph any two variables against one another.  For example, average temperature and GDP.  Years under imperialist rule and GDP.  Rate of malaria and GDP.  Some of these titles, in fact, would suit the graph perfectly.

“But then you countenance genetic experimentation on the unborn children of people of low IQ.  This is immoral.  And on other threads, you have said that judging individuals according to racial appearance is prudent.  This also is wrong.  This is where we differ.”

I do NOT endorse conducting experiment on unborn children of people of low IQ. The unsafe experiments will be done on children of North Korea (who are higher IQ) regardless of whether or not we endorse them, and safe experiments after we have full knowledge of the human body can be done on anyone, not just on the people of lower IQ.

And I endorse judging individuals according to racial appearance only with the qualifier that it is about intermediate probability judgments, which I think everyone already endorses in at least some contexts, i.e. if you see someone with African racial phenotypes then you know that he or she is far more likely than not to identify as “black,” and he or she is far more likely to have sickle-cell disease than to have cystic fibrosis. If it is about judging the intermediate probability of intelligence or other psychological traits based on race, then I agree that it is “wrong” in most contexts due to either the law or moral rules, but I expect it would be prudent in some contexts (i.e. a young woman choosing which elevator to walk into—she may commit a racial microaggression for the sake of her own objectively-increased safety).

Back to the important stuff:

“Your graph is not helpful.  Of course, you can graph any two variables against one another.  For example, average temperature and GDP.  Years under imperialist rule and GDP.  Rate of malaria and GDP.  Some of these titles, in fact, would suit the graph perfectly.”

If the correlation is both strong and in the expected direction, then we still don’t know the causal direction between the two variables. But, one way or the other, we know that the variable in question is relevant. Ignoring the variable as irrelevant is a big mistake. There is a correlation between any two variables, but they are not so relevant if the correlation is weaker, as I expect between malaria rate and GDP per capita. Or, if the correlation is the opposite of what you would expect, as I expect between years under imperialist rule and GDP per capita. The most popular explanation for the poverty of black African nations is European imperialism, and nobody provides the numbers, though such numbers would be easy, perhaps because the correlation goes in the other direction. South Africa and Namibia are both high outliers on my scatter plot—GDP per capita well above the best fit line—though their years under imperialist rule were both lengthy and brutal, by all accounts. Germany’s genocide of Namibians is thought to be a possible model for the Holocaust. And, a correlation is not so relevant if the correlation is better explained by a stronger correlation. This is the case with the correlation between average temperature and average GDP per capita. If we knew nothing about racial intelligence differences, then we would expect the correlation to be in the other direction: we expect hotter climates to be richer, not poorer, as hotter climates have much more agricultural potential.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
12 February 2019 17:20
 
burt - 12 February 2019 04:53 PM

You keep repeating the same wrong things. Wise up, learn some math, learn some genetic.

My primary attention will need to presume the mainstream science of intelligence and genetics. I can’t get too distracted with claims that are both scientifically fringe and poorly-argued on the face. I need to move on.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
12 February 2019 18:01
 
nonverbal - 12 February 2019 03:19 PM

Unless a precise definition of intelligence can be agreed on, an IQ test score offers nothing more than an “I know it when I see it” perspective. Burt and everyone else explained this every which way, remarkably well.

A high IQ score seems to me to point toward superior intelligence. But my perception of the significance of an IQ score has been drilled into me by environmental influence. It lacks an anchor of any significance. “Intelligence” is a highly abstract concept with widely varying usages. Pursuing goals surrounding apprehension of the bio-essence of intelligence—sufficiently for researchers to be able to do their magic to achieve it—seems ridiculously naive and the direct opposite of actual intelligence until the word itself can be sorted with something approaching precision and viability for experimentation.

Keep in mind that IQ testing has a history in the assessment of intellectual disability. It was never designed to categorize smart-alecks like us. Surely, today’s cognitive psychologists and brain scientists could devise testing of intelligence more successfully than what an IQ test manages to exact. Until highly precise terms are coined (wherever necessary), Abel is running a fool’s errand.

A person who scores well on an IQ test can be highly intelligent but can also be quite stupid.

People who have perfect pitch are, on average, every bit as capable of academic and career success, so it’s obvious that a sensible way to improve intelligence would be to alter the genetic makeup of people who are tone deaf. A zillion such absurd tests/solutions could be devised.

I suspect that Abel’s polite and considerate brand of racism is disappointed in behavior rather than intelligence.

Someone please keep me off my keyboard for the next couple of weeks, as I’ll be recovering from hernia-repair surgery, starting tomorrow afternoon. I’d rather not opine while on pain meds which will no doubt deaden my inherent nastiness!

+1

nv, good luck with your surgery and a quick recovery.

 

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15891
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 February 2019 18:05
 
Abel Dean - 12 February 2019 05:20 PM
burt - 12 February 2019 04:53 PM

You keep repeating the same wrong things. Wise up, learn some math, learn some genetic.

My primary attention will need to presume the mainstream science of intelligence and genetics. I can’t get too distracted with claims that are both scientifically fringe and poorly-argued on the face. I need to move on.

Indeed, took a while to recognize that.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  964
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
13 February 2019 04:31
 
burt - 12 February 2019 06:05 PM
Abel Dean - 12 February 2019 05:20 PM
burt - 12 February 2019 04:53 PM

You keep repeating the same wrong things. Wise up, learn some math, learn some genetic.

My primary attention will need to presume the mainstream science of intelligence and genetics. I can’t get too distracted with claims that are both scientifically fringe and poorly-argued on the face. I need to move on.

Indeed, took a while to recognize that.

“I can’t get too distracted with claims that are both scientifically fringe and poorly-argued on the face. I need to move on.”

Funny, it took me a double take to get the context and see that he posted that, not you. I mean, if bad statistics, bad algebra, and non-existent genetics doesn’t count as “poorly-argued on the face” and “scientifically fringe,” I don’t know what does.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  964
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
13 February 2019 04:36
 

Here’s hoping for a quick recovery on the surgery, nonverbal.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15891
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
13 February 2019 08:06
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 13 February 2019 04:31 AM
burt - 12 February 2019 06:05 PM
Abel Dean - 12 February 2019 05:20 PM
burt - 12 February 2019 04:53 PM

You keep repeating the same wrong things. Wise up, learn some math, learn some genetic.

My primary attention will need to presume the mainstream science of intelligence and genetics. I can’t get too distracted with claims that are both scientifically fringe and poorly-argued on the face. I need to move on.

Indeed, took a while to recognize that.

“I can’t get too distracted with claims that are both scientifically fringe and poorly-argued on the face. I need to move on.”

Funny, it took me a double take to get the context and see that he posted that, not you. I mean, if bad statistics, bad algebra, and non-existent genetics doesn’t count as “poorly-argued on the face” and “scientifically fringe,” I don’t know what does.

Perhaps he’s had an Ah Ha moment of self-discovery.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15891
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 February 2019 09:22
 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Peregrine

Go to this page, click on “view all” (of his publications) then scroll down to the following 2003 paper: Cross cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior.

[ Edited: 20 February 2019 13:47 by burt]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1840
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
18 February 2019 16:04
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 13 February 2019 04:36 AM

Here’s hoping for a quick recovery on the surgery, nonverbal.

Thanks, A. I’m doing well.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3832
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
19 February 2019 07:18
 
Abel Dean - 06 February 2019 01:56 PM

I have been revising a list of arguments for the racial hereditarian theory of intelligence.

Here’s a list of some arguments(?) made by some white folks.

Extremist Murders of 2018, Carried Out By The Far-Right

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3832
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
19 February 2019 09:42
 
Abel Dean - 06 February 2019 01:56 PM

I have been revising a list of arguments for the racial hereditarian theory of intelligence.

Alabama newspaper editor calls for the Ku Klux Klan to ‘clean out D.C.’

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21713
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
19 February 2019 17:13
 
bbearren - 19 February 2019 09:42 AM
Abel Dean - 06 February 2019 01:56 PM

I have been revising a list of arguments for the racial hereditarian theory of intelligence.

Alabama newspaper editor calls for the Ku Klux Klan to ‘clean out D.C.’

Good example of what happens when people feel validated in expressing their racism.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
19 February 2019 19:03
 
bbearren - 19 February 2019 07:18 AM
Abel Dean - 06 February 2019 01:56 PM

I have been revising a list of arguments for the racial hereditarian theory of intelligence.

Here’s a list of some arguments(?) made by some white folks.

Extremist Murders of 2018, Carried Out By The Far-Right

Some people use the correct science for evil ends, and none of us are those people. Beware of the moralistic fallacy. Good people need to know the correct science so they can use it for better ends.

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >