Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Phill, Mar 27, 2016.

?

What do you think is causing racial/national differences in cognitive ability tests?

  1. Culture and Environment only

    42.9%
  2. Genes only

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Mostly Culture and Environment

    21.4%
  4. Mostly Genes

    14.3%
  5. Genes and Culture/Environment

    21.4%
  6. Unsure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    just a quick question about this, Boss Bells...
    why is this in human science and not in a pseudoscience thread?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    My guess would be Professor Feynman didn't put much stock in IQ testing.
    Ditto Toad. Bells: Good job recognizing the nonsense for what it is. Thanks.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    No, I've just done enough reading on the topic to know that racists tend to bring up these topics.
     
    brucep likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    What's your IQ. LOL. Based on the logic path of the subject matter you introduced I'd say not to high. If you believe there's a strong correlation between the tests and actual intelligence. Based on my years of discussing science topics I've noticed a strong correlation between a proclamation of a high IQ and crankism.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    Because the field of these tests fall within the realm of psychology.

    The problem with Phill's OP and his argument is that instead of looking directly at the hereditary aspect of intelligence, it is looking solely at race. Those involved in these fields of research and the organisations listed who received notice of the survey and those who participated in the survey are firm proponents of the connection of race and intelligence. In other words, they believe that white people are more intelligent than anyone else. It is based on a false premise with no scientific basis. The questions in the survey detailed in the OP are not only vague, but open to wide interpretation and designed to give a certain response from the people the survey was sent to.

    The survey itself was bogus and was based on an equally bogus study that was compiled by people I can only describe as being white supremacists. The survey was sent to very few people who belong to organisations that peddle the belief that race is connected to intelligence and try to sell it by applied the valid study of the genetic aspect of intelligence.

    I had considered simply closing the thread, but at present, I think educating those who falsely believe that people of different races are somehow less or more intelligent than others may prove more productive in the present context. To wit, I prefer to out the idiocy of racism and bigotry than to pretend it does not exist or to hide it because it is so offensive.

    The paper I linked in my previous thread makes very good and valid points as to why measuring intelligence and the manner in which it is used and utilised by certain individuals is unethical. And the research has been misused historically and presently, as the survey linked in the OP clearly demonstrates.

    In reviewing the neurobiological bases of intelligence it is not necessary, on scientific grounds, to consider race. Most of the variance in intelligence is within racial groups not between them 9 , and the causes of individual differences are relatively tractable with available methods, whereas the causes of racial differences are not. Although the topic of race differences is only a minor area within the field of intelligence research, it has had a disproportionately large (and strongly negative) impact on the public perception of intelligence research5,132,133. Science is generally perceived as a noble and honourable pursuit, yet “The field of intelligence itself is widely suspect”132. Given the history of misuse of intelligence research7,10, a statement about biology and intelligence that ignores the question of race can be mistaken as being complicit with a racist agenda. To a non-specialist, the field of intelligence research has become stereotyped as elitist and socially divisive. We disavow — and hope to weaken — these unfortunate and unnecessary associations
     
  9. EgalitarianJay Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    I want to thank Bells for not closing this thread. I think that is the wrong way to deal with Scientific Racism. Arguments like this should not be censored, they should be subjected to rigorous critique. We should be able to have an open discussion on topics like this. To answer Phill's question in the OP I believe that environment and only environment is causing racial gaps in IQ. There is actually a wealth of psychometric literature supporting this view point (Nisbett, 2005). Evolutionary arguments for a genetic component to racial IQ gaps have been thoroughly refuted (Graves, 2002). There is bias in scholarship and Bells did an excellent job of pointing out how this survey can be misused to project the false perception that the majority of the intelligence research community believes that genes play a major role in the cause of racial gaps in IQ.

    In order for racial gaps in IQ to be caused by genetic differences between races you would have to establish that race is a biologically meaningful category. Science indicates that in reality race is a social and not a biological construct (Templeton, 2013). We know for a fact that environment can have major effects on the nurturing of intelligence and that there is environmental inequality between demographic groups and nations, so while it may appear that there is a correlation between "race" and intelligence that tells us nothing about the underlying cause of differences in IQ (Sternberg et al., 2005).
     
  10. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    Can you give us some examples? The people who contribute to Intelligence read like a member list of a white power conference?

    It may be your opinion that it has been debunked. The point here is show how it was debunked, if you can. Certainly many scholars would disagree with you.

    It did appear in an actual science journal: Frontiers in Psychology. Again, we have your opinion and the opinion of someone that agrees with you. Good call linking "The Guardian" by the way.

    Not true. I think a lot of people are discussing this survey. But if it was, so what? Would posting something on Stormfront somehow prove it wrong?

    Childhood IQ is found to be much more affected by environmental factors and stabilises due to genes in adulthood.

    It seems you know less about this topic than you think. Please refrain from speaking for the board as if you know everything and everybody here agrees with you. Others may then be able to learn something.
     
  11. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    You are claiming that any environmental factor which does not have a random distribution among populations makes a heritability estimate impossible? So, for example, national heritability of height estimations are also impossible because of varying availability of milk? This is nonsense. Heritability estimate methods are designed to account for this, by looking at the relationship between the variable in question and the outcome eg. Japanese in America. It seems you have a problem with the entire concept of heritability rather than race IQ heritability. So yes, obviously it makes a difference how the variable you claim explains everything ("lead") is distributed.

    No, genetic clusters are formed independently of racial information and individuals are matched to the clusters post facto.

    Ah, Tishkoff 2012, based on 5 individuals. Try looking at this. This has some good commentary.

    Sure, I agree with all of this. But defining race by ancestry or genetic similarity we do actually get clusters which match "social" races and indeed races inferred from non-metric cranial traits a la Blumenbach. Rather than raising potential problems can you show me some genetically based clustering which doesn't match the "social" or the phenetic based scientific concept?

    Not at all. You are just raising vague data-free objections that clustering based on ancestry and genetics doesn't match "social" race. The problem is that it does. Besides, we can also classify people nationally, or clinally, whatever. A global difference remains which needs to be explained. Objecting to the race concept is a red herring.
     
  12. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    Bin what data? Data on national IQs? Isn't that data our starting point before we look at environmental variables that may be affecting it? You seem to have got it backwards.
     
  13. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    My IQ is irrelevant. I think IQ is a good indication of intelligence. So do the vast majority of academic psychologists. Do they also have a low IQ because of their "logic path"? Why do you think IQ is not a good measure of intelligence?
     
  14. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    See Lee 2010.

    Graves claims that falsifying an evolutionary theory (r/K) based on data and a heritability estimate invalidates the data and heritability estimate. Of course this is nonsense.

    Where is your survey showing this? Are you just making stuff up? Is anybody that disagrees with your personal opinion of no human variation "white power"?

    Templeton is based on misrepresenting Sewall Wright for a 0.25 FST subspecies limit. Many subspecies and species are below this value. And ignoring race, how do we explain national differences?

    Is your logic "there is an environmental effect, environments are not equal, so the difference is 100% environmental"? That's all I'm seeing. Could you develop your argument beyond nonsense?
     
    Yelena McMullen likes this.
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,405
    Since yesterday was Easter, the date of the OP, and I spent all my cognitive energy trying to find where that damn bunny hid those eggs, I'm not going to start from from scratch.

    So, did anyone mention religion stifling intellectual prosperity? I mean, those Arabs were awesome at stuff till it seems religion got in the way. Ya' know, numbers n'stuffs.
     
  16. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    I just read through this and the entire argument is that we should ban research into race and IQ because it's "racist". No definition or expansion is given beyond this. Pretty hilarious.

    Quite. Let's dismiss entire fields of scientific enquiry by calling them meaningless names.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    From the linked: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full

    "... Second, in the current study, data collection procedures were designed to ensure anonymity. The anonymity was implemented to reduce pressure for socially desirable responses, and to increase the likelihood of obtaining honest opinions. Opinions made in anonymity (without fear of retribution) may differ from public appraisals..."

    The problem of delivering a socially acceptable- politically correct--opinion vs one based in the actual science has been a long standing problem for at least 4 decades(personal experience) and most likely much more.

    Denying any genetic or regional differences in the test results is indeed denying the science of psychology!
    Accepting the data as genuine, then leads to seeking an understanding of "Why?".

    From the linked:
    "...Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, ..."
    "... Genetic factors have provoked particularly heated disputes, but even the mere description of international ability differences has been contentious....One solution to reduce conflict would be to survey experts—scientists who have conducted research on cognitive ability and who have an informed opinion about group differences. Such a solution was adopted in the current study,..."

    Curiously, we see the same bias in comments in this thread..............Oft times we do indeed seem to be a microcosm of the greater world.

    What we end up with is still an ongoing problem in testing for cognitive ability.
    Let us consider pre-literate societies, cultures, and peoples.
    Do we assume that our preliterate ancestors were significantly less intelligent (lower cognitive ability) than are we?
    If so, Why so?

    And, there, once again, we run into the problem of testability.(see #10 and #18 above)

    May I suggest that participants in this thread take the time to read the linked article?
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full

    ............................
    Phill
    Yes, I guess a lot:
    However 13 years in 5 universities, 3 degrees---(one in psychology) my guesses are usually well founded in the science----------we had roughly the same discussions in Psyc. seminars over 35 years ago.-----------------I seriously doubt that the dust will ever settle on this contentious subject-------but that remains for another generation to work on.

    anecdote: I once wrote a 17 page paper laying out an hypothesis, and supporting materials and dismissed one null after another----------then, in the closing paragraph, I presented yet another null which had not been investigated-----------The professor complained that I had completely sold him on the concept/hypothesis, then dashed his hopes in the closing paragraph----to which I responded---------"I'm just a student. If you were hoping for answers you've come to the wrong place. All I have is questions."

    That said:
    I leave you with the author's closing paragraph.
    Much work remains to be done.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
    Phill likes this.
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    On another note:
    I suspect that those who would see racism in subjects that are not inherently racists, nor intended to be so are themselves racists.
    Physician heal thyself.
     
    Phill likes this.
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The racism lies in those who would deny racism just because they haven't looked for it.
     
  20. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    I gotcha...
    Thanks for the feedback

    ... my comment was not so much about racism as it is about the evidence, and considering the study (regardless of it's origin) is contested and not validated...
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    as/re #35 above:
    For those who have not had the benefit of a course of study into psychology...


    Defense mechanism
    3. Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry(racist) feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile(racist) thoughts.
    http://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology

    Which does not mean that everyone who sees racism in subjects that are not inherently racists, nor intended to be, are racists.
    Which does not mean that anyone who sees racism in subjects that are not inherently racists, nor intended to be, is not a racists.

    It ain't just the ones who have been certified as mentally ill who project.
    Just a heads up, look to yourself, examine your life and prejudices, and live a more fruitful life. The unexamined life is not worth living. Strive for objectivity.

    (there ain't no easy answers)
    When doing research one finds clusters of like groups, then one must investigate the why of those clusterings.
    Analyse the data, re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---

    With any luck at all, distinct patterns will appear.
    And, again, the most important question in science presents it's self--------Why?

    So, if all you racist wannabees, closet racist, and racist phobics would make a conscious effort to stay the hell off of the backs of those who would do research, maybe some good science comes out of their work.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
  22. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Your discussion is irrelevant. Anybody whose logic path includes your discussion in academia is confused. That doesn't mean their not intelligent. It just means they're confused. But my guess would be academic psychologists are not interested in bullshit correlations. My second guess would be you're the author of this bullshit.
     
  23. EgalitarianJay Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    I've read it. I emailed Nisbett for feedback on Lee's article. He didn't feel that Lee challenged his best arguments regarding the environmental hypothesis for the cause of racial IQ gaps which were expanded on in a more recent article (Nisbett, 2012).


    Graves didn't say anything in that paper about invalidating a heritability estimate. The paper is a detailed critique of Rushton's evolutionary arguments which rely on r/K selection theory as the foundation for his own Life History Theory. What Graves argued is that r/K selection theory was falsified by critical experiments that tested its predictions based on data from a wide variety of organisms. Graves said that Rushton's theory was invalid and that his data was inadequate for testing any specific hypothesis concerning the evolution of human life histories.

    These are his summary points:

    Now why is this important to this discussion? The reason it is important is because evolution is the only scientific means to explain human genetic variation. If racists can not explain mechanistically why we should expect to find genetic differences related to intelligence between races then their argument collapses like a house of cards. Rushton failed in his reasoning and Graves has shown us why racial theories of human intelligence are based on pseudoscience.

    Here is an email exchange I had with another biologist who explained why r/K selection theory is not applicable to humans. He read Graves paper and agrees with his arguments.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page