[TimoDass]

Over time, one major conclusion I have drawn after reading through the many debates about intelligence is that we just don't know for sure what exactly contributes to intelligence. There is good evidence for both environmental and genetic causes, so reasonable people will likely be of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes of nature and nurture. Ideologues, on the other hand, will stick to an extreme position and accuse anyone who doesn't agree of being either evil or "dumber than a sack of hammers" - as if the matter is settled, and only evil or stupid people could disagree.

[Chiquita]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


If it's only virtually everybody, which is not the same as plain old unadorned "everybody, then it's clearly not just an argumemt about ratios, is it? Ok...virtually everyone who studies intelligence seriously agrees that there are also genetic factors. The major argument is over the ratio. - better?

Now that we've split hairs over the wording of my last post, which 'virtually' everyone must have understood anyway, can you please explain why Vanhanen could only be either evil or stupid?

[cemDrymnVem]

Originally posted by Caligastia
can you please explain why Vanhanen could only be either evil or stupid?
To what extent do you agree with the theory that the major cause of Africa's economic problems is the low intelligence of black people?

[Vomekayafboke]

Here's a typical weak section from your "American Renaissance" article, Cali.

The “experts” claim there hasn’t been enough time for humans to evolve significant differences with different levels of intelligence, for example. This is an odd argument because physical differences have evolved. The “experts” somehow believe there has been enough time for the striking differences between a Nigerian and a Swede to evolve, but not enough for differences in intelligence. What he's failing to address is that it's actually entirely rational to believe that race-wide differences in intelligence take longer to evolve than differences in skin tone or a 0.1 second lead over 100 metres. The reason for this is, of course, that whatever your surroundings might be, being really thick probably isn't the best survival trait in evolutionary terms. Ma Nature sorts out the rest.

I'm amazed a "biologist" didn't think of that. Aren't you?

[Aleksis]

Originally posted by VetLegion

The point being... what? That any number of once-popular theories suggesting that the Irish/Mongols/Chinese/Blacks are a racial underclass typified by genetically-low intelligence have fallen by the wayside. With good reason.

IQ is a factor that's easy to raise.

[Vobomei]

Did you come up with that all by yourself? Clever kid. But I'm not impressed with your sophomoric (I'm being generous here) arguments about free speech.

[Menierofe]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


An opinion piece by a purported biologist unwilling to give a real name? Focusing on the fact that the writer uses a pen name to distract us from the egalitarian lies...good tactic.

[Angry White American]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
A chihuahua and a pit bull are a hell of a lot more different than you and an aboriginal. Yet they are virtually indistinguishable genetically. What does that tell you?

Now own up and define the races. How are we to start comparing different groups if we don't know who they are? Don't be so coy. Based on shared traits and geographical ancestry we are able to categorize the vast majority of humans. Self-identified race correlates strongly with genetic structure:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1196372

Because I totally said that. Yes, you did actually. I asked you to show me a test in which all racial groups score equally, and you replied that only a test which "removes all cultural bias and when reporting results corrects for all the non-race factors of the tested subjects" would do this. So you are essentially saying that any test of intelligence which shows a racial disparity must have problems with cultural bias etc. You're starting with the assumption that all races have the same average intelligence and going from there.

[thomaskkk]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
IQ is a factor that's easy to raise. That's quite a sweeping statement - I presume you are drawing this conclusion based on the downs kids?

[rorsvierwelia]

Originally posted by Caligastia


That's quite a sweeping statement - I presume you are drawing this conclusion based on the downs kids?
No. You're telling us that you've studied theories of intelligence, so you must have encountered the Flynn Effect.

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/cherry.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn_pr.html
http://www.transparentcorp.com/produ...arnmore/iq.php
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-3920(197112)42%3A6%3C1989%3ATIONFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2051
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Lack of time prevents me adding more tonight, but there's plenty of reading there.

[Grizli]

Posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

That any number of once-popular theories suggesting that the Irish/Mongols/Chinese/Blacks are a racial underclass typified by genetically-low intelligence have fallen by the wayside. With good reason.

IQ is a factor that's easy to raise.


It is not. That's quite easy to test actually. Very popular type of "experiment" in this field is to look at twins or adopted children.

If IQ was easy to raise, that is - if it was determined solely or mostly by environment, then adopted children in a family should have similar IQs to children born to the adopting parents. They are raised in the same conditions after all.

I haven't heard of a study that found that, and plenty have been done.


EDIT: edited to include the quote... I did a major crosspost so it looked as if I was replying to Caligastia.

[Vezazvqw]

If the average IQ in africa, naturally, was 60-70, it would be very apparent.

This is obviously not the case from my interactions with african americans and immegrant africans, so the suggestion that there is a 30+ point different is just rediculous.

I could beleive a couple point difference, but haven't seen any evidence for it. (and africans could even be a couple points higher)

JM

[Imihooniump]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If the average IQ in africa, naturally, was 60-70, it would be very apparent. Not necessarily...see my reply to Dinodoc.

This is obviously not the case from my interactions with african americans and immegrant africans, so the suggestion that there is a 30+ point different is just rediculous. Because of your interactions? Do you feel you have a representative sample?

[Phassetus]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Not necessarily...see my reply to Dinodoc.



Because of your interactions? Do you feel you have a representative sample? Well, considering that none of my more than incidental interactions (with africans or african americans) have been with people whose IQ I would judge to be noticeably below 100. (below say 90)

It can't be that there is a huge divide, and a lot of people have IQs in the normal range, and the rest have IQs that are so low that the average is in the 60-70s. I mean, that would require a biological seperation in communities that just doesn't exist.

JM

[fount_pirat]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Back in 1994, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" which shows that ideas on intelligence that are popularly portrayed as "discredited" by the media, are actually agreed upon by a large chunk of academic intelligence experts. This is why we see people who know little to nothing about intelligence working themselves into a righteous lather over statements that are far less controversial among experts. Quoted For Truth.

[DagoIgnog]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Are you referring to a biological separation between blacks with different IQs or separation between blacks and the rest of the world? Biological separation between people with african ethnic heritage with different IQs, obviously.

JM

[affewheillMapew]

Yeah, that kind of average has to be the result of a biased test. 60-70 is mentally retarded.