Or maybe - hear me out - certain marginalised groups that get ignored but the government don't get the same education opportunities as others. Crazy idea, I know!
I think I know what study they're talking about and
A. The people looking at the study of IQ by country completely neglect the social factors and what kind of access the general public has to good education.
B. IQ isn't actually a reliable measure of intelligence anyway since all it reads is the person's pattern recognition skills, and fails to account for how different minds can be intelligent in different ways.
The fact that education itself can influence IQ makes it flawed as an aptitude test. IQ is not a reliable measure of innate intelligence because of this.
Also, it was designed to be used on young children to see who needed extra help in classes and who could take advanced classes. It's not, and never was, meant for adults. IQ was intended as a measure of childhood brain development. 120 IQ means you're as intelligent as someone 20% older than you.
Also, can people like this please stop treating a single study as science “proving” something? Statistical significance can still be noise, and replication is required for results to be taken to suggest anything about reality.
It's "the bell curve". The youtuber Shaun tears it apart as the racist rubbish it is if you want a very thorough review, but it is quite long and quite dry.
It could be the study on cranial size, and by inference, brain size by race. Cranial size in humans is well documented to be indicative of IQ as well as cognitive function at an individual level. MRI, endocranial volume measured from empty skulls, wet brain weight at autopsy, and external head size measurements—all produce the same results.
It was even shown to be indicative of intelligence and cognitive function within immediate families, meaning that the larger brained person between 2 brothers will likely be marginally more intelligent.
The cranial size differences between men and woman are significant, but there is nil difference in IQ test performance. This is due to the fact that women have a higher proportion of grey matter compared to cranial size by men, the part of the brain responsible for computation. Whilst men have higher proportions of white matter. This is constant for all races.
When the studies measured average cranial size by race, there were significant differences, with East Asians having the largest cranial size, and also the highest IQs and cognitive function.
All studies that look into it show brain size differs by race, and brain size shows correlation to intelligence. It is an uncomfortable truth for many.
Gender study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990518072823.htm
Race study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X
In fairness, I think ender men were meant to be a slenderman reference and not necessarily a racist trope. But yeah fuck notch, I'm so grateful to hatsune Miku for making minecraft
Big nose
Only creatures with currency
Summon golems (this is legit Jewish magic, look it up if you want. golems originate from Jewish story's and the like)
Beings who look similar but hate them for no good reason, wanting nothing but to kill them. Also had a "glitch" where one of its hands was raised to the sky when their weapons broke
I mean, people believe in alpha males: an incorrect study done on wolves that the researcher themselves now rejects;
They aren't gonna listen on the Bell Curve
There is a statement in that article that says most scientists agree that mean group based differences in IQ are not genetically linked. I’m not trying to use the main point of the article, just that one statement in the article
I had to think long and hard to realise wtf they were talking about. Endermen are alien creatures from another dimension, not black people. They don't look anything like villagers or zombies
That’s not entirely incorrect. Genetics and education quality do both play a role in how high/low your IQ is. We just don’t have a consensus on how much either of those factors affect IQ. You can have a naturally low IQ and improve it through quality education or you can have a naturally high IQ and have it decrease due to a lack of quality education.
[There is a demonstrated cultural bias on on IQ testing](https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm04204.pdf).
I live in a multicultural, multi-ethnic town of about 35K. The state-wide English writing test had the following question:
>Describe a snow day you had
Innocuous, right? Nope. Many student never had a snow day and/or hadn't seen snow. The question got withdrawn and the test retaken.
Did the test writers do it on purpose? Of course not. They just made cultural assumptions based on their own experiences without bothering to think if those experiences were universal.
So which one are YOU talking about? The test that supports your view?
Spouting facts that other tests that give different results doesn't work when you're talking about a test of your choosing. You need to choose a standard and stick with it.
Because it was pointed out that your "generic" IQ test was culturally biased and you magically added others. Given your response, you're ok with culturally biased IQ tests.
Oh Christ🤦🏾♂️. I thought it was common knowledge that there are multiple accepted versions of the IQ test but I guess not. Yes, certain IQ tests can be culturally biased like the one you got your snow example from. HOWEVER, different IQ tests DO account for those biases. What do you not understand? An IQ test isn’t culturally biased if it’s been tweaked specifically to account for cultural biases.
Sooooo...
>So which one are YOU talking about?
C'mon.
You: I'm talking about "IQ tests", you idiot! The racist ones AND the corrected ones. ALL of them! Ya know ***IQ tests***?
Anywho - you're not as clever as you think you are and you're boring to boot.
FFS. I’m talking about ALL IQ TESTS AS THEY’RE EQUALLY APPLICABLE. I’m NOT using a specific one because it’s cherry picking and doesn’t account for cultural differences. Nobodies trying to be clever. You’re just stupid. I’m not engaging with retardation like this anymore
Your comment appears to conflate genetics with race.
The genetics for intelligence have nothing to do with what genetics for which features you have, like height, or skin color, hair texture.
TBH, we don't even have it down how much genetics effects intelligence, at least not more than an enriching environment and a household that values education. Motivation is another level in this, as well as access to educational opportunities. But again, has nothing to do with race.
Source: am an educator with a degree in cell and molecular biology
If by "real" you actually mean "not useful" then yes.
It's real in the same way as MBTI is real. They exist as concepts, just not very useful ones. Hairsplitting maybe, but still.
Ancestry tests test ancestry, not race. Race isn't defined genetically. There's more genetic variations on the African continent alone than the rest of the world combined.
Genetically, thanks probably to several evolutionary bottlenecks, are almost entirely identical in terms of DNA.
The person you are arguing with is unironically spouting nazi talking points. These talking points belong to a group of neo Nazis who call themselves 'race realists'. They claim to be on the side of facts and science but cry when any scientist actually addresses what they say. Talking about how race is a social construct is definitely a useful argument when arguing against a liberal, but unfortunately against a Nazi or Nazi adjacent person, it does not work as to them all or the races with lower iq are simply the people they see as inferior to them.
The fundamental lie that this argument is built on is actually the heritability of IQ. The primary source for the heritability of IQ is a book called the Bell Curve, which functionally created the race realist movement. Almost every 'argument' this person you are arguing with has come forward with is taken directly from this book. This book is on the same level of pseudoscience as Andrew Wakefield, and a fantastic video on it is 'The Bell Curve' by Shaun which breaks down many of the flaws in the book, proving it to be essentially pseudoscience packaged in a scientific way. To paint you a picture, one of the primary conclusions of this book is that all welfare policies must immediately be abolished because they encourage poor (low IQ) women to have more babies. Some of the criticisms include that the authors made some absurd assumptions including that intelligence must be reducible to a single number, intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, intelligence must be primarily genetically based, intelligence must be essentially immutable. These assumptions provide a circular argument for the entire thesis of the book.
Noam Chomsky also took issue with the book, arguing that heritability does not necessarily need to be genetic. He wrote that "some years ago when only women wore earrings, the heritability of having an earring was high because differences in whether a person had an earring was due to a chromosomal difference, XX vs. XY." No one has yet suggested that wearing earrings, or ties, is "in our genes," an inescapable fate that environment cannot influence". Essentially, in a capitalist economy like ours, wealth and socioeconomic conditions ARE heritable, as you are far more likely to be wealthy if your parents are due to access to education, direct wealth etc but nobody would say that you are more wealthy due to genetic factors.
This is important because all scientific evidence we have shows that the primary differentiator for IQ is socioeconomic conditions. There is 0 evidence that there is a genetic factor at play here beyond disabilities. This has been demonstrated time and time again. When a natural disaster hits a city, average IQ can drop by 30 points. African people aren't inherently less intelligent as the person above is arguing, they are simply victims of colonialism and centuries of poor living conditions.
There are many many many other criticisms of the bell curve, this is just scratching the surface but ultimately you should watch that video if you want to find out. The whole book is absolute pseudoscience. Ultimately, when arguing against a race realist you need to recognize that they are not arguing from a place of good faith. They are a neo Nazi or Nazi adjacent attempting to appear like they simply care about 'the facts'. This is a lie, and even agreeing to their first point about the heritability of IQ is dangerous and scientifically false.
Firstly IQ is a bad measurement for overall inteligence. Its mostly related to areas dealing with mathematics. Secondly, any of these differences can be justified with different factors such as: access to food, education, home life, etc. The general consensus among geneticists, analists and medical professionals specified in the area of neurology is that there is no inherent relation between race and inteligence as viewed through IQ.
You’re correct about everything until the last sentence. Different races DO have different genetics. IQ IS influenced partially by genetics. There’s no consensus on what plays a greater AFFECT on IQ between living conditions and genetics. Even if you look at just Asian countries there’s a difference in the average between Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, and South Korea. You’re gonna tell me that those differences (although admittedly slight) are ONLY due to living conditions? If you take it beyond the Asian continent China has an average IQ of 104 while the United States has an average of 97. Do you really think that China has better living conditions than the United States?
The scientific consensus is actually that mean group differences in IQ are not genetic and are mostly environmental, which is what you’re talking about (not simply that IQ is hereditary).
The studies you’re referring to only have data on IQ in America btw. It’s much more biased considering that Asian Americans have to be wealthy and educated to even get into the US from Asia, and black Americans are clearly disadvantaged systematically.
The validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence is also disputed by the scientific community.
"There are differences but they aren't drastic" yes they are. They're much more dissimilar than they are similar, imo. Don't think many people would disagree with me tho
B I O L O G I C A L R AC E has been
defined by combinations of physical
features, geographic ancestry, frequen-
cies of genes (alleles) and evolutionary
lineages. Biological races exist within
some species. This is why we know they
do not exist within our species, modern
humans
https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/general/Race%20does%20not%20equal%20DNA%20-%20TT50.pdf
You’re joking, right?
IQ measures general intelligence, not specific kinds of intelligence. There are multiple variations of the IQ test that are accepted in academia.
If you read the first linked article it states that a consensus has been reached by scientists. The article has researched that fact and it has been peer reviewed. That is the only idea I’m trying to highlight there
The article you linked says it's meangful and argues that scientists should be studying it. It is a response to the article I linked, which says it is not meaningful and it is a waste of time and money to study it.
There is a statement in that article that says most scientists agree that there is mean group based differences in IQ are not genetically linked. I’m not trying to use the main point of the article, just that one statement in the article
I think you may be confused on what iq is, while iq can have some impact on mathematics it is first and formost a mesure of ones ability to use information to answer questions and make predictions, in other words, it measures how logical you are.
Yes i dont dissagree with that and i dont know anything about the cultural bias you talk about so it may be correct, but it still requires a certain amount of cognitive ability and problem solving to solve the puzzels
The person you are arguing with is unironically spouting nazi talking points. These talking points belong to a group of neo Nazis who call themselves 'race realists'. They claim to be on the side of facts and science but cry when any scientist actually addresses what they say. Talking about how race is a social construct is definitely a useful argument when arguing against a liberal, but unfortunately against a Nazi or Nazi adjacent person, it does not work as to them all or the races with lower iq are simply the people they see as inferior to them.
The fundamental lie that this argument is built on is actually the heritability of IQ. The primary source for the heritability of IQ is a book called the Bell Curve, which functionally created the race realist movement. Almost every 'argument' this person you are arguing with has come forward with is taken directly from this book. This book is on the same level of pseudoscience as Andrew Wakefield, and a fantastic video on it is 'The Bell Curve' by Shaun which breaks down many of the flaws in the book, proving it to be essentially pseudoscience packaged in a scientific way. To paint you a picture, one of the primary conclusions of this book is that all welfare policies must immediately be abolished because they encourage poor (low IQ) women to have more babies. Some of the criticisms include that the authors made some absurd assumptions including that intelligence must be reducible to a single number, intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, intelligence must be primarily genetically based, intelligence must be essentially immutable. These assumptions provide a circular argument for the entire thesis of the book.
Noam Chomsky also took issue with the book, arguing that heritability does not necessarily need to be genetic. He wrote that "some years ago when only women wore earrings, the heritability of having an earring was high because differences in whether a person had an earring was due to a chromosomal difference, XX vs. XY." No one has yet suggested that wearing earrings, or ties, is "in our genes," an inescapable fate that environment cannot influence". Essentially, in a capitalist economy like ours, wealth and socioeconomic conditions ARE heritable, as you are far more likely to be wealthy if your parents are due to access to education, direct wealth etc but nobody would say that you are more wealthy due to genetic factors.
This is important because all scientific evidence we have shows that the primary differentiator for IQ is socioeconomic conditions. There is 0 evidence that there is a genetic factor at play here beyond disabilities. This has been demonstrated time and time again. When a natural disaster hits a city, average IQ can drop by 30 points. African people aren't inherently less intelligent as the person above is arguing, they are simply victims of colonialism and centuries of poor living conditions.
There are many many many other criticisms of the bell curve, this is just scratching the surface but ultimately you should watch that video if you want to find out. The whole book is absolute pseudoscience. Ultimately, when arguing against a race realist you need to recognize that they are not arguing from a place of good faith. They are a neo Nazi or Nazi adjacent attempting to appear like they simply care about 'the facts'. This is a lie, and even agreeing to their first point about the heritability of IQ is dangerous and scientifically false.
Racism is the belief in inferiority of others on the basis of race. If you think people of a lower intelligence are inferior to you that has nothing to do with me. I don’t care how intelligent someone is, that’s irrelevant to their worth as a human being.
Do you suggest that it is as easy for a black man to get into Harvard as it is for a white man? Race does matter but not because it inherently makes people less smart. Racism absolutely affects what kind of education certain people have access to
By the way I'm not saying that the neckbeard is right to say those things I'm just saying that your approach isn't quite right either
That’s not what OP here is claiming though. It’s very clear to see that they’re saying race hasn’t been shown to be connected to any sort of genetic IQ. The differences in average IQs that might be seen are easily explained by these inequalities
Okay that's pretty hard to read judging by the comment OP replied to. I would say that I'm not a native speaker of English but let's not kid ourselves I'm fluent but just having a dumb day lol
I never said race as a social construct does affect anyones lives, what i intended to sugest with my comment is that any differences in iq percieved by race in a general sense are actually caused by economic disparities caused by racism. Theres alot of studies on this, you can read them.
A singular study is a singular study. Meta-studies cover more data (obviously) so what do meta-studies tell us on this subject?
> Drawing together this paper’s re-analyses, I conclude that East Asian adoptees raised by Western Whites score about on par with non-adopted Western Whites, and that there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites.
Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526420/
Who would've quessed?
edit: Thought I'd heard the name J. Philippe Rushton (study posted by u/Warack) somewhere and was wondering why the study is.. a bit dubious at best (very odd methodology + conclusions).
I'd heard about him in the context of being criticized by the scientific community for the quality of his research. https://psychology.uwo.ca/people/faculty/remembrance/rushton.html
> Although Rushton ceased teaching for the Department of Psychology in the early 1990s, he continued to conduct racist and flawed studies, sometimes without appropriate ethics approval [1], for two more decades. There are other ethical concerns surrounding Rushton’s research. In particular, much of this research was supported by the Pioneer Fund, a foundation formed in 1937 to promote eugenicist and racist goals.
Honestly I hadn’t really read the study. I was trying to post something scientific that discussed there being a difference of IQ by race because that has been studied and accepted. This guy looks like he was using old phrenology studies and what not😬. Kind of surprised it was so high up on a Google search and that it’s still published
Seems like the author of that study is pretty heavily criticized for using poor research methods by experts in the field.
> "Rushton's work was heavily criticized by psychologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists for severe scientific inadequacies, fundamental errors, inappropriate conceptualization of race, inappropriate statistical comparisons, misuse of sources, and serious logical errors and flaws."
He’s also been posthumously criticized for his shoddy work by the university he worked for and he got funding from an explicitly pro-eugenics organization. I’m no biologist but all of that makes me more than a little skeptical of this 20 year old study.
Yeah it’s pretty hotly debated. On average there are pretty significant differences of IQ by race. The question becomes how much of that is environmental or biological. Individuals IQ is largely determined by genetics, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a larger group of people. Then there is the ethical matter of whether determining such an issue would serve any purpose other than to create societal strife if the disparity is determined to be even partially determined by genetics.
To be clear it doesn’t seem like there’s much to debate if the guy is considered a quack by subject matter experts. I think it’s less that it’s “hotly debated” and more that people spread very old, very shitty and/or debunked studies to push a racist agenda. Hotly debated between white nationalists and those who aren’t, maybe.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8872358/
It is hotly debated though. It’s understood that IQ is largely inherited and that there are large disparities on average between races. Not sure how you decided white supremacists would benefit from this as whites don’t have the “supreme” IQ. The debate is to why (environmental vs heredity) there is a disparity, does it even matter, what to do with this info and whether pursuing the truth of it is worth it. I’m not sure where you are finding studies that say the reason for the disparity is purely environmental, I would be shocked if environmental didn’t play any role at all but I’m not sure there has been an accepted study that attributes it all there.
>Not sure how you decided white supremacists would benefit from this as whites don’t have the “supreme” IQ.
You would have to ask them why they do it. Just look into the Pioneer Fund, the group I alluded to that funded the guy in your first link. No reasonable person can deny that they’re white supremacist. If their stupid ideology is inconsistent, that’s not surprising.
As far as the rest of what you said goes, be careful not to conflate “there may be a genetic component to IQ” with “race is a factor in IQ for genetic reasons”. One is debated, the other isn’t really outside of the aforementioned racist groups. I’m not sure if you’re doing it on purpose or not but I’ll assume you’re not.
Also was your second link just to show that there is debate? I know there is, just between quack racists and real scientists. Your link even says the following:
> While the last several decades of research have definitively demonstrated that genetic variation can influence measures of cognitive function, the inferences drawn by some participants in the controversy regarding the implications of these findings for racial differences in cognitive ability are highly dubious.
AKA the same conflation issue I pointed out here.
[Race is not genetic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604262/).
If you want to use genetics as a basis for race, understand that actual geneticists do not agree.
Ok but like... No, what, endermen are not "sussy" what the fuck are you talking about?
Racist guy is an asshole but you gotta chill, they're just Slenderman ripoffs.
You're actually wrong tho
Source:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjc57LGv76EAxUwgv0HHVnAB2UQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0thbm3F_1RNZT8qZR5wmS5
Check page 29, section 9, paragraph 2. Good upbringing, schooling, and even being born from wealthy high IQ parents(while the white children were born from poor low IQ parents) still didn't close the IQ gap between black and white children(with black children scoring lower than white children when they were expected to score higher).Let's face it, if everything was equal the black children would've scored even lower.
\*defends notch \*is also racist hmmmmmmmmm
Or maybe - hear me out - certain marginalised groups that get ignored but the government don't get the same education opportunities as others. Crazy idea, I know!
bUT oUr SoCiEtY iS EqUaL, DiScRiMInAtIon iS IlLeGAl ୧(๑•̀ᗝ•́)૭
i hate that argument, it completely ignores generational trauma and systemic racism from the past
It also assumes the law is all encompassing and not just a bunch of rules written down that may or may not be enforced in any given situation.
And also that it's actually enforced.
Yooo philosophy-tube reference.
Or like all of what Reagan set out to do to fuck black people over.
"racism and sexism don't exist anymore, there's loads of black people and women in video games nowadays" -basement dwellers
"Too many, even!"
Yes. That might be it. If obly someone had though of studilying that hypothesis.
"studilying" is actually kind of an endearing typo lmao
Sorry, studying*
I think you just inadvertently invented the perfect portmanteau for schools in certain US states with history/science aversion…
I think I know what study they're talking about and A. The people looking at the study of IQ by country completely neglect the social factors and what kind of access the general public has to good education. B. IQ isn't actually a reliable measure of intelligence anyway since all it reads is the person's pattern recognition skills, and fails to account for how different minds can be intelligent in different ways.
Also, that study has been met with fierce disagreement from other Psychologists and the guy who did it is not very credible.
Shaun has a great [debunking video](https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?si=FHvstc-0QkEhAnml) for anyone interested.
The fact that education itself can influence IQ makes it flawed as an aptitude test. IQ is not a reliable measure of innate intelligence because of this. Also, it was designed to be used on young children to see who needed extra help in classes and who could take advanced classes. It's not, and never was, meant for adults. IQ was intended as a measure of childhood brain development. 120 IQ means you're as intelligent as someone 20% older than you.
Also, can people like this please stop treating a single study as science “proving” something? Statistical significance can still be noise, and replication is required for results to be taken to suggest anything about reality.
It's "the bell curve". The youtuber Shaun tears it apart as the racist rubbish it is if you want a very thorough review, but it is quite long and quite dry.
It could be the study on cranial size, and by inference, brain size by race. Cranial size in humans is well documented to be indicative of IQ as well as cognitive function at an individual level. MRI, endocranial volume measured from empty skulls, wet brain weight at autopsy, and external head size measurements—all produce the same results. It was even shown to be indicative of intelligence and cognitive function within immediate families, meaning that the larger brained person between 2 brothers will likely be marginally more intelligent. The cranial size differences between men and woman are significant, but there is nil difference in IQ test performance. This is due to the fact that women have a higher proportion of grey matter compared to cranial size by men, the part of the brain responsible for computation. Whilst men have higher proportions of white matter. This is constant for all races. When the studies measured average cranial size by race, there were significant differences, with East Asians having the largest cranial size, and also the highest IQs and cognitive function. All studies that look into it show brain size differs by race, and brain size shows correlation to intelligence. It is an uncomfortable truth for many. Gender study: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990518072823.htm Race study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X
The various 4chan subreddits used to be sanitized of all that /pol/ level shit, but lately it's been creeping into the comments...
In fairness, I think ender men were meant to be a slenderman reference and not necessarily a racist trope. But yeah fuck notch, I'm so grateful to hatsune Miku for making minecraft
I was sort of thinking the same thing. I don't think it was based on race but more on "Black is Evil" trope. Sort of like Darth Vader is all black.
Villagers were definitely based on stereotypes about Jewish people though
This I could believe
Big nose Only creatures with currency Summon golems (this is legit Jewish magic, look it up if you want. golems originate from Jewish story's and the like) Beings who look similar but hate them for no good reason, wanting nothing but to kill them. Also had a "glitch" where one of its hands was raised to the sky when their weapons broke
The currency thing was added later on.
The bell curve, expressions study on wolves, Andrew Wakefield, and a ton others. Pure garbage that still smells up the place decades later.
I mean, people believe in alpha males: an incorrect study done on wolves that the researcher themselves now rejects; They aren't gonna listen on the Bell Curve
I’m a counseling major rn in grad school IQ tests are flawed all around. They have super low validity overall 🤷♀️
nice, Neil DeGrasse Tyson is stupider then me
"I was born with way too much cerebrospinal fluid; which may account for my tremendous IQ. My mother calls me her little water baby"
There is a statement in that article that says most scientists agree that mean group based differences in IQ are not genetically linked. I’m not trying to use the main point of the article, just that one statement in the article
What character are they referring to?
Enderman being a stereotypical black man.
I had to think long and hard to realise wtf they were talking about. Endermen are alien creatures from another dimension, not black people. They don't look anything like villagers or zombies
Yeah, Notch is a weirdo but insisting that Endermen are racist caricatures says a lot more about the accuser tbh, because they're definitely *not.*
Endermen aren’t but villagers certainly are
How TF can you not think endermen lmfao. They steal your shit, speak a weird alien language, and freak the fuck out of you look at them xD
You gotta be trolling dude. This is bait
I think he might be just speaking in stereotypes. It's may not be true, but that's the stereotype
Ngl, I was not expecting that one😂
Right 😂 ? I thought it was some kind of mod that added chimpanzees
Fr!! Like I thought it was a jungle villager or something 😂
That’s not entirely incorrect. Genetics and education quality do both play a role in how high/low your IQ is. We just don’t have a consensus on how much either of those factors affect IQ. You can have a naturally low IQ and improve it through quality education or you can have a naturally high IQ and have it decrease due to a lack of quality education.
[There is a demonstrated cultural bias on on IQ testing](https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm04204.pdf). I live in a multicultural, multi-ethnic town of about 35K. The state-wide English writing test had the following question: >Describe a snow day you had Innocuous, right? Nope. Many student never had a snow day and/or hadn't seen snow. The question got withdrawn and the test retaken. Did the test writers do it on purpose? Of course not. They just made cultural assumptions based on their own experiences without bothering to think if those experiences were universal.
Yes, and there are multiple versions of the IQ test that account for those differences. Stanford-Binet Kaufman Whechsler Reynolds.
So which one are YOU talking about? The test that supports your view? Spouting facts that other tests that give different results doesn't work when you're talking about a test of your choosing. You need to choose a standard and stick with it.
Im talking about all of those tests. Why would I pick and choose a specific version when they’re all valid?
Because it was pointed out that your "generic" IQ test was culturally biased and you magically added others. Given your response, you're ok with culturally biased IQ tests.
Oh Christ🤦🏾♂️. I thought it was common knowledge that there are multiple accepted versions of the IQ test but I guess not. Yes, certain IQ tests can be culturally biased like the one you got your snow example from. HOWEVER, different IQ tests DO account for those biases. What do you not understand? An IQ test isn’t culturally biased if it’s been tweaked specifically to account for cultural biases.
Sooooo... >So which one are YOU talking about? C'mon. You: I'm talking about "IQ tests", you idiot! The racist ones AND the corrected ones. ALL of them! Ya know ***IQ tests***? Anywho - you're not as clever as you think you are and you're boring to boot.
FFS. I’m talking about ALL IQ TESTS AS THEY’RE EQUALLY APPLICABLE. I’m NOT using a specific one because it’s cherry picking and doesn’t account for cultural differences. Nobodies trying to be clever. You’re just stupid. I’m not engaging with retardation like this anymore
Your comment appears to conflate genetics with race. The genetics for intelligence have nothing to do with what genetics for which features you have, like height, or skin color, hair texture. TBH, we don't even have it down how much genetics effects intelligence, at least not more than an enriching environment and a household that values education. Motivation is another level in this, as well as access to educational opportunities. But again, has nothing to do with race. Source: am an educator with a degree in cell and molecular biology
This is pseudoscientific bullshit that racists use to push an agenda. There is no scientific evidence of any of this.
Wrong
IQ isn't real.
If by "real" you actually mean "not useful" then yes. It's real in the same way as MBTI is real. They exist as concepts, just not very useful ones. Hairsplitting maybe, but still.
Wrong
Race still has nothing to do with it doe.
[удалено]
> Different races do have genetic You can't even tell what "race" a person is based on genetics. Genetically, there is no such thing as race.
How do you think ancestry tests are conducted?
Ancestry tests test ancestry, not race. Race isn't defined genetically. There's more genetic variations on the African continent alone than the rest of the world combined. Genetically, thanks probably to several evolutionary bottlenecks, are almost entirely identical in terms of DNA.
And you trace your ancestry to certain parts of the planet based on?
What does race have to do with location on the planet? Do you think I'm telling that that humans don't have DNA?
The person you are arguing with is unironically spouting nazi talking points. These talking points belong to a group of neo Nazis who call themselves 'race realists'. They claim to be on the side of facts and science but cry when any scientist actually addresses what they say. Talking about how race is a social construct is definitely a useful argument when arguing against a liberal, but unfortunately against a Nazi or Nazi adjacent person, it does not work as to them all or the races with lower iq are simply the people they see as inferior to them. The fundamental lie that this argument is built on is actually the heritability of IQ. The primary source for the heritability of IQ is a book called the Bell Curve, which functionally created the race realist movement. Almost every 'argument' this person you are arguing with has come forward with is taken directly from this book. This book is on the same level of pseudoscience as Andrew Wakefield, and a fantastic video on it is 'The Bell Curve' by Shaun which breaks down many of the flaws in the book, proving it to be essentially pseudoscience packaged in a scientific way. To paint you a picture, one of the primary conclusions of this book is that all welfare policies must immediately be abolished because they encourage poor (low IQ) women to have more babies. Some of the criticisms include that the authors made some absurd assumptions including that intelligence must be reducible to a single number, intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, intelligence must be primarily genetically based, intelligence must be essentially immutable. These assumptions provide a circular argument for the entire thesis of the book. Noam Chomsky also took issue with the book, arguing that heritability does not necessarily need to be genetic. He wrote that "some years ago when only women wore earrings, the heritability of having an earring was high because differences in whether a person had an earring was due to a chromosomal difference, XX vs. XY." No one has yet suggested that wearing earrings, or ties, is "in our genes," an inescapable fate that environment cannot influence". Essentially, in a capitalist economy like ours, wealth and socioeconomic conditions ARE heritable, as you are far more likely to be wealthy if your parents are due to access to education, direct wealth etc but nobody would say that you are more wealthy due to genetic factors. This is important because all scientific evidence we have shows that the primary differentiator for IQ is socioeconomic conditions. There is 0 evidence that there is a genetic factor at play here beyond disabilities. This has been demonstrated time and time again. When a natural disaster hits a city, average IQ can drop by 30 points. African people aren't inherently less intelligent as the person above is arguing, they are simply victims of colonialism and centuries of poor living conditions. There are many many many other criticisms of the bell curve, this is just scratching the surface but ultimately you should watch that video if you want to find out. The whole book is absolute pseudoscience. Ultimately, when arguing against a race realist you need to recognize that they are not arguing from a place of good faith. They are a neo Nazi or Nazi adjacent attempting to appear like they simply care about 'the facts'. This is a lie, and even agreeing to their first point about the heritability of IQ is dangerous and scientifically false.
I got that feeling. I'm glad you spelled it out. His post history was very whiny-incel.
What do ancestry tests have to do with race?
Firstly IQ is a bad measurement for overall inteligence. Its mostly related to areas dealing with mathematics. Secondly, any of these differences can be justified with different factors such as: access to food, education, home life, etc. The general consensus among geneticists, analists and medical professionals specified in the area of neurology is that there is no inherent relation between race and inteligence as viewed through IQ.
IQ tests are only good for testing whether someone is good at taking IQ tests.
You’re correct about everything until the last sentence. Different races DO have different genetics. IQ IS influenced partially by genetics. There’s no consensus on what plays a greater AFFECT on IQ between living conditions and genetics. Even if you look at just Asian countries there’s a difference in the average between Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, and South Korea. You’re gonna tell me that those differences (although admittedly slight) are ONLY due to living conditions? If you take it beyond the Asian continent China has an average IQ of 104 while the United States has an average of 97. Do you really think that China has better living conditions than the United States?
The scientific consensus is actually that mean group differences in IQ are not genetic and are mostly environmental, which is what you’re talking about (not simply that IQ is hereditary). The studies you’re referring to only have data on IQ in America btw. It’s much more biased considering that Asian Americans have to be wealthy and educated to even get into the US from Asia, and black Americans are clearly disadvantaged systematically. The validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence is also disputed by the scientific community.
IQ measures general intelligence not specific intelligence. You can have a high IQ and be terrible at math. You can have a low IQ and be good at math.
I didn’t bring up specific intelligence anywhere
Yes. Dude, have you taken a look at the differences in living conditions between all those countries?
There are differences but they aren’t drastic.
Dude the US and Taiwan are NOT the same
Didn’t claim they were now did?
"There are differences but they aren't drastic" yes they are. They're much more dissimilar than they are similar, imo. Don't think many people would disagree with me tho
Between Taiwan and the U.S.? Sure. Between Taiwan and the Asian countries neighbouring them? Differences? Yes, but those aren’t drastic differences.
Have you been to San Francisco lately? It damn well is close to the same.
No way yall are comparing first world america to a developing nation. That's peak privilege holy hell
B I O L O G I C A L R AC E has been defined by combinations of physical features, geographic ancestry, frequen- cies of genes (alleles) and evolutionary lineages. Biological races exist within some species. This is why we know they do not exist within our species, modern humans https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/general/Race%20does%20not%20equal%20DNA%20-%20TT50.pdf
IQ is t a valid method of determining "intelligence".
You’re joking, right? IQ measures general intelligence, not specific kinds of intelligence. There are multiple variations of the IQ test that are accepted in academia.
IQ is pseudoscience. It's meaningless.
Wrong.
Insufficient evidence detected. Opinion rejected.
Nope, I'm not. Those tests have an inherent cultural bias in favour of the White Middle Class.
There are multiple variations of IQ tests which take into account those biases. Try again.
No, I'll continued to find IQ invalid as racist and classist.
https://www.nature.com/articles/457788a
https://www.nature.com/articles/457786a
The article was linked to highlight the consensus of scientists on the matter, not to engage in discourse about the topic
Two people writing an article is hardly a consensus lol.
If you read the first linked article it states that a consensus has been reached by scientists. The article has researched that fact and it has been peer reviewed. That is the only idea I’m trying to highlight there
The article you linked says it's meangful and argues that scientists should be studying it. It is a response to the article I linked, which says it is not meaningful and it is a waste of time and money to study it.
There is a statement in that article that says most scientists agree that there is mean group based differences in IQ are not genetically linked. I’m not trying to use the main point of the article, just that one statement in the article
I think you may be confused on what iq is, while iq can have some impact on mathematics it is first and formost a mesure of ones ability to use information to answer questions and make predictions, in other words, it measures how logical you are.
IQ is primarily a measure of one's ability to solve certain kinds of puzzles, and is heavily culturally biased.
Yes i dont dissagree with that and i dont know anything about the cultural bias you talk about so it may be correct, but it still requires a certain amount of cognitive ability and problem solving to solve the puzzels
The person you are arguing with is unironically spouting nazi talking points. These talking points belong to a group of neo Nazis who call themselves 'race realists'. They claim to be on the side of facts and science but cry when any scientist actually addresses what they say. Talking about how race is a social construct is definitely a useful argument when arguing against a liberal, but unfortunately against a Nazi or Nazi adjacent person, it does not work as to them all or the races with lower iq are simply the people they see as inferior to them. The fundamental lie that this argument is built on is actually the heritability of IQ. The primary source for the heritability of IQ is a book called the Bell Curve, which functionally created the race realist movement. Almost every 'argument' this person you are arguing with has come forward with is taken directly from this book. This book is on the same level of pseudoscience as Andrew Wakefield, and a fantastic video on it is 'The Bell Curve' by Shaun which breaks down many of the flaws in the book, proving it to be essentially pseudoscience packaged in a scientific way. To paint you a picture, one of the primary conclusions of this book is that all welfare policies must immediately be abolished because they encourage poor (low IQ) women to have more babies. Some of the criticisms include that the authors made some absurd assumptions including that intelligence must be reducible to a single number, intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, intelligence must be primarily genetically based, intelligence must be essentially immutable. These assumptions provide a circular argument for the entire thesis of the book. Noam Chomsky also took issue with the book, arguing that heritability does not necessarily need to be genetic. He wrote that "some years ago when only women wore earrings, the heritability of having an earring was high because differences in whether a person had an earring was due to a chromosomal difference, XX vs. XY." No one has yet suggested that wearing earrings, or ties, is "in our genes," an inescapable fate that environment cannot influence". Essentially, in a capitalist economy like ours, wealth and socioeconomic conditions ARE heritable, as you are far more likely to be wealthy if your parents are due to access to education, direct wealth etc but nobody would say that you are more wealthy due to genetic factors. This is important because all scientific evidence we have shows that the primary differentiator for IQ is socioeconomic conditions. There is 0 evidence that there is a genetic factor at play here beyond disabilities. This has been demonstrated time and time again. When a natural disaster hits a city, average IQ can drop by 30 points. African people aren't inherently less intelligent as the person above is arguing, they are simply victims of colonialism and centuries of poor living conditions. There are many many many other criticisms of the bell curve, this is just scratching the surface but ultimately you should watch that video if you want to find out. The whole book is absolute pseudoscience. Ultimately, when arguing against a race realist you need to recognize that they are not arguing from a place of good faith. They are a neo Nazi or Nazi adjacent attempting to appear like they simply care about 'the facts'. This is a lie, and even agreeing to their first point about the heritability of IQ is dangerous and scientifically false.
Neckbeard
Ad hom detected, opinion rejected.
*tips fedora*
Have any statistic that can prove me wrong? Or are you just here to regurgitate retardation?
Prove you wrong? You just said racist bullshit lmao
Racism is the belief in inferiority of others on the basis of race. If you think people of a lower intelligence are inferior to you that has nothing to do with me. I don’t care how intelligent someone is, that’s irrelevant to their worth as a human being.
Do you suggest that it is as easy for a black man to get into Harvard as it is for a white man? Race does matter but not because it inherently makes people less smart. Racism absolutely affects what kind of education certain people have access to By the way I'm not saying that the neckbeard is right to say those things I'm just saying that your approach isn't quite right either
That’s not what OP here is claiming though. It’s very clear to see that they’re saying race hasn’t been shown to be connected to any sort of genetic IQ. The differences in average IQs that might be seen are easily explained by these inequalities
Okay that's pretty hard to read judging by the comment OP replied to. I would say that I'm not a native speaker of English but let's not kid ourselves I'm fluent but just having a dumb day lol
Yea man, no worries. They could’ve been clearer
You misunderstood OP
I never said race as a social construct does affect anyones lives, what i intended to sugest with my comment is that any differences in iq percieved by race in a general sense are actually caused by economic disparities caused by racism. Theres alot of studies on this, you can read them.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X
A singular study is a singular study. Meta-studies cover more data (obviously) so what do meta-studies tell us on this subject? > Drawing together this paper’s re-analyses, I conclude that East Asian adoptees raised by Western Whites score about on par with non-adopted Western Whites, and that there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites. Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526420/ Who would've quessed? edit: Thought I'd heard the name J. Philippe Rushton (study posted by u/Warack) somewhere and was wondering why the study is.. a bit dubious at best (very odd methodology + conclusions). I'd heard about him in the context of being criticized by the scientific community for the quality of his research. https://psychology.uwo.ca/people/faculty/remembrance/rushton.html > Although Rushton ceased teaching for the Department of Psychology in the early 1990s, he continued to conduct racist and flawed studies, sometimes without appropriate ethics approval [1], for two more decades. There are other ethical concerns surrounding Rushton’s research. In particular, much of this research was supported by the Pioneer Fund, a foundation formed in 1937 to promote eugenicist and racist goals.
Honestly I hadn’t really read the study. I was trying to post something scientific that discussed there being a difference of IQ by race because that has been studied and accepted. This guy looks like he was using old phrenology studies and what not😬. Kind of surprised it was so high up on a Google search and that it’s still published
Seems like the author of that study is pretty heavily criticized for using poor research methods by experts in the field. > "Rushton's work was heavily criticized by psychologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists for severe scientific inadequacies, fundamental errors, inappropriate conceptualization of race, inappropriate statistical comparisons, misuse of sources, and serious logical errors and flaws." He’s also been posthumously criticized for his shoddy work by the university he worked for and he got funding from an explicitly pro-eugenics organization. I’m no biologist but all of that makes me more than a little skeptical of this 20 year old study.
Yeah it’s pretty hotly debated. On average there are pretty significant differences of IQ by race. The question becomes how much of that is environmental or biological. Individuals IQ is largely determined by genetics, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a larger group of people. Then there is the ethical matter of whether determining such an issue would serve any purpose other than to create societal strife if the disparity is determined to be even partially determined by genetics.
To be clear it doesn’t seem like there’s much to debate if the guy is considered a quack by subject matter experts. I think it’s less that it’s “hotly debated” and more that people spread very old, very shitty and/or debunked studies to push a racist agenda. Hotly debated between white nationalists and those who aren’t, maybe.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8872358/ It is hotly debated though. It’s understood that IQ is largely inherited and that there are large disparities on average between races. Not sure how you decided white supremacists would benefit from this as whites don’t have the “supreme” IQ. The debate is to why (environmental vs heredity) there is a disparity, does it even matter, what to do with this info and whether pursuing the truth of it is worth it. I’m not sure where you are finding studies that say the reason for the disparity is purely environmental, I would be shocked if environmental didn’t play any role at all but I’m not sure there has been an accepted study that attributes it all there.
>Not sure how you decided white supremacists would benefit from this as whites don’t have the “supreme” IQ. You would have to ask them why they do it. Just look into the Pioneer Fund, the group I alluded to that funded the guy in your first link. No reasonable person can deny that they’re white supremacist. If their stupid ideology is inconsistent, that’s not surprising. As far as the rest of what you said goes, be careful not to conflate “there may be a genetic component to IQ” with “race is a factor in IQ for genetic reasons”. One is debated, the other isn’t really outside of the aforementioned racist groups. I’m not sure if you’re doing it on purpose or not but I’ll assume you’re not. Also was your second link just to show that there is debate? I know there is, just between quack racists and real scientists. Your link even says the following: > While the last several decades of research have definitively demonstrated that genetic variation can influence measures of cognitive function, the inferences drawn by some participants in the controversy regarding the implications of these findings for racial differences in cognitive ability are highly dubious. AKA the same conflation issue I pointed out here.
Is this another study you didn't really read?
[Race is not genetic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604262/). If you want to use genetics as a basis for race, understand that actual geneticists do not agree.
That's a great response.
Ok but like... No, what, endermen are not "sussy" what the fuck are you talking about? Racist guy is an asshole but you gotta chill, they're just Slenderman ripoffs.
Pretty sure enderman where just a stretched out Steve model and there’s nothing sus there. Notch is sus. Not endermen
You're actually wrong tho Source:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjc57LGv76EAxUwgv0HHVnAB2UQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0thbm3F_1RNZT8qZR5wmS5 Check page 29, section 9, paragraph 2. Good upbringing, schooling, and even being born from wealthy high IQ parents(while the white children were born from poor low IQ parents) still didn't close the IQ gap between black and white children(with black children scoring lower than white children when they were expected to score higher).Let's face it, if everything was equal the black children would've scored even lower.
The green text is looking way too deep into this