Are IQ tests relevant and or meaningful?

[jaichind]

For sure yes for both.  IQ are highly correlated with SATs and PISA tests internationally.  What I feel IQ tests for is the ability to do well in the modern world where abstract thinking is a premium.  Since ability to do well in the modern world is directly correlated with income and standard of living, I would say IQ is a very relevant measurement of a type of intelligence which is very important.   

[jaichind]

As far as race and IQ are concerned I would post a couple of simple maps/graphs



and



I do not want to get into a debate about what is race.  I think what is safe to say is "people from different parts of the world as of 300-400 years ago have different IQ and migration of said people to different parts of the world does not seem to change this IQ difference."  People that were from East Asia have different IQ as opposed to people from Sub-Sahara Africa when calibrated from where they lived 300-400 years ago.  When these people from those regions moved to other regions of the world the IQ differences persisted with respect to their decedents despite living in the same regions of the world.  

[jaichind]

If jaichind is arguing that the IQ gaps exists because of environmental/geographic factors, that's fine, but anything else is totally inaccurate and unsubstantiated by real facts.

Not sure how I can respond to this.  I think it is reasonable to assert that IQ can be influenced by environmental/geographic factors.  I think it is illogical to rule out other factors such genetic and income factors just like it is illogical to rule out environmental/geographic factors.  It is also illogical to insist on each one of these factors at the exclusion for whatever political purposes the person making such assertions.  To get to the point, while I do not feel that genetic factors are the only contribution to IQ I refuse to rule out that genetic factors can have an influence.

My point was only that what ever theory on what leads to IQ has to take into account some data that we have at hand.  Data such as the fact that IQ in East Asian regions seems to be high and Sub-Sahara Africa seems to be low.  Data such as immigration of people from these regions to other regions of the world does not seem to diminish this gap.  Namely IQ scores of Chinese (most having more there for more than a couple of centuries)  living South-East Asia  seems the be equal to those living in East Asia and significantly above non-Chinese in South-East Asian.  Data such as the large IQ gap between Haiti and Dominican Republic even though they are on the same island.  Data such as different IQ scores in "immigration" nations such as USA where people who descend from different parts of the world seems to have different IQs.  There can many explanations for this like culture or income or genetics. My point is any theory one gives on what makes up IQ must take these data into account.  I insist on pointing out because I feel the current political correctness climate in USA today where there is conformist pressure to reject racial or genetic explanations seems to stifle debate on this topic.  I do not insist on genetic explanations, in fact I am not sure about this topic myself as I see many factors including genetics playing a role.  I only insist that the data be explained somehow and not be wished away.   

[jaichind]

Why is it that people are jumping to the conclusion that the various data I posted implies that I am for a genetic explaination of differerences in IQ.  I am very open to non-genetic explainations to these data and in fact insist on non-genetic factors must play a role.  I totally agree that income (which implies nutrition) and litericy are  reasonable explainations for this.  Again, I am just insisting that they have to be explained in some way and not wished away.  And that where there are place with similar income and litercy there might be differences in IQ averages that we might need to explore further and open up the possiblity of cultural and yes geneic explanations.   If I had a guess (understand that I do not assert I have proof for it so I do not assert it as fact other than my wield guess) I would say various groups might have geneic or cultural ceililings but low income leads to a IQ average that is lower than that ceiling. The Flynn effect is mostly making that assertion that lower income and nutrition lowers IQ.  

Of course one large piece of data that does not seem to fit the Flynn effect as much is the case of Mainland China where it's relative lower income and relative high IQ does not seem to match.  Either Mainland China income is higher than reported (mostly true) or there need to be additonal explainations.  Of course looking at IQ by province is useful



The Flynn effect is mostly in play as richer provinces seems to have higher IQ relative to poor provinces.  There is also an affect of clustering of cognative elites in places like Shanghai and Beijing.  The relative high IQ of Hong Kong and Taiwan Province in the greater Chinese region is also function of not just income but a clustering of congnative elites from the Chinese Civil war 1949 migration.  Gansu Province which is poor has a higher IQ than one would expect.  Also Fujian Province (right across from Taiwan Province) is fairly wealthly but high lower average IQ then otherwise.  Taiwan Province (where I am from) and Fujian Province are part of the same Chinese subculture that does not value congnative skills compared to other Chinese subcultures which might explain this so for sure here is an example where culture factors are at play. Anhui Province is another example where it has high IQ average but is actually one of the poorer provinces.  Anhui does have a Chinese subculture which does seem to value congnitive skills.  So another one for a cultural argument.

[jaichind]

Not sure what you mean by "what they're pushing."  I assume you mean those that assert that IQ is only a function of biology and genetics.  I think I already make the point that I think it is equally illogical to rule out genetics as a factor as is to assert that genetics is the only factor.  As for things like "Head Start, affirmative action, and forced busing" I am very much opposed to them for a more fundamental reason.  Lets say I accept the PC argument that poor economic and academic performance of certain groups in the USA has nothing to do with culture or genetics and is only because of big bad European imperialism and racism.  Even if that were the case I still would still oppose "Head Start, affirmative action, and forced busing" because equality or addressing historical wrongs are not important to me.  I see no value to having a situation where different races (assuming they exist), gender etc etc are equal.  So my position on what might cause IQ differences is totally unrelated to my position such programs.

Funny thing is, "race realists" pull the "political correctness" card all the time to silence the opposition, even in the face of contrarian evidence.  Just because you're wrong doesn't mean someone is trying to push an agenda, and from my perspective, it's the folks on the other side who use the IQ data to suit their own political agendas, which often involve opposition to policies like Head Start, affirmative action, and forced busing.  Maybe you don't fully believe what they're pushing, but I fear you've been deeply misled into accepting their interpretation of the data as valid possibilities.

It's a well-known fact that groups outscore others even when their geographic backgrounds are similar.  The best example of this would be Northern Ireland, where Catholics (the discriminated minority) score significantly lower than Protestants even though they're of the same genetic stock.  In America, both Korean and Japanese students score above average in IQ tests and many scholars agree that, genetically, they are about as close as two ethnic groups can get.  But the Korean minority living in Japan scores much lower on IQ tests than the Japanese.

It's also been well-established that there are far more genetic variances within races than between them.  I don't deny the biological existence of race, nor do I deny that we're not all equal when it comes to intelligence, but I don't put much stock into the theory that genes for "intelligence" (which haven't even been fully identified yet) are distributed by race.  Individual differences outweigh all others.

[jaichind]

Hard to take a test if you can't read:

Hmmm ... I agree with you on principle but hate to nitpick but you exact point above might prove the opposite.  One has to assume that IQ test can only be given to the literate.  One can also assume that in low literate societies, those who are literate tends to be those with higher income or higher cognitive abilities.  So if IQ scores from Sub-Sahara Africa are what they are then if we took into account that only the top 50% are tested for IQ then the real average IQ is even lower then what the data suggest.  Of course there is a counter-argument that low literate societies even the literate suffer from lower income and nutrition which lower IQ as per Flynn effect in which I totally I agree would explain some of the results.