Are IQ tests relevant and or meaningful?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

(I quote an email that a scientist (Dr. Van Arsdale) sent me in this post quite a bit, so I'm just crediting him here.)


Now, from my perspective, IQ tests are meaningful to an extent, but I think scientists like J. Philippe Rushton and Charles Murray have been misleading people on this for far too long.

The short answer to your question is: no, IQ tests do not measure "intelligence."  Intelligence has an ontological reality, certainly, but in practice, intelligence is inevitably epistemologically defined. Arthur Jensen and Rushton's 'g factor', for example, is merely a statistical construction based on standardized test results.  It exists, but its existence is not necessarily connected with biology in any meaningful way.

In regards to race, to get big, consistent differences across races you'd need to have allelic variants with really large effect size. You would essentially need to prove that the complex admixture of genes for intelligence haven't been acquired by non-Eurasian/Jewish populations, when in fact, lots of genes had been admixed INTO those populations for the past 8,000 years.  Keep in mind that while we've found some genes for IQ, we're still a long way from mapping the human brain, so no one with full confidence should claim that intelligence genes are distributed discriminately.  Also, given the really large number of genes that must inevitably be involved with the varying complex forms of intelligence that exist, unique small effect variants would simply be swamped in the polygenic nature of the phenotype.

We also have a wealth of evidence that intelligence is highly malleable to a multitude of environmental factors; not just genetic.

In short, the claim that there are innate differences in "intelligence" between biological "races" is, quite simply, an absurd, biased interpretation of data.  This myth has been debunked many times, and the Heritage Foundation was doing itself a favor by distancing itself from this pseudoscience.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

That said, IQ tests are often a racist talking point and get taken out of context.  Ultimately, the focus should be on improving people's critical thinking, reading and math skills, not just measuring them.

There is a tendency in some communities to see blacks scoring 1SD less than whites and take it as evidence that blacks are naturally dumber when a host of other factors can affect the results (Ex: Children of single mothers do worse, ceteris parebus and blacks are more likely to be raised by single mothers)

Personally, I think they would be much better if they weren't so popular.

Agreed.

I think the classic cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy applies here.  Even if high IQ is correlated with what some define as "success," there's a host of things that influence it, so when ever I see an article about how x affects IQ, I usually ignore it.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Reposting this.  Are we seriously about to engage in debate about whether some races are innately more intelligent than others?

Now, from my perspective, IQ tests are meaningful to an extent, but I think scientists like J. Philippe Rushton and Charles Murray have been misleading people on this for far too long.

The short answer to your question is: no, IQ tests do not measure "intelligence."  Intelligence has an ontological reality, certainly, but in practice, intelligence is inevitably epistemologically defined. Arthur Jensen and Rushton's 'g factor', for example, is merely a statistical construction based on standardized test results.  It exists, but its existence is not necessarily connected with biology in any meaningful way.

In regards to race, to get big, consistent differences across races you'd need to have allelic variants with really large effect size. You would essentially need to prove that the complex admixture of genes for intelligence haven't been acquired by non-Eurasian/Jewish populations, when in fact, lots of genes had been admixed INTO those populations for the past 8,000 years.  Keep in mind that while we've found some genes for IQ, we're still a long way from mapping the human brain, so no one with full confidence should claim that intelligence genes are distributed discriminately.  Also, given the really large number of genes that must inevitably be involved with the varying complex forms of intelligence that exist, unique small effect variants would simply be swamped in the polygenic nature of the phenotype.

We also have a wealth of evidence that intelligence is highly malleable to a multitude of environmental factors; not just genetic.

In short, the claim that there are innate differences in "intelligence" between biological "races" is, quite simply, an absurd, biased interpretation of data.  This myth has been debunked many times, and the Heritage Foundation was doing itself a favor by distancing itself from this pseudoscience.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.    

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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

It's also been well-established that there are far more genetic variances within races than between them.

lewtonian fallacy

Actually, nothing I have said thus far is fallacious.  Groups being genetically distinct does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population, nor does it mean that races are not social constructs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

classic hate speech. looks like we have a nazi who wants to kill 6 million jews here. better take care of this guys.

[/quote]

Troll elsewhere.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Actually, nothing I have said thus far is fallacious.  Groups being genetically distinct does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population, nor does it mean that races are not social constructs.

don't make me go wikipedia on you bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

Seen it.  I know what the argument is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you realize your position is literally racialism, right.
[/quote]

Acknowledgment of phenotypic differences =/= Belief in innate differences in intelligence

Feel free to keep misinterpreting my case, though.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Acknowledgment of phenotypic differences =/= Belief in innate differences in intelligence

Feel free to keep misinterpreting my case, though.

i never said you did. i said your position of 'not denying the biological reality of race' was textbook racialism. because it literally is.

Alright then, but it's also used as a synonym for racism, which I'm clearly not defending.  I take what would probably be considered the "moderate position" on race as a biological construct.