The Art of Nonsense, Pathology or Con-Artistry?

[TitoFan]

You are completely entitled to your opinion, of course. However, there are plenty of articles out there by very intelligent people that point out the flaws in IQ tests, their design, their administration, and their interpretation..... and dismiss the notion that IQ is related to race, ethnicity, or any such factors. So your assertions sound rather wild to me. I've read your broad generalizations for some time now, and usually I don't comment. But I couldn't be more in disagreement with them. There are many, many factors that come into play and should not be ignored when attempting to pigeonhole races and ethnicities into IQ categories. All this does is promote bigotry, separatism, general resentment between groups of people. In fact it seems sort of medieval, given the globalization we've experienced across society in the past couple of decades. You speak of "scientific proof", yet have never once provided a shred of scientific evidence to prove these sweeping generalizations. Yet I'm positive that there are true scientists out there, much better prepared than you or I, who would debunk these myths in a New York minute.

[Gandalf]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

[Gandalf]

Also, I had no idea about this, but apparently the research on race and IQ has led to problems for Asian students. At Harvard Asian students have to meet higher criteria than white people to get onto courses. That's pretty astonishing. In some ways we are now discriminating against intelligence based upon race. That's what I find wrong.

[Beanz]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

Before you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote it


Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.

[Beanz]

Peterson, Murray, Molyneaux, Harris are of course in love with the idea that they got their privileged position thru merit but it is the same pseudo science used to justify slavery.



https://medium.com/@justinward/debun...n-56e4192b39f0

[Gandalf]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

Before you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote it


Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.

How does any of that refute the research which they are citing? Tito said there were no studies shown and you can read about numerous studies in the first few pages of that article. Your last post in this thread is utterly unhinged.

[El Kabong]

Alright, well if IQ is not at least partially genetic then can anyone explain the IQ's of Ashkenazi Jews? And I do not bring them up for any other reason than the fact that they are a small population but have extremely high IQ's (for the most part). I am sure you could find an Ashkenazi Jew who is an idiot, but you also wouldn't have to search very far to find one who is brilliant.


It's a nature vs nurture issue at the core of it and you can find people on both sides.

[Beanz]

Alright, well if IQ is not at least partially genetic then can anyone explain the IQ's of Ashkenazi Jews? And I do not bring them up for any other reason than the fact that they are a small population but have extremely high IQ's (for the most part). I am sure you could find an Ashkenazi Jew who is an idiot, but you also wouldn't have to search very far to find one who is brilliant.


It's a nature vs nurture issue at the core of it and you can find people on both sides.

The majority of the science is overwhelmingly on the side of nurture. Wade, Murray, Peterson, Molyneux it is not surprise that they have all appeared on each others shows and bought into an idea that justifies their own political stance. I don't know if you or Miles would ever be able to bring yourself to contemplate it but please at least consider this.

For the people mentioned above it is very convenient to latch onto an idea that would seemingly justify their own beliefs that social inequality and social outcomes are nothing to do with nurture or circumstance, and are really just a natural outcome dictated by genetic apptitude and difference. They wholeheartedly want to believe that human equality is a fairy tale made up by wishy washy liberals. It means they can present themselves as brave outsiders with the moral and scientific integrity to face up to difficult facts. It means they can brand their opponents as IQ deniers and lend credence to their own wacky pseudo science self help babble.


Science does not back them up. Their is no identifiable gene for intelligence and things like the Ashkenazi question are quite simply answered by culture. Even among Sephardic Jews like my Grandparents and their ancestors , literacy is highly prized and important. Not just religious literature but the study and practice of music at a much higher level than many other populations at the time all help to increase the ability to complete IQ test well. Remember that all populations get better at IQ tests with just simple training within decades which would never work on a genetic level.


Even the studies carried out by racists seeking confirmation of their race/IQ link claim have returned difficult answers for them. When they studied identical twins those adopted by families form different social classes often had a 29 point IQ difference.The genetic claim is not only untrue it is indicative of people who want to find anything to justify their own prejudices. ( not Lyle and Miles the Peterson, Molyneux crew etc)

[El Kabong]

"The genetic claim is not only untrue it is indicative of people who want to find anything to justify their own prejudices."

Well if everyone has the very same ability to grow their minds and obtain high IQ's then what is stopping other people from achieving higher IQ's? The Dutch are quite tall, why are the Japanese allowing the Dutch to out height them....same kind of reasoning on display.

Nurture is a PART, Nature is a PART the question is "To what extent?"

[TitoFan]

It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf

Before you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote it


Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.

How does any of that refute the research which they are citing? Tito said there were no studies shown and you can read about numerous studies in the first few pages of that article. Your last post in this thread is utterly unhinged.

I don't think I said there were no studies. What I said was that Molyneux himself hadn't presented any hard, scientific evidence to back up his outlandish claims. "Hard, scientific evidence" is a phrase thrown around too loosely by many who don't know the meaning or scope of the phrase, so I raise that caution flag right off the bat. I also said there were numerous articles out there, well written and presented by people who have obviously done their research, which put into doubt the very essence of the design, implementation, and interpretation of these IQ tests, particularly across different cultures and ethnicities. Invariably, as Beanz points out, many of the people who push this agenda do so with ulterior motives that have little to do with science, and everything to do with furthering their own beliefs of superiority and feelings of resentment and hatred. It's been my experience throughout life that you can justify just about anything in the name of "science" with a little creativity, persuasiveness, and a knowledge on how to jumble up and play with statistics.