The Art of Nonsense, Pathology or Con-Artistry?

[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?"

[Master]

"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?"

Even height and other physiology can be linked to the environment that people live in.

[TitoFan]

Physical differences..... black vs white..... tall vs short..... straight hair vs curly hair...... round eyes vs slanted eyes..... even facial contours and other characteristics, have been developed over ages and ages of evolution, and most likely in answer to necessities borne from living environments. Native cultures at high altitudes develop the ability to breathe and perform with less oxygen than those at coastal regions. To stretch that to the IQ realm is pushing an agenda, IMO. The "so-called" scientific evidence mentioned so many times by those who wish badly to push that agenda is nothing more than ill-conceived conclusions from "studies" based on flawed premises and sometimes manipulated statistics. But this is nothing new, really. The same thing applies to other issues where it suits particular interests to "prove" something, regardless of the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

So let's for a minute entertain the ridiculous notion that somehow IQ is linked to race and/or ethnicities. Why is it that in this age of unbridled scientific discoveries and advances..... why is it that we haven't found the magic DNA key to this disparity in intelligence between races? Not regurgitated and/or manipulated stats. Not snakeoil salesmen pitches like the Molyneux's of the world. Clear and unadulterated fact. Where is it?

Frankly, it's a shame that in the 21st century, we're still pushing such absurd agendas.

[Beanz]

"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?"

Not at all because height and size are identifiable genetic components. There are not the same identifiable genes for intelligence. Japanese Culture, Korean culture, Asian Culture is all geared towards activities and practices that bode well for IQ tests. IQ test are not even the unbiased tests they present themselves as. This is why IQ's fluctuate so much among people with very similar genetics. Growing their IQ' s makes no sense, if you think it is genetic that would take many, many, many, many generations to show up. The fact that people can with practice increase their own score again and again in their life time suggest that there is no racial component and that nurture/education etc are THE determining factors.

[TitoFan]

The dangerous part about this IQ/race agenda is that is creates a lazy fallback position for arguments where society promotes and perpetuates divisions based on race and ethnicities. It's easier to defend discriminatory laws and stances by citing "scientific studies" about IQ inequality between races and ethnicities, than to attack the problems posed by those very laws and stances. This is not an issue to be taken lightly, as it feeds the portion of the population that wants to continue and widen these divisions. Nothing positive comes out of these claims, but rather resentment, anger and mistrust. In some cases it could even be a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Well.... I'm black to I'm supposed to be stupid. Or not good enough to attend such-and-such university." You can hardly blame blacks for founding their own colleges, an article of which appears in the same National Geographic issue I had mentioned earlier.

[TitoFan]

All of which reminds me of a favorite classic of mine...........

[El Kabong]

Not at all because height and size are identifiable genetic components. There are not the same identifiable genes for intelligence. Japanese Culture, Korean culture, Asian Culture is all geared towards activities and practices that bode well for IQ tests. IQ test are not even the unbiased tests they present themselves as. This is why IQ's fluctuate so much among people with very similar genetics. Growing their IQ' s makes no sense, if you think it is genetic that would take many, many, many, many generations to show up. The fact that people can with practice increase their own score again and again in their life time suggest that there is no racial component and that nurture/education etc are THE determining factors.

Like height and size, IQ also has identifiable genetic components.....Peer Reviewed links for your reading if you care to do so.

Genetic Variants Build a Smarter Brain
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/...-smarter-brain

Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in school
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...-you-do-school

Gene Network Effects on Brain Microstructure and Intellectual Performance Identified in 472 Twins
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/25/8732


If IQ was 100% determined by Nurture/Environment then you would be (and I am not accusing you of this at all) laying the blame for those races and ethnicities not achieving as high on IQ tests on the cultures they come from/were raised in and that is (and dear lord I hate to use the word) "problematic" because all cultures value education, all cultures value knowledge and to say "It's 100% nurture/environment" is saying Native American cultures don't value wisdom, education, Black cultures don't value wisdom, education, Hispanic and Latino cultures don't value wisdom education and I don't for 1 second believe that, and I believe that you are not inferring that but you're not meaning to imply it, but this is the crux of the trouble when discussing IQ along with race and ethnicity.


It's by no means an open and shut case either way.

[Beanz]

Not at all because height and size are identifiable genetic components. There are not the same identifiable genes for intelligence. Japanese Culture, Korean culture, Asian Culture is all geared towards activities and practices that bode well for IQ tests. IQ test are not even the unbiased tests they present themselves as. This is why IQ's fluctuate so much among people with very similar genetics. Growing their IQ' s makes no sense, if you think it is genetic that would take many, many, many, many generations to show up. The fact that people can with practice increase their own score again and again in their life time suggest that there is no racial component and that nurture/education etc are THE determining factors.

Like height and size, IQ also has identifiable genetic components.....Peer Reviewed links for your reading if you care to do so.

Genetic Variants Build a Smarter Brain
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/...-smarter-brain

Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in school
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...-you-do-school

Gene Network Effects on Brain Microstructure and Intellectual Performance Identified in 472 Twins
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/25/8732


If IQ was 100% determined by Nurture/Environment then you would be (and I am not accusing you of this at all) laying the blame for those races and ethnicities not achieving as high on IQ tests on the cultures they come from/were raised in and that is (and dear lord I hate to use the word) "problematic" because all cultures value education, all cultures value knowledge and to say "It's 100% nurture/environment" is saying Native American cultures don't value wisdom, education, Black cultures don't value wisdom, education, Hispanic and Latino cultures don't value wisdom education and I don't for 1 second believe that, and I believe that you are not inferring that but you're not meaning to imply it, but this is the crux of the trouble when discussing IQ along with race and ethnicity.


It's by no means an open and shut case either way.

Of course it's never as simple as anyone would have us believe. It's hard enough to see outside our own value systems and cultures without them influencing things and while the IQ test is supposed to do that it really can never be that which it hopes to be.

[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.