Quote Originally Posted by Denilson-The-Comeback View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf View Post
The fact is that there are IQ differences, but there are factors that can cause that, not necessarily genes, though that of course has been argued. It could well be the case as we have all evolved differently but I couldn't say that without ruling out all other possibilities. So read the books, work hard, and see if you can do better. Don't join a gang and don't copy your parents. That's a start.
If you are trying to ground IQ as a genetic product of race the very first thing you need to do is offer up a genetic or biological definition of race,

Something no one has not done nor has any study. But I always, sit back, invite guys like you to me give such a definition. Mainly because their fumbling attempts to define race point out just how subjective such definitions are.

In close to a decade of debating race and IQ and genetics.

I have yet to see any one of them, no matter what their scientific c credentials, offer up an acceptably neutral definition of race.

No-one has shown that human variation is great enough to account for differences of IQ, nor has anyone established the veracity of IQ as a legitimate measurement.

No one has provided an inextricable link between genetics, race, and IQ outside of methodologically flawed correlations. They make the claim, then they prove the claim.

The fact that they or you are incapable of doing so makes my life very easy.

Which are those “races” then, purely scientifically speaking and in clear text ? What are the precise genetic criteria for making this classification ?

Those questions can obviously only be answered in arbitrary dimensions which are man-made constructs according to human perception alone. However you twist it, you will run in circles and eventually spiral back into concepts based on human perception alone.

Do you even know what a scientific fact is ?

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way. Now a scientific fact, peer-reviewed, confirmed and approved, can have political consequences. Using the simple water example, it means that public administration, set into function by politics, orders winter road service to get ready once the temperatures fall below 0°C and the roads are wet.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid.

The reality is that there is not only one but a multitude of deviations that those “scientists” choose to ignore. You are trying to make an absolutist claim by using extremely relative variables – variables, which (as should be obvious by now) they can’t even be bothered to define in relativist fashion.

In neurology no one takes IQ seriously.

It is archaic and only really useful to social scientists. Neurologists who have a better understanding of how the brain works because they spend decades of their lives studying it have little to no use for it, but to the public at large it is so important.

Why is that ?

I mean - Serial Killer (Ted Bundy) supposedly had an IQ off the chart. But would it be correct to say that a guy who used to slit women from their vagina to their neck was intelligent ?

Alfred Binet created IQ test’s to see which children weren’t profiting from the Parisian school system, not so that they could be labelled stupid but so new educational programs could be created to help those children.

I think he was physic because he was afraid that his tests would be misused for nepharious reasons and he could not have been more right, because once the certain people got a hold of it, it took on a whole new meaning.

And this is why you don't drive your arguments to it's logical conclusion

That is

If IQ is so important and so trustworthy, then why not give all the top positions to those with the highest IQ? Why have elections? Why have job interviews or resumes? Why not have birth licences or sterilization based on IQ?
I have to go out soon, so just a few short observations.

I think generally the top positions do go to those who are most capable. If it is a job requiring supreme intelligence, then a very intelligent person will get that job. Do you think someone with an IQ of 80 will be able to function as a doctor, lawyer, or Astrophysicist? It is highly unlikely.

An IQ test has nothing to do with morality, so for sure a serial killer can be intelligent. I don't see what you are saying there. Though fictional, Hannibal Lector was clearly intellectually gifted. It does not mean you have to be a nice person, but it does help in real life of course. You want to be a good friend, colleague,or what have you too. And able to be disciplined which I agreed with Tito on.

IQ is not perfect, but it is the best predictor of success out there and as I argue elsewhere, it is tested all through your childhood and into your adulthood. Typically if you have intelligence and pay attention, then you can navigate those tests, have more options and have a better future. If you cannot then life is harder, but no less meaningful or valid. We are all different and will make different choices.

What is race? Hmm, if you didn't see yourself as a black man then why do you hate on the white man daily? You accept that there is a thing called race yourself.