Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the maybe-they-only-surveyed-the-nimnobs dept.

Why can we talk about PISA results, comparing the performance of students in school, but we are not allowed to talk about differences in IQ? Bring this subject up, and you are immediately accused of racism. And yet. And yet, if there are substantial differences in intellectual capability, might this not explain some of the world's problems?

An update of a massive "study of studies" is underway; this article summarizes the work to date, and provides links to the work in progress. A quick summary of the answers to the questions no one dares ask:

  • Eastern Asia (Japan, China): IQ around 105
  • Europe/North America: IQ around 98
  • Middle East: IQ around 85
  • Africa: IQ around 70

In the first instance, it doesn't even matter why there are differences. They may be genetic, or disease related, or nutrition related, or something else. If these differences are real (and the evidence is pretty strong that they are), then we need to deal with them. Imagine if the low IQs in Africa turn out to be fixable - what would the impact be, if we could raise the IQ of an entire continent by 30 points?!

Sticking our collective heads in the sand, because the topic is not PC, is not going to solve any problems.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:10PM (27 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:10PM (#591204)

    Sticking our collective heads in the sand, because the topic is not PC, is not going to solve any problems.

    There's a very simple reason that this kind of argument has become discouraged: it is associated with racists. Not "alt-right" type "these political opponents of mine are racist" racists, but actual academics that believed that non-white people were part of discrete races that were objectively inferior to white people. It's the kind of thought that leads to eugenics and genocide, because the assumption was never that the difference was fixable.

    I'd like to think that this time it's different, but human nature, sadly, may not be fixable. This kind of data will inevitably be co-opted by white supremacists. The drive will be to exterminate the inferior people, not to educate them. And if somebody does try to fix the Indians Africans...let's just say I wouldn't want my kids going to those schools, and not because of the other kids.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by requerdanos on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:29PM (4 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:29PM (#591221) Journal

    This kind of data will inevitably be co-opted by white supremacists. The drive will be to exterminate the inferior people, not to educate them.

    Looking at the geodistribution of white-looking people against the table of IQs, it looks like the white supremacists *are* the inferior people, and it's the east asia supremacists who are at the top of the numbers.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:53PM (#591247)
      FWIW Asians are "over-represented" in Facebook and Google and whites are under-represented (according to USA demographics).

      Lots of people claim that whites are over-represented in Facebook and Google, but they are wrong.

      Speaking of distribution the average/mean and median are useful for some stuff but not all. Often it's the outliers that matter more. Few care how fast on average white or black person runs. Whereas more people know who Usain Bolt is. Same for Einstein vs some random physics teacher.

      But in many democracies the average person's vote often counts as much if not more than the outliers...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:50PM (#591292)

      Of course. But to be fair there is a significant part of population in China that never gets to take this test. Think about people from rural China who pull their pants down on a crowded train and shit right on the floor thinking it is OK, because where they are from they shit anywhere they want (yes China, not India, although obviously that happens there too).

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by KiloByte on Friday November 03 2017, @01:31AM

      by KiloByte (375) on Friday November 03 2017, @01:31AM (#591467)

      Actually, Ashkenazi jews fare significantly better than east asians.

      Lemme recall, which race was considered to be the worst not so long ago? But that was not even contemporary science -- they followed the likes of Mme Blavatsky rather than those who actually tried looking at data. It's mind-boggling how even an early-20th century anthropologist would not know what an "Aryan" race is: with Germans murdering Gypsies, there's only one Aryan race between the two. (Such people live in Persia, northern India, some parts of Afghanistan, etc).

      So yeah, there's a nasty tradition of people using pseudo-science for some massive discrimination.

      And today, there's racism and discrimination all around. Some hate Jews. Some hate white males with no gender-related mental illness. Some hate... pretty much any group.

      But, the data in this article gives us an important conclusion: if you pick candidates (be it for a job, an elected office, etc) based on merit, the results will have racial/gender/ethnicity ratios much different from general population counts. And that, as individual variance is higher than racial differences, any method to pick that's not 100% race/gender/etc-blind is unfair.

      --
      Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @11:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @11:02PM (#591921)

      Maybe, but at least for the US, only 73% of the population is white, and 5% Asian, so you're not really getting the 'White' sample from US/NA/Europe. You need to separate out the races in the countries that are more mixed if you're going to correlate some race statistics

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:33PM (7 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:33PM (#591229) Journal
    You don't correct such misunderstandings by rendering discussions of them verboten, quite the opposite is true.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:43PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:43PM (#591285)

      There is no censorship here, just sharing historical information about how these "intelligence tests" have been created and used in the past. The intention of these tests in the past was to create a plausible framework to justify racism and genocide. Practically these tests server no purpose, otherwise MENSA would be a power rivaling the biggest transnational corporation. How come we never here this "many sides" rationale for Codes of Conduct and Affirmative Action? Nope, those are just WRONG so we can't address them. But eugenics lite? Well that just gives some science to the prejudice and we must hear it out. Mhmmm right.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:24PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:24PM (#591320) Journal

        The basic problem is the assumption that there is a unitary measure of intelligence. I believe this is false unless you tailor your definition of intelligence to be the same as some particular unitary measure that happens to exist. And this is what IQ tests do. Note that different tests on the same people will give answers that, while correlated, are significantly different. And that learning skills is always at least partially environmentally determined.

        Now there do exist particular measures of certain features that contribute to intelligence. But although these features are usually correlated, they are not necessarily proportional in any one individual, except that certain problems can indeed cause a correlated, approximately proportional, decrease in function.

        As one particular example consider facial amnesia. Some people can readily remember a person's face, others have more trouble. And there are specific physical problems that can cause people to suffer total amnesia with respect to faces. Thus this is clearly a separate feature of intelligence. (Granted this isn't often used by intelligence tests, but it's a clinically demonstrated example.)

        It is my assertion that what we call intelligence is a combination of a multitude of such faculties that are essentially independent, but which often use the same underlying processing structure, so that there are correlations between some of the measures. These faculties can only generally be readily demonstrated by the sudden occurrence of a physical problem. One interesting exception is a family where about half of the people are unable to learn to speak, but are otherwise of normal intelligence. And the other half of the family speak normally. This allows the tracking of one particular genetic change (FOX P, IIRC) between humans and chimpanzees as crucial for speech. (Note: necessary but not sufficient.)

        I believe the evidence generally backs my viewpoint. The problem is there is a huge interaction between basic genetic capabilities, environmental effects, and epi-genetics. Epi-genetic changes are particularly troublesome to disentangle as they can persist for multiple generations, though it's also true that some of them don't even survive the lifetime of the affected person. There's also the problem of parasite load, which decreases most measures of intelligence.

        So intelligence tests measure the likelihood that you will succeed in school if not environmental changes occur. This is the normal case, so it appears invariant, but see the Flynn Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect [wikipedia.org]

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:37PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:37PM (#591325)

        There is no censorship here, just sharing historical information about how these "intelligence tests" have been created and used in the past.

        Dihydrogen Monoxide FAQ [dhmo.org]

        The intention of these tests in the past was to create a plausible framework to justify racism and genocide.

        A retrospective telepath, in our midst?
        Or just a big fat liar?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:01PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:01PM (#591338)

          Nope, just a literate human with a functional memory.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:09PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:09PM (#591343)

            Then prove that functional memory with some functioning links, why don't you? Does your literacy extend anywhere past bullshitting?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:16PM (#591349)

              For someone who linked to dihydrogen monoxide you have a lot to prove. No I don't care to find supporting links for some jerkoff AC, go do your own searching.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:03PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:03PM (#591402) Journal

      You don't correct such misunderstandings by rendering discussions of them verboten, quite the opposite is true.

      Whew! For a second there I thought this discussion thread was real.

      It's quite a relief to know this is all a dream.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:47PM (1 child)

    by zocalo (302) on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:47PM (#591243)
    There's another reason besides the use by supermacists. All the PC/SJW types get start getting their torches and pitchforks out, even when the person presenting the information [independent.co.uk] (admittedly quite badly) is one of the most celebrated and well known names in the field of genetics. It doesn't matter how hard your data might be on such topics; it simply cannot compete against a sense of indignation.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:04PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:04PM (#591403) Journal

      All the PC/SJW types get start getting their torches and pitchforks out...

      Scientists do that too when people lie about data.

  • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:34PM (9 children)

    by Entropy (4228) on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:34PM (#591280)

    Asians of course do the best, not white people.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:33PM (8 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:33PM (#591364) Homepage Journal

      They also have the highest percentage of neanderthal DNA on average of any race while sub-saharan africans mostly have zero percent. I'm thinking it might be time to quit thinking of the neanderthals as dumbasses who cro magnon out-performed by mental superiority and start wondering why a possibly more intelligent species of hominid died out in favor of a less intelligent one.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:10PM (1 child)

        by coolgopher (1157) on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:10PM (#591405)

        My guess would be that the smarter guys weren't as ready to opt for the brute force method, hoping instead to resolve things in a more sophisticated way.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:09AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:09AM (#591542)

        Neanderthals had shoulder joints that sucked for throwing spears.

        Neanderthals were sort of autistic, with good visual processing ability but poor verbal ability. This affected cooperation.

        Neanderthals got big brains by continued post-birth growth, while others depended on a large pelvis to pass a large head that wouldn't grow that much afterward. Hybrids babies would kill the mother during childbirth; Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is extinct.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @09:53AM (4 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 03 2017, @09:53AM (#591610) Homepage Journal

          You're doing science wrong. Most of those are assumptions and you're presenting them as facts. You may very well be entirely correct but I can't take you seriously if you're going to take the climate change alarmist approach to science.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:47PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:47PM (#591686)

            You're doing science wrong. Most of those are assumptions and you're presenting them as facts. You may very well be entirely correct but I can't take you seriously if you're going to take the climate change alarmist approach to science.

            Oh sweet irony...

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @03:14PM (2 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 03 2017, @03:14PM (#591702) Homepage Journal

              Do please point out what facts I presented so that the community may also see the irony. Or come up with a zinger that actually makes some semblance of sense.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:36PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:36PM (#591760)

                You state opinion as fact all the time, like ALL. THE. TIME.

                As for the climate change alarmist bit, well I'm not too sure. However, climate change is real and it is very alarming, so I guess the irony could be you using a terrible example that just highlights your own ignorance?

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday November 03 2017, @12:47AM (1 child)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday November 03 2017, @12:47AM (#591437) Homepage Journal

    I've met plenty of people with small heads who were powerfully intelligent.

    I'm told some guy was measuring the skull capacities of the various racists by filling them with small seeds, then pouring the seeds back out and measuring their volumes.

    With most such skulls he would just pour until the skull was full, but with a white man's skull he tamped it down so as to pack in as many seeds as possible.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:04PM (#591735)

      you would not believe how big gods head is! it's like twice the size of an elephant!