SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:24PM (6 children)
Lots of squid ink being squirted today. Lets reject all of it and get down to the hatefacts, shall we?
Stop me when I say something disputable.
1. Intelligence is a thing. Argue about the reliability of a specific measuring tool if it makes you happy but it exists and people vary in both the "quantity" of it and it almost certainly possesses more than one measurable "axis" or sub ability. Some people are great at pure logic, some at math, etc. but there is a correlation there, most people who are "smarter" are better at most of the things we associate with "intelligence" than people we deem "dumb."
2. Clarifying the above, intelligence varies between individuals. A lot.
3. Race exists. DNA testing ends this argument. Argue all you want but it doesn't matter, it exists and is quantifiable.
4. Racial groups exhibit statistically significant differences in a multitude of traits. Anyone in the medical field now admits this and must take race into account for medical treatment purposes. A look at the Olympic Medal totals also make it clear that humans exhibit wildly different physical adaptations to the varied environments their ancestors evolved to succeed in.
5. The theory that evolution stops at the brain requires a supreme being as the only plausible mechanism. The idea that every group varies physically, every individual varies both physically and mentally but no identifiable group varies in any statistically meaningful way in their mental capabilities would be incontrovertible proof for the existence of God. (Or at least for A god.) And since God doesn't like to provide incontrovertible "tells", as that negates faith, we are left with:
6. Races vary in their mental abilities. A look at the Nobel and Fields Prizes would be enough to convince anyone who isn't emotionally invested in denying reality.
7. Worse still, it is highly likely that racial groups vary mentally in far more important ways than raw intelligence.
8. This admission of physical reality does not make one a racist unless you are also asserting that reality is racist.
9. Admitting the above does not exclude any of the commonly suggested causes for at least some of the observable differences between groups.
10. Admitting the above DOES however have serious implications for public policy. It is not a question of whether you like the implications. Denying reality does not change it. Only by confronting it can we hope to drive policy in ways that make the world a better place for everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:32PM
1. True.
2. Also true.
3. Do you have a reference for a gene or specific set of genes that determine "race"? Scientists don't even have a decent list of genes that account for height, which is a relatively simple trait with strong heritability.
4. Yes, there are differences among groups that people typically classify as "race", but quality data attempting to explain the evolutionary origin of these differences is severely lacking (an exception is the sickle-cell trait).
5. First, a supernatural being is not a plausible mechanism and what you describe would not be "incontrovertible proof" of the existence of one. Statistically significant difference in mental abilities of different groups will depend on the composition of the groups, the variance in the data, and the type of assessment.
6. Nobel prizes or Fields medals aren't awarded after an assessment of mental abilities.
7. I don't know about "worse", but it wouldn't be surprising.
8. Depends on how you admit it (e.g. running a disingenuous campaign "informing" people of their inferiority).
9. Probably true ("5" is a little weird and you don't specify the common causes).
10. Not necessarily. It depends on how you determine public policy and what you value (e.g. is it acceptable to discriminate, segregation, extra aid, etc.).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:37PM
I think the stop sign is on #5.
I read it as the only thing you can think of that could possibly make X true is crazy so X can't be true.
I can't think of a rational reason to expect evolution to stop at the brain either, but an argument like this does not prove what is likely correct.
Perhaps the sort of thing that would prove it is the test results under discussion.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @01:19AM (3 children)
2. True.
3. Completely false and backward. Genetics only makes it even more obvious and incontrovertible that all modern humans are a single race.
4. True, but tricky. Your 'racial groups' are not, in fact, biological divisions; but yes, different groups have 'statistically significant' differences of all sorts. This should be no surprise to anyone.
5. Never heard of any such theory, that's bullshit.
6. Again true but tricky. Actual races would certainly vary in such a way, but there aren't any actual different races available to test that hypothesis against.
7. See 6.
8. This is not an admission of physical reality, but appears to be a severe misunderstanding of physical reality. Nonetheless it's a common one and I try to understand how you could come to it. I'm much more interested in that than in labeling it or virtue signalling. If I can understand where these ridiculous ideas come from maybe I can find more effective ways to expose them.
...
10. It does, and they're extremely frightening, not least because this is all based on false premises - a false understanding of both genetics and statistics it appears.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by shortscreen on Friday November 03 2017, @04:25AM (2 children)
You are playing the semantics game. If you want to define "race" in such a way that it no longer distinguishes the different groups that you yourself refer to in your following statement, then a different word will only have to be substituted and jmorris's argument remains the same.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @05:47AM
When you call these groups 'races,' which they are not, you are likely not only to confuse those listening, but even more important, to confuse yourself.
I believe the post I replied to showed very clearly why this is important. He starts with several true postulates but winds up with completely false conclusions because he smuggled in a hidden postulate, simply by referring to these groups as races.
If they were actually races, then his conclusions would follow.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @01:34PM
No, the OP spoke of genetics. The field of genetics does not have a gene or set of genes that characterise races into monophyletic groups.
Now, there are often hidden questions involved in these discussions that people don't often focus on for some reason or another (motivated reasoning, societal pressure, assumptions, ignorance of science, etc.):
1. Does science understand the genetics of intelligence?
2. Does science understand the environmental determinants of intelligence?
3. Does science have a specific genetic definition of race that represents the "I know it when I see it" social definition of race?
The answers:
1. No.
2. Somewhat, but we know genetic factors seem to dominate in non-extreme cases.
3. No.
These answers are unsatisfying, but people like to assume the answers for themselves and continue debating. The two sides that yell the loudest about this incorrectly assume that the answers are all scientifically know or scientifically unknowable, respectively.