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: 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.