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: 2) by Freeman on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:32PM (1 child)
Recent research has shown that a combination of multiple tests are much more reliable when regarding intelligence. A single test is too simple to measure something as complex as intelligence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html/ [telegraph.co.uk]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:09PM
(URL has an extra trailing "/")
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:32PM (10 children)
When I was 15 I passed the IQ test!!!! MENSA invited me to join and sent me a bill. I declined. Turgid senior said, "Well done, son, you passed the real intelligence test."
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:06PM (4 children)
This was my experience with Mensa to, except that I failed that particular part of the test for a few years. Until I came to my senses. Mensa in some form seem to have a lot in common with Scientology, while I have never been a member of that cult I have heard and read a few things -- as far as I know Mensa doesn't believe in Xenu or Thetans but they take their IQ "number range" really serious. Mensa claim to offer you "intellectual companionship with like minded people", except it turns out a lot of the people there are boring as hell to hang around and once you are no longer a member they do seem to shun you. You pay for tests, or at least one test to get in. Then you have to pay the membership fee, then there are more fees for doing things and taking part in the companionship they offer. I understand you can't run an organization of their size for free, but after a while it seems to be all about the membership dues and fees and not so much about anything else. Eventually I figured I had seen and experiences all they had to offer so I left, which was an awkward experience to say the least.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:36PM (3 children)
For MENSA you don't really have to pay for a test if you have verifiable the results of one that you took in school, or the military, or some such. I paid for the test because the fee was small, and I didn't have easy access to the results of tests I'd taken previously at the time.
What was interesting to me was there was one other applicant there with me. In discussion following the exam, he told me there was no doubt in his mind that he had passed the test. I responded by expressing doubt about my own score. I got in. He did not. I've often observed that people lacking in intelligence express more confidence in their intelligence than people who possess it.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 03 2017, @03:20AM (2 children)
> people lacking in intelligence express more confidence in their intelligence than people who possess it.
Many have observed this phenomenon.
A subset of this group are the bullshit artists. They're the kind of cunning fools who are a bit smarter but don't appreciate that bullshit doesn't make trains run on time, and have put nearly all of their efforts into appearances rather than substance. They treat facts with contempt. They fool themselves too. They lust for leadership positions, not because they want to do a good job though they think they're great leaders, but because they think "it's good to be the king", think such a position has greater security, and they want to enjoy lording it over people, maybe commit a bit of sexual harassment with impunity, scare and bully their underlings, indulge their envy in telling those who they feel are smarter than them and whom they may depend upon that they are actually morons, and generally be total assholes. If they sucker others into letting them into the captain's chair, they refuse to admit they haven't a clue, won't listen to any advice, and soon make epically stupid decisions and, if the position is of any importance, cause spectacular disasters.
Curiously, the eastern US has more of a bullshit artist culture than the rest of the country. Easterners seem more bent on putting on a good appearance and selling themselves. They'll tell you they have all the answers. Just come to them if you have any questions. Trump is a product of that culture. I'm sure the only reason the US government hasn't yet made a truly colossal mistake under Trump are all the others in the government who are trying to keep Trump distracted with minutia. That many of them are themselves bullshit artists is worrisome.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Friday November 03 2017, @03:57AM (1 child)
It's amusing that it was obvious you were talking about Trump early in the 1st paragraph. I'm one of those who actually read "The Art of the Deal" back in the 80's, and I remember thinking then that "I hope America isn't stupid enough to ever put this bullshit artist into the White House".
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 03 2017, @02:17PM
I started out thinking of some managers and bosses I've known in the IT field. Yep, the projects they lead ended in total train wrecks, contract canceled and everyone terminated in disgrace. But Trump is currently the most prominent bullshit artist in the world, and it's pretty hard to talk about those kind of people and not mention him and his team, present and past.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:08PM
yeah it happened to me, too
years later as an adult I met some mensa types and maybe 1 out of 5 were friendly and 1 out of 5 were really smart. the rest were jerks or mean or arrogant or smelled bad
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:01PM (2 children)
"interesting game, the only winning move is . . ."
Bloody racists!
(Score: 3, Funny) by turgid on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:16PM (1 child)
I blame the French.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @01:40AM
I blame the Italians... because Fiat.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @04:25AM
I could likely get into Mensa if I really wanted to, but I've never really felt the need to try. I took their assessment test one time to see if it was possible and had no problems with it.
Personally, as much as I like interacting with people that are smarter than most other people, I'd rather have it be based upon some accomplishments or study rather than the ability to score well on a narrow test of intellect.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by cwadge on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:35PM (3 children)
It's pretty widely accepted that IQ is a general measure, not an absolute standard, of intelligence (which ironically is largely where we get lost in the woods in such discussions). I'm not an expert in the field, but I can at least attest that any IQ test I've ever taken has relied on a certain "framework" of thought which may or may not actually measure intelligence.
The above being said, I recall a long-term study regarding the migration of certain African people to certain European nations over a few generations. It's been almost two decades since I studied this in college, so please forgive the vagueness; maybe somebody with a fresher recollection can post a link to the actual academic papers. But in a nutshell, the first generation immigrants scored very low (some ~30 points below the median) and by the second generation, this gap had completely vanished. Did those people become magically smarter? Or was their mindset adapted to a more western mode of thought that was better suited to the problem solving skills required of the IQ test(s) in question?
If accurate, this premise basically throws the "inferior races" argument right out the window. Yet, it may speak to cultural tendencies which don't lend themselves well to disciplines like science and engineering. If there is a genuine problem being alluded to by IQ results, my opinion is that is it, not a substantial difference in actual intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)
That does not explain some cities in USA... to put it as nice as possible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cwadge on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:21PM
Sure, it absolutely does. Education is a key aspect of culture, whether that education is formal or not.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday November 03 2017, @01:19AM
He met Michelle at Harvard.
He has a half-sibling back in the old country.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:03PM (10 children)
This is more than not PC. This story can far too easily be interpreted as saying that the darker you are, the dumber you are. It's raw meat for white supremacists. Even if the original material does not say that, the way it is presented is terrible.
Even so, the entire idea is extremely suspect. Is this really measuring innate intelligence, or is it measuring education that's full of European bias? We are all the same species. What evolutionary forces could possibly be driving Europeans and Asians but not Africans to greater intelligence?
There's an old idea that the challenge of handling harsh winters pushed extra-tropical people into becoming smarter, that the tropics are a paradise and life is very easy there, which meant no one had to be a smarter bear, so to speak. Seems like this study could be recycling that old idea. It's complete bull. The opposite is the more likely probability. The tropics are no paradise, rather the opposite. They can be a hypercompetitive dog-eat-dog jungle. Life is very hard there. If you're not laid low by one of the hundreds of horrible tropical diseases, one mistake and you're cat or crocodile food, or snake bit, or a casualty of the many rivalries between tribes. There's no time or leisure to study science when you have to fight for your life every day. In Africa, big cities are a big liability, perfect ways to spread disease. Consequently, most Africans customarily live in small villages. Without cities, it's much harder to advance. It's the people who got out of the jungle who found time, leisure, and opportunity to advance knowledge.
The Confederacy pulled a lot of bull to support their racist ideology. They claimed blacks were too stupid to learn reading and writing. To support that notion not only did they not educate slaves, they did all they could to suppress any slaves learning anything on their own, even stooping to the murder of slaves just for knowing too much.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Entropy on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:38PM
Asians do the best, blacks the worst. Asians are not white... So it's good for Asian supremacist movement I guess. And of course it's not PC to say anything that doesn't jive with the black supremacist movement, but that's the real reason people tend to downplay IQ tests.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:23PM (5 children)
Virtually anything can be misinterpreted. Are we to simply quit discussing all facts that can be misinterpreted? What do you imagine would be left to talk about?
"What evolutionary forces could possibly be driving Europeans and Asians but not Africans to greater intelligence?"
Wait, what? Why did you jump from variations in test scores to the assumption that it has something to do with evolutionary forces? An enormous jump with no apparent justification.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:47PM (4 children)
I don't remember where I heard this theory, but I did remember it because it sounded interesting: The strategy for Europeans and Asians has for many generations been to have fewer children but raise them well (teach them important survival skills). While the strategy in Africa was to have more children, but put less effort in teaching them. Maybe because in Europe survival meant having to store or at least find food for the next winter, so more complex planning skills were required.
I heard that theory in a youtube video discussion but sadly I couldn't find it anymore, I wanted to post a link here but I'm not even sure in what language it was.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @12:23AM
As to the meat of your comment, this is a common meme and as often happens it's not *entirely* false. It's certainly not entirely correct Either. It originates in a comparison of certain parts of the enormous regions mentioned. It's a valid comparison for specific parts. Both Africa and Eurasia are much, much too big and 'diverse' (I hate that's become a buzzword but it's exactly the right word here) for any comparison that broad to be anything but nonsense, however.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Friday November 03 2017, @02:53AM (2 children)
It's much simpler and less racist than that. The populations of entire continents do not actively decide on such "strategies". What happens is when the women in a culture have access to self-agency (living on their own, making their own decisions, having jobs), higher education levels and access to contraception options, and the infant mortality rate isn't 90% due to easily treatable diseases, the population growth nearly stops or even goes negative. I don't know exactly what planet you've been living on but people in Europe and Asia and the West have all been having lots of babies until fairly recently.
In other words, if you're one of those people constantly freaking out about uncontrollable overpopulation, your solution is not genocide but supporting womens' rights around the world and donating to a charity like Water.org that helps the developing world acquire access to clean water and sanitation. When girls have time to go to school and can stay in school past the onset of puberty, and most children aren't dying of simple intestinal diseases before the age of 5, overpopulation becomes a non-issue. And when you only have one or two children they tend to be treated much better.
I made a much longer post elsewhere on the page about the fact that IQ tests don't measure intelligence and how the premises being put forward in the summary are entirely bogus and racist. I won't repeat it all here. Suffice it to say that the average IQ scores of the continents are very different but the "intelligence" potential of the average individual on each continent is nearly identical within the bounds where we can measure actual intelligence. People of 100% African descent who grow up from birth in countries with modern school systems have the same IQ test results as everyone else in those cultures. If this was an actual problem with the intelligence potential of a genetic African it would be extremely obvious and all genetic Africans anywhere outside of Africa would be widely considered mentally disabled by default. Are they? Or do they work and go to school as equals right alongside those of 100% Asian and 100% European descent, achieving the same results? The continental IQ differences are a cultural and economic issue, not a genetic one, and the summary makes extremely racist conclusions. I'm disturbed that it was posted at all.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 03 2017, @03:29AM (1 child)
There's good answers to these issues in Guns, Germs, and Steel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel [wikipedia.org]
In a word, location. Location, location, location. Europeans came out on top by virtue of their ancestors starting in a better location thousands of years before. Asians also benefited from that. A further feature that turned out to be an advantage was Europe's difficult terrain that made empire building much harder than in Asia, keeping Europe fragmented into smaller states constantly competing with each other.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @10:17AM
What a bunch of plausible half-truths concealing deeply flawed assumptions.
"Europeans came out on top"
This is a huge and glaring one, and I particularly like to pick on it because both left and right seem to be about equally suckers for it.
This is the end of history meme. Like, ok, we did the race, now for the results!
Yeah, no. Whatever 'race' we're dealing with here it isn't over. This is the outlook of a historical illiterate.
Civilizations have risen and fallen and they continue to do so. Europeans are 'on top' in a few senses, at the moment, and were 'on top' in many more senses two or three hundred years ago, but there is certainly no 'came out' in perfect aspect, there is no final score. We have not come to the end of history, it's a defective concept not a real thing.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:45PM
Don't forget the selection and survival biases of the people who actually did successfully leave the 'continent.' Think of all the people you know from your high school days. How many stayed more or less where they were born? How many moved, especially to distant places? How would you generally relate the intelligence of the two groups? The fact that this is so evident today with minimal noise, even in microsamples -- as any given individual's experience, is something that I think is quite telling. Anyhow, the anthropological reasons are really not that relevant. What is relevant is that such differences do exist and can be readily measured.
I don't entirely know what this means, but I do find it somewhat cruel to continually try to encourage somebody to do something when they might simply not have the facilities to achieve what you're telling them they can. How would you feel if society as a whole kept telling you that you can do it, you just need to try a little bit harder, here we'll even give you a little help, come on I know you can do it! And know matter how hard you tried, no matter how much you worked at it, you just couldn't manage to achieve what everybody said you could and by implication should be able to do. Self doubt, insecurity, frustration, irritation, anger would just be scratching the surface. What a lovely set of emotions we inflict on massive groups of people all to let us imagine our world is a more pleasant and fair place than it truly is.
Perhaps the most desirable alternative is to simply start treating people as people instead of skin colors and genders. I mean we live in a world where most of every American would love to have dinner with a Neil deGrasse Tyson or a Michael Jordan. Set skin color aside and start trying people like people. Let everybody rise or fall on their merit and achievements alone. I think Morgan Freeman put it very well in this [youtube.com] interview asking him about his opinion of black history month. By focusing on race and gender, even when trying to make things better, we are tautologically perpetuating a focus on race and gender!
(Score: 2) by srobert on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:41PM
This was broken down by nations rather than race. One of the smartest people I know is from a little African country but now lives near me here in the U.S. To which nation is his IQ score counted in the average. He now holds U.S. citizenship. The fact that smart people generally do not wish stay in the country he was born in is likely driving down its average.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 03 2017, @06:44AM
as one of the oldest topics in human psychology, it's one of the most researched, and *b design* it's supposed to be the former, that's the whole point of it.
Quite why nobody's asked a bunch of Bronx intellectuals to create an innate IQ test that the don't think favours whites, and then test a bunch of Notting Hill residents with it, I don't know. The Notting Hill smarty-pants can also create an innate IQ test that doesn't favour whites, and some South Africans can be tested with that one. The South African academics can create an innate IQ test that doesn't favour whites, and people in Egypt can be tested with that. Finally, test the Bronx with an innate IQ test created by the Egyptian propeller heads. Of course, white, yellow, and whatever colour represents Ashkenazi Jews will also be testedon these same tests, and we'll see if the complaints that have been levied can be levelled.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:24PM
This story comes right on the heels of the DNC "no white males!" story. Are people being set up to be angry and then handed a "scientifice" segway into why racism is good? True or not that is how grassroots propaganda is done.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:07PM
IQ is real. There is something that can be measured. There shouldn't be any doubt about that. That said it still somewhat open to debate whatever it is good for or what it is that is actually being measured. Also a high IQ is not some golden ticket to success, there are a lot of high IQ people out there that are still dumb as bricks when it comes to just functioning as a human being, they have average and mundane jobs and they won't amount to much in life except being average. Just having a high IQ won't magically open up new opportunities for you and make your life great. The industrialized world seem to be doing fairly great, it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Still things are kinda shitty here to in various aspects. Just not as shitty as elsewhere.
The people from Mensa really love their Ravens progressive matrices, for those that don't know what they are they are a series of figures align in a matrix where there are changes between the figures and in the end you have to pick the missing figure out of a list based upon the progression of the series of figures -- they usually start simple by changing a shape or moving a color around and then gradually become more complex as they starting doing many different adjustments at the same time. They love these things cause the claim is that they don't require any education, you don't need how to read and write or know anything about mathematics. So they should be universal as all you have to be able to do is follow the progression and fill in the blank. Like this is some kind of innate ability that can't be taught or trained. It's not really a surprise that people that live in the part of the world where they dreamed this stuff up are doing better then people in the world that have no standardized education system what so ever and just got dragged out of a jungle or desert. Interestingly it has also been concluded that people with various degrees of autism are usually scoring great at these tests.
The quick summary numbers above are almost pointless. They seem to be the result of a massive amount of meta-studies spanning anything from a few years to decades back and a wide range of different studies for different goals. Looking at the article and following the links to the data collection and having scan of it I don't think I would want to touch or use that data collection for anything. You can recalculate the numbers all you want but they seem to have forgotten the golden rule of statistics and data analysis -- SHIT IN, SHIT OUT! Some countries have a single data entry of just a few people others are from studies of trying to see if having Malaria is detrimental to your brain functions (I'm not even kidding ...) . Anyone want to take bets on China boosting their numbers? Do you think it's an average randomized selection of the entire population, or poor farmers children or kids that attend some military elite school doing the testing there? It's somewhat hard to know but I think I know where I would put my money.
That said you will probably never get rid of the taint of this being some kind of colonial and imperialistic nightmare where the kindly old researchers from Europe came down to Africa to measure skulls and the content their in and then feeling smug and superior about themselves. The cause can probably be all of the above given in the quote or any combination of one or more of them. Some could be fixed. But they won't be dealt with. There just isn't any benefit for the others to bring Africa out of their low-IQ-status. A benefit for humankind just won't matter or is reason enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:12PM
Speaking very generally (averages, not individuals or outliers), IQ scores correlates with jobs that require more intelligence (e.g. what makes "smart people" smart). Speaking generally, it is not very controversial that people consider medical doctors, engineers, and scientists to be smart or that smart people will have an advantage in pursuing those occupations compared to those who are not considered smart.
IQ tests are measuring some combination of variables, "something", and that "something" is measured by employing an assessment of questions involving spacial reasoning and pattern recognition. Higher scores on these tests also correlate with tests of verbal and quantitative reasoning (such as the GRE and SAT) as well as short term memory capacity (e.g. being able to remember a set of numbers or words).
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx [iqcomparisonsite.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Other_accomplishments [wikipedia.org]
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/greiq.aspx [iqcomparisonsite.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Bobs on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:24PM
I was curious about the source for this article.
Interestingly, they have an entire sub-section devoted to Race/ethnicity articles.
I did find one with this counter example to the submission:
TLDR summary:
Being a world champion at Scrabble takes high order mental skills, People from African nations have a strong representation in World class Scrabble champions.
Author concludes the deficit in "average national IQs" in Africa is the ubiquitous, crappy educational systems there, and not racial limitations.
From http://www.unz.com/article/scrabble-spells-doom-for-the-racial-hypothesis-of-intelligence/ [unz.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:56PM (2 children)
IQ tests do tell us something, they tell us who the racists are. Now we know, with verifiable repeatable factual data, that bradley11 is in fact a racist. It was only suspected before, but now we know. And now that we know, I would suggest we think twice before putting racist shit on the front page. Soylent lives matter! We do not want people thinking this site is a hive of scum and villainy, infested with racists and Buzzards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:19PM
We may not want that but good luck preventing people from forming that opinion. Source: this article's commentary.
(Score: 4, Touché) by turgid on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:33PM
Society is holding a mirror up to itself and it isn't pretty. Unfortunately, the majority can't see through the thick makeup yet.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday November 03 2017, @01:17AM (2 children)
Just before I started kindergarten I was given an intelligence test in which I attempted to identify line drawings of various objects.
The teacher was quite surprised that I knew what an airplane was. Well I knew that because my father flew to Vietnam in one just a week before.
It was a long time before I realized that I was in the college preparation track.
I worked like a demon in hopes of skipping some of my grades in school, so I could escape my batshit crazy family by enrolling in college at a much younger age. But when I was fifteen my father told me that the schools had made the offer, but my parents turned it down because they felt it would be best for me to be with kids my own age.
I have never been so angry and upset in my entire life. I was bullied so much that I regard myself as lucky to have survived my childhood.
I majored in Astronomy at first at Caltech, then changed to Physics. I got expelled for sleeping on a couch after the Master Of Student Housing told me not to.
To be able to work is uncommon for those who have Schizoaffective Disorder. I finished my degree at UCSC, now I'm a contract programmer. The last perm job I had paid $130k. In '95 and '96 I was a Senior Engineer at Apple, working in the role of Debug Meister.
But I have very little to show for all the money I have earned. I would have done better to burn the banknotes to stay warm on cold nights.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)
so apparently mental illness is inheritable
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday November 03 2017, @06:54PM
That is, neuroses caused by traumatic life experience.
For example, someone who was beaten as a child often grows up to beat their own children.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RedBear on Friday November 03 2017, @01:55AM (15 children)
Jesus jumping Christ on a bloody bicycle. This is the last straw for me for cmn32480 as an editor. I never thought this place would start looking like a Storm Front forum.
Only idiot racists want to believe that IQ tests actually objectively measure "intelligence". That's because idiot racists desperately want to believe that "the blacks" are objectively, somehow "scientifically" inferior. We don't avoid talking about this because it's not "PC". We avoid talking about this because IQ tests only measure how well a population has been conditioned to take IQ tests, and that fact has been very well established. The global results show nothing besides the fact that China and Japan have decent state-supported school systems and force almost 100% of their children to complete schooling up through at least high school, and on the other hand many denizens of the gigantic continent of Africa have a lack of resources to send much of their population to school beyond their early years.
Repeat after me: IQ tests are not tests of generalized intelligence potential. They are tests of how much training you've had in the completely artificial abstract thinking tasks that exist in an IQ test, and therefore how well you can take an IQ test. Learn to look past the superficial fact that some English-speaking test designers decades ago decided to call it an "Intelligence Quotient" test because they were ignorant enough to think they were actually measuring more than a few minor elements of the indescribable gestalt that is human intelligence. It's just a word! They were wrong! The results do not show that Asians are geniuses and Africans are gibbering idiots! Only racists want to believe that kind of idiotic interpretation of the averaged results of a highly artificial test. And it's not talking about the IQ test results that makes you racist. It's when you say stupid racist crap like this:
And this:
Careful there, if you can figure out how to raise an entire continent's IQ by 30 points you might accidentally create a master race of black people who will try to take over the world. *facepalm*
See, the problem is that you've made a giant, unsupported leap there from abstract, unbiased data measuring a population's ability to take an IQ test, all the way to a conclusion that "population A is smart and population B is dumb, and population B's dumbness must be the cause of a bunch of problems". You have to strap on a jet pack to make that kind of leap. The evidence is pretty strong that more modernized populations where more individuals make it to college level schooling are better at scoring high on IQ tests. Wow. Wait, that doesn't sound racist enough. Let's rephrase it to imply that the explanation might be genetic or caused by the entire population of Africa having brain worms! Yeah!
What explains the world's problems is racism, resource scarcity, food distribution inefficiency, lack of availability of clean water and sanitation options, the continuous destabilization of governments by other governments, the war on drugs, economic inequality, religious fundamentalism, economic policies that guarantee failure, and a thousand other things. How about we work on those before we worry about totally meaningless crap like IQ tests? Donate to Water.org and help people in the developing world get permanent access to clean water and sanitation so that more girls can go to school and stay in school instead of literally wasting their lives fetching water, and guess what? (You'll never guess.) Yeah, your stupid-ass meaningless average IQ scores will go up! Also, more people will graduate and go to post secondary schools and/or start businesses and help strengthen their local economies, but who cares about that, right? What matters is doing well on a test where you figure out which abstract geometric figure doesn't belong with the others. Have you even taken an IQ test? Do you remember the kind of useless crap that they have on an IQ test? They told me I scored 135 on mine and I'm still a bloody idiot! Just ask anybody here!
I'm done here. I can't do anything to fix stupid. I know you don't realize you're racist, but here's a piece of advice: You're racist. Try not being so racist if it it upsets you that people keep shouting "RACIST!" whenever you open your mouth. Just a thought. Even if you think your intentions are nothing but good, you're still being a racist when you go around talking about needing to "fix" the intelligence of an entire group of billions of people who all happen to be black or brown. They are human goddamn beings, each one with the potential to be smarter than you or I.
Bring a billion African babies tomorrow to countries with the strongest school systems, raise them identically to the locals and guess what? Their IQ test scores will immediately be almost identical to the local populations. Send these amazing high-IQ genius adults back to dumb old Africa (or any other poorly-developed part of the world) and guess what? Many of their children will have much lower IQ scores due to lack of education resources. Weird, huh? Seriously, how hard is this to understand? IQ tests measure a population's consistent exposure to modern, abstract education concepts via a modern education system. Not intelligence. Get over it.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:06AM (14 children)
Your wonderful argument doesn't hold water because those racial differences in IQ also hold true in the United States.
You can't explain it away based on country of origin.
Someone with a higher IQ would have caught that logic error...
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Friday November 03 2017, @03:20AM (13 children)
Um, no, racist AC, the average IQ score of African-Americans is not 70 vs 98 for white Americans. African-Americans are part of the average North American score of 98. The minor differences between average IQ scores within American ethnic populations is almost entirely explainable by higher levels of poverty (and corresponding lower levels of quality education) in the black, Latino and Native American communities. Again, cultural issues, not genetic. The differences are smaller in countries where they have less active racism and economic disparity. But I can't convince you if you have an emotional need to believe that black people are genetically inferior.
I knew I'd get a Flamebait for that post. Too undiplomatic. I don't care. I'm tired of being diplomatic with racists. Human beings are human beings.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 4, Touché) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @03:24AM (3 children)
But people that you've called racists cease to be, is that it?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:01AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:01PM (1 child)
I'm tired of this bullshit argument.
Racist person says a bunch of bullshit.
Regular person calls them out.
Racist person claims "but but intolerance towards racists! TOUCHE! GOTCHA!!!"
Regular people think "what a bunch of idiotic racists."
You don't get to pull the persecution card unless you're actually being persecuted. Getting called out for racist ideologies is not persecution. Tolerance and compassion only go so far, unless you're Jesus Christ himself apparently. Real humans will fight back against genocidal and hateful ideas. Don't like it? Too fucking bad, and all the victim zingers do nothing other than show everyone you're entrenched in the stupidity.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @06:48PM
You start by defining whoever says something you don't like as 'racist.' Which may or may not be true, in one or another sense of the word.
And then you simply rinse and repeat. All that stuff about evidence and logic and understanding each other and preserving the peace? Nah, screw that, that's old. That would legitimize them. Punch a nazi, duuuuude.
This is thuggery wrapping itself in the flag of tolerance. This is how you act if you really want to bring civilization to a screeching halt and return us to the rule of the jungle for awhile. Got a closet full of a Che Guevara shirts and think of yourself as a revolutionary do you?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:41AM (8 children)
In Minnesota there was a large scale experiment [wikipedia.org] to prove exactly what you're saying -- that IQ is mostly just cultural and differences within a nation can be explained by environmental/cultural factors. What they did was track for more than a decade a variety of children adopted by privileged white households. The hypothesis is pretty obvious. These children should, more or less, end up with the same IQ. Similar levels of privilege, all raised in similar households, all given more or less the same education, and so on. It would finally seal the coffin on any sort of psuedo-sciency IQ to race correlation. The sad thing (at least in terms of believing in anything like a fair world) is that the study ended up showing the exact opposite. The performance of the children was tied almost entirely to their race. And there's an interesting characteristic of IQ. At younger ages we can affect it to a reasonable amount due to environmental conditions. But regardless of whether we're a genius or a rock when we're younger, as we age IQ becomes more and more a metric that's decided primarily by genetic characteristics, which I'm using as a euphemism for racial characteristics.
But wait! There's a very easy explanation for this. Being raised by a rich white family doesn't entirely remove cultural aspects. If black individuals are more drawn to lower performing cultures then even being raised by a privileged family does not necessarily mean they themselves would adopt a more productive culture - as other individuals reactions to them, and their own self identity, might not necessarily map to their family's. It's a stretch, but it's possible. Unfortunately, the study also had a phenomenal control group for this - entirely by accident. It turns out that a number of children who had one white and one black parent were mistakenly identified as having two black parents. Their parents believed they were "fully" black, they believed they were "fully" black. They substantially outperformed the children that were actually "fully" black.
It's sad, but real.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @08:08AM (7 children)
It actually doesn't. Circular logic proves nothing but itself, and this circle starts by assuming that the classification of the parents by 'race' corresponds to an actual racial division. It *does* correspond to a division, it's simply a social division, not a racial division.
It should not be in any way surprising or controversial that groups on different sides of social divisions have different characteristics. If the social division has been going on very long we should even expect biological differences - in a sense. Not any sort of difference of type, no, but 'statistically significant' variations in the incidents of tons and tons of specific alleles, absolutely.
And in fact, that's exactly what we see in human genetics. Virtually any set of groups you want to define have lots and lots of statistical differences, as groups. But there aren't actually any real natural fault lines, certainly no solid divisions, and the 'races' as conceived in 600bc, 1200 ad, or any of the 1890s variants, are all equally valid. Which clearly shows that none of them are valid at all. Think about it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @08:22AM (6 children)
Right. In the same way that a German Shepherd and a Chihuahua both share an extremely recent common ancestor (seriously, the earliest evidence of the wolf->dog transition is 40k years old --- humans, homo sapien, are 200,000 years old), but selective breeding led to the creation of genetically different but sexually compatible groups. In dogs we would call it a breed, in humans we would call it a race. In the same way you're not going to confuse a German Shepherd with a Chihuahua, you're not going to confuse a human of predominately 'black' ancestry with a human of 'asian' ancestry. Arguing that the fact these distinctions make people no different since we can clearly define them is rather nonsensical.
The interesting thing is if our species continued to develop, eventually we likely would have even become sexually incompatible. Evolution isn't some magic where a guy with a wand comes and taps a species turning them into another - it's just isolated samples of things, all of which share common ancestors, diverging. I mean we share a common ancestor with ants, or even amoebas if you go back far enough.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @08:49AM (5 children)
Roughly correct so far.
"humans, homo sapien, are 200,000 years old"
Confused. Modern humans are ~200k years old, yes.
Out of Africa is more like 70k years ago however. And isolation from Africa is shorter and more limited - ~40k in Australia and depending on who you listen to somewhere between 36-12k in the Americas.
plus:
"but selective breeding led to the creation of genetically different but sexually compatible groups."
In dogs, the first part is correct at least. But they aren't actually sexually compatible anymore.
This is actually a good example - canines are a good example of what we would see in humans if there were multiple races. There are multiple natural fault lines tending towards actual biological divisions. Wolves and german shepherds cannot normally mate, because their sexual triggers are different, their cycles don't even line up, they behave like different species. With human intervention, their sperm and egg can be brought into contact and offspring will result, but there is still clearly a sort of a biological division between them.
Just within domesticated dog breeds, we could take a Great Dane and a Chihuahua. They can't actually mate naturally either. A female Chihuahua cannot physically receive the larger male, the male Chihuahua cannot enter the larger female. Yes humans can cross them in vitro. The female Chihuahua should still not be implanted with the resulting embryo, as there is a large risk of a painful death terminating the pregnancy that would result.
Coyotes are a third case, and less well understood, so for this I'll just leave them out.
Considering only non-coyote canines, we arguably have one rather solid division that doesn't get crossed in nature, and another rather obvious fault line where extremes on either side also don't get crossed in nature.
In contrast, again, within humanity we have no clear divisions and no clear fault lines.
On a related note, we also do not have any long, sustained history of selective breeding, in the sense that has produced dog breeds.
Oh yes, it's been a common theme in fact, it's been attempted quite often. But the most basic element of it, the notions of which differences are 'racial' and which are not, varied constantly, wildly.
The current conception of 'race' in the USA is deeply rooted in the reality of the colonies circa 1640, and it literally did not exist prior to that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:39AM (1 child)
But if you tie up that bitch when she is in heat, the wolves will be all over her, and if they do not eat her, you got some damn good sled dogs. Exactly how far south are you, Arik?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @10:55AM
Good luck with the not eating her part.
You're better off tying and muzzling a female wolf. Still not all that likely to turn out the way you want.
"Exactly how far south are you, Arik?"
Are you trying to elicit clues to my physical location? *clucks tongue*
Denied.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:07PM (2 children)
I wouldn't be so quick to try to create some sort of authoritative timeline out of Africa. Recent discoveries indicate individuals leaving Africa as far back as 270,000 [nytimes.com] years ago.
The point I was making was simply that we've been separated *far* longer than is necessary to begin to form unique 'breeds.' And breeds was an analog for races. In other words, same species sexually compatible groups sharing a common ancestor. E.g. I'm certainly not suggesting that any group of humans are different species. Rather that we're all simply different breeds. And these breeds do carry inherent and often times large genetic differences.
And yes, we do have a lengthy history of selective breeding. It's caused by continental divide. This is why many whites are considered of 'European' descent even though European is quite a bizarre notion given the vast array of diversity within that. But those groups 'trapped' on the continent were left to mate only among themselves and thus all share common ancestors much more recently with one another than they would for instance with any Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or Africans. Races, and breeds, on the tree of genetics are essentially cousins - sometimes quite distant. Another interesting example are the Japanese. The Japanese developed their own divergent traits as a result of isolation from other Asian groups. Nonetheless, they still share far more in common with a Chinese than they do with e.g. a Native American simply because their nearest common ancestor is much closer.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @06:22PM (1 child)
Your point was understood, it's simply incorrect.
"And yes, we do have a lengthy history of selective breeding. It's caused by continental divide. This is why many whites are considered of 'European' descent even though European is quite a bizarre notion given the vast array of diversity within that. But those groups 'trapped' on the continent were left to mate only among themselves and thus all share common ancestors much more recently with one another than they would for instance with any Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or Africans. Races, and breeds, on the tree of genetics are essentially cousins - sometimes quite distant."
This is extremely confused and in part flat out wrong. Let's try to unpack this a little. Your claim is that 'continental divide' generated the necessary division between populations, but as I've already noted, the only groups that were actually separated from the main population for significant amounts of time were the Australians and the Americans. And those groups aren't really any more divergent than the rest of us, despite having had arguably long enough periods of isolation for long enough for that to happen, for whatever reason, it did not.
Furthermore you have everything reversed here. Europeans are virtually homogenous in comparison with Africans, not the other way around. If we grouped humans by genetics and set the threshold down low enough to get a reasonable number of groups, you inevitably wind up with one big group that includes everyone outside of Africa and also many Africans. And the remaining groupings would all be primarily found in Africa. This is because human populations radiated out from the rift area in all directions, and only one direction led to a navigable coast line - the one to the northwest. They reached the coast, found the living good, and were able to expand across Eurasia, Oceania, etc. quite quickly by mostly sticking to the coastlines. Interiors were originally settled along rivers. This is a relatively fast process even starting from a small population. But backfilling inland areas was still a slow process.
Back in Africa, all the groups that went out in different directions were hardly idle. But they weren't skirting along coastlines, they were radiating out into enormous inland areas from the start. Southern and western parts of Africa have coastlines that are particularly uninviting. So it took a long time, many many generations, to get to those parts of the continent by land.
Anyway, the point was that the genetic differences exist but not in a way that actually lines up with your notion of race. As you stated pretty clearly here, your assumption (and you're far from unique) is that all 'black' is roughly the same, while the white and the yellow and the red etc. represent diversity. In fact, genetics reveals the truth is nearly exactly the reverse of that. Virtually all of our races genetic diversity is in Africa, while all the non-african populations are, to use your language, 'close cousins' not just with each other, but still with the African source population as well!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @04:39AM
Yes, the tens of thousands of years humans were outside of Africa is far more than sufficient to develop into various breeds. The evidence is visible not only in physicality, but mentality, and numerous other even very high level measures. And of course the genetic differences are vast.
And no, I did not say or even suggest all blacks are mostly the same. Straw manning is a great indicator of your belief in your own words... I simply discussed the fact that as groups are isolated away from one another, they tend to merge into different 'breeds' with their differences becoming, aggregately, larger than the population they separated from. Japanese have [much] more in common with Japanese than any Asian individual, even though the period of their separation is only ~15,000 years. And Asian individuals, including Japanese, have more in common than they do with any 'black' individual.
The reason I use 'black' as a catch all (which I suppose is where you're getting your straw man from) is the same reason you use 'white' as a catch all. Skin color is more indicative of 'breed' than geographic location. Even in dogs - a German Shepherd is certainly no more German in location than an British Bull Terrier is British in location. And similar a white is no more European in location than a black is African in location.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:01AM (1 child)
... because blacks (as a whole) always score the lowest.
Not like a little lower, but A LOT lower.
Everyone knows that if IQ were not a racist measurement, blacks would score the same as everyone else.
Do I have to explain the obvious?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:42AM
Yes, you fucking racist! And, you will also have to explain why you got punched in the face by people with lower IQ. Did you not, with your superior intelligence, see that coming? Guess not!
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Friday November 03 2017, @08:25AM (1 child)
By definition, the average person has an IQ of 100.
Looking at the spreadsheet with the results of the research, it seems that almost everywhere the average IQ is less than that. Either humanity has become collectively dumber since the time that IQ was defined, or the research is flawed.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @09:11AM
Eh, not exactly. The average entry in the calibration dataset will be 100. You might expect that point to be a bit above population average, as these are usually college students and you might not have much experience with college students, but in fact it tends to go slightly the other way. Which is very convenient as people who are told their IQ is not above average tend to feel somewhat insulted, and sometimes they are in a position to hurt your career. Binet himself recognized this and was always careful to recruit as many near-morons as possible for the calibration group.
Anyway, it's not the average person, it's the average of the calibration dataset, which is theoretically a statistical equivalent to a population average. That population is not the entire human population. It's typically a national population (US) or a national and/or regional population (EU research) not a human average.
The placement of 100, politics and insulted people hurting your career aside, is an entirely arbitrary zero-point. You can use any zero-point you want, convert all the figures, and have the conversation again - absolutely nothing significant will be different.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:10PM
"IQ is a terrible metric that doesn't measure anything. *wha wha* Unrelated to the matter, I got a low IQ score which only proves it is even more broken than anyone imagined *wha wha*"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @01:37AM
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn