The Taboo of Science - "Black IQ".

IQ tests are "culturally" biased in that one with 15 years of schooling is going to score better than some one with a lifetime of fishing in a remote village or collecting palm nuts in the interior jungle. In this sense, Chinese or Japansese culture is not so different from European culture but quite different from what might be seen in Africa.

Some of my Chinese friends at school also joked that "in China you need a maths degree to become a cleaner"- which suggests that their education is even more geared towards logic and learning than ours. The language used by the Chinese, which is more pictographic and not so phonetic, may also have a role to play in explaining the higher visuospatial but lower Asian verbal IQ- but that's just a thought of mine and not scientific evidence.

My personal opinion is that people are pretty much the same everywhere.

Again, I think you're making a fallacy. What is not being said here is that 'all black people have lower IQs than all white people'.

It's an average. There are black people with an iq of 20, there are black people with an IQ of 200. There are people of all races with this kind of variance. What's being debated is the issue of how much group iqs deviate from the average level for the entirety of humanity, and how those group differences compare with one another.

And as to the issue of those that are poorer doing worse, I think you may be approaching it in a rather reversed way; you seem to say that 'people are less intelligent because they are poor'.

I am more inclined to say 'people are less wealthy because they are less intelligent'.

It's also important not to confuse intelligence with knowledge.

You can be very smart but know nothing about classical literature, law, economics, history, psychology, art etc.

My view is that education provides knowledge, it does not provide intelligence. Intelligence is something you are born with, in my view, and your intelligence is integral to your potential to gain knowledge, which is valued by human society.

If you look at those that earn the most, they are knowledge workers; lawyers, doctors, bankers, the like.

Those that earn the least are typically those that require the least knowledge; factory workers, those on welfare, those that are in occupations with a high degree of routine and a low degree of autonomy.

My theory is that a lower intelligence means a lowered ability to gain knowledge, which means a lowered ability to gain money.

You still avoid my question on the Physics applicants thread and that M2 thread lol. You can't argue at all, keep the massive chip on your shoulder and pretend everyone else is wrong though

Is there a correlation between IQ and poverty ?

Is there a correlation between school performance and wealth ?

Is there a correlation between school performance and IQ ?

It's been scientifically proven. Blacks DO have a lower average IQ. Some people seem to think this is racism, but it's just fact.

We still have this nonsense circulating in mainstream culture. Personally, I myself, like a few others, come from a culture and background that differs sharply with where a large majority of 'black' people in the West come from - hence why such statements that 'blacks have a lower IQ than whites' seems silly and like child's play to me etc. But, clearly some believe it to be genetically and inherently true and whatnot.

So, in an effort to see where this eagerness to make it true stems from, a few simply questions and premises are thrown out:

So, let us assume that not only do 'blacks have a lower IQ than whites', but that it is seemingly genetic and inherent.

Now, having established this, what do we do now? Do we take the black children out of schools? Not bother interviewing the blacks for top jobs? Give the blacks preferential treatment in our criminal courts? Or rather, round them up? Build concentration camps maybe? Or send every last black out of the West?

Clearly, what I'm trying to ask (through asking such offensive and direct questions) is that - what do such theories and studies about the link between race and intelligence seek to prove? Does it rather seek to further sever racial relations; further undermine any academic achievement of the young 'black' people? Encourage an inferiority complex in 'blacks'?

What do you think?

(ALERT, ALERT: Clearly, many of you replying have low IQs (lol, a pun, calm down). This post is laden with sarcasm. I personally do not believe any of the examples mentioned in the post. I even take the statement 'Blacks have a lower IQ than whites' with a pinch of salt much like I would take the statement 'First-year university students go out more than the general population' with a pinch of salt.)

this stuff about race and IQ is irrelevant. All you have to do is turn on the news and be bombarded by story after story demonstrating massive stupidity from people of every race, ethnicity, nationality or whatever. These people that go on about black IQ being lower - what the **** have they done with their supposedly enormous brainpower that makes them such an authority? And what would or does it matter to anything if black people did or do have a slightly lower level of intelligence? The vast majority of human beings alive today spend their day doing things that do not even require high intelligence.

Agree so much. Asian culture places MUCH more of an emphasis on formal schooling than do some other countries, for example African countries, (even more than many European countries), so that can account for the fact that Asians tend to score highly on IQ tests and do well in structured schooling

OK, so why do they all do that? Purely out of tradition, handed down "outside of the body" from one generation to the next? Why?

Could there be an inherent disposition towards that type of thinking and that enjoyment/respect of intellectual activities that fuels their culture's affinity for that sort of thing? And similarly, could for instance people of certain African descent have inherent psychological predispositions which lead to basically the same sort of culture manifesting wherever they find themselves living?

Noticing that some characteristic is present "culture-wide" doesn't in any way tell us more about the nature vs. nurture balance, unfortunately. Because all it means is that the characteristic is seen in many, many of those people. So it could just as well be evidence of a genetic link, too.

We still have this nonsense circulating in mainstream culture. Personally, I myself, like a few others, come from a culture and background that differs sharply with where a large majority of 'black' people in the West come from - hence why such statements that 'blacks have a lower IQ than whites' seems silly and like child's play to me etc. But, clearly some believe it to be genetically and inherently true and whatnot.

So, in an effort to see where this eagerness to make it true stems from, a few simply questions and premises are thrown out:

So, let us assume that not only do 'blacks have a lower IQ than whites', but that it is seemingly genetic and inherent.

Now, having established this, what do we do now? Do we take the black children out of schools? Not bother interviewing the blacks for top jobs? Give the blacks preferential treatment in our criminal courts? Or rather, round them up? Build concentration camps maybe? Or send every last black out of the West?

Clearly, what I'm trying to ask (through asking such offensive and direct questions) is that - what do such theories and studies about the link between race and intelligence seek to prove? Does it rather seek to further sever racial relations; further undermine any academic achievement of the young 'black' people? Encourage an inferiority complex in 'blacks'?

What do you think?

(ALERT, ALERT: Clearly, many of you replying have low IQs (lol, a pun, calm down). This post is laden with sarcasm. I personally do not believe any of the examples mentioned in the post. I even take the statement 'Blacks have a lower IQ than whites' with a pinch of salt much like I would take the statement 'First-year university students go out more than the general population' with a pinch of salt.)

There is no evidence to prove that Asians are "disposed" towards that kind of thinking, nor that Africans are "disposed" towards that kind of thinking either.

I highly doubt it. I'm black, come from a highly educated family.

All studies agree that low income families, when introduced into a higher socio-economic status, improve their IQ levels.

However, quite simply, not nearly enough studies have been done with non-white populations. I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, I'm saying that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that one race is more inherently disposed to seeking out education

We still have this nonsense circulating in mainstream culture. Personally, I myself, like a few others, come from a culture and background that differs sharply with where a large majority of 'black' people in the West come from - hence why such statements that 'blacks have a lower IQ than whites' seems silly and like child's play to me etc. But, clearly some believe it to be genetically and inherently true and whatnot.

So, in an effort to see where this eagerness to make it true stems from, a few simply questions and premises are thrown out:

So, let us assume that not only do 'blacks have a lower IQ than whites', but that it is seemingly genetic and inherent.

Now, having established this, what do we do now? Do we take the black children out of schools? Not bother interviewing the blacks for top jobs? Give the blacks preferential treatment in our criminal courts? Or rather, round them up? Build concentration camps maybe? Or send every last black out of the West?

Clearly, what I'm trying to ask (through asking such offensive and direct questions) is that - what do such theories and studies about the link between race and intelligence seek to prove? Does it rather seek to further sever racial relations; further undermine any academic achievement of the young 'black' people? Encourage an inferiority complex in 'blacks'?

What do you think?

(ALERT, ALERT: Clearly, many of you replying have low IQs (lol, a pun, calm down). This post is laden with sarcasm. I personally do not believe any of the examples mentioned in the post. I even take the statement 'Blacks have a lower IQ than whites' with a pinch of salt much like I would take the statement 'First-year university students go out more than the general population' with a pinch of salt.)

OK, so why do they all do that? Purely out of tradition, handed down "outside of the body" from one generation to the next? Why?

Are you aware that it's been looked at and failed to be demonstrated? Or has it never been looked at?



Naturally.



Such as?



What form could that evidence take, if it were to arise?

Does this sort of thing count?
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004064.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Just something from google a minute ago. At the very least it's "controversial" but it's hardly fairly to say there is OMFG NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of a genetic link to intelligence. In fact it's fairly ridiculous, even thinking from first principles of how the body and genetics works. To imagine that the nervous system is identical in everyone, while all other parts differ, is a very unusual position.

Are you aware that it's been looked at and failed to be demonstrated? Or has it never been looked at?

The APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995) also stated that:
"We should note, however, that low-income and non-white families are poorly represented in existing adoption studies as well as in most twin samples. Thus it is not yet clear whether these studies apply to the population as a whole. It remains possible that, across the full range of income and ethnicity, between-family differences have more lasting consequences for psychometric intelligence

A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."[8][27]

Turkheimer and colleagues (2003) argued that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary with socioeconomic status. They found that in a study on seven-year-old twins, in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in early childhood IQ was accounted for by the shared family environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero;

At the very least it's "controversial" but it's hardly fairly to say there is OMFG NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of a genetic link to intelligence. In fact it's fairly ridiculous, even thinking from first principles of how the body and genetics works

Ever read The Bell Curve?


You shouldn't discriminate against individual people because a group they belong to has a typically below average IQ.

However, the group IQ is useful to know to plan policy.

Instead of violent oppression, enforced transportation etc, my policy prescription is simple: encourage the right people to have children (those with average and above average IQ, regardless of race, nationality, etc) and discourage those that are arguably the wrong people, those with low or below average IQ.
.

Yes, which is evidenced by the fact that not every single Asian person prioritises education or is academically successful. Where somebody is exposed to an environment where education is prioritised they are more likely to prioritise that ethic. Salience doesn't make something genetic when it is patently obvious the spatial distribution of a trait's saliency is not uniformly continental.