Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

I'll just address the twins argument:

The EEA argument probably does not hold:

http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTM0OC8wMDA3MDk5MDR4MjQ2OTA=/10.1348@000709904x24690.pdf

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...n-studies-dont-separate-genes-and-environment

Twin studies also overestimate heritability, so therefore, true heritabilities are much lower. I'll have more to say on IQ tests, twin studies, and heritability later.

And one of the most important things, in my opinion, is that IQ tests are constructed with who is or is not 'intelligent' already in mind. For instance, they only use test items which 50 percent of people get wrong, and keep those items that a few people get right or wrong. Further, psychological traits do not lie on a bell curve as is popularly conceptualized, as seen with the title of the book The Bell Curve. There is also no construct validity to IQ tests. Take, for example, breathalyzers. They are calibrated against a model of blood alcohol in the bloodstream. There is no such validity for IQ tests. The only "construct validity" that IQ tests have is with other IQ tests!

“at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . . suggesting that skewed . . . distributions are fundamental to structural and functional brain organization. This insight . . . has implications for how we should collect and analyze data.”

Quote from page 46 of Richardson’s book Genes, Brains, and Human Potential referring to this paper:

http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAzOC9ucm4zNjg3/10.1038@nrn3687.pdf

Lastly, human psychological traits do not lie on a bell curve. IQ tests are constructed with this assumption, grouping people into wherever on this so-called bell curve they fall. So if IQ tests aren't construct valid and if human psychological traits do not fall on a bell curve, then what is the point of talking about normal distributions and who is more 'intelligent' than another if there is no validity to this constructed test, if test items are chosen on what percentage of answers a cohort gets right, then what is the point of talking about 'intelligence' and individual differences in it if how the construct is constructed does not fit reality?

Sources for human psych traits not lying on a bell curve:

http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/201205/whom-the-bell-holds

 

If twins aren't AS similar as they thought, it does NOT invalidate IQ

Virtually ALL human abilty tests, physical and mental, will form a Bell Curve.

IQ is/Remains the #1 indicator of Academic and Life Outcomes.

Just saw a piece on this last week,

Science says IQ may be the best predictor of your potential to excel at work — and no one wants to hear it
Markets Insider-Oct 8, 2017
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10

• A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance.
• Social skills, drive, and personality traits such as conscientiousness matter, too.
• Companies currently place a much greater emphasis on personality traits than on IQ.
• It could be wise for companies to start measuring job candidates' intelligence and personality traits, to get a more holistic picture of their potential.

"The key for us, number one, has always been hiring very smart people," Bill Gates once said in an interview. "There is no way of getting around that in terms of IQ, you've got to be very elitist in picking the people who deserve to write software."

Gates was talking specifically about Microsoft, the tech behemoth he cofounded and ran for years. But that "elitist" strategy — prioritizing raw intelligence in the hiring process — turns out to be one with surprisingly broad applications. Years of research points to the same squirmy conclusion: Smart people make better workers.

IQ versus other factors
According to Psychology Today, IQ is a construct that encompasses problem-solving abilities, spatial manipulation, and language acquisition. On an IQ test, a score of 100 is average; someone who scores 125 or above is in the top 5%. The two most common IQ tests are the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler scales. Versions of these are now used by the military, some schools, the National Football League — and certain employers.

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review highlights three ways to identify high-potential employees: ability, social skills, and drive. "Ability" consists of cognitive ability, or IQ. The authors write: "n forecasting potential to excel in a bigger, more complex job at some point in the future, the question shifts to how likely an individual is to be able to learn and master the requisite knowledge and skill. The single-best predictor of this is IQ or cognitive ability."

These conclusions are largely based on a review the authors — Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Seymour Adler, and Robert B. Kaiser — published in 2013, in the journal Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The review highlighted a gap between what companies look for in job candidates and what scientists say really matters to job performance. Specifically, "employers are more interested in employees' social skills than their cognitive ability."

The authors explain that their research suggests social skills matter, and so does drive. They call this three-factor model "inherently compensatory," meaning if your cognitive ability is only average, but your social skills or drive are off the charts, you still have a chance to excel at work.
[.....]
Research on the role of IQ
The problem is that most human-resources personnel already acknowledge the importance of the ability to play nice with others and the willingness to work hard, while Discounting the role of intelligence.

And at a time when more organizations are starting to embed personality testing into their hiring processes, and the term "emotionally intelligent" has become trendy in the workplace, it's worth taking a step back to get a more holistic picture of what matters to job performance.

One of the most widely cited pieces of research on the topic is a 2004 paper, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, by Frank L. Schmidt and John Hunter. The researchers reviewed dozens of studies and found that smarter people generally perform better at work, probably because smart people learn new skills more quickly.

The really surprising bit is that, while being smart is more important the more complicated your job is — think a lawyer or an accountant — it's even meaningful for relatively uncomplicated jobs.

More recently, in 2014, Wharton psychologist Adam Grant published a post on LinkedIn arguing that emotional intelligence — a term popularized by Daniel Goleman that describes the ability to identify and manage your own and others' emotions — is less important than cognitive ability when it comes to job performance. Based on the results of studies he ran on hundreds of salespeople and hundreds of applicants for sales positions, Grant concluded:

"Cognitive ability was more than Five times more powerful than emotional intelligence. The average employee with high cognitive ability generated annual revenue of over $195,000, compared with $159,000 for those with moderate cognitive ability and $109,000 for those with low cognitive ability. Emotional intelligence added nothing after measuring cognitive ability."

Interestingly, Grant wrote that the CEO of the company where the study was conducted was hard pressed to believe the results were accurate.

I asked Schmidt, a professor emeritus at the University of Iowa, why he thought many people have a hard time accepting that intelligence matters at work. Here's one reason he cited:

"The concept that there is one personal trait, intelligence, which has a pretty strong genetic basis and which is very difficult to change, [that] is probably the most important determinant of where people wind up in the educational system and in the occupational structure and so forth — it seems unfair and it seems undemocratic."
[.....]​

Finally Mr 'Race Realist', that's 33-fer-33 Anti-Race Realist/Environmentalist posts.
Has there been some Traumatic event in your life... or are you goofing on the board?
This really is Stupendous BS from someone who claims/links to a Blog posting the opposite.
WTF is going on here?


Is this Image/these IQ Bell Curves not the most prominent part of every page on your Blog? (Copy/pasted below)

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/




Now there's No IQ, No Bell Curve!?
Something is wrong here.
Someone may be impersonating/pretending to be someone else.
+

 

IQ having predictive value for life success in no way validates Scientific Racism. Of course high intelligence is going to give you a great chance at having a good life because it enables you to understand complex topics and make good decisions. So the jobs that require the most cognitive ability are going to be occupied by people who are highly intelligent. However intelligence has to be nurtured. Environment has a profound impact on how intelligent a person will be and greater environmental quality helps you maximize your genetic potential That's why public policy should be to improve the environmental conditions that people live under to produce a smarter and more successful society. If you truly value intelligence and want to improve race-relations then focus on improving the environment.

 

Using correlation data to make racist arguments is completely worthless and doesn't benefit society at all.

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.048

DEMYSTIFYING G
Book Review of Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor

Ken Richardson
Centre for Human Development & Learning
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
United Kingdom

Abstract

Jensen's elaborate thesis on g can be shown to be based on several fallacious premises. IQ tests are merely clever numerical surrogates for social class. The numerous correlations evoked in support of g arise from this. His 'genetic' arguments are based on a highly simplistic, and outmoded, model of genes. And his model of "race" is based on evolutionary misconceptions.

Keywords


behavior genetics, cognitive modelling, evoked potentials, evolutionary psychology, factor analysis, g factor, heritability, individual differences, intelligence, IQ, neurometrics, psychometrics, psychophyiology, skills, Spearman, statistics

I. WHAT IS G?

1. In this book Jensen (1998, 1999) pursues his well-known arguments about g, a 'general, cognitive factor'. But it isn't difficult to show that what is cognitive is not general, and what is general is not cognitive. Scores on standardised psychometric tests intercorrelate partly because they have been subjected to considerable construction engineering on the basis of common criteria. Jensen himself has noted how 'every item is carefully edited and selected on the basis of technical procedures known as "item analysis", based on tryouts of the items on large samples and the test's target population' (1980:145). Even so, because item designs tend to be intuitive, and the criteria for item selection statistical and pragmatic, rather than theoretical, there is sill much puzzlement about what the common factor actually is. Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard.

2. For example, a prominent line of study in recent years has shown how different patterns of cognition arise, not from individual computations, but from an internalisation of the cultural 'tools' (patterns of activity, knowledge and reasoning) dominant in the social world in which people grow up and/or currently operate. 'The structure of thought depends upon the structure of the dominant types of activity in different cultures' (Luria 1976: xiv-xv). Because test constructors come from a narrow social group, it follows that test items will contain information structures which will match the background knowledge of some children more than that of others. This cognitive match/mismatch will apply even more critically to non-verbal items than to verbal items.

3. Take, for example, the Raven's test which Jensen says is almost a pure measure of g. According to Carpenter et al (1990: 408 ), after an examination of Raven's personal notes, 'the description of the abilities that Raven intended to measure are primarily characteristics of the problems, not specifications of the requisite cognitive processes... he used his intuition and clinical experience... without regard to any underlying processing theory'.

4. Inevitably, Raven's 'intuition' will have included his own cultural tools, and illustrating their incursion in the test is not too difficult. Much of middle class culture is based on the manipulation of symbols (e.g. words, numbers) in two-dimensional array on paper. Typical cultural tools are record cards, tables with rows and columns of totals and subtotals, timetables, and so on. These nearly all require the reading of symbols from top left to bottom right, the induction of additions, subtractions and substitutions across columns and down rows, and the deduction of new information from them. These are precisely the kinds of manipulations (or 'rules') that found their way into Raven's items.

5. So although the symbols are experience-free, the rules governing their changes across the matrix are certainly not, and they are more likely to be already represented in the minds of children from middle class homes that in others. Performance on the Raven's is not a question of inducing novel rules from meaningless symbols, but ones which are culturally rooted; each item presents a recognition problem before it is a reasoning problem. The latter is easy when the former has been achieved.

6. This has been shown in a vast variety of tasks in which subjects can map the covariation relations in the task onto relations in their background knowledge (reviewed in Richardson 1999). These include the Wason selection task; computerised 'games' governed by complex 'rules'; pragmatic reasoning schemes; analogical reasoning tasks; class-inclusion and scientific reasoning tasks; categorisation tasks; and modified Raven's matrices. All of this explains why the Raven's (and other non-verbal tests), often referred to as culture-free etc., are, in fact, the most enculturated of all tests.

7. So relative acquisition of relevant background knowledge (which will be closely associated with social class) is one source of the elusive common factor in psychometric tests. But there are other, non-cognitive, sources. Jensen seems to have little appreciation of the stressful effects of negative social evaluation and systematic prejudice which many children experience every day (in which even superficial factors like language dialect, facial appearance, and self-presentation all play a major part). These have powerful effects on self concepts and self-evaluations. Bandura et al (1996) have shown how poor cognitive self-efficacy beliefs acquired by parents become (socially) inherited by their children, resulting in significant depressions of self-expectations in most intellectual tasks. Here, g is not a general ability variable, but one of 'self-belief'.

8. Reduced exposure to middle-class cultural tools and poor cognitive self-efficacy beliefs will inevitably result in reduced self-confidence and anxiety in testing situations. There is a well-known association between IQ test performance and test-anxiety. In his meta-analysis of 562 studies, Hembree (1988 ) found that High Task Anxiety (HTA) subjects hold themselves in low esteem, fear exposure to negative evaluation, experience greater emotional reaction to testing situations, and more encoding difficulty and other cognitive interference when tested. It will not do for Jensen to attempt to dismiss the role of task-anxiety by reference to the old Yerkes-Dodson Law (which is about drive) and a study involving a small group of university students!

9. In sum, the 'common factor' which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership. This is what is being distilled when g is statistically 'extracted' from performances. Perhaps the best evidence for this is the 'Flynn effect,' (Fkynn 1999) which simply corresponds with the swelling of the middle classes and greater exposure to middle-class cultural tools. It is also supported by the fact that the Flynn effect is more prominent with non-verbal than with verbal test items - i.e. with the (covertly) more enculturated forms.



II. OTHER CORRELATES OF G

10. Once we see g as a variable of class-cultural characteristics, instead of a mystical biological power, the many other correlations which Jensen reports are demystified. We also see the diverse ways in which correlations can be interpreted. It is not the least bit surprising that g also correlates with head size, brain size, stature, general health, and so on, which, through nutritional, endocrinal, and other aspects of social privilege/exclusion, are also correlates of social class.

11. Jensen relies heavily on the (weak) associations between performances on Elementary Cognitive Tasks and IQ. But such performance will be much influenced by task-anxiety, as numerous studies on speeded tasks have shown (Hembre 1988 ). Since HTA produces more erratic reaction times, this would explain why the biggest correlate of g is not mean (or median) speed of response, but response variation. It also explains the lack of correlation between Nerve Conduction Velocity (however crudely measured) and RT.

12. Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large 'knock-on' effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.

13. When we turn to job performance the picture becomes very murky, not least because of serious methodological problems and contradictory findings. The 'job performance' measure used in nearly all studies is that of supervisor ratings. But supervisors can be rather subjective, use widely different criteria, with 'halo', age-related, and other effects. In the Schmidt et al (1986) study, supervisor ratings had very low correlations (around 0.3) both with subjects' job knowledge and actual work samples! The (weak) associations between statistically abstracted g and job performance may, again, stem from differences in self-concept, self-confidence, anxiety etc., rather than from an 'ability' variable. This interpretation is supported by reports that, when workers have been in the job for some time, performance is completely uncorrelated with IQ (Hulin et al 1990). Jensen dismisses that idea, citing a meta-analysis by Schmidt et al (1986). But that study was conducted on military personnel, in which, as the authors themselves suggest, job performance involves 'standard operating procedures' routinized by 'thorough, detailed training programs'. Besides, the Manual to the Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPT) Test (which Jensen sees as a test of 'pure' g ) warns us that 'the predictive validity of the RPM... to success within an occupation... is relatively low' (Raven et al 1993, 41).

14. Although a multitude of imponderables remain in correlational data of this kind, it seems reasonable to suggest that IQ predicts little that isn't already built into the test directly or indirectly by virtue of its being a surrogate for social class. It should also be obvious that people who, from a very early age, have reduced self-expectations and self-esteem, and fewer chances of self-fulfilment, are also, in the long run, going to exhibit more social pathology.



III. GENES AND G

15. It is very worrying to find a simplistic 'Mendelian' model of independent and additive genes still being urged upon us by Jensen. The 'genetic beanbag' view is clung to because it furnishes the only paradigm in which Jensen and coworkers can work 'genetically'. In particular, it furnishes the famous 'expected' correlations for relatives (e.g. monozygotic versus dizygotic twins) which form the basis of 'heritability' estimates, even though doubts about the model for complex characters have frequently been expressed (see e.g. Barton & Turelli 1989).

16. Indeed, recent molecular biology has shown better than ever how genes for evolved characters have become intricately tied in with adaptable regulatory systems across the genome as a whole. Under these regulations, variable alleles can be utilised for common ends, or common alleles utilised for divergent ends, as developmental needs dictate. Up to 90% of genes are regulatory in function, and not structural alleles at all (Jensen's claim that humans have 100,000 polymorphic genes seems ridiculous). Phenomena such as canalization, divergent epigenesis, exon-shuffling (which modifies gene-products to suit current developmental needs), and even developmental modification of gene-structures themselves, now make a nonsense of the idea of a one-to-one relationship between incremental accumulations of 'good' or 'bad' genes, and increments in a phenotype (see e.g. Rollo 1995). This makes the objective of most twin and adoption studies surrounding IQ a red herring, because it is attempting to 'prove' a genetic model that no one can seriously believe in.

17. Jensen argues that g has evolved as a 'fitness' character. Yet it is the logic of natural selection that fitness characters come to display little if any genetic variation. This has been repeatedly confirmed in artificial selection experiments, and in the wild. The self-defeating logic of Jensen's argument is obvious. Indeed, I find it amazing that, at the end of the twentieth century, complex, sophisticated edifices like this are being constructed on such patently erroneous foundations.



IV. RACE

18. Jensen argues, in effect, that cognitive 'races' exist because genes related to human cognitive systems will have been subjected to diversifying selection in the same way as some superficial physical or physiological characters. He suggests that northern migrants would have faced particularly difficult conditions. As a result, groups of African descent will have lower frequencies of genes for superior cognitive abilities, compared with those of Caucasian or Mongoloid ancestry.

19. This completely misses the point. Our African hominid ancestors themselves evolved as a social-cooperative species in order to deal with conditions of extreme environmental uncertainty, as the climate dried, forests thinned, and former forest dwellers were 'flung out' onto the open savannah or forest margins. It is crucial to point out that when even as few as two individuals cooperate they create a new, social environment that is vastly more complex than anything experienced in the physical world. It is that complexity on the social plane which rapidly impelled the tripling of brain size and furnished the unique cognitive capacity for dealing with complexity in general - in the physical world as well as the social.

20. The uniquely adaptable, highly selected, socio-cognitive system that resulted was a prerequisite, not a consequence, of human migration patterns. Although inhabiting every possible niche, humans have only a quarter of the genetic variation of highly niche-specific chimpanzees (Kaessmann et al 1999). The system operates on a completely different plane from blind genetic selection - one which can 'model' the world conceptually, and anticipate and change it. If our heads get cold we invent hats, rather than wait for natural selection to reshape our skulls and increase the size of our brains (which is what Jensen suggests in one particularly questionable line of argument). As Owens & King (1999) point out, what minor genetic differences exist are 'quite literally superficial... the possibility that human history has been characterised by genetically homogeneous groups ("races") distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence'.

21. Owens & King also point out that 'Of course prejudice does not require a rational basis, let alone an evolutionary one, but the myth of major genetic differences across "races" is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence' (453). This culmination of Jensen's thesis, then, is as hollow as the conceptual foundations on which it based. It really is time this negative and fatalistic model of humanity was put behind us once and for all.

 

This is what I can't understand. The entire train of thought seems a complete waste of time.

Let's just go ahead and assume it's true that some categories of people are more intelligent than those in some other groups. So then what? Are anyone's lives suddenly made better?

People are not categories. People are individuals. If we try to categorize people, we are just being lazy. That, and we'll be wrong.

 

I hope you come to moderate that stance a tad. Witch hunts never end well.

 

I'm so confused here, so why are out liberal posters distancing themselves from science? Don't they always side with science? Isn't this what we've been told to believe over the years? So, now, faced with "science" they run away. Evidently, there is "science" that our liberal friends don't actually support. Or can and will discount on the basis of the idea it cannot underpin the otherwise egregious agenda they drive....

 

I'm not being serious. I used to post on racist message boards where they angered me to the point where I began trolling with that type of rhetoric.

Which posters are you accusing of running away from science? This thread is full of rebuttals to racist pseudoscience.

 

Oh!
Nevermind...

 

That's not why I posted that.

This is not true:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/

You can get information from news articles, or scientific sources.

I will also counter your Microsoft quote with this quote from Intelligence in the Flesh by Guy Claxton:

"We saw earlier that Google is not impressed by people’s track records of success, but is equally sceptical of high IQs. Laszlo Bock, the senior vice-president in charge of ‘people operations’ – the head of HR – says: ‘For every job the No. 1 thing we look for is general cognitive ability, and it’s not I.Q. It’s learning agility. It’s the ability to process on the fly.‘ Behind the ability to learn quickly lies what Bock calls ‘intellectual humility.’ You have to be able to give up the knowledge and expertise you thought would see you through, and look with fresh eyes. People with a high IQ ofen have a hard time doing that. They are certainly no better than average at tolerating uncertainty or being able to adopt fresh perspectives."

Here is the source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-get-a-job-at-google.html

In fact, in the original studies on job performance, work performance tests slightly predicted job performance than IQ tests did. Also see this paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mance_An_alternative_sociological_explanation

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/04/doctors-iq-and-job-performance/

There is, it just doesn't measure any mystical power known as 'g'.

Did you read this paper?

http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf

Yes that is my blog and yes I use that image. I like the image and it's been there since I began blogging 2.5 years ago. Yes I am the author of the blog, no this is not an impersonator. People's views change with ample evidence... shocking, right?

 

Yes it was.

How nice.
Proving Nothing and not citing the IQ's/Test scores of anyone at Google.

But, alas, there is a definition.
Unbelievable.
And IQ tests have actual predictive ability despite any disingenuous ambiguity you seek to impart.

Even a Blogger should understand that one should post Excerpts, not just Link Studies or Book Titles.
And of course, studies are like Google, one can find one to back just about any opinion.

I sense large logic and position gaps, and general 'volatility'.
ie, despite being on the board many times, it takes you days for this frivolous reply, that I would have never seen, had I not read the thread, as my handle was not included in any of your 'quotes.'
Take care.
+

 

Tell me more about my motivations for posting something. I'd love to hear it.

It proves that Google doesn't look for 'IQ'; 1) it's illegal to base jobs off 'IQ' tests, 2) Bock uses work performance tests as they measure job performance better than IQ tests.

Right. They are proxies for parental social class:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354302012003012

I'm used to people reading papers and discussing, but I see how things go down here so I got it now. Here ya go:

In the field of human resources management, organizational behaviour and industrial and organizational psychology, the assumption that individual performance follows a Gaussian (normal) distribution – the form of a bell curve with the majority of performers clustered around the mean – has long influenced organizational practice. The study, “The Best and the Rest: Revisiting the Norm of Normality of Individual Performance” by Ernest O’Boyle Jr. and Herman Aguinis, presents a new paradigm for understanding why applying a normal distribution, that assumes the majority of individuals will perform in an “average” manner, does not present an accurate picture of the way that individual performance unfolds in an organization.

You can also read the Psychology Today piece on it:

In the field of human resources management, organizational behaviour and industrial and organizational psychology, the assumption that individual performance follows a Gaussian (normal) distribution – the form of a bell curve with the majority of performers clustered around the mean – has long influenced organizational practice. The study, “The Best and the Rest: Revisiting the Norm of Normality of Individual Performance” by Ernest O’Boyle Jr. and Herman Aguinis, presents a new paradigm for understanding why applying a normal distribution, that assumes the majority of individuals will perform in an “average” manner, does not present an accurate picture of the way that individual performance unfolds in an organization.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/201205/whom-the-bell-holds

So what is the point of any discussion?

I have other things to attend to than to comment on message boards. I have free time at the moment, so I'm commenting now.

So here's what we learned today: 1) Human psychological traits do not lie on a bell curve; 2) twin studies overestimate heritability (I specifically posted that in response to another user who linked a paper and the beginning was about twin studies); 3) IQ does not predict job performance. Read Richardson and Norgate (2015). And it doesn't predict promotion to senior doctor either.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/

A-level grades predict success better than 'IQ':

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-242

And a study on Indian doctoral students concludes:

Students with near average IQ work hard in their studies and their academic performance was similar to students with higher IQ. So IQ can`t be made the basis for medical entrance; instead giving weight-age to secondary school results and limiting the number of attempts may shorten the time duration for entry and completion of MBBS degree.

http://imsear.li.mahidol.ac.th/bitstream/123456789/175546/1/ijcmph2015v2n3p275.pdf

IQ does not predict job performance. Read those papers.[/QUOTE]

 

IQ is hardly predictive for job success. Read Richardson and Norgate (2015), even then hereditarians will still cling to Hunter and Schmidt's studies, however they've been rebutted.

 

Thanks. I will check them out. Even if the claim were correct it would not validate Scientific Racism.

 

The text editor is saying I have too many characters in one post, so I have to split this into two parts:

PART I -

A correlation-causation argument of a slew of environmental possibilities is not "establishing" a cause of anything. You're still not showing where your specific claim of subjective terms like "discrimination and poverty" are even measurable, let alone proven to be substantial causes.

Except critics that have poured through Nisbutt's tripe have shown that his work isn't plausible; scholars tend to quote each other in the good faith that their work is done with reasonably meticulous care, and Lee has proven that's not the case with Nisbutt.

Speaking of Bouchard, how do you respond to his remarks?

"The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood. In the aggregate, the studies also confirm that shared environmental influence decreases across age, approximating about 0.10 at 18-20 years of age and continuing at that level into adulthood. These conclusions apply to the Westernized industrial democracies in which most of the studies have been carried out."

An environmental influence of only 0.10 into adulthood “explains” a huge IQ gap? How does this calculate? Further, how does it calculate that “institutional racism and poverty” are the main culprits when 1) environmental impacts on adult IQ vary, and 2) that you have not presented data showing that “institutional racism and poverty” have been scientifically shown to play a role – let alone a large one.

You've yet to show that 1) Discrimination and poverty are heavily involved, and that 2) In spite of small environmental affect on adult IQ, environmental explanations can show that large IQ gaps are wholly environmental in origin.

Nothing you said here addresses the increasingly small impact of environment on adult IQ, when gaps are the highest.

Of the many environmental factors that can affect adult IQ, how much among the 0.10 do you ascribe to “institutional racism and poverty,” especially that would close the gap? You've given no specifics as of yet. So far, it's subjective "institutional racism exists" and "police brutality," etc.

At the foundation of this, your argument on IQ gaps closing relies on the debunked work of Nisbutt with Dickens and Flynn, none of which whose methodology you have been able to address is legitimate in spite of detailed remarks by scholarly peers.

You've also never addressed Woodley & Meisenberg's 2012 response to work by Nisbutt along with Dickens, Flynn and others which addressed shortcomings in a Nisbutt & Co. article you posted below:

"This comment challenges Nisbett et al's argument that Flynn effect gains will eliminate cross-national IQ inequalities "by the end of the 21st century and falsify the hypothesis that some nations lack the intelligence to fully industrialize" (p. 140). The present authors find that this optimism is not justified by the evidence. In Europe and the United States, Flynn effects are indeed rare in cohorts born after about 1980. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish between accelerated childhood development and higher adult intelligence."

Instead of answering a single question as to why the criticisms of their methodologies and conclusions are wrong, you have attempted to both assert their work is valid by avoiding addressing the criticisms and seeking to find an end-around to validate their work by another avenue, typically by citing Graves.

In that, you've violated your own alleged standard repeatedly regarding quoting people outside of their field of training and expertise.

Since this discussion isn't about this "Shockley" person, it's not of particular relevance when trying to defend the claim of "discrimination and poverty" being large factors in the IQ gap.

"Doesn't mean there would be differences" isn't much an argument for the high heritability of adult IQ coupled with the specifically vastly diminishing effect of environment impacting adult IQ which by the above paragraph, Graves didn't know existed.

He's also still not a psychologist, and pop science videos about rats doesn't qualify anything he's said.

Furthermore, he took it upon himself to narrowly define race and trace his argument around his subjective, arbitrary definition:

Rowe (2001):

"Graves' push for abandoning the racial concept partly depends on his using a definition of racial group that is extremely restrictive, requiring that races have '...hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups' (p. 5). However, the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, which he offers on the following page, emphasizes race as a genealogical line, a lineage, and offers that races differ '...in the frequency of hereditary traits' (p. 6). Racial groups are like a large extended family; people in them share a common ancestry, are somewhat inbred, and share some physical resemblance because of their common genes. Natural selection has produced marked phenotypic differences between racial groups; but large numbers of neutral genetic markers can be used to identify lines of ancestry.

Graves seems to ignore the trait frequency concept entirely. Dutch caucasians (the tallest in Europe), and Japanese Asians differ in mean height because of their different genetic ancestries. That their height distributions may overlap does not invalidate a racial group concept. Similarly, two racial groups could have the same mean on an hereditary trait, but different variances.

In some places, Graves' effort to debunk race falls wide of the mark."

If that's not debate-rigging, I don't know what is.

And we see evidence of this such as in the study released by Stanford University:

"Racial Groupings Match Genetic Profiles, Stanford Study Finds (2005)

For each person in the study, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within genes, but are simply genetic signposts on chromosomes that come in a variety of different forms at the same location.

Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.

'This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background,' Risch said."

So it seems that Graves needed to construct a straw man definition of race and beat it to death in order to have an argument, and even in that he dishonestly smeared people who disagreed with his thesis as “racists”:

Rowe (2001):

"Graves' attack on the concept of race is polemical in tone. He is clear on where he stands from the outset: biological races do not exist. Scholars who believe that biologically-based racial differences may exist in behavioural traits he labels as 'racists.' This ad hominian name-calling is apt to put those on the other side of debate on the defensive. Graves is not seeking a dialogue but rather intends to discourage the use of racial categorizations."

I asked you this before of Graves' assertions: If biological differences between human populations do not exist, how does Graves explain that 1) Different diseases impact different groupings at different rates, and 2) Why do certain medications help certain non-existent races more than they help others? If we were all alike, these things would not exist.

And Graves made quite the gaffe and stepped in it when he previously stated,

"The heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies."

As I pointed out before, Graves lacks understanding of the Wilson Effect and keeps commenting anyway. He's not a psychologist; he's a biologist who subjectively defines terms in very narrow criteria so as to enable himself to debunk them.

A relevant recap McGue and Bouchard (1998} illustrating Graves' cluelessness:

"THE NATURE OF GENETIC INFLUENCE

Twin and Adoption Studies Document the Heritable Nature of Most Psychological Traits

COGNITIVE ABILITIES

General cognitive ability, or IQ, has been more extensively studied from a behavioral genetic perspective than any other psychological trait. Model fitting analyses of the combined IQ kinship correlations (Bouchard & McGue 1981) result in heritability estimates of approximately .50, shared environmental influences of .20 and .30, and the balance of variance being accounted for by nonshared environmental effects and measurement error (Chipuer et al 1990, Loehlin 1989). These analyses, however, do not take age into account, and recent evidence suggests that the heritability of general cognitive ability varies with age."

Or in layman's terms: Joseph Graves was talking out of his ass.

Yes, this again: plants with more nutrition in their soil grow higher. You continue to conflate soil nutrients in plants with vast racial oppression conspiracy theories. This illustration isn't very useful beyond basic illustrations of prolonged nutrition deficits on individuals - and nobody denies that prolonged, severe malnutrition can affect human IQ - but you seem to interpret it as representative per human population groups, based on the assumption that humans are genetic clones of each other. You understand the difference between mitosis and meiosis, right?

And as I said before, Lewontin - a biologist, not a psychologist - is a flaming Marxist. It's not exactly in his ideological interests to point at anything but environment. Marxist theory is environment-based. This graphic illustrates prolonged nutrition effects if anything - which nobody denies - not subjective terms "discrimination" and "poverty," unless you want to posit that Flower Pot A is historically oppressed by Flower Pot B who is stealing nutrients out of Flower Pot A's soil, which is a correlation/causation fallacy.

Studies like MISTRA removed the "fertile soil" angle, and the data came out similarly anyway.

If you wish to posit that "discrimination" has a worse impact on IQ than nutrition - since these MISTRA kids were not remotely malnourished in more prosperous homes and only severe, prolonged malnutrition would heavily impact IQ anyway - I'd love to see your evidence.




1) He says there's high heritability for almost everything.
2) He says genetic differences between human groups exist.
3) He specifically says that he's not saying there's no genetic explanation for human group differences.
4) Cites above Lewontin seed theory, see my explanation above.
5) Social v genetic definition of groups : Science is increasingly able to pinpoint genetic groupings that match social ones: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221025.htm
6) Points to a vague myriad of environmental factors on IQ, does not cite which ones cause more impact than others.
7) Mentions Flynn Effect but doesn't mention that A) Flynn effects haven't been seen since about 1980, and B) The Wilson Effect. His talk is a basic, generalized freshman-level lecture lacking these specifics.

Yes, Lee debunked that weak Nisbutt argument against MISTRA as I posted in 2014 so that's a rehash. I reposted it below.

I'm not arguing Rushton so his views aren't relevant. It's YOUR premise and YOUR sources that are at issue. Graves is a biologist and is not a relevant source on psychology, and it's been shown that Graves has published works on his own subjective, narrow definition of race which goes well beyond the standard English definition for obvious ideological advantage.

 

PART II:

Here we go with this again.

I already posted the section of Lee's demolition of Nisbutt regarding his crappy ASSessment of MISTRA and his – and your – reference to a few European studies of black/mixed children as “evidence” in 2014. I'll repost it here:

"2.3. Black and biracial children reared by European parents

Studies of black and biracial children reared by European parents yield conflicting results and thus support for no particular conclusion (Table 2). Instead of acknowledging the ambiguity of these findings, Nisbett chooses to portray them as favoring his strict environmental hypothesis by launching an unprincipled attack on the study most clearly opposed to it.

The study at issue is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (MTAS) (Waldman, Weinberg, & Scarr, 1994; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). I first note that the MTAS data summarized in Table 2 exhibit a striking regularity that agrees with the conclusions reached earlier in this review: the environmental advantage conferred by a white upper-middle-class household for all ancestry groups appears to be largely transient. At the second time point, both the black and white adoptees showed mean IQs extremely close to the means of their respective populations.

I also note one egregious reporting error by Nisbett. In his chapter on heritability and malleability, he cites the original MTAS publication for the following: One study looked at the IQs of white children who were born to mothers with an average educational level and who were adopted by mostly middle- and upper-middle-class families. The children adopted relatively late had an average IQ of 117 [111.5 after correction for the Flynn Effect (Table 2)]. This study suggests that even children who would be expected to have an average IQ if raised in an average environment can have their IQ boosted very considerably if they are raised under highly propitious circumstances (Nisbett, 2009, p. 37).

Given Nisbett's extensive discussion of the later MTAS reports in his account of the black/white IQ difference, his failure to mention the longitudinal wipeout of the MTAS adoption effect is inexplicable."

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of egregious

1archaic :distinguished

2:conspicuous; especially :conspicuously bad :flagrant

• egregious errors
• egregious padding of the evidence

Nisbutt has been one of your main sources for claiming the black/white IQ gap is environmental outside of the opportunist Graves.

Your source for claiming the IQ gap is closing? Dickens and Flynn, whose work I've already noted on this thread is “critically” flawed, per their scholarly peers:

Loehlin (2002):

"The Dickens and Flynn model equations are derived under the assumptions of stable equilibrium and of constant genetic effects within an individual, assumptions that are perhaps more plausible for adulthood than for the early childhood years to which the authors often apply them.One way this becomes problematic is in the ambiguity about whether M in the models represents intelligence, that is, absolute level of cognitive skill, or IQ, the level of cognitive skill of an individual relative to those of his own age. This distinction is usually not very critical for adulthood; it is when considering children."

Dickens and Flynn dismissed the Wilson Effect in their calculations.

And as noted by Yeung & Pfeiffer (2009):

"Racial achievement gaps in applied problem scores by grade three and letter-word scores by grade six, can be accounted for by child's characteristics, family socioeconomic background, and mother's cognitive skills. However, these covariates explain an increasingly smaller proportion of the black-white achievement gap as children advance to higher grades. Gaps in early cognitive skills are highly predictive of gaps at later ages, setting off a trajectory of cumulative disadvantage for black children over time."

Rushton & Jenson (2006):

"To claim a 4- to 7-point gain for Blacks, Dickens and Flynn chose three independent tests showing medium gains (the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, and Armed Forces Qualification tests) and relegated to their Appendix B four or more tests showing lesser gains. They excluded the Wonderlic Personnel Test, which they acknowledge showed a gain of only 2.4 points for Blacks between 1970 and 2001. (Dickens and Flynn suggest that more ‘‘high quality’’ Whites than Blacks had taken the test.) They excluded the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), which Murray (2005) described as showing a loss of 1 IQ point for Blacks between 1983 and 2004. (Dickens and Flynn say the data contained an inflated standard deviation.) They excluded the very g-loaded Woodcock-Johnson test, which Murray (2005; whom they cite) described as showing the conventional gap of 1.05 standard deviations for the third (2001) standardization sample. (Dickens and Flynn say the Blacks were an unrepresentative ‘‘subsubsample.’’) They also excluded the Differential Ability Scale, which in Lynn’s (1996) analysis (which they cite) showed a maximum gain of 1.83 IQ points for Blacks between 1972 and 1986. (Dickens and Flynn say the sample lacked ‘‘quality.’’) To be compelling, however, researchers must take the totality of available evidence into account (Gottfredson, 2005)."

Where? "Citing a scholar" that "studied the Wilson Effect"? Doesn't sound impressive, especially when Graves, Dickens and Flynn disregarded it.

You previously claimed that Lee's demolition was irrelevant because it was just ONE guy making the criticisms, now you invoke one person as a valid source?

More goal post moving again, I see.

Ceasing being an egalitarian is easy: When you internalize a belief system with no legitimate foundation, eventually you'll rationally question it, notice its internal contradictions, note people of your heritage keep getting scapegoated for everything wrong in the world and question why, and then disabuse yourself of said false views.

If you really think there's such a thing as a belief system that nobody rejects, you're suffering from serious ideological idolatry.

If you were honest enough to quote people within context, parse out sarcastic comments and jokes, and then stop conflating legal status and religion with race, you might understand why you think I go around calling for people to be murdered for their racial background.

It's hilarious that you call posting the IP address of someone that just wished you to be murdered as "extreme," but somehow openly wishing someone to be murdered for their posts isn't extreme.

Your moral compass is broken.

Sad you feel the need to get proxies on people. The timing speaks volumes: It's hilarious you're so rage-filled you're actually resorting to this.

Right when you get pissed off on this thread, these mental fur balls show up. For all we know, they're all your personal socks. You're so off-kilter that you think "mod abuse" is "a declaration of war," but your openly wishing someone get murdered isn't.

One thing is consistent with you: You're out to endlessly cast yourself as a victim.

 

No, it means that we understand that blindly blaming higher IQ races for the lack of socioeconomic success isn't a valid argument as IQ data needs to be taken into consideration.

Data does show certain population groups have markedly lower average IQs than people of European, Ashkenazi Jewish and Northeast Asian descent. IQ averages not distributed evenly worldwide.

Unfortunately, people cry "racism" when folks don't blindly accept the blame-the-white-man narrative as is display on this thread. Racism includes blaming other races for your lack of success when you refuse to look in the mirror first, yes.

 

If you really are the blogger behind "NotPoliticallyCorrect", I must say you're a rather confusing character. Your blog appears to be on the "HBD" (read racist) side, yet here you seem to be arguing against racists like Empress and Taxonomy. So are you one of the racists or against them?

 

I find your posts the most confusing/duplicitous/unwitting.
Altho you don't say the word, you express, Define, and Name RACES.
ie

You're describing and Naming different Biologically indigenous Races.
YOU are a Race Realist/Racist by your own unwitting terms.
And I've seen your similar Race Realist posts here and elsewhere.

Just because your posts are Pro- the 'biologically indigenuous sub-Saharan black' Race, doesn't get you off the hook.
With double-standard Liberal clowns here, probably, but not logically.
Hysterical.
Incredible.
+

 

What have I said here that's racist?

 

Yes that's my blog and if you read my recent articles I question genetic determinism. I am a race realist in that I believe in the biological reality of race. I question other hereditarian assumptions, as you can see, however. I enjoy being a contrarian because it brings good debate. Honestly the opposition's arguments I see suck so I try my hand against my own arguments/people who believe similar things to myself see how they hold up.

I still don't believe there is a physiological basis for g, as I've argued. If it were physiological, then it wouldn't mimick any known physiologic process.

 

Stop deflecting to Mottogno-bashing. Show us the camp records that show those facilities could even handle such a capacity and were actually OPEN as claimed.

Yes, plenty have claimed 1,000,000 and more were gassed there.

https://www.historiography-project.com/misc/auschwitz_deaths.php

 

So you weren't able to intellectually debunk their comments, so you took to acting like a racial stereotype and attacking them?

 

PLEASE DELETE

 

You may be willing to put on a polite mask in this specific forum, but do you deny saying blatantly racist things elsewhere? Remember that list EgalitarianJay had compiled before somebody edited it out?

And then you have gems like this on this very PoliticalForum: