Why race and IQ studies are useless.

I just want to say, that I am a person who according to race realist and social scientist, was doomed the minute I was born.

I come from Kansas City, Missouri, born in 1979, I was a destined failure the minute my mother got pregnant. Not only was my father a drug addict, we lived in a city that was in a severe economic depression in the 60s-90s. I grew up in one of the poorest neighborhoods AND one of the most violent ones at that. And not only that the school board said that I was slow, and needed to be placed in special needs classes. Upon entering high school I kept a consistent D average, and even dropped out of high school. Let's be honest with ourselves. My IQ probably would have never been all that high, even if I never really took an IQ test (that I can remember).

Today? Well I'm a senior software engineer of 15 years, and I have had a very good career. You want to know how? The day I dropped out of high school, I got on the bus, and went to a library, and I picked up a book on calculus. From there it lead to me teaching MYSELF higher mathematics, logic, theorhetical computer science, and computer programming. About a month ago I took my first IQ test, the Mensa test, and I score a 128. Not great, but according to them I'm "above average". Not to say that the mensa online test is a real measure of a real IQ test, but I think it's pretty good either way.

So something tells me that either I just had an insanely high IQ, or I simply raised my IQ myself. I'm sure if I retook the mensa test, I will score even higher. Why? Because simply put, you can pretty much raise your own IQ. And the bottomline IQ does not really say much about your capacity to learn.

I am quite convinced I am a naturally dumb person. But that wasn't my destiny. I didn't accept myself being dumb. So I decided to fix it. Anyone can fix it. Which is why IQ test are a waste of time.

 

If anyone can fix it, but most don't, then IQ tests might be, in a round about way (per your experience), a good indication of incentive, or the lack thereof? That's even more revealing if a particular race is indicated?

 

You appear to be someone with a good i.q. but you are not well read on the use and value of i.q. testing.....specificallly its predictive capability..........http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

Generally speaking the whole concept of i.q. is not well understood....http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...general_intelligence_predicts_school_and.html

 

Coming from where you are coming from, your achievements are remarkable, so congratulations, but your entire comment seems to disprove your thesis, that IQ had nothing to do with your achievements. Someone with an average (around 100ish) IQ would not have been able to go to the library and teach themselves Calculus. That is a remarkable accomplishment!

So I guess I'm not quite sure where you are going with this? Are you saying that IQ doesn't matter? That IQ isn't real?

I think Social Science seems to indicate a pretty good correlation between life outcomes and IQ, so it seems to me that IQ does matter, and your story seems to be an anecdote in favor of that.

 

There is and has been for some time a huge politically correct movement to discredit not only i.q. tests but intelligence itself. Why? simply because it does not conform to the 'liberal narrative' aka that all people are the same...that all people are equal etc.etc. ad nauseum.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-general-intelligence-factor-from-scientific-american.32803/


http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

 

`
`
You are giving your opinion based on your experience, which is to say, anecdotal. Good story, good for you, but it is hardly convincing though.

 

It is a good story of someone highly motivated and even though from a bad family had a good intelligence and was able to rise above all the negatives he was surrounded with....not that unique...many have accomplished much dispite being from a bad family and all that goes with that.

- - - Updated - - -

Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...erences-in-intelligence-how-i-changed-my-mind

 

My Dad worked for NASA as an engineer, My Mom was a CPA. My wife has a Ph.D. Both my brothers have degrees. I got consistent C's, D's and F's since the third grade, mostly F's. I did not graduate High School. I did get a G.E.D two years later though, and compared to the actual graduates on whom the test is base lined, I out performed 95% of them on my test score. Today I out earn 95%-97% f the U.S. population, and own my own precision machining/contract manufacturing business.

Test scores are BS. Other peoples opinions about your potential are BS. The biggest mistake you can make in life is listening to other people tell you what your limits are. Maybe, just maybe, my greatest asset is that I'm too stupid to know when to quit!

My wife's Doctorate is in Special Ed, particularly for the gifted students. Upon reflection, she tells me that it was'nt that I was too stupid, but too smart, and that the course material was dumbed down to the lowest common denomination, and that it was likely sheer boredom that caused me to under perform in school. Given what I've been able to do since that time in my life, I'm inclined to agree with her.

 

I think in your case it's possible that you have some sort of mental disorder which caused you to be labeled as "slow" by teachers and led to bad grades in school. A person can have mental problems and still have a high IQ. If that online Mensa test is consistent with a standardized IQ test then you are very smart. A score of 128 is near the qualifying score for Mensa which is an IQ of 130 (98th Percentile). So you are at or near the top 2% of the smartest people in the world. Your career path also indicates that you are smart. Teaching yourself calculus and advanced computer skills is no joke. You did get a bad roll of the dice in life with your father being a drug addict and growing up poor. Overcoming that and what ever mental problems you have is impressive. I do think there is a genetic component to intelligence and IQ can predict life outcomes. Also unfortunately not everyone can hold a job that requires high cognitive skills. A person with severe cognitive deficits can not become a doctor or a lawyer.

However a person can overcome certain mental challenges to be successful through willpower. The movie Forrest Gump is an exaggeration of this but someone with a mental disorder like ADHD or Asperger's Syndrome can be successful if they put their mind to it. You have to have the genetic potential for high intellect to be smart. The problem with the Race & IQ argument is that it assumes that race is a biologically meaningful category and something is wrong with the brains of certain races because of evolution when the science indicates that environmental inequality caused by racial stratification of societies is the reason for group differences in IQ and not racial biology.

 

The thing is, calculus ISN'T that hard to teach yourself. It's remarkably simple with repetition. The reason why we think of it as hard is because the way we're taught. We're taught at whatever pace an instructor chooses to teach you. And we do not learn these topics in a way that makes sense to us. Every since I was able to teach myself a lot of computer science concepts and even how to program, I have come to realize that maybe we are just bad at teach people. I think the "predictive" qualities of IQ mostly come from most people taking the same predictable path to success. IQ test probably are very good at teach us how well we'll do in school, under the system in which they teach us. But it doesn't say much about other ways someone can learn. I'm no social scientist, but I feel a lot of studies are mostly biased towards a certain type of learning.

 

You give some valuable insight....the basic problem is our public schools are a mess...for variety of reasons...which I am addressing on another thred.

 

Way to humblebrag!


We're not talking the predictable paths to success so much as life outcomes. Smarter people (on average) have better life outcomes. If you don't want to admit that IQ means anything that's fine as a personal belief, but as far a social science tells it, it is meaningful.

 

Race, Genes And Intelligence
By William Saletan


"Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
- Declaration of Independence

James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. " Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

'I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

If this suggestion makes you angry-if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable-you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."

The same values-equality, hope, and brotherhood-are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.

Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.

Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.

Remember, these are averages, and all groups overlap. You can't deduce an individual's intelligence from her ethnicity.

So, what should we make of the difference in averages?

We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher. The report doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.

How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.

According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.

I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.

Scientists have already identified genes that influence brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ gaps, nobody knows. But we should welcome this research, because any genetic hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.

Critics think IQ tests are relative-i.e., they measure fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. "In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table," argues psychologist Robert Sternberg. "In a warrior society physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive." It's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic theory. Nature isn't stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were suited to their respective environments.

In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.

How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics of racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.

Not that that's much consolation if you're stuck in the 21st century with a low IQ.'

Hence the agitation and the refusal by blacks and their so called progressive allies to accept the genetic evidence in regards to the capabilities of people of color. They feel threatened...and one can hardly blame them. Yet their response does them no good....to deny the truth will not in the long run offer them any remedies for how they can survive in this increasingly technological society.

Currently they are certainly doing well in America in regards to their survival....they eat well and they are beeding at a faster rate than any other race....but the reality of that is only possible because of the nature of our welfare state....take away all the government handouts, and the Federal Policy of essentially granting them endangered species status and they would be in serious trouble .

How long will these Federal Government welfare policies last? Even if the leftwingers are able to maintain their control of our Federal Government and social policies there will come a time when it will no longer be able to implement and sustain such polices...simply because such policies make us unable to compete with the rest of the world....thus a welfare state is doomed...because it is economical suicide...a nation or state cannot be viable if there are more takers than there are givers.....aka when the numbers dependent on welfare overwhelm the ability of those who actually work to continue to support them...then the whole system collapses...that is where we are currently headed and perhaps much,much closer to that point than most realize.

 

`
This is a great motivational story, but insubstantial evidence in drawing any far reaching conclusions.

 

I think the point is that a high IQ is not needed to learn things like advanced mathematics, or any technical subject matter. I believe anyone of even a very low IQ can pretty much learn these things. And I would love to discuss why I believe this is the case.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. High intelligence is required to learn very complex subjects such as advanced mathematics. You clearly have it. Even if you have mental problems be they influenced by genetic of environmental factors you are highly intelligent. Not everyone can understand complex subjects as their genetic potential does not allow it. A severely mentally challenged person can not learn quantum physics or teach themselves calculus.
That's not their fault and I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are cognitively deficient because of genetic factors. Instead of calling them stupid or discriminating against them we should provide accommodations for them to live the best life they can and seek cures for their ailments. This is why I feel that the Race & IQ arguments are morally absurd. Even if they are right would we really accept their policy recommendations? I wouldn't.

But I fight against the promotion of this research because I see that it is scientifically false and belief in it is socially harmful.

 

??? What policy recommendations are you talking about?

 

The primary advocates of race-realism are White Nationalists. So what ever policy recommendations they are making. Many of them want all White nations, controls on non-White immigration, an end to Affirmative Action and intervention programs, a return of racial segregation etc. I've even heard these people advocate extreme policies such as sterilization and genocide. All of these policy recommendations are highly unethical. If genetic differences related to intelligence between races did exist I would not accept any of these racist policy recommendations.

 

What's wrong with an all White nation? How does that affect you? Why do Blacks need to be in an environment where people already there do not want them?

Affirmative action is inherently racist. Any other argument otherwise is sophistry and Orwellian speak. You can never quantify the justification for affirmative action - how much 'damage' was done - or cover the numerous inherent injustices done by having a race based policy.

 

If there were some island or continent White Nationalists could go to and set up their all White nation I would have no problem with that. I don't want to live around White Supremacists any more than they want to live around me. However in the real world this would have to be accomplished by the removal of non-White populations from majority White countries. How? I've heard White Nationalists propose everything from forced deportation to genocide. I'm sure you're familiar with the "Day of the Rope" scenario. Obviously I would be against any situation where I have to leave my home because of someone's desire for me to leave. So for instance making America an all White nation by forcing non-Whites to leave or killing them is unacceptable.

I won't defend Affirmative Action however I find it ironic when racists call it a racist policy. In any case I don't support ending such policies because racialist theories might be valid.

 

How does anecdote override 100 years of international studies? Answer: It doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd like you to show where this is happening.

 

What does nationalism to do with the topic of IQ?

I've seen few of such people advocate sterilization or genocide. Why are you making such lumping claims?

Do you also do this with Jewish nationalists?

- - - Updated - - -

So white folks aren't allowed to have Europe.

And how does white nationalist equal white supremacist? This is a canard.

 

I was specifically asked about policy recommendations based on Race & IQ theories. White Nationalism is directly related to the topic because White Nationalists are the most outspoken advocates of race-realism. So their policy recommendations are relevant to the topic.

You need only look around the internet to see that while recommendations of sterilization and genocide represent the most extreme views they are talked about.

A Google Search for "black people should be sterilized" generates about 227,000 results. One of the top results is to a thread titled, "Should Blacks on Welfare be Sterilized?" which features an opening post from a blogger who makes a detailed case for sterilizing Blacks.

Here are some examples of comments in the thread:

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t888765/?postcount=2#post10277505

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t888765-2/?postcount=11#post10277680

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t888765-2/?postcount=12#post10277771

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t888765-2/?postcount=13#post10277779

Similar comments can be found on threads on VNN.

Example:

http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1304228&postcount=2

Genocide against non-Whites is such a well known theme in White Nationalist circles that they have a name for the concept, "The Day of the Rope."

In a thread on VNN titled, " 'The Day of the Rope' Will it ever happen?" a poster expressed their desire to see the day when non-Whites would be mass-murdered and asked about how plausible this scenario was.

Here is an example of a post in that thread:

http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=33665&postcount=2

Clearly these extremist views are not uncommon in the White Nationalist movement and I wouldn't be surprised if they were more common than White Nationalists are letting on. White Nationalism is an evil ideology whose advocates are all racists.

Don't try to change the subject.

No. The Earth doesn't belong to you.

There is very little difference between a White Nationalist and a White Supremacist. Most White Nationalists are White Supremacists. They believe in the superiority of their race over others. While traditional White Supremacists sought to rule over other races such as American slave masters White Supremacy basically morphed in to White Nationalism during the 20th Century in an attempt to give political legitimacy to racist ideology. All White Nationalists are racists and most believe in some form of White Supremacy.

 

An end to affirmative action is a fairly mainstream position, but if you are talking about policy positions of a few thousand people world wide on the internet, then you really are not talking about serious policy positions. By that standard, mass arrests of the lizard people who run the world is a legitimate policy recommendation.

 

Race-realism is a fringe theory primarily representing far-right racism which most people don't take seriously. So the policy recommendations are going to be of the extreme variety. My point is that even if race-realism was correct I would not accept any of the policy recommendations of its advocates.