Recently I’ve found it to be highly taboo to talk about IQ score differences between races. Wikipedia states that race is a social construct so such differences cannot exist. But we all see physical differences and test scores clearly demonstrate a difference in IQs.
I have sources for this graph, does anyone have any contradicting sources?
For example if adopted children have the same IQ score as their parents to show that IQ is more of a social construct?
To what extent do you think IQ is social verses genetic?
Hi, I think you should understand socioeconomic status and how that can directly influence the scores you see there. Strictly showing averages doesn’t really mean shit as there is likely sub-sets of these group that could be considered outliers (I can guarantee that).
Also in saying this, most governments have some kind of epidemiology department of which that obtain data which can explain these results in clearer sense. More of less, you’ll find that studies like this usually conclude that socioeconomic status is the main culprit here, which comes in many forms, but for some insight:
- Income
- Accessibility to education, healthcare, transport, etc
- Occupation
- Neighbourhood
Pretty much a quick summary (and why governments usually bang on about keeping the economy going so much), your economy does influence quality of life. However even with a strong economy, factors like corruption which actions that would further a wealth gap negatively impact quality of life.
I find it interesting no-one has bothered asking for the source of the image in the original post. “These are the average IQ scores broken up by race” is a pretty useless statement without context; are these from a city in America? Nationally reported averages around the world? This is important information and a massive source of data bias.
Speaking of bias, the original poster has said not to use Wikipedia links as they are “beyond [bias] on the topic”. Wikipedia certainly has fundamental issues with bias in most political topics, but the idea that “bias” alone invalidates a source and all their sources is very ignorant. Essentially every source and analysis is biased. That’s how biases work. You have to account for the bias and judge how it influences the work, and whether or not that compromises it (which in Wikipedia’s sources cases, I don’t think it does). Should we invalidate the original poster’s statistics for not mentioning Ashkenazi Jews, who consistently score an average above all those groups mentioned in common IQ comparisons? Should we invalidate them for being anglo-centric while comparing a wide variety of races?
Recently I’ve found it to be highly taboo to talk about IQ score differences between races.
I find it’s because the people who bring up the topic only do so to argue for racial supremacy, and they tend to falsely assume that it can mean universally ‘that race is dumber’ or a limiting factor, contradicting recorded cases of (for example) Sub-Saharan Africans like Philip Emeagwali with a recorded IQ of around 190. It can’t be a racial hard-coded factor if these cases exist, and the average isn’t a particularly useful measurement.
Wikipedia states that race is a social construct so such differences cannot exist.
That’s not a logical conclusion of calling race a social construct. Race is a categorization, and different cultures have different views on what race a given person is (and even the same culture over time: are Irish people ‘white’? Are quarter-African people ‘white’?) Race is usually not directly based on genetics, they often correlate, but they are not the same. That doesn’t mean races can’t generally have differences, but in-group differences tend to diminish out-group differences in things like IQ so grouping that by race is currently seen by experts in the relevant scientific communities as unhelpful.
Education plays a large role in one score on an IQ test, and I doubt this is corrected for that, so it more a test of average education level per race.
To quote wikipedia:
a systematic analysis by William Dickens and James Flynn (2006) showed the gap between black and white Americans to have closed dramatically during the period between 1972 and 2002, suggesting that, in their words, the “constancy of the Black-White IQ gap is a myth.”
source 917
But isn’t education level a measure of intelligence? Wikipedia is clearly biased.
If you have a low IQ you aren’t likely to pass your PhD program
Education level is mostly a measure of wealth.
People who are concerned about racial disparities in IQ are typically trying to prove that “white people are inherently smarter”. I’m demonstrating the flaws with that assessment.
How much money your parents had is a better predictor of getting a PhD than anything I would imagine.
But if its true intelligence is hereditary and intelligence makes one more likely to make more money isn’t the fact that their parents had money and they passed their classes an indication that their genes are expressing intelligence?
You’ve said IQ is mostly a measure of education and education a measure of wealth. But unintelligent people will clearly not spend their money wisely and you’ve given no actual proof that its money and not intelligence to begin with.
But if its true intelligence is hereditary
Not true. Smart people have dumb kids all the time…
intelligence makes one more likely to make more money
This is not actually true. Subjugating others is the easiest way to make money. Being a psychopath will probably help you out more than intelligence.
isn’t the fact that their parents had money and they passed their classes an indication that their genes are expressing intelligence?
But unintelligent people will clearly not spend their money wisely
Both statements incorrectly assume all people have the same opportunities
This is not actually true. Subjugating others is the easiest way to make money. Being a psychopath will probably help you out more than intelligence.
Subjecting others seems like it would take a large feat of intelligence seeing how most people don’t like being told what to do.
Opportunity is important to be super wealthy but the difference in upper and lower middle class seem like it has more to do with how effective a person is which correlates highly with intelligence and IQ score.
Subjecting others seems like it would take a large feat of intelligence seeing how most people don’t like being told what to do.
I think the blatant stupidity of kings past serves to debunk that
neither capitalism nor democracy promotes intelligence unfortunately.
I think the blatant stupidity of kings past serves to debunk that
kings were often killed by close family members if they proved to be to unstable. Many were very intelligent. Obviously some made the mistake of marrying cousins.
Capitalism often favors intelligence. Just like natural selection. It takes a high degree of intelligence to understand what to invest your money in.
If you have a low IQ you aren’t likely to pass your PhD program
Tell you right now, they can pass :P
In saying that, I am indicating that there is more to how someone passes a PhD program.
Back to the point though, lets say in theory this is true (it’s not but whatevs), and someone had a low IQ on a particular snapshot, there are multiple factors here such as: When it was made, how someone conducted themselves in that test (how much preparation was involved), their reading ability (let alone comprehension), educational background, discipline, knowledge, health and etc. Best this does, is provide a qualitative feedback.
However, why stop at ethnicity as an indicator for intelligence? We could retrieve similar data where people from rural areas typically have a lower IQ than those in city areas? Does this mean that city people, being ethnically similar to rural people are just superior? Of course not!
Same comparison can be made on wealth lines. A justification that aristocrats have used in the past which we can see is bullshit :)
So,
-
A snapshot doesn’t really show that someone is ‘incapable’ of obtaining a PhD but that the situation at the time may indicate that they may not be able to obtain it within a particular time frame.
-
It is very much dependent on the field of academia they are in, but hey… I see researchers publish shit all the time so… y’know.
-
The PhD situation is likely to have its own challenges involved, not all PhD programs are made equal and not all problems are made equal.
To conclude:
There are far too many factors involved to use IQ as a serious quantitative measurement. To suggests that all IQ tests are conducted in a fair environment and conclude that it is a direct measure of racial intellectual performance is a joke. (I’d agree that the researchers probably have given it their best but realistically it isn’t enough. It amounts to getting a report card from school saying that you are either not studying enough or you’re doing well, what you do with that information is your choice).
-
Please no more links to wikipedia. that source is beyond bios on the topic.
From what I have witnessed, these discussions revolve around 2 pillars:
- Narrowing divides between blacks/whites in average IQs in the United States - suggesting improving environmental factors are at least a factor.
- Infamous twin studies showing the exact opposite.
@mrpotatoe@gtio.io - Question: Let’s assume intelligence was overwhelmingly shown to be the ‘root factor’ behind intelligence - like 80-99%. What do we do with that information? How do we act on it? Do we act on it?
Question: Let’s assume intelligence was overwhelmingly shown to be the ‘root factor’ behind intelligence
Ehhh do you need to reword that?
lol
EDIT: I’m assuming he meant the last “intelligence” to mean “IQ”
I don’t want to assume anything so I’ll wait for him to update it to reply.
