[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.2945

File: 1570065234374.png (238.02 KB, 1150x687, 1150:687, bellcurveblackwhiteiq.png) ImgOps Google

So various threads are addressing the topic of racist or fascist views.  I've begun reading a book that's a bit controversial, one of the most controversial parts centers around discussion of this graph.

While various inequalities in systems enforced by the state are to be considered justice, since a state won't be involved in racism, I don't think measure of IQ has such official standing, so it may be discussed without disrespecting moral authority.

So, it this graph racist?

Is the IQ test racist or is racist to have created this chart -- to want to pull out such data for analysis?

If no, I guess that's it.  If yes, what must be done in correction?

 No.2946

>>2945
It's not racist by itself, but i don't think it tells the whole story. If i had to guess, for example, i bet black people have less money, and thus, less access to nutrition in early stages of life, thereby stunting their brain development. So the intuitive conclusion, that (black people are naturally less smart than white people) is, i think, wrong and misleading, and the chart that would make more sense would to be to measure the correlation between wealth and IQ.

 No.2954

I believe socioeconomic factors figuring heavily in that distribution has been very well established. So less that the graph is racist and more that it provides evidence of systemic racism.

 No.2966

File: 1570067222514.jpg (27.94 KB, 500x402, 250:201, time to be smart.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This chart, and others like it, are hallmarks of what is often called the "race and intelligence controversy."

There have been plenty of studies done, over the years, on this subject. Some, from honest, scientific sources, and others... from more dubious, pseudo-scientific sources.

What i can say is this: i know of no study of IQ between nations or races that wasn't undone by poor or biased methodology in the end.

What we can conclude though, is that there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status, and IQ.

i encourage all those who subscribe to scientific racism to reanalyze those beliefs, and really think about them.

There's no good evidence in support of scientific racism, today.

Is the graph racist? Maybe not intentionally so, but i am unsure of the source.

Is the product of the graph fuel for pseudo-scientific racism, when it is put here devoid of its proper socioeconomic context?

yes, i would say so.

 No.2981

What is the sample set, and what were the controls?

 No.3025

>>2981
>what were the controls?
Pretty sure it was an observational study, not a controlled experiment.

 No.3033

>>3025
I should have said: what other factors are controlled for?

 No.3040

>>2966
>What i can say is this: i know of no study of IQ between nations or races that wasn't undone by poor or biased methodology in the end.
Given the differences in distributions of other phenotypes between ethnic groups, I don't see any reason to suspect that all ethnic groups have the exact same IQ distribution.  The differences might be relatively small, but I'd be a bit surprised if there were no measurable differences.  Of course, for any IQ comparisons between blacks and whites done in 20th-century America, lead exposure due to leaded gas was a definitely a factor in the lesser average IQ of the black group.

>>2966
>What we can conclude though, is that there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status, and IQ.
There certainly is.  And I'd venture that there is some causality in both directions.  High SES of parents partially causally explains both higher IQ of children (via environmental factors affecting IQ) and higher SES of children.  And for an individual, having a high IQ partially causally explains higher income, since the best-paying jobs require above-average IQ.

But I don't think SES can explain the higher-skewed distribution of IQs of Ashkenazi Jews compared to non-Jewish whites, especially at the very upper end (where you find Nobel laureates in science, Fields medalists, and so forth), especially considering the discrimination that Jews faced in the 20th century.

 No.3044

I don't think we could call the graph racist.  It's just a set of data and obviously can't have any personal motivations.

The motivations of the people who made it, though?  Questionable.  What purpose does such a graph serve?  What actions are they suggesting by displaying this data?

 No.3048

>Is the IQ test racist or is racist to have created this chart -- to want to pull out such data for analysis?
I'd say the focus could be argued as racist. The chart itself is just information, however.
The problem is that consideration needs to be made in regards to several different factors that aren't simply matters of race.

This aside, application of the chart as justification for discrimination would, obviously, be racist.

 No.3051

>>2946
>correlation between wealth and IQ.

Couldn’t find anything on IQ and wealth, but you should read this.

https://socialequity.duke.edu/news/did-you-know-poor-white-children-are-less-likely-go-jail-wealthy-black-children

>>2954
China is far poorer than America, and yet the average IQ in China is 106 The average IQ of a Chinese person in America is also 106.

>>2966
>There's no good evidence in support of scientific racism, today.
Explain why East Asians have bigger brains than Whites.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/china/article/2054126/why-do-asians-have-bigger-brains-europeans-or-africans

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29400417

 No.3053

>>3040
In terms of jews, it could simply be a result of the holocaust. Only the smartest and most resourceful would have been able to survive that, so naturally the remaining jews would be intelligent, or at least, we might see the average Jewish intelligence as higher as a result.

>>3051
I wonder if Chinese people get proper nutrition despite being poor since it's a communist country... I'm not sure. It could be the case that at the bottom end it's a result of nutrition, and at the top end, it's a result of intelligence leading to success, in which case the numbers might look weird and inconsistent.

 No.3054

>>3051
>>There's no good evidence in support of scientific racism, today.
>Explain why East Asians have bigger brains than Whites.
Even if the average IQ of one race R1 is greater than that of another race R2, that's not a good reason to discriminate in favor of individuals of race R1.  There is still considerable overlap in the IQ distribution, so you can just discriminate based on individual IQ without taking into account race.

 No.3055

>>3054
I don't think that's what was being suggested. I'm not him, though so I might not be able to say for certain.

Personally I've always taken an RPG style look to things. Elves might have some natural bonuses to magic, but they aren't all great mages, and just because orcs get boosts to strength doesn't mean you can't have a legendary orcish wizard.

Birth doesn't tell all that much when it comes to individual characteristics. People are less the sum of their various bits and pieces, more the sum of experience and will.

 No.3056

>>3051
>Explain why East Asians have bigger brains than Whites.

Is there a reason we should even care?

 No.3058

>>2946
>thereby stunting their brain development.

A growing body of research suggests factors in early development influence later life and the difference is narrowing, at least according to this book (depending a bit on which test you look at).

>naturally
I think you probably mean genetics?

>wealth and IQ
The chart was not in the book exactly.  Indirectly, iq by occupation group, occupation vs. income.  The chart would have made sense since it's a thesis of the book that the relation between iq and power is growing stronger, but the data must not have been available or something.

>>2954
OK, so it shows deprivation.  You know, I think, nobody quite knows hot to make an Einstein, but much can happen to depress IQ.

>>2966
>wasn't undone by poor or biased methodology
The book is "The Bell Curve" published in 1994.  The author said it triggered a slew of publications seeking to weaken his ideas.  I do think causation in sociology is quite difficult.  Correlation is easy enough, but you can peg a lot of stuff to that.

>is that there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status, and IQ.
I think one of the motivations of the book was the growth of this correlation and its impact on society.

>yes, i would say so.
I gather you would agree with the last poster, that it would have to be stressed the graph is an effect of racism, not a cause.

>>2981
>sample set,
NLSY79,  n=12686
>>3033
>other factors are controlled for
Nothing, as far as I know,  unless you count scaling so the area of both shaded regions is equal.  Perhaps I don't quite understand, though.

(OK, bed time for now.)

 No.3059

>>3058
>NLSY79

Isn't that kinda old?  I mean, it was less old in '94, but I'd still like to see how things look these days, which arguably was the point of the NLSY.

 No.3060

>>3059
>n=12686
And if you want precision, I'm sure minus those who didn't fall into white/black.  (The Bell Curve, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray; Page 279 if you want to dig into it).

>Isn't that kinda old?
Yes.  I take it the aptitude data came in after '79.  Does seem in sociology random samples are hard to come by, so you take what you can get.  Aptitude tests usually involve select groups -- an ACT for those going to college, for example.  I do remember talking some standard tests in K-12, though.

>how things look these days
I guess one advantage of an older book is you can do that.  I haven't gotten that far, yet, though.

(I lied a bit about sleep, but soon).

 No.3076

>>2945
>I don't see any reason to suspect that all ethnic groups have the exact same IQ distribution.
The authors say "It seems
highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something
to do with racial difference."  That is, they don't take a priori that the means should be indistinguishable when environments are.  I think some consider that racism.

>higher IQ of children (via environmental factors affecting IQ)

That was less stressed.  It was noted that it was likely a smart person born in poverty would escape it.

>higher-skewed distribution of IQs of Ashkenazi Jews compared to non-Jewish whites

The book mentioned 98 Jewish people in their study with an IQ 0.98 standard deviations above the mean, which I guess would be about 115, but I think overall they didn't consider the sample big enough to go too far with.

>>3044
So some uses would be racist.  I think that's reasonable.

>>3048
>justification for discrimination
Yeah, that's where they authors can be scrutinized.  They reject the a priori that racial genetics and IQ cannot relate.  They note IQ and success increasingly correlate.  Now do we have racism?  I'm now quite sure, but it becomes more likely, I think.

>>3051
Cranial volume and intelligence, hmm.  Similar to trying to measure racial genetics, or differences in gender.  Hard to filter out the noise and political motivations.

>>3054
Right, means of normal distributions give you an expected value, but there's some probability of any value, so even if there were a well established difference, it would still be best to get to know everyone as individuals.  The...danger area...is thinking getting to know people as individuals is resource heavy, when time and attention is scarce, you may have to make do with snap judgements.  And so a part of me thinks, while scientific curiosity is good, perhaps it's best to refrain from doing racial analysis.  On the other, other hand, I'd be more comfortable with that if people didn't identify with race -- if people saw race as forced on them, and they'd rather be aracial.  But people are not against race, but racism.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]