Is discussing iq differences between nations taboo?

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder what this is all about. Is it about donating the world to Ashkanazi Jews? What is anybody supposed to do about these averages?

IQ is a very rough and crude measure at best and the standard deviation is 15.

There are lots of things you can do, Sand. First off, you could consider that if it applies to one group, then it will apply to others. If one group gives an above average score, then another will give one below average. You'll be aware that IQ is a useful measure of ability to undertake certain work (for example the US military use it to filter out unsuitable applicants). It follows that a group with below average IQ will be under-represented in certain professions, and may also show a higher rate of unemployment. If that's the case, we as a society need to know so that provision can be made to prevent the less intelligent group becoming an underclass. Currently, it's politically expedient to invoke discrimination. That may be making matters worse if it's not the main problem that needs to be tackled.

Employment is very rarely based on IQ (military is the only example that I know of). Most employers do not know the IQ's of their employess, nor do they care.

Some employers do give aptitude tests.

ruveyn

Ascan, even if we assume that all your claims about IQ are correct (and I highly doubt they are) you could not form any useful policy decisions based on that knowledge. Individual variation would more than override such group differences to the point that you can't say much about someone just by knowing their ethnic background. That, in my mind, is the same failing that applies to current race-based affirmative action policies: it assumes everyone from the same race is in the same situation. The original purpose of Binet's IQ tests was to identify children with learning difficulties so they could receive extra help. If that's all you're proposing to do, there is still no need to care about any racial differences that may or may not exist. You just do what you can to help the people who need help, regardless of their race.

Governments make policy based on statistics, Orwell. Currently statistics tell them that certain racial groups are under-represented in certain professions. That is then used to justify telling all us white people that we're evil racists. Laws are then enacted to to give preferential treatment to those allegedly discriminated-against groups at the expense of the rest of us. Now, it may be for all i know that us white people really are just a bunch of evil racists. On the other hand, perhaps we're not and there's substance to what I've proposed. So why can't we find out? Why is even raising the subject seen as taboo (back to the original subject of this thread, I think)? I don't agree that it can't be used to shape government policy. For example, I think our societies in the West under-value traditional manual work. We think it's only fit for the dregs of society on minimum wage. Currently if you've an IQ of under 90, that's most likely all you can look forward to. Perhaps if what I've proposed was found to be true, we'd have more incentive to address that problem.

this is getting a little boring now. once again, such an investigation presupposes race, this would skew the results along such lines. Your line of logic isn't all that far from Intelligent Design - for there to be an intelligent designed there has to be an intelligent designer, which we can't verify. Something similar happens with the investigation you propose - it starts out by assuming the determinig factor in IQ is race (and that race is even a category beyond ideology) and goes from there, why is that a better investigation than 'what factors influence IQ' looking at socio-economic background (the primary factor in health I understand), access to education from birth etc etc as well as genetics/ethnic groups or whatever? Both are ideologically motivated pseudo-theories which silently introduce a concept that cannot be objectively verified as the point de capiton, so to speak, of the entire theory. So far as I can see you're trying to reintroduce the great chain of being wth all the little races living harmoniously together but seperate based on the smartest at the top and the dumbest at the bottom - I'm not calling you a racist because I'm a leftist, I'm calling you a racist because you espouse racist ideas. It's not so much that it's a taboo subject, it's just dumb.

I'm going to wait for somebody else to spank you with labour market economics on that one

You keep waffling on about presupposing race, but I've dealt with that, and you've not responded specifically to that. Race, in as far as humans can be categorised, is a fairly widespread concept. This paper I linked to earlier discusses it in a genetic context:

http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf

It's fully referenced, so that should satisfy your previous stated desire for academic rigour, or some such thing. If you want something on IQ, genetics and the Ashkenazi Jews I mentioned then take a look at this:

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

You see, at least I've taken the trouble to read about the subject from scientific sources. I somehow doubt you have. I doubt you've even studied a scientific or technical subject in your life.

Now, if you're going to reply, do us all a favour and make it relevant and concise. So I can understand where you're coming from, can you comment specifically on the high average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews? That's a widely agreed on phenomenon. Do you think it's reasonable to believe that is influenced by genetics?

Race is nothing. Culture is everything.

ruveyn

Pretty good bet that that has also been studied and documented.

Look, MiB aside, as far as I have seen, everyone living on this planet is a member of the Human Race, are they not?

And I regard such policies as misguided at best.


Why? Because
(a) People will come into it with an ideology and thus be biased
(b) There is little to no potential gain to be made from studying this, but you could end up causing a lot of problems such as self-fulfilling prophecies, a reemergence of racial discrimination, or just general societal tension if you end up concluding (correctly or erroneously) that one race is less intelligent than another. People will end up judging an entire race without considering that individuals within that race may vary from the declared averages.
(c) Whether race is even a valid categorization is highly disputed, and it probably holds little value in the US where a fair amount of interbreeding occurs.

So, yeah, I doubt that such study would be able to be undertaken in an impartial manner, I don't see the benefit that the results could possibly have, and I can envision the results of such research undermining significant progress that's already been made towards racial equality. It can only cause problems, so why bother?


Manual labour is low-paying because there are a lot of people who can do it (high supply) and less and less need for it due to improving technology and automation (low demand). And I don't see how knowing that race x is less intelligent than race y would give us any more incentive than we currently have to give higher salaries to manual labourers.

You could say that about a lot of scientific research. Most people carrying out research have some personal bias. They conduct their research, however, in a manner that ensures that bias doesn't influence the results. That is then published for scrutiny in the relevant journal. And as for benefits I've explained one possible outcome. Furthermore, the benefits of research beyond strictly testing or forming a hypothesis aren't always evident at the time. Your argument can be condensed down to the idea that ignorance is bliss. Is that really satisfactory?


It's low paying because western nations get most of their products manufactured in third-world sweatshops, then open their doors to floods of immigrants who'll toil for peanuts to take care of the dirty-work close to home. You talk of supply and demand, yet don't acknowledge the market distortion present in your assumption. I find it bizarre how people like you will go off on one about racism, yet actively condone discrimination against people born, through no fault of their own, with limited cognitive ability. Of course society lives with that inconsistency by preventing open discussion about the obvious, and scientifically documented, differences between different groups of people, and promoting the idea that IQ is meaningless -- yep, ignorance is bliss, Orwell.

While we're here, what's your opinion of the reason for the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, that I mentioned? Like I said, it's a fairly widely agreed on phenomenon that potentially contradicts the argument that there isn't a connection between IQ and race (if you don't like the word race, then replace with "certain human populations").

I don't believe this is true of the "researchers" who study racial differences in intelligence.


And I disagreed with you on the benefits of that solution. I think it would actually cause more harm than good.


Not really. If I made any such argument, it would be that "a little learning is a dangerous thing." The problem (or one of the problems) is that people would misconstrue the results of such research, leading to unnecessary prejudices and discrimination.


What market distortion? You're just talking about Ricardian comparative advantages, there's no market distortion there.


When have I done that? I think I advocated that we should strive to help anyone who has trouble learning, regardless of race. I just doubt the use of racial classifications to reliably identify who needs more help.


IQ may not be meaningless, but it certainly is less important than people make it out to be.


Various explanations have been advanced based on cultural aspects. In most cases, cultural and environmental differences seem a perfectly adequate explanation for observed differences. Impoverished black children growing up in the inner city with poor nutrition and poorer educational opportunities are unlikely to develop to their full cognitive potential, whereas white children growing up in the suburbs and attending the best schools have a clear advantage. This doesn't indicate anything about underlying genetic differences, just differences in environment. And there are, of course, different cultural values that may influence performance on IQ tests.

Last time I took an IQ test, a fair portion of it was based on impractical crystallized knowledge (AKA trivia) such as the author of Alice in Wonderland, information about Catherine the Great, the circumference of the Earth around the equator, etc. As a former quiz bowl co-captain, I aced this section, but I did wonder how one could imagine that to measure any innate intelligence. Another section covered esoteric vocabulary that falls outside the range of normal daily communication. Again, this is a very poor indicator of intelligence, and a section on which I scored very high. So the IQ test is already biased in favor of someone with a background such as mine, and against others who may be just as smart but less familiar with certain bits of useless information. There is much more to criticize, but I won't bother with it now. Suffice it to say that IQ testing is a very crude and imperfect measure of intelligence. A 7-point difference between one population and another doesn't necessarily mean anything.

You're obviously unable to allow for your own personal prejudices, Orwell.


So, you honestly believe it's acceptable to carry on in ignorance just because some people might misinterpret the results? That's crazy thinking. Who decides what we should and should not investigate, then? Would you legislate to prevent research into politically sensitive subjects? Perhaps you'd prefer the leftist rent-a-mob to silence the heretics?


The distortion whereby it costs, say, £10 to make one unit of production here in the UK within the parameters of legislation intended to allow people to work in decent conditions and costs £1 to produce the same unit in some third-world dump without that legislation.


Over generations, cultural and environmental factors can affect genetics as they control who gets to reproduce. That's been suggested to have influenced the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews. I know I keep referring to that, but it's the best documented example of the subject for obvious reasons.

As for your own underestimation of the benefits of a superior intellect, I'd suggest your life would be a lot less cosy with 40 points knocked off your IQ. Fancy flipping burgers and washing floors for the next 50 years on $7.25 an hour?

If I were I wouldn't be human.


No, just pointing out that one problem of such research is the very high likelihood that the results will be badly abused. I feel trepidation towards such things, as I do for the prospect of a prenatal test for autism. Actually, I wouldn't legislate to prevent any such research, as I oppose censorship. I would just ignore or discredit racist claims if and when they came up.

As an aside, are you familiar with the concept of rational ignorance? It's when a certain piece of knowledge does not confer enough benefit to justify the cost of obtaining it. In this case rational ignorance certainly applies, since any knowledge of racial differences in intelligence (if they exist) would be a net cost even disregarding the difficulty of establishing that the difference exists.


That's not a market distortion. That's one supplier being cheaper than another by having lower costs.


A higher intellect is obviously an advantage, but you are falsely equating intelligence with IQ scores. I rather doubt that IQ scores are a good measure of intelligence. And given my IQ scores, I would have plenty of self-serving motivation to promote the opposite view, ie that IQ scores actually do represent intelligence. The fact that I don't should give you some indication of the extent to which I believe IQ tests in general are flawed. They can be useful and informative in certain contexts, but it is a mistake to regard them as an absolute, reliable indicator of general intelligence. Intelligence is probably not quantifiable, especially since there is no universally agreed-upon definition of intelligence in the first place.