Thoughts on race/racism

[floppit]

I think, on the whole, until we can define and measure intelligence in a reliable and valid manner then the rest will remain conjecture, up to this point in time the false starts have done more harm than good so until I hear of (and I have asked the question in more places than just here) or someone else can produce something worthy of being a definitive intelligence test it's simply not worth debating.

If that is on the whole agreed with - why is it even here? What motivates it's presence?

[irreligionist]

At issue is not that different ethnic groups obtain different average scores on some psychological tests eg intelligence - this has been clearly established - but why these differences exist. Some argue the differences are environmental (i.e. ignorance), some argue differences are biological (i.e. stupidity). The strongest argument I've seen to explain these differences is that of environment.

Yes, I would agree. This still would not invalididate my point. And incidently, the differences in mathematical and analytical testing results (as opposed language-driven testing) tend to show more stability and less change. The are also far less ethnically biased (a triangle in a triange in every culture). I would agree that improvement in test results supports the claim that environment is largely responsible for the differences. But there is as yet insufficient data to prove that it accounts for 100% of the difference.

...and the evidence you have provided so far, to prove anything else, is...? Being a scientist, you will readily accept your anecdotal evidence counts for nothing. What precisely is your point, anyway? You have been indirect, by talking of 'the tail of the distribution' but if we are talking about a normal curve then you are effectively saying that black people have lower average mathematical ability than white people, yes?

Just as lower average scores being recorded by minorities on some psychological tests is an established fact, so too is the phenomenon of improving IQ scores. Now if an IQ score truly represents intelligence, and intelligence is determined genetically, then IQ scores should remain relatively constant over time for each ethnic group. In fact, performance on intelligence tests has improved dramatically over the last 60 years and in recent years African Americans have gained more in IQ than whites (16 points compared to 10 points). [Source: Flynn, J.R. (1999)

[My bold]The bolded statement in the sense you are trying to to qualify my argument, is nonsense. Let me first begin by stating that intelligence is a very difficult thing to define much less test. So I would never claim that IQ scores = Intelligence or completely measure intelligence unless we define intelligence by IQ, which I never would. That aside, there are different types of intelligences and tests and probably the most objective type to test is mathematical/spatial. That is the only type I'm concentrating on in my arguments. The fact that scores change, whether they go up or down based on ethnicity, country, sex, or era (assuming the tests are normalized over all time) indicates that intelligence itself can and does change, not that the tests don't at least correlate with forms of intelligence. I'm also happy to agree that environment is the only explanation consistent with this change though it may be possible to make an epigenetic one that would still depend on environment. Genes don't govern precisely what your IQ or intelligence will be. They only govern their potential. Our potential is something we asymptotically can converge upon in the best environment suited to our individual development.

OK, so you agree that environment is the reason to explain changing IQ scores over time. I have brought to the discussion evidence that African American IQs have increase by more than whites. This is evidence for the hypothesis that the potential of African Americans had been constrained and is becoming less so. If you are claiming that there is an inherent i.e. genetic difference between African Americans and whites on mathematical ability then the onus is on you to provide evidence.

If I inverted your argument, you are essentially making the claim that if we could hypothetically equalize environmental factors over everybody from birth (or earlier) that over any statistically significantly tested group you could identify (ethnicity, sex, race, country, etc.), they would each have exactly the same bell-curve. Not only does your evidence not prove this but it would not be consistent with the plethora of other genetic differences in physicality that can consistently be observed between certain groups. It is not logical to expect that there would be no genetically-driven brain or intelligence differences between groups that would evolve due to prolonged differences in environmental selection pressures as was likely between what we call races (regardless of the exact nature and validity of that definition) due to prolonged environmental separation and minimal interbreeding until the recent era. American blacks were also subject to deleterious selection pressure as slaves for at least various forms of intelligence for over 400 years. I hope that was an insufficient time span to markedly depress their capacity for intelligence but do we know that. Should we expect it?

I do not have to prove your above inverted argument. You made the claim and have yet to provide any evidence. As for ‘plethora of genetic differences in physicality’, what does that mean in relation to mathematical ability? A ‘logical expectation’ of intelligence differences counts for nought, evidence is required.

Most of us have witnessed the amazing changes you can get in dog breeds in just a few generations in both conformation an intelligence. As a Border Collie and Australian Shepherd owner/lover I ardently resisted their inclusion in the American Kennel Club (AKC) that values conformation over intelligence (watch any dog show). Although it is admittedly rather anecdotal, there is a well-established consensus that when a breed is included its intelligence invariably goes down in a manner noticeable to those who train such animals for work (herding)or agility training. Fortunately, there remain many dedicated breeders of these dogs that concentrate on intelligence, and register them with clubs set up for that purpose.

. If you think I’m going to discuss any equating of ethnic groups with breeds of dog, you are mistaken. Find someone else for that debate.

As a result, any claims of inherent (i.e. genetic) superiority are disingenuous.

. I think I've just proven that you have not proven your conclusion. And as a scientist myself, I object to your word "disingenuous" which connotes that scientists who make such claims or supply evidence to support them really know otherwise (better in your view) and are essentially lying.

You have not proven anything. You have not provided one jot of evidence to back any of your assertions. As for being a scientist who objects to a word I use, I object to your entering this discussion and not bringing any evidence to support your claims, seeing as you are a scientist who should presumably know better. When you provide proper evidence of genetic superiority of mathematical ability between ethnic groups, I’ll retract my statement.

We already know that historically, IQ tests have been devised and applied with evil bias. But the bias today is generally the opposite. Such attitudes as yours and political correctness are the reasons many scientists avoid this area of research. It also invites scientists biased to find your conclusions. Ironically, some of the best work is done by those wanting to support your objectives and finding otherwise. I was at Cornell when the researchers there published their findings on sexual differences in brain structure and possible correlations to aspects of intelligence. I remember the worldwide shitstorm. But all those researchers were staunch liberals and feminists whose scientific integrity overrode whatever bias they had. Good for them.

.
I have provided evidence against any claim of genetic superiority in intelligence for whites over other ethnic groups; namely that African American IQ scores are improving at a faster rate than whites. The very fact of this phenomenon seriously undermines any claim of superiority of one ethnic group over another by virtue of current observed differences in average IQ score.

[irreligionist]

I think, on the whole, until we can define and measure intelligence in a reliable and valid manner then the rest will remain conjecture, up to this point in time the false starts have done more harm than good so until I hear of (and I have asked the question in more places than just here) or someone else can produce something worthy of being a definitive intelligence test it's simply not worth debating.

If that is on the whole agreed with - why is it even here? What motivates it's presence?

floppit, you raise some good points. The classic adage is 'intelligence is what intelligence tests measure'. Quite.

Floppit,

I generally agree with most of your points and i have insufficient data to form a conclusion on the rest.

What irks me in debates of intelligence as it does in all forms of science is how our biases skew the definition and nature of the problem in the first place.

Let's look at the following two statements:

1. The bell-curve of intelligence resulting from realization of maximal individual genetic potential for Group A equals Group B.
2. The bell-curve of intelligence resulting from realization of maximal individual genetic potential for Group A does not equal Group B.

The base assumption, before any evidence or coherent theory is presented, should be that both these terms have equal validity. We do not yet have any perfect control for the realization of maximal individual genetic potential. All we have are some trends and incomplete controls with their own inherent biases. However, most racists will gladly assume 2 without much scientific evidence and many liberals want to assume 1 with evidence that is just as flimsy. The liberal will argue that to assume otherwise is dangerous and can provide many good reasons for believing this. It is dangerous. But that doesn't make their assumption any less tenable than the racist's.

If all forms of intelligence testing today showed that Group A = Group B, the burden of proof would shift to those people who believe otherwise - whether they are racists or whatnot. If they believed that Group A > Group B despite the equality of scores they would have to demonstrate that somehow Group B had an environmental advantage. But in our universe, there is abundant evidence that the scores are significantly different. The burden of proof shifts to those who say this is all due to environment. They have provided some very good evidence that this may be the case but it is far from complete. Has the burden of proof shifted back to the other side or equalized? I really don't know but I suspect not based on what we do know about evolution in general and human evolution in particular. I simply believe the bar to prove bell-curve equality is the tougher proposition to prove and is unlikely to be correct for at least some groups. Hopefully we will discover that these differences are so small that no racist could find refuge in them nor will potentially expensive and extraordinary measures to equalize outcomes be necessary forever.

The onus for evidence lies with whoever makes the claim.

In your opening foray into this discussion, you made claims. The onus is on you for evidence.

[floppit]

Actually I forgot the second major problem, even when intelligence is defined measurably, and I'm sure eventually it will be, there is still the nature nurture debate to control for - not easy! Just in case anyone believes that science in general has some consensus regarding gene dominance over intelligence hasn't been following neuroplasticity over the last couple of decades.

It's long but for anyone who actually wants a sense of scale regarding influence of gene versus environment I would recommend sparing 30 mins listening to Susan Greenfield lecture on the subject, rather cuttingly for those in the gene camp.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44tfuq7 ... re=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfr946hU ... re=related[/youtube]
1minute 46sec in 2/6 gives a cartoon analogy of the influence of a gene on the mind.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi1Qcgi6 ... re=related[/youtube]

There are 6 parts in total but the first 3 contain enough for this topic.

[Azathoth]

I'm an equal rights bigot. I hate fucking everyone. :pissed:

[irreligionist]

I'm an equal rights bigot. I hate fucking everyone. :pissed:

As long as you hate yourself, too.

[FedUpWithFaith]

...and the evidence you have provided so far, to prove anything else, is...? Being a scientist, you will readily accept your anecdotal evidence counts for nothing. What precisely is your point, anyway? You have been indirect, by talking of 'the tail of the distribution' but if we are talking about a normal curve then you are effectively saying that black people have lower average mathematical ability than white people, yes?

Let me address your last point here first. You obviously don't understand statistics or you are so blinded by your bias that you aren't really making an attempt to understand my posts. I haven't made any claims or postulates about average intelligence in any form. Averages/means and medians are only two measures of statistical distributions. There are others like standard deviation, skewness, etc. Technically one group (let's call it Group A) could have a higher average intelligence than another but the lower averaged group (let's call it Group B) could have the bigger tail (wider standard deviation). In such a scenario, you'd be more likely to encounter smarter people in Group A but the the smartest people (beyond some minimum deviation from the mean) would only tend to be found in Group B.

Now that I hope you understand this distinction, you should see that comparing intelligence and saying two groups are equal doesn't just mean comparing their averages. It means comparing the entire shape of their distributions. The likelihood of the later is much lower than the former in any empirical form of study of animals or just about anything else. That is one reason why the burden of proof tends to shift to you, not me, from the outset, if your claim is that intelligence is "equal". The fact that study after study as you've already conceded shows significant differences already that have not been completely explained by differences in environment also places more of that burden on you. That's all I'm saying.

Finally, I've already acknowledged the fact upfront that i have not yet re-found the published studies that further back my claims and I've already acknowledged the anecdotal nature of some of my assessments. However, what is anecdotal is a matter of perspective. Because I can not yet verify and validate that I have indeed read such studies and that they themselves are valid, plus my personal observations of intelligence that do meet criteria that could be interpreted as statistically significant (from my perspective), I agree it would not be valid for YOU to draw any meaningful conclusions from them. However, I am free to draw such conclusions assuming I'm not lying about what I've read and experienced and am not subject to self-delusion. Since my personal preference would be for everybody to be equal on a population basis, I don't think it's so easy to accuse me of this bias. I came to these conclusions VERY grudgingly, I assure you.

OK, so you agree that environment is the reason to explain changing IQ scores over time. I have brought to the discussion evidence that African American IQs have increase by more than whites. This is evidence for the hypothesis that the potential of African Americans had been constrained and is becoming less so.

Yes, agreed, I've never believed otherwise. I see no other possible cause unless one is positing that black intelligence is evolving this fast genetically. That seems silly. But one partially counter explanation to yours is that black IQ have more to go to catch up and that white IQ's may be closer to their genetically limited asymptote. So it really doesn't mean that much that black IQs have increased more than whites. The only thing that matters is whether there is a residual genetic limit. The gaps are still so wide it is not valid to conclude that they must have the same distributional asymptote. I frankly don't know if we can ever settle this issue. Because the optimal environment to produce optimal intelligence on one group might not be the same as another's and figuring out how to do the respective optimization verges on the impossible. For example, there is evidence to suggest that too much affluence can depress intelligence. If your core beliefs of equal intelligence are correct we could actually see avg white intelligence go down while avg black intelligence is rising.

If you are claiming that there is an inherent i.e. genetic difference between African Americans and whites on mathematical ability then the onus is on you to provide evidence.

.
I disagree, for the reasons I've stated, that the onus is on me, though that is arguable - I concede that. The onus is definitely on you if you claim they're equal. It is much more likely that whites differ from blacks. I would agree that it is a harder to make the directional claim that whites are superior to blacks or vice versa. There, the onus begins to shift back to me but I'm not sure that's completely true given my other arguments. With the exception of the published research I need to find for you, I've already provided it. For me, my personal experience is more reliable than the next level of shoddier evidence I could give you which is to try to find a list of great black mathematicians and physicists. The list is very short and many would argue non-existent. If you were studying psi claims you would still conclude this might have significance though. The burden shifts back to you to explain why, which you have done rather well. I would never make the claim that I know or strongly believe this difference exists. But it's also more than a hunch and if I had to bet my house on it, knowing there would be a conclusive scientific answer tomorrow, I'd have to bet blacks are genetically inferior in this regard though I hope I'm proven wrong. I wonder how others would really bet their house versus how they'd say they'd bet it in this forum.

I do not have to prove your above inverted argument. You made the claim and have yet to provide any evidence. As for ‘plethora of genetic differences in physicality’, what does that mean in relation to mathematical ability? A ‘logical expectation’ of intelligence differences counts for nought, evidence is required.

The burden is not on me. It may not be on you either. The argument, evidence, and logic are roughly equal enough that we cannot say for sure whose onus the burden of proof is on. I think the scales tip slightly against you but it's hard to tell. The hardest hurdle you have to overcome is your assumption that intelligence distributions would be equal but for environment when there is little evidence in any other realm of biology to support such perfect superposition of characteristics for any populations that have experienced even slightly different selection pressures in different places over long periods. I introduced physicality as an example of that. There are many such difference, however slight, that have evolved. It is not logical to assume that the brain, the most complicated organ off all, was not somehow also affected and developed differently.

If you think I’m going to discuss any equating of ethnic groups with breeds of dog, you are mistaken. Find someone else for that debate.

I don't care for the tone of your response that appears to impune my motives or equate me with a racist. Let's try to keep this civil since it's already such a difficult subject. You cannot argue that there have not been controlled selection pressures in human history. And dog breeds are probably the closest analog to races we have that have been subject to selective breeding for so long based on both physical attributes and intelligence. We don't breed cows for intelligence. Arguably I could have used horses, would that make you happier?

As a result, any claims of inherent (i.e. genetic) superiority are disingenuous.

. I think I've just proven that you have not proven your conclusion. And as a scientist myself, I object to your word "disingenuous" which connotes that scientists who make such claims or supply evidence to support them really know otherwise (better in your view) and are essentially lying.

You have not proven anything.

Hopefully now that your understand and have corrected you previous ignorance of statistics you will understand that I disproved your previously incorrect assertions upon which your comments were originally directed. All you are doing is proving your politically correct bias.

I have provided evidence against any claim of genetic superiority in intelligence for whites over other ethnic groups; namely that African American IQ scores are improving at a faster rate than whites. The very fact of this phenomenon seriously undermines any claim of superiority of one ethnic group over another by virtue of current observed differences in average IQ score.

Yes you have, done the first. I never disputed that. But your evidence is incomplete and not yet completely convincing. It is simply highly suggestive, as some of the evidence or logic I've provided is. And finally, again, I reiterate your mistake that avg intelligence is the one and only measure to differentiate group intelligence. You can argue about that all you like, but you'll still be wrong.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Floppit,

I generally agree with most of your points and i have insufficient data to form a conclusion on the rest.

What irks me in debates of intelligence as it does in all forms of science is how our biases skew the definition and nature of the problem in the first place.

Let's look at the following two statements:

1. The bell-curve of intelligence resulting from realization of maximal individual genetic potential for Group A equals Group B.
2. The bell-curve of intelligence resulting from realization of maximal individual genetic potential for Group A does not equal Group B.

The base assumption, before any evidence or coherent theory is presented, should be that both these terms have equal validity. We do not yet have any perfect control for the realization of maximal individual genetic potential. All we have are some trends and incomplete controls with their own inherent biases. However, most racists will gladly assume 2 without much scientific evidence and many liberals want to assume 1 with evidence that is just as flimsy. The liberal will argue that to assume otherwise is dangerous and can provide many good reasons for believing this. It is dangerous. But that doesn't make their assumption any less tenable than the racist's.

If all forms of intelligence testing today showed that Group A = Group B, the burden of proof would shift to those people who believe otherwise - whether they are racists or whatnot. If they believed that Group A > Group B despite the equality of scores they would have to demonstrate that somehow Group B had an environmental advantage. But in our universe, there is abundant evidence that the scores are significantly different. The burden of proof shifts to those who say this is all due to environment. They have provided some very good evidence that this may be the case but it is far from complete. Has the burden of proof shifted back to the other side or equalized? I really don't know but I suspect not based on what we do know about evolution in general and human evolution in particular. I simply believe the bar to prove bell-curve equality is the tougher proposition to prove and is unlikely to be correct for at least some groups. Hopefully we will discover that these differences are so small that no racist could find refuge in them nor will potentially expensive and extraordinary measures to equalize outcomes be necessary forever.

The onus for evidence lies with whoever makes the claim.

Yes.

In your opening foray into this discussion, you made claims. The onus is on you for evidence.

I have supported my claims with evidence and shall endeavor to provide additional peer-reviewed support. My claims are strong anecdotally at this point but weak to mild in science until I provide everyone the published science and its methods and conclusions can be evaluated.

However, my main foray into this thread was motivated by your implicit claim that I highlighted in bold in my post above. You have provided evidence to support that claim, but I've argued, I think successfully, that it is not as powerful as you think it is. You seem to believe that claim is virtually proven. At best, you're at parity with me and the burden is hard to place for this claim.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

FUWF wins because he used more words and they are (statistically) longer.

All of that just to dispute that the burden of proof is upon you, FUWF?

Let me ask you a question. What is the null hypothesis in this instance? Surely, it is incumbent upon the person disputing the null hypothesis to provide evidence, is it not?

[FedUpWithFaith]

FUWF wins because he used more words and they are (statistically) longer.

All of that just to dispute that the burden of proof is upon you, FUWF?

Let me ask you a question. What is the null hypothesis in this instance? Surely, it is incumbent upon the person disputing the null hypothesis to provide evidence, is it not?

Have you even bothered to read all my posts XC?

The null hypothesis depends on your perspective and where your sitting and i think I made that clear in an earlier post. It really simply depends on who is making the claim.

Here are two claims:

1. The bell-curve of intelligence resulting from realization of maximal individual genetic potential for Group A equals Group B.
2. The bell-curve of intelligence resulting from realization of maximal individual genetic potential for Group A does not equal Group B.

Whichever one of these claims you want to assert requires the other as the null hypothesis you need to falsify.

I have argued deficiencies and counter-explanations to irreligionist's attempt to falsify his implicit null hypothesis (#2) in support of the his implicit positive support of claim #1. If i had been the first in this thread to positively assert #2 then the roles would be reversed. Big deal.

I still don't think Irreligionist has falsified the null hypothesis (#2) for if he had, I would have had no logical and empirical basis to assert, as i did, that Group A > Group B rather than Group B > Group A in terms of some measurement of intelligence being genetically caused. In fact, I'm confident that his null hypothesis is suffiiciently falsified. If true or at least agreed, then the burden fall does fall on me to falsify the null hypothesis that Group B > Group A. I've already agreed that i have not provided sufficient evidence and/or logic to do this yet. I said so in my first post here.

I can also understand if you do not agree that Irreligionists null hypothsis #2 has been falsified by me. If so, then I have the burden of falifying the null hypothsis that Group B is = or > Group B.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think you have asserted that your own theory is somehow the null hypothesis in order to shift the burden of proof.

The question is: Is there a difference between the intelligence of different racial groups? The null hypothesis to this question is that there is no difference.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I think you have asserted that your own theory is somehow the null hypothesis in order to shift the burden of proof.

The question is: Is there a difference between the intelligence of different racial groups? The null hypothesis to this question is that there is no difference.

Tell me why your positive and null assertion can't be reversed. Why is one better or more valid than the other? They simply aren't and when I came to this thread seeing the opposite claim being made I reacted accordingly.

It's simply a matter of perspecitve. If you re-read my posts I don't use the perspective as my excuse to shift the burden. I used the evidence and logic of the attempt at falsification of the null hypothesis I saw before me.

[gooseboy]

I don't follow, XC. If someone asserts that different races have different intelligences then the onus is on them to prove it. Similarly if someone claims that all races have identical intelligence then the onus is on them to prove it.

It's similar to what theists do. If someone claims there is a god then the onus is on them to prove it. If someone claims there is no god then the onus is still on them to prove it. The only position you don't have to prove is to say that you don't know if there's a god but you've seen no evidence that there is one.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think you have asserted that your own theory is somehow the null hypothesis in order to shift the burden of proof.

The question is: Is there a difference between the intelligence of different racial groups? The null hypothesis to this question is that there is no difference.

Tell me why your positive and null assertion can't be reversed. Why is one better or more valid than the other? They simply aren't and when I came to this thread seeing the opposite claim being made I reacted accordingly.

The usual criteria for deciding on a null hypothesis is that it is the neutral position. Should no true neutral position be possible, and a directional NH is used, it should be the opposite of that which the experiment or evidence presented aims to prove. Otherwise, we have a situation where any ludicrous theory can be presented as the NH with the burden of proof dumped upon its opponents. I think we can both think of examples of this among the creotard community!

If, as you claim, both claims have equal validity, then you should have taken the opposing view as the NH and presented arguments against it - ie. the BOP is yours. Until you come through with the peer-reviewed evidence promised, your only evidence is anecdotal and unproven and your position has no more validity than the opposing position. Therefore there is no burden of proof upon anyone else.

It's simply a matter of perspecitve. If you re-read my posts I don't use the perspective as my excuse to shift the burden. I used the evidence and logic of the attempt at falsification of the null hypothesis I saw before me.

But you claimed that your own position is the NH and thus argued against arguments against it - a double negative argument. Not the usual way of doing science!

[charlou]

I'm an equal rights bigot. I hate fucking everyone. :pissed:

You don't even like to fuck some people? One person ... ?






Actually, not leaving. *stays to read discussion*