Racism vs IQ

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

Incorrect.

Blacks have done a great deal. They were making iron tools and weapons before our ancestors were, for example. Ancient Egypt, the pinnacle of civilisation in its time, was as much black in nature as brown (no whites).

Asians and especially ancient China had a relatively advanced civilisation, way ahead of anything European at the time.

The idea of adult intelligence being 90% genetic is not widely agreed. A Scientific American article on the subject I read put it squarely at 50:50.

Simply, there is no clear cut evidence for any one racial or ethnic group being more intelligent than any other at the genetic level.

[rainbow]

Everybody had black-skinned ancestors.

Due to a lack of sunhine in the far north, some mutants developed with lighter skin that allowed them to process vitamin D more eficiently.

This was probably no more than 12 000 years ago, insignificant in human evolutionary terms.

Racists are too stupid to understand this.

[Mr.Samsa]

Yes, you make some valid points that I also agree with.
Getting back to the subject at hand, there are no facts supporting equality of IQ amongst the various races.

I'm not sure that is quite the subject at hand. Even if we accept that there is an inequality between the IQ across various races (a fairly uncontroversial claim), and even if we accept that the cause of this inequality is genetic and to do with something inherent to the race (a highly controversial claim that lacks any real evidence), somebody can still be racist.

The rejection of racism is not (necessarily) to accept that everybody is perfectly equal in every single possible way. So even accepting those points above, we still find that there will be racists in the world and these racists have lower IQs (according to research).

I came across the idea of low IQ being correlated with racism in a New Scientist article, reporting on good research. It has been reported elsewhere of course, like http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

This is not the same as low rationality, of course. High IQ and high rationality are two quite different things, and are not correlated. There are some genius level IQ people, who are also total idiots, due to lack of rationality. Imagine the eminent, and highly intelligent bishop who studied the bible to determine that the world is 6,000 years old. Imagine those who still believe it. Some of them are very intelligent by the IQ measure, but thick as two planks by any measure of rationality.

Do you have any actual evidence that IQ and rationality are not correlated? The existence of anecdotes does nothing to counter that claim at all, in the same way that the fact that my grandfather lived to 100 whilst smoking a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't show that there is no correlation between smoking and shorter life expectancy. There will always be outliers, so pointing out exceptions won't show that there is no correlation. It does show that the correlation is not 1, but we never expected it to be so it tells us nothing useful.

[Blind groper]

Do you have any actual evidence that IQ and rationality are not correlated?

There was another New Scientist article on this topic, labelled "stupidity". The stupidity they discussed was not lack of intelligence, but lack of rationality, and the article clearly stated (referring to experts) that rationality and IQ were not correlated. There is a move by some of those experts to design RQ tests, and quantify the levels of intelligence and rationality, and hence demonstrate any relationship in hard numbers. However, so far such a test is not available. Watch this space!

So the answer to your question above is no, if we except anecdotes. There was a study some years ago of members of Canadian Mensa Clubs which showed a high level of belief in astrology, flying saucers, and alternative medicine, which implies high intelligence is not correlated to high rationality. But this is not yet definitive.

[JimC]

I am much more prepared to accept that certain cultures are inferior to others in many respects...

This is politically incorrect, but doesn't fall foul of scientific facts...

[Jason]

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

Leaving aside the bias and terrible methods used in this study, let's just look at their diagrammed results:



The effect size of g (their measure of low intelligence) on 'racism' (as defined by them and measured by their biased and ambiguous questions) is -0.1 (men) and 0.2 (women) - not even worth reporting. The effect size of g on 'conservative ideology' (as defined by them [once again defined by them and measured by their biased and ambiguous questions]) is itself miniscule. The more significant effect size of 'conservative ideology' on 'racism' has been rightly criticized on basis of the close correlation between the questions used to measure 'racism' and those used to measure 'conservative ideology'.

Complete garbage.

[Mr.Samsa]

Do you have any actual evidence that IQ and rationality are not correlated?

There was another New Scientist article on this topic, labelled "stupidity". The stupidity they discussed was not lack of intelligence, but lack of rationality, and the article clearly stated (referring to experts) that rationality and IQ were not correlated. There is a move by some of those experts to design RQ tests, and quantify the levels of intelligence and rationality, and hence demonstrate any relationship in hard numbers. However, so far such a test is not available. Watch this space!

If you have a link for that article then I'd like to see it but I can't see how it's possible at all to find no correlation between rationality and IQ, given that even the most critical studies on this topic still find a weak to moderate correlation between the two things.

So the answer to your question above is no, if we except anecdotes. There was a study some years ago of members of Canadian Mensa Clubs which showed a high level of belief in astrology, flying saucers, and alternative medicine, which implies high intelligence is not correlated to high rationality. But this is not yet definitive.

It implies no such thing. Even with a high correlation between IQ and rationality we will find smart people who believe stupid things - a correlation is not synonymous with 'perfect correlation'. More importantly, even if every smart person believed in astrology, flying saucers, and alternative medicine, this tells us nothing about how rational they are. This is because "rationality" doesn't mean "not believing in stupid things", and so people can be perfectly rational and believe absolutely ridiculous things.

Rationality is judged by what conclusions someone reaches with the evidence they have. If a firefighter uses their knowledge to decide to exit out of the left rather than the right, then they are acting rationally even if their decision leads them to run into a fireball. In common parlance we can call someone "irrational" for choosing to run into an inferno when the exit was the other way, but this has nothing to do with the actual concept of rationality.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

Leaving aside the bias and terrible methods used in this study, let's just look at their diagrammed results:



The effect size of g (their measure of low intelligence) on 'racism' (as defined by them and measured by their biased and ambiguous questions) is -0.1 (men) and 0.2 (women) - not even worth reporting. The effect size of g on 'conservative ideology' (as defined by them [once again defined by them and measured by their biased and ambiguous questions]) is itself miniscule. The more significant effect size of 'conservative ideology' on 'racism' has been rightly criticized on basis of the close correlation between the questions used to measure 'racism' and those used to measure 'conservative ideology'.

Complete garbage.

The figures of "-0.1" and "0.2" aren't effect sizes, they are the regression coefficients. The correlation is noted by the number in parentheses; -.19 and -.17. This is a pretty impressive finding and was highly significant with massive sample sizes.

We can try to criticise the methodology or whatever, but we can't fault them for reporting the figures they found as (if they are true), they are impressive and report-worthy.

[Jason]

No, those are the effect sizes. I have the study in front of me right now.

[Blind groper]

I can't see how it's possible at all to find no correlation between rationality and IQ, given that even the most critical studies on this topic still find a weak to moderate correlation between the two things.

I am not claiming no correlation. Just that such a correlation has not yet been found. As I said earlier "watch this space". There is still more work to be done. However, there is a lot of evidence that high IQ people are often irrational. In spite of your earlier comments, Mensa Club (high IQ) people who believe in irrational and superstitious nonsense like astrology are evidence that high IQ does not mean the person has to be rational. It is a while since I read that report, so from memory I cannot claim accurate numbers. However, I recall the number of astrology believers among Mensa Club members in Canada was in excess of 40%.

[Jason]

Also, typo.. 0.2 is obviously 0.02

[laklak]

Mensa. Lol. I took the test back in college for giggles, passed with plenty of water under my keel and went to a meeting. The idea, of course, was to meet women and get laid. I never in my life met a more boring bunch of self-obsessed, sneeringly pompous, can't-get-laid-in-Vegas-with-a-fistful-of-C-notes losers in my life. Hairy legged (and armpitted) women and pocket-protector engineering students. I figured this was NOT the place to hunt pussy, so I painted my fingernails black, teased my hair and joined a glam-rock band. MUCH more successful strategy, a Stratocaster is apparently a lot sexier than a programmable HP printing calculator. OK, maybe the women couldn't determine if an improper integral was convergent or divergent, but at least they understood the basics of depilation.

[Mr.Samsa]

No, those are the effect sizes. I have the study in front of me right now.

So do I, but I can only find those figures listed under the column for beta coefficients in tables 1 and 2 and I didn't think unconverted beta coefficients could be interpreted as effect sizes. Surely this means that the effect size is reported as the correlation (-.19 and -.11), which is a small to medium effect and both highly significant? The paper doesn't list the effect size for the multiple regression scores (i.e. -.01 and -.02), so we only have the absolute scores there, don't we? I can't find Cohen's f2 score needed to interpret the beta coefficients as effect sizes.

I can't see how it's possible at all to find no correlation between rationality and IQ, given that even the most critical studies on this topic still find a weak to moderate correlation between the two things.

I am not claiming no correlation.

Fair enough, it's just that a couple of times you've stated that they aren't correlated - like above where you said: "The stupidity they discussed was not lack of intelligence, but lack of rationality, and the article clearly stated (referring to experts) that rationality and IQ were not correlated".

Just that such a correlation has not yet been found. As I said earlier "watch this space". There is still more work to be done. However, there is a lot of evidence that high IQ people are often irrational.

Is there though? The basis you seem to be working from is Stankovich's arguments that because research shows that intelligent people succumb to cognitive biases as well, that we can't interpret intelligence as being an escape to irrationality - but this is obviously criticised on the basis that cognitive biases aren't challenges to rationality.

Do you know of any actual evidence that high IQ people are often irrational?

In spite of your earlier comments, Mensa Club (high IQ) people who believe in irrational and superstitious nonsense like astrology are evidence that high IQ does not mean the person has to be rational. It is a while since I read that report, so from memory I cannot claim accurate numbers. However, I recall the number of astrology believers among Mensa Club members in Canada was in excess of 40%.

But what definition of rationality are you using? It doesn't seem consistent with how it's used in science. I can't see how believing in astrology can be interpreted as an indicator of irrationality.

[Blind groper]

But what definition of rationality are you using? It doesn't seem consistent with how it's used in science. I can't see how believing in astrology can be interpreted as an indicator of irrationality.

Perhaps we need to agree on a definition of rational.

To me, a rational person is one whose beliefs are based on solid, empirical and objectively derived evidence. Those who believe things unsupported by good evidence are irrational. By this standard, those who believe in astrology are being irrational.

[Jason]

No, those are the effect sizes. I have the study in front of me right now.

So do I, but I can only find those figures listed under the column for beta coefficients in tables 1 and 2 and I didn't think unconverted beta coefficients could be interpreted as effect sizes. Surely this means that the effect size is reported as the correlation (-.19 and -.11), which is a small to medium effect and both highly significant? The paper doesn't list the effect size for the multiple regression scores (i.e. -.01 and -.02), so we only have the absolute scores there, don't we? I can't find Cohen's f2 score needed to interpret the beta coefficients as effect sizes.

They are the direct effect sizes. Pretty straight-forward.

What the study actually claims, after noting the insignificant correlation between IQ and racism, is a significant correlation between conservatism and racism.

I think very few people actually read the study when writing those articles almost a year and a half ago.

[Mr.Samsa]

But what definition of rationality are you using? It doesn't seem consistent with how it's used in science. I can't see how believing in astrology can be interpreted as an indicator of irrationality.

Perhaps we need to agree on a definition of rational.

To me, a rational person is one whose beliefs are based on solid, empirical and objectively derived evidence. Those who believe things unsupported by good evidence are irrational. By this standard, those who believe in astrology are being irrational.

I think this is where we're deviating because I'm defining rationality from a scientific perspective, where it means that the person chooses the alternative that is most consistent with the information that have available to them within certain constraints. What this means is that it is not inherently irrational to believe in astrology and, in fact, if the only information the person has seems to suggest that astrology is true (e.g. they aren't aware of the Forer effect and confirmation bias, and to them every prediction seems to come true) then it would be irrational to reject astrology.

So do I, but I can only find those figures listed under the column for beta coefficients in tables 1 and 2 and I didn't think unconverted beta coefficients could be interpreted as effect sizes. Surely this means that the effect size is reported as the correlation (-.19 and -.11), which is a small to medium effect and both highly significant? The paper doesn't list the effect size for the multiple regression scores (i.e. -.01 and -.02), so we only have the absolute scores there, don't we? I can't find Cohen's f2 score needed to interpret the beta coefficients as effect sizes.

They are the direct effect sizes. Pretty straight-forward.

They are the direct effects, which is a totally different concept to effect sizes. This is why direct effects are usually reported with their effect size (and not as an effect size).

What the study actually claims, after noting the insignificant correlation between IQ and racism, is a significant correlation between conservatism and racism.

I think very few people actually read the study when writing those articles almost a year and a half ago.

Where did you read that? The study reports a significant correlation between IQ and racism, and then notes that this relationship is fully mediated by the 'conservatism' variable (hence why the significance drops to zero after the mediation model has been applied). This doesn't mean that there is no correlation between IQ and racism - it means that the effect is explained by conservative attitudes.