Discrimination

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderator: Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.
User avatar
Saim
Posts: 5397
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Novi Sad
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Saim » 2019-04-28, 7:44

Yasna wrote:
Saim wrote:
mōdgethanc wrote:Who were these white supremacists?

On Twitter, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern.

It's hard to find an actual white supremacist these days as opposed to a white nationalist. For example, someone like Stefan Molyneux openly acknowledges that Askhenazi Jews and East Asians have a higher average IQ than whites, and some white nationalists look to Japan as a model state (highly developed and ethnically homogeneous).


It's be cool if you didn't acritically repeat nazi propaganda lines as if they were some sort of interesting revelation. No-one cares what their specific views on which races have the best IQs or whether they think Japan is cool or whatever (imagine if the historical Nazis had struck an alliance with Japan of all places...).

The fact is that once you're creating a hierarchy of races according to IQ you're already in their wheelhouse, it doesn't fundamentally matter what way the hierarchy is ordered. And of course the alleged biological smartness of Jews does not contradict the prejudices about them being conniving or conspiratorial, which are a big part of the white supremacist worldview.

Nazis are not honest. Nazis do not have consistent discourse. Nazis will use any sort of marketing tagline to normalise their views. Taking their marketing at face value indicates either unthinking naïveté or racist/nationalist sympathies.

Honestly, the fact that it would occur to you to say something like this in the first place is really worrying.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10658
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Discrimination

Postby mōdgethanc » 2019-04-29, 12:38

Yasna wrote:It's hard to find an actual white supremacist these days as opposed to a white nationalist. For example, someone like Stefan Molyneux openly acknowledges that Askhenazi Jews and East Asians have a higher average IQ than whites, and some white nationalists look to Japan as a model state (highly developed and ethnically homogeneous).
Functionally a white nationalist is just a more polite white supremacist since both want their own countries to be white ethnostates. The differences like WNs using more up-to-date, scientific racialism are not that important here when their endgoal is the same.

I agree with Saim; the main difference is one of optics. Neither can be trusted based on what they say since "hiding their power level" is a strategy they embrace.

ETA: It's a common talking point from right-wingers (e.g. Gavin McInnes) that white supremacists are rare and the left's concern about them is overblown. I'm of the mind that, yes, open white supremacists are rare because of social stigma, but white nationalism is an attempt to reintroduce the core points of their ideology into the mainstream by making it sound respectable.

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Yasna » 2019-05-01, 23:26

Saim wrote:It's be cool if you didn't acritically repeat nazi propaganda lines as if they were some sort of interesting revelation. No-one cares what their specific views on which races have the best IQs or whether they think Japan is cool or whatever (imagine if the historical Nazis had struck an alliance with Japan of all places...).

Not a believer in "know thy enemy"?

The fact is that once you're creating a hierarchy of races according to IQ you're already in their wheelhouse, it doesn't fundamentally matter what way the hierarchy is ordered. And of course the alleged biological smartness of Jews does not contradict the prejudices about them being conniving or conspiratorial, which are a big part of the white supremacist worldview.

Nazis are not honest. Nazis do not have consistent discourse. Nazis will use any sort of marketing tagline to normalise their views. Taking their marketing at face value indicates either unthinking naïveté or racist/nationalist sympathies.

Honestly, the fact that it would occur to you to say something like this in the first place is really worrying.

The attraction of far right extremism is partially explained by the mainstream's reluctance to engage with inconvenient facts like those involving race and IQ. The extreme over-representation of Jews in positions of power and among Nobel prize winners doesn't seem so conspiratorial anymore when you learn that Ashkenazi Jews are outliers in their average IQ distribution. Jordan Peterson for example has had a lot of success in pulling young men away from the extreme right by, among other things, honestly discussing topics like this.

And just to be clear, IQ ≠ value as a human being. IQ does not correlate with wisdom or kindness.

mōdgethanc wrote:Functionally a white nationalist is just a more polite white supremacist since both want their own countries to be white ethnostates. The differences like WNs using more up-to-date, scientific racialism are not that important here when their endgoal is the same.

That's debatable. If today's white nationalists were placed in a similar position of power to Third Reich Nazis, would we still end up with a World War and 6 million dead Jews? Maybe we get "just" mass deportations for their ethnostate. Both terrible outcomes, but one is clearly far worse and would warrant far more drastic action to avoid.

I agree with Saim; the main difference is one of optics. Neither can be trusted based on what they say since "hiding their power level" is a strategy they embrace.

ETA: It's a common talking point from right-wingers (e.g. Gavin McInnes) that white supremacists are rare and the left's concern about them is overblown. I'm of the mind that, yes, open white supremacists are rare because of social stigma, but white nationalism is an attempt to reintroduce the core points of their ideology into the mainstream by making it sound respectable.

I partially agree, but the mind-reading used to sniff out these real and imagined Nazis gets out of hand pretty quickly. For example, going by much of the rhetoric against the Trump administration you'd think that the difference between Trump and Hitler was trivial.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 5397
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Novi Sad
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Saim » 2019-05-02, 7:28

Yasna wrote:Not a believer in "know thy enemy"?


Oh, I think I know you pretty well.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23334
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby linguoboy » 2019-05-02, 14:49

Yasna wrote:If today's white nationalists were placed in a similar position of power to Third Reich Nazis, would we still end up with a World War and 6 million dead Jews? Maybe we get "just" mass deportations for their ethnostate.

How about let's not find out.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Yasna » 2019-05-03, 13:54

Saim wrote:
Yasna wrote:Not a believer in "know thy enemy"?


Oh, I think I know you pretty well.

Doesn't value the rule of law wherever it contradicts his ideology. Check
Has absolute certainty of his convictions and moral superiority. Check
Views dissenters to his ideology as enemies. Check

Yeah, you check all the boxes for authoritarian left.

linguoboy wrote:How about let's not find out.

Amen.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 5397
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Novi Sad
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Saim » 2019-05-03, 16:02

Yasna wrote:Doesn't value the rule of law wherever it contradicts his ideology. Check


If that's the definition of "authoritarian" left then there is no such thing as a non-authoritarian leftist.

Has absolute certainty of his convictions and moral superiority. Check


I'm fairly certain in my conviction that scientific racism is bad, yes. So is most of the scientific community.

That said, it doesn't really come up much, it's not exactly a pressing issue outside of your provincial politics. That's why I find your claim that the far-right is spreading because the mainstream isn't rushing to resurrect 19th century understandings of anthropology particularly laughable.

Views dissenters to his ideology as enemies. Check


You started talking about "enemies", not me.

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Yasna » 2019-05-06, 23:40

Saim wrote:If that's the definition of "authoritarian" left then there is no such thing as a non-authoritarian leftist.

I can't believe I have to explain this, but none of those indicators were meant to be a stand-alone definition of the authoritarian left.

I'm fairly certain in my conviction that scientific racism is bad, yes. So is most of the scientific community.

Oh god, here we go again with the unfounded claims of racism. Describing average differences between human populations is not racism, no matter how uncomfortable the descriptions might be for you. Most of the scientific community isn't involved in intelligence research, so their opinions don't count for much on this topic. The facts I mentioned about IQ aren't even controversial among intelligence researchers. For example, from the Journal of Biosocial Science 2006: "Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group."*

That said, it doesn't really come up much, it's not exactly a pressing issue outside of your provincial politics. That's why I find your claim that the far-right is spreading because the mainstream isn't rushing to resurrect 19th century understandings of anthropology particularly laughable.

Flippant dismissals do not make an argument. I can't find any logical argument here.

You started talking about "enemies", not me.

I implied that Nazis are your enemies (and mine too for that matter), and then you call me an enemy. Once again, where's the logic?

*Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23334
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby linguoboy » 2019-05-07, 2:20

Yasna wrote:The facts I mentioned about IQ aren't even controversial among intelligence researchers. For example, from the Journal of Biosocial Science 2006: "Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group."*

Are you really quoting the work of Gregory Cochran—the guy who thinks epidemiology explains my homosexuality—to support the argument that intelligence research is uncontroversial?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Yasna » 2019-05-07, 2:59

linguoboy wrote:Are you really quoting the work of Gregory Cochran—the guy who thinks epidemiology explains my homosexuality—to support the argument that intelligence research is uncontroversial?

There is lots of controversy in intelligence research, for example how much of the average differences in IQ between races are attributable to genetics vs. environment, and the question of how the genetic element of these average differences evolved. But the actual existence of the average differences is not controversial.

"Cross-country differences in cognitive ability form geographically contiguous areas with smooth transitions. The lowest ability levels are found in sub-Saharan Africa, the highest levels in East Asia, and moderate to high levels in Europe and other developed countries. The ability levels span a range of 3 SDs in IQ."

Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests

Interesting theory about homosexuality lol.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 5397
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Novi Sad
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Saim » 2019-05-07, 7:13

Let me rediscipline the conversation for the sake of everyone's sanity.

How did this discussion start? I called two white supremacist YouTubers "white supremacists" in the context of a popular YouTuber following them on Twitter. I argued that differentiating "white supremacy" from "white nationalism" is an opportunistic manoeuvre that is explicitly deployed to normalise white supremacist ideas. You said that I don't want to "know my enemy", when all I'm calling for is to not take what they say about themselves at face value. Since you haven't addressed the central thesis of my posts and have preferred to roll around in the muck of contemporary revivals of scientific racism, I'll assume you've conceded the point.

Your second assertion is that the far-right is "attractive" because mainstream political discourse won't talk about "race and IQ". My contention is that that is absurd, that no analysis of the way white supremacists recruit indicate that they're primarily taking advantage of the lack of discussion on race and IQ in mainstream political discourse. Yes "know your enemy", absolutely! Which in this case means knowing that it's not the lack of racism in public discourse, but rather the normalisation of racism in public discourse that allows their ideas to spread more easily. Since you've put so much emphasis on "logical arguments", I'm waiting on the evidence that shows that people are joining the Obóz Narodowo-Radykalny, the AfP, Jobbik, etc. because of a lack of scientific racism in public discourse. Any attemps to shift the burden of proof and go off the rails into weird hypotheticals and bad analogies will be noted.

Besides that, I don't agree with these two assumptions which have been smuggled into the discussion: 1) IQ is a reliable measure of "intelligence", however we choose to define it 2) "racial" categories deemed salient by people of Yasna's extremely specific cultural background would be the most relevant divisions upon which to base research. To put it bluntly: why should I care about the average results of groups chosen by Anglo-Americans on an arbitrary test, rather than comparing the results of say, Brahmins and Dalits, or Amazigh-speaking and Arabic-speaking Maghrebis, or Volga Turks and Volga Finns, on any number of other arbitrary tests? And most crucially: why should any of this inform the terminology I use to refer to ultranationalist hate groups?

In your last post you've claimed that I'm flippantly dismissing you: I'm in fact very happy you've noticed that because that means I've been expressing myself quite well. If you want to be taken seriously in polite company you're going to have to put the callipers away and not acritically repeat nazi propaganda lines. That's the beautiful thing about the marketplace of ideas, we don't have to endlessly relitigate 19th century debates.

I'll also add a disclaimer: I'm under no obligation to give a "logical argument" to every single endlessly refuted, laughable idea that you've picked up from a cryptofascist YouTuber or the podcast of a fake neuroscientist. That said, now that I've been generous enough to oblige, if you respond to this with more complaints about how I'm not taking you seriously enough, we'll just have to note your continued evasion of the actual topic at hand.

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Yasna » 2019-05-07, 12:25

I note your remarkable propensity for pompous name-calling (racist, nazi, cryptofascist, fake neuroscientist... did I miss any?) and nauseating patronization ("If you want to be taken seriously in polite company", "now that I've been generous enough to oblige").

Saim wrote:How did this discussion start? I called two white supremacist YouTubers "white supremacists" in the context of a popular YouTuber following them on Twitter. I argued that differentiating "white supremacy" from "white nationalism" is an opportunistic manoeuver that is explicitly deployed to normalise white supremacist ideas. You said that I don't want to "know my enemy", when all I'm calling for is to not take what they say about themselves at face value. Since you haven't addressed the central thesis of my posts and have preferred to roll around in the muck of contemporary revivals of scientific racism, I'll assume you've conceded the point.

It may indeed be the case that some right-wing extremists are opportunistic in their switching of terms, but if the new term is actually more accurate, then I think it's preferable. Truth and accuracy are my primary concern. I hope that addresses your point.

Your second assertion is that the far-right is "attractive" because mainstream political discourse won't talk about "race and IQ". My contention is that that is absurd, that no analysis of the way white supremacists recruit indicate that they're primarily taking advantage of the lack of discussion on race and IQ in mainstream political discourse. Yes "know your enemy", absolutely! Which in this case means knowing that it's not the lack of racism in public discourse, but rather the normalisation of racism in public discourse that allows their ideas to spread more easily. Since you've put so much emphasis on "logical arguments", I'm waiting on the evidence that shows that people are joining the Obóz Narodowo-Radykalny, the AfP, Jobbik, etc. because of a lack of scientific racism in public discourse. Any attemps to shift the burden of proof and go off the rails into weird hypotheticals and bad analogies will be noted.

One, I explicitly noted that this was a partial, not primary explanation for the attractiveness of the far right. Two, it's a rather hard claim to prove (like your radicalization pipeline claim), so I'm not particularly wedded to it and would be happy to see quality research that either backs it up or refutes it. I hope that addresses your point.

Besides that, I don't agree with these two assumptions which have been smuggled into the discussion: 1) IQ is a reliable measure of "intelligence", however we choose to define it

IQ is one of the most rigorously defined and measured concepts in psychology and a strong predictor of life outcomes. If you want to throw out IQ, you might as well throw out all of psychology.

Yes, IQ Really Matters

2) "racial" categories deemed salient by people of Yasna's extremely specific cultural background would be the most relevant divisions upon which to base research.

Science has long ceased being the exclusive domain of white men. The fact that no alternative (broad) racial categorization scheme has gained any traction in the past decades should tell you everything. That said, the boundaries are fuzzy and always open to reinterpretation.

rather than comparing the results of say, Brahmins and Dalits, or Amazigh-speaking and Arabic-speaking Maghrebis, or Volga Turks and Volga Finns, on any number of other arbitrary tests?

Races are the low resolution view of human populations. You can certainly take a more high resolution view, such as contrasting Brahmins and Dalits or Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews.

And most crucially: why should any of this inform the terminology I use to refer to ultranationalist hate groups?

I answered this above.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 5397
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Novi Sad
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Saim » 2019-05-07, 12:48

I'm glad that my patronisation was effective enough to be nauseating. :)

I'm also glad you've agreed to circle back to your original criticism of my post on white supremacist YouTubers. Your assertion is that you care about "accuracy" and that it matters whether the term is accurate. Fair enough, accuracy matters.

Is the term "white supremacy" accurate when referring to white supremacist YouTubers? Yes. There's nothing in the concept of "supremacy" that specifically means that the members of the "supreme" social group have the "best average results on IQ tests". If they want to enforce the social supremacy of whites and base that on pseudoscientific racialist arguments (regardless of the propagandistic admission that the average results of East Asians and Jews are higher, they are still making a pseudoscientific racialist argument to talk about a kind of biological supremacy that leads to the conclusion of enforced social supremacy) then they are supremacists.

Accuracy is also part of the reason I insist on terms like "racist", "cryptofascist" or "fake neuroscientist". I imagine you use terms like "social justice warrior", "authoritarian" or "regressive" for much the same reason, or is that just pompous name-calling?

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 24330
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby vijayjohn » 2019-05-07, 21:40

Yasna wrote:IQ is [...] a strong predictor of life outcomes. [...]
Yes, IQ Really Matters

Sweetheart, the IQ is a standardized test just like the SAT, like your cute little magazine article (which, incidentally, is no authority on psychology) hints at. I spent years studying and practicing for the SAT, took it twice (unless you also count the practice test I had to take when I was twelve), and only barely passed. Then I presented a research paper at my first academic conference about a month into college, submitted a journal article, and got straight A's until I graduated. So there goes that argument of yours right out of the water.

Most people don't do well in college if they even manage to get in in the first place, and even fewer make much money. Tests that most people can pass are not reliable indicators of who will succeed in life.
Science has long ceased being the exclusive domain of white men.

Science was never the exclusive domain of white men in the first place. Science was not even accessible to white men at all for hundreds of years until certain Arab men either translated scientific works into Latin or introduced them to white men who had immigrated into the Middle East and then translated them into Latin.
The fact that no alternative (broad) racial categorization scheme has gained any traction in the past decades should tell you everything.

The fact that no racial categorization scheme at all has ever gained international traction should tell you everything.

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Yasna » 2019-05-08, 1:06

Saim wrote:Is the term "white supremacy" accurate when referring to white supremacist YouTubers? Yes. There's nothing in the concept of "supremacy" that specifically means that the members of the "supreme" social group have the "best average results on IQ tests". If they want to enforce the social supremacy of whites and base that on pseudoscientific racialist arguments (regardless of the propagandistic admission that the average results of East Asians and Jews are higher, they are still making a pseudoscientific racialist argument to talk about a kind of biological supremacy that leads to the conclusion of enforced social supremacy) then they are supremacists.

I'm not sure that's what most people have in mind when they hear "white supremacist", but whatever, I'm nitpicking.

Accuracy is also part of the reason I insist on terms like "racist", "cryptofascist" or "fake neuroscientist". I imagine you use terms like "social justice warrior", "authoritarian" or "regressive" for much the same reason, or is that just pompous name-calling?

I observe you using such terms indiscriminately and speculatively. After all, the term "cryptofascist" itself indicates that speculation is involved. If the evidence was solid, you would just call them a fascist. I try to use labels sparingly and with precision, though of course I'm not infallible.

vijayjohn wrote:
Yasna wrote:IQ is [...] a strong predictor of life outcomes. [...]
Yes, IQ Really Matters

Sweetheart, the IQ is a standardized test just like the SAT, like your cute little magazine article (which, incidentally, is no authority on psychology) hints at. I spent years studying and practicing for the SAT, took it twice (unless you also count the practice test I had to take when I was twelve), and only barely passed. Then I presented a research paper at my first academic conference about a month into college, submitted a journal article, and got straight A's until I graduated. So there goes that argument of yours right out of the water.

Wow, you graduated from college without learning the difference between a "strong predictor" and a "perfect predictor"? Good for you!
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 24330
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby vijayjohn » 2019-05-08, 3:20

Yasna wrote:I'm not sure that's what most people have in mind when they hear "white supremacist", but whatever, I'm nitpicking.

I'm pretty sure most people think someone who proposes that white people are socially superior is a white supremacist, yes.
I try to use labels sparingly and with precision

Lol
Wow, you graduated from college without learning the difference between a "strong predictor" and a "perfect predictor"? Good for you!

Except that it's not a strong predictor at all and this is very common. Intelligence is not quantifiable and cannot be determined through one test.

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7579
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Discrimination

Postby md0 » 2019-05-08, 5:18

Standardised psychological (verbal and non-verbal) tests show extremely strong cultural biases even when imported to Cyprus from Greece or from Croatia to Serbia, and we are to pretend that they give universally comparable results? :lol:
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"
Stable: Cypriot Greek (el-cy)Standard Modern Greek (el)English (en) Current: Standard German (de)Elementary Finnish (fi)
For fun: Legacy: France French (fr)Japanese (ja)Standard Turkish (tr)

User avatar
eskandar
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2906
Joined: 2006-12-15, 8:27
Real Name: Eskandar
Gender: male

Re: Discrimination

Postby eskandar » 2019-05-10, 6:40

On IQ: Fractionating Human Intelligence, the largest intelligence study on record with more than 100,000 participants, concludes that IQ tests and scores only measure certain aspects of intelligence, ignoring others. (When the article is discussed elsewhere, an analogy is suggested: existing IQ tests only test one part of intelligence, like testing basketball players' ability based on height; yes, being tall is an asset for basketball, but you can be tall and still suck at basketball, and you can be short and still be a skilled player. Height alone is not a good measure of basketball ability, and IQ tests alone are not a good measure of intelligence.)

The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence concurs that "there is no single definition of intelligence" (p. 88). It states that intelligence is substantially malleable (changeable as a consequence of environmental factors).

On IQ and race: the real problem is that both IQ and race are vague and elusive, with scientists contesting whether each are even meaningful categories on their own, let alone together. Let's look at some more scientific evidence. I'm citing from the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (CHI) again because it's a convenient way to cite numerous scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles at once. Measured IQ differences between black and white 12 year olds in the US dropped significantly from 1979-2009. (If IQ is genetic, then such a change shouldn't occur; if we assume IQ to be the result of educational opportunities, then it becomes understandable). When socioeconomic status is taken into account, the mean difference in IQ among US blacks and whites also drops. (CHI 283-284). Its section on race and intelligence concludes:
CHI 301 wrote:So, what we have is a strong relationship between two weak phenomena (race and intelligence), one of which – intelligence – is reported to be measurable with IQ tests that happen to correlate with socioeconomic status and that represent a narrowly defined set of cognitive skills which, not surprisingly, predict similarly defined academic skills and therefore, occupational success and wealth, which in turn predict intelligence as represented by an IQ score. Flawed constructs, flawed instruments, and flawed relationships yield flawed inferences and flawed educational and social policies."

Finally,
CHI 302 wrote:We need to be clear that IQ is not synonymous with intelligence and to continue in our efforts to reach a consensus on the substance of this elusive construct. In this regard, the authors are impressed with the work of Fagan and Holland (2002, 2007, 2009) who argue that intelligence is information processing and that cultural differences in the provision of information appear to account for observed racial differences in IQ. Specifically, what Fagan and Holland’s research demonstrates is that differences in knowledge between Blacks and Whites for intelligence test items can be erased when equal opportunity is provided for exposure to the information to be tested.
Currently away from Unilang.

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7579
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Discrimination

Postby md0 » 2019-05-10, 17:51

https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/05/10/teen ... poisoning/

The string of femicides in Cyprus, uncovered a month ago, kind of obscured this story, but there has been progress in its investigation. Unfortunately, the evidence, three video recordings of bullying, were leaked to the media. According to those who watched the clips, the abuse was centred around the boy's favourite football team (a popular leftist club), and his parents' political affiliation (the main leftist party in southern Cyprus). He lived in a village that voted 85% right-wing in recent elections.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"
Stable: Cypriot Greek (el-cy)Standard Modern Greek (el)English (en) Current: Standard German (de)Elementary Finnish (fi)
For fun: Legacy: France French (fr)Japanese (ja)Standard Turkish (tr)

User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2228
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Discrimination

Postby Yasna » 2019-05-21, 0:37

Thanks for the substantive post.

eskandar wrote:On IQ: Fractionating Human Intelligence, the largest intelligence study on record with more than 100,000 participants, concludes that IQ tests and scores only measure certain aspects of intelligence, ignoring others. (When the article is discussed elsewhere, an analogy is suggested: existing IQ tests only test one part of intelligence, like testing basketball players' ability based on height; yes, being tall is an asset for basketball, but you can be tall and still suck at basketball, and you can be short and still be a skilled player. Height alone is not a good measure of basketball ability, and IQ tests alone are not a good measure of intelligence.)

Unfortunately, this paper was a mess, as explained by Richard Haier (editor-in-chief of the journal Intelligence, author of The Neuroscience of Intelligence) et al.:
"Hampshire and Owen maintain that their original paper was flawless, but doubts remain about their factor analysis methods and related assumptions. Failure to cite relevant papers, poor sampling and restricted ranges also remain problematic for the definitive conclusions they drew. The editorial review process for investigating the serious issues we raised prior to publication in Neuron remains a mystery. We stand by the opinion expressed in our preview: the Hampshire et al. paper is an interesting but flawed exercise and their conclusions are not as definitive, or original, as they believe."

Haier, R.J., etal., Yes, but flaws remain, Intelligence (2014)

The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence concurs that "there is no single definition of intelligence" (p. 88). It states that intelligence is substantially malleable (changeable as a consequence of environmental factors).

So far so good.

On IQ and race: the real problem is that both IQ and race are vague and elusive, with scientists contesting whether each are even meaningful categories on their own, let alone together.

Race is vague in the same way languages are. The boundaries are fuzzy, like the one between Dutch and German. If you keep that limitation in mind, it's not particularly difficult to use the concept productively. There's nothing elusive about it.

Let's look at some more scientific evidence. I'm citing from the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (CHI) again because it's a convenient way to cite numerous scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles at once. Measured IQ differences between black and white 12 year olds in the US dropped significantly from 1979-2009. (If IQ is genetic, then such a change shouldn't occur; if we assume IQ to be the result of educational opportunities, then it becomes understandable). When socioeconomic status is taken into account, the mean difference in IQ among US blacks and whites also drops. (CHI 283-284).

No one said IQ is purely genetic.

Its section on race and intelligence concludes:
CHI 301 wrote:So, what we have is a strong relationship between two weak phenomena (race and intelligence), one of which – intelligence – is reported to be measurable with IQ tests that happen to correlate with socioeconomic status and that represent a narrowly defined set of cognitive skills which, not surprisingly, predict similarly defined academic skills and therefore, occupational success and wealth, which in turn predict intelligence as represented by an IQ score. Flawed constructs, flawed instruments, and flawed relationships yield flawed inferences and flawed educational and social policies."

Finally,
CHI 302 wrote:We need to be clear that IQ is not synonymous with intelligence and to continue in our efforts to reach a consensus on the substance of this elusive construct. In this regard, the authors are impressed with the work of Fagan and Holland (2002, 2007, 2009) who argue that intelligence is information processing and that cultural differences in the provision of information appear to account for observed racial differences in IQ. Specifically, what Fagan and Holland’s research demonstrates is that differences in knowledge between Blacks and Whites for intelligence test items can be erased when equal opportunity is provided for exposure to the information to be tested.


The two editors of the CHI fail to give a representative overview of IQ research. See for example this editorial signed by 52 experts explaining Mainstream Science on Intelligence. It states among other things that:

"Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."
"Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."
"IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"
"The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life’s settings become more complex"
"Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and complex jobs ... but intelligence is often the most important"
"Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"
"There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging"
"Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade ... black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds"

The editorial predates the CHI publication by 15 years, but I have seen no indication that the field has been turned on its head in the meantime, which the CHI section on IQ would imply.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest