Race and IQ gap

This is garbage and you are just making up numbers. Heritability doesn't mean a "fixed basic quantity + environment". This is a nonsensical misrepresentation of heritability.

 

IQ differences persist after cross cultural adoption. Pay attention.

IQ is largely stable. Stop making stuff up.

 

Oh of course. Adopting from Korea is much more expensive.

Cool argument bro.

 

Not my favorite source, but I'll take it, however, you did cherry pick because the paragraph right above the section says this:

So what they are saying that in all things being equal, intelligence can be correlated to heredity, but when you add environmental conditions, the environment can have significant effects. This is my whole point with the articles I linked to on my other post. A kid growing up poor is more likely to be malnourished, and more likely to be living in areas with high concentrations of lead and mercury. All of these things contribute to lower intelligence REGARDLESS of genetics. If Einstein had been raised in those conditions, I doubt he would have came up with the Theory of Relativity or won a Nobel Prize.

Hmm... looks like this is not the first time Mr. Rushton has written a controversial paper about brain size and intelligence. It seems he is also the author of one that compares women's brains to men's and came to the conclusion that men are smarter than women because their brain is bigger. Regardless, the paper you linked to was not very well received by the scientific community. At least three researchers have refuted it in the journal it was published in. I would get you links if there wasn't a paywall in place.

Here is what I got out of the article. First, it was not an article correlating IQ with brain size, it was correlating brain size with race and then it made the conclusion that because certain races have bigger brains, they must be smarter, assuming that IQ and brain size are correlated. My biggest problem with these studies is that they study populations and not individuals. If I saw a definitive study where a researcher took a large group of individuals and measured their brains with an MRI and gave them IQ tests and then correlated the relationship, I would be more inclined to believe it.

Of course that assumes that IQ can be measured accurately in the first place: http://www.thestar.com/life/2012/12/19/iq_a_myth_study_says.html

 

No that isn't what they are saying. They are talking about multiple cases with different overall environment, not individual environments within the same case. Heritability estimates are made for the same group case and control for individual environmental effects such as nutrition. A high heritability infers low environmental effects for the case in question (i.e. the current world).

However it is true that heritability estimates can be confounded by variables affecting subgroups (e.g. racism). Luckily we have the whole world to look at, where "racism" varies a lot, and we find the same racial IQ pattern.

 

This liberal war on science saddens me.

 

It is my firm opinion; you're talking crap.
In order to validate the claims in your OP, you must first link to reliable scientific studies, suggesting there's truth in your assertion.

In this case, you provide nothing but a rant.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that any number of papers have been referenced (did you bother reading the thread?), one can construct an argument without appealing to authority.

 

IQ has been shown to be affected by socioeconomic standing AND culture. There are huge jumps of IQ in just one or two generations when environment and culture changes..

Regarding the studies of adoption---I'm fairly certain there isn't a large statistical sample of whites adopting black infants. IQ testing doesn't have the credibiltiy to measure true genetic intelligence.

 

How is posting science a war on it. Why do you hate reality.

 

You would have applicants take the Raven's Progressive Matrices or Backward Digit Span tests that don't require an ability to read or prior formal education of any type.

 

You might want to read this link if you get a chance and re-evaluate your claims:

http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html

 

There's consensus that brain volume is correlated w/ IQ. No study directly measuring brain volume or even head size found zero or negative correlation w/ regard to IQ.

There's also been dozens of studies and, as my quote said, numerous IQ studies involving MRI brain scans.

Wikipedia also offers some bits if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Humans

I also noticed someone mentioned how lead poisoning affects intelligence. This article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-brain-size-matter explains that it's b/c lead shrinks the brain, affecting intelligence (as do drugs such as cocaine).

Also, this article by Richard Lynn http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html#_16 gives brain size and IQ data on numerous ethno-racial groups.

There was no instance in which a group w/ a smaller brain volume had higher IQ than another group w/ larger brain volume.

 

True, there have been many studies on this subject. The problem is, most of them were conducted years ago and did not account for any confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, education, living conditions and habits, etc. Once these variables have been eliminated, sociologists have found that there is no significant difference in the average IQs of blacks, whites, Asians, etc.

While IQ has a lot to do with genetics as well (the IQ of the parents), our genetic make-up is almost identical, with only a small percentage of it being the reason for differences in height, skin color, body type, hair, eyes, and so on. There is absolutely no evidence today that can verify that those few genetic factors create a difference in IQ among different races.

Race is really a very minor difference. And I'm not saying that to be politically correct (which is nonsense anyway), but in terms of genetics, it's less than a percent of our total DNA. It's no more of an influencing factor on IQ than something like eye or hair color.

(Let's be mature and not crack any "dumb blonde" jokes, please)

While the parents' genes play a role in determining the IQ of a child, much of it is expanded on later in life. Most people in general have an IQ between 90 and 110. Studies have shown that IQ often peaks while you are young (30 and under) and steadily declines when you grow old (about mid-50s and up). There are ways of "exercising" your brain, which also seems to have the effect of bumping up your IQ a point or two, and some head trauma or lifestyle choices (namely, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, or excessive drinking) have been shown to decrease your IQ. AS you get older, it decreases slightly. Even the amount of sleep and whether or not a person ate breakfast on the day of an IQ test has been proven to make a difference in their scores.
The point is that IQ is not a constant number, and finding differences in IQ without taking any of these factors (which have the most direct impact outside of genetics) completely ruins any attempt at a valid argument.

I would also like to point out that while IQ is generally regarded as a way of measuring intelligence, it is often called into question even today as a way of determining how smart a person is. Three components (short term memory, reasoning, and verbal recall) affect performance on these tests, and it is possible to score lowly on one section while scoring abnormally high on another.
There are also numerous types of intelligence. Consider prodigies like Beethoven, who could create masterpieces in music, and then a math or science genius like Einstein. Now, imagine Einstein trying to recreate "Fur Elise" and Beethoven trying to figure out the Theory of Relativity. Doesn't exactly work, does it? There are so many different forms of intelligence that manifest themselves in so many different ways that it's impossible to accurately sum it up in a single number.
That being said, there is really no "official" intelligence test, and even now new tests are being developed to replace IQ tests.

I've strayed a bit from my point there, but I thought it was necessary to support my argument. TO sum it all up:
1) Most studies indicating a difference in IQ among races are outdated and do not account for any confounding variables.
2) Race is only a very minor difference between groups of humans, one that is only a small fraction of a percent in our DNA and is not enough to influence intelligence. No race is more biologically advanced than the next.
3) New studies indicate that IQ scores tend to change due to lifestyle factors, age, environment, etc….
4) Intelligence is extremely difficult to accurately measure, and an IQ test is a very generalized overview of a person’s memory, verbal recall, and reasoning. On its own, I personally would not consider it entirely accurate anyway.

 

You didn't post any science. Or at least you didn't reference any scientific papers. Why do you hate punctuation marks?

 

It doesnt fit with their Marxist religion of its all whitey's fault so we need to take their money.

 

I tried to read your link---its a little long and I'm a little wiped out today. But see if you can read this---I think its pretty easy for the most part. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/04/thomas-sowell-on-black-rednecks-and.html or this http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2002/10/01/race_and_iq/page/full

 

It certainly has not in any way whatsoever been shown that , as AR states, that when socioeconomic status is taken into account the differences go away. WHat there has been is a witchhunt in universities to stop any scientific investigation into race and IQ because the left KNOW that IQ is inherited and that certain favoured racial groups score low even when in a westren country with a welfare state where there is NO malnutrition.

The fcat that he refers to political correctness as 'nonsense anyway'really betrays the fact that he is a member of the kleft who attempts to close down debates that are inconveneient to the left.

 

The Flynn Effect is not well understood, as far as I know.

That doesn't mean our actual IQ has increased dramatically (a 15 point increase from the 50's - six decades - is a dramatic increase) since the 1950's.

 

No they dont. Look at whites across the world, the average about the same in Australia as they do in the UK, US or where ever they are. Then theres all the studies on twins.

And what is the DNA difference between brother and sister comapered to say whites and Asians? Is there no difference between males and females? Btw there isnt much DNA difference between humans and chimps either.

Again whites across the world all average roughly the same despite huge differences in age, environment ect.

IQ is an excellent tool to access ones likely success in the modern western world. Numerous studies show the higher the IQ the more you're likely to earn. Perhaps IQ doesnt help one when hunting in Africa, but it sure helps in our societies.

 

I think to assume that the IQ test is not faulty or that we have "nailed" a measurement for Intelligence is, well arrogant. I have heard and I will try to find a link....that when a person learns Chinese language their IQ goes up. The way it activates the brain in its structure affects the results of the test. Certainly attitude, culture, childhood environment etc would affect IQ as well. And frankly...black culture today is just not positive.

 

Harsh bro. That's the guy's religious belief. What next? No Santa?

 

and that reveals all we need to know about how little you comprehend...chimps share 98.8% with humans, to someone who knows nothing that seems oh so impressive but then a pig is at 98%....the greatest difference between any two humans is a scant .1%...genetically the 1.2% difference between us and our nearest mammalian cousin is enormous...the differences between us(humans) is insignificant...

 

hates anything that challenges long held cherished social beliefs...ie white superiority over blacks...

 

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hub/summary/v081/81.5-6.long01.html