Racial differences in IQ and why they matter.

[Matt C]

The Suzuki-Rushton debate of 1989 is shown below:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-74-663-3727/people/david_suzuki/clip5

"I did not want to be here. I do not believe that we should dignify this man and his ideas in public debate. His claims must be denounced, his methodology discredited, his grant revoked, and his position terminated at this university. This is not science" - David Suzuki

It appears to me that Dr. Suzuki has little to add but attacks and support from a riled crowd. To me, Dr. Suzuki, proved that Dr. Rushton's work is indeed accurate. After all, if it was so inherently flawed, that could be proven easily...right? If a person is so convinced that something is not true, it would make sense that it could easily be proven with science and logic. I am proposing this concept...very...slowly. ..even though to me it is as obvious as the day is long: if something is true, it can be demonstrated using empirical evidence. Not exactly a novel concept. Is it really so unreasonable for me to insist on evidence before believing something?

Dr. Suzuki - I'll wait...in the meantime and upon review of Dr. Rushton's extensive field of study, I am convinced that his findings are accurate. The totality of available evidence shows that the race IQ gap remains. If this changes tomorrow, I will revise my assertion. Prove it to me with science and I'll believe it - it's as simple as that.

Psychologist Dr. Richard Lynn has studied IQ differences in race extensively throughout his career and has found them to vary widely with the highest average IQ of 105 for East Asians ranging to the lowest scoring who are the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).

Scientific research is morally neutral. It is the best system we have to determine truth and can never be immoral in and of itself. But it often takes time for the public to accept scientific consensus and during that transitional period there may be tensions, especially if the scientific data counters strong personal beliefs. The initial reaction to Darwin's observation of evolution was negative as the adaptation of species is not something readily observable, and the idea that humans and apes have a common ancestor is malediction to those who see human beings as special or the creations of a god.

Offensive? Sure. Fact? Yep. Knowledge itself is non-ethical. If science makes your belief system come crumbling down somehow, too bad. Science is not required to spare your feelings or anyone else's. It is nothing more than a paradigm to most accurately draw conclusions based on available data. If that data changes, it follows that the conclusions may change as well, i.e., science is inherently self-correcting.

Rushton has done all of his research within the guidelines of accepted scientific principles (hypothesis, test, prove/disprove).

Does this look like a quack to you?

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/JPRvitae.htm

Men resort to criminality far more than women. If you ask a number of people why, it would not be unusual at all for a person to say that it is the very nature of men which makes them more aggressive or prone to crime. Yet say that about different races and you are all of a sudden racist. While genetic theory has an almost flawless record of predicting behaviour, a person is "racist" for giving it any credence.

The nature vs. nurture debate is going to come crumbling down when scientists pinpoint the specific genes which relate to IQ, criminality, infidelity, and a host of other qualities. I can't wait for that day. The day I have to stop entertaining arguments which I know are only being considered at all because there is some room for doubt. When the specific genes are linked with specific behaviours it will finally be proven once and for all that heredity rules all and environment has very little to do with anyone's success or failures.

No more cognitive dissonance from accepting specious arguments. Thank you science. Once again, you make my life.

Racial differences in IQ exist. My goal is not to debate it, but merely to introduce it since no one really does. Even universities do not, which I find very disheartening. Universities should not cave in to modern relative ethics. A university is intended to be an institution of reason. A professor should be a beacon of it.

Now you may ask why these findings are important. It is a reasonable question.

Let's look briefly at differences between animals. Take for instance a hamster and a fish. Research about these animals is performed neutrally to learn more about them. Rushton's findings are relevant for the same reason. They have profound geopolitical significance. For example, by learning about race as it relates to intelligence, it may lend to the possibility that Western-style economic and democratic systems being exported to the populations of Africa or the middle east will ultimately fail. The long term success or failure of those populations are dependent on the capability of the people there. Not everyone can live in the same global context.

My point is that a fish can't survive and thrive in a hamster's habitat any better than a Sub-Saharan African can live in a North American political landscape. Take a look at the Aboriginals in Canada for example. Like it or not, the fact is they are not doing well with the current system of state welfare. It is impoverishing them more and more each day, and while Natives who have been introduced to capitalism and freed from the clutches of handouts have appeared to do well, we know for certain that they did very well living off the land in harmony with it before Columbus discovered the new world.

Is it possible that maybe...just maybe...evolution played a role here? Certainly no one is going to call me prejudice for stating the natural differences between men and women. No one will call me prejudice for having stated that a fish would die in a hamster's environment or vice versa. No one would call me prejudice to state that a bear is more intelligent than an ant either. They are animals and throughout the history of the world, were exposed to different selection pressures in a different environment and evolved in a different form - both physical as well as mental. Their brains evolved as a logical consequence of adapting to these selection pressures, as did the group dynamics of their species and a number of other traits. If we simply look at human beings as animals too, this all starts making more sense. A person's skin is a clear racial adaptation to a different environment - but somehow while every animal species adapts mentally to its environment also, varying levels of human intelligence could not have been differentially selected amongst human races too? Is this really such a controversial question?

Human beings are animals. Like different breeds of dogs, they may all be able to reproduce together, but they are not the same. A chihuahua and a pitbull can mate, but it would be absurd to state they are exactly the same. Physically, they certainly are not, and mentally I would say they are not either.

This is a controversial topic and really should not be. Scientific fact should never be labeled that way. Science is neutral.

[Matt C]

claim:  race is an arbitrary category.   if you're 1/32 african, then you're black, especially if that 1/32 shows up in your face

Not so.

Society has a tendency toward endogamy, most people have no problem identifying with one racial group/category.

These categories are far from "arbitrary", they are exactly how members of said categories identify themselves.

As Reisch et al., graphically demonstrated, a person's self perceived "racial label" correlates not only with their self-perception (i.e., the racial group with which a subject most identifies) but also correlates absolutely at the level of their DNA.

In short, Reisch showed that whatever a person's self identified racial grouping, said grouping could also be identified at the level of DNA analysis alone, without the geneticist even knowing the race of a given subject.

In the world of medicine - the prescription of medication, and the drug design protocols therein - the overwhelming belief is that racial and ethnic groups should not be assumed to be equivalent, either in terms of disease risk or drug response.

A "race-neutral" or "color-blind" approach to biomedical research is neither equitable nor advantageous, and would not lead to a reduction of disparities in disease risk or treatment efficacy between groups.

The world of medicine certainly does categorize people according to racial/ethnic group.

Discuss.

[Matt C]

One of the largest modern sociology studies of American students found that ethnicity was the single most important predictor of academic achievement

Can it be inferred from this that ethnicity is also the single most important predictor for intelligence?  My research indicates this, although I am curious if this particular research also says so.

[Camel Jockey]

Being brought up on the 'nature v nurture' idea, I used to think nurturing during a child's youth played the biggest role in dertermining who they would eventually become. Within the last two years or so I've changed my opinion. Of course I still think that nurturing plays a huge role, but what a person was born with plays a bigger role.

Like a poorly fed child may not develop as well as a properly fed one, but could still end up being more intelligent due to genetics. And this isn't just true in the case of intelligence, but also other things. Take athletic ability as an example. African Americans are far and away the best atheletes on the planet thanks to selective slave breeding. I know that's a point being made on subjective observation, but it's still pretty accurate. That being said, when all things are held equal(proper development with decent nutrition), then I think IQ is a very fair measure of intelligence, and people should able to make references to IQ when engaging in important social debates.

But what happens when things aren't equal? A kid living in a 3rd world country could have potential to score well, but might not because of poor development.

[Hedgehog]

A lot of research shows that blacks have lower IQ's than whites, and that the gap is at least partially due to genetics. Most people claiming otherwise has NOT read the research. How the fuck can anybody debate when they don't know the facts behind the debate? Debussey can close its eyes and claim that 3+6 = 2, but it does not make it right.

Some good sources for people wanting to learn about the research here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/   <- Read all 4 articles on this link, and THEN come back and debate. This one covers the "cultural bias" argument among others. If you don't know what you = talking about, you have nothing to say. Read up.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

But problem is when you get hacks like Matt C claiming that IQ and intelligence are the same.

Lacking a fundamental understanding of what constitutes intelligence, and how it is measured.

[Matt C]

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

But problem is when you get hacks like Matt C claiming that IQ and intelligence are the same.

Lacking a fundamental understanding of what constitutes intelligence, and how it is measured.

Disagree with me on semantics all you want, my findings hold true.

People who look something like this:



Are genetically smarter, less violent, and less prone to crime [on average] than people who look something like this:



And yes, the margin is significant.

Is that clear?

[io856]

What should we do with all the inferiority now that we have pointed out and proved its existance?

[Matt C]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=212980.0