Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
The Wrath

Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If it is a fact that blacks on average have a heritably lower IQ than whites, then this cannot be immoral nor racist.
If it's a fact. On the other hand, if you simply presume that it's a fact without having proven that it is a fact, that is immoral. In addition, drawing a conclusion about the mind of an individual based not on the actual relevant facts about the individual, but extrapolating from a study of "tendencies" of some collective that they are involuntarily part of, is also immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, if you simply presume that it's a fact without having proven that it is a fact, that is immoral.

Agreed.

In addition, drawing a conclusion about the mind of an individual based not on the actual relevant facts about the individual, but extrapolating from a study of "tendencies" of some collective that they are involuntarily part of, is also immoral.

Again agreed. But drawing conclusions about the *statistical* behavior of many individuals from a specific race or group is not immoral. It is a fact that women are dramatically underrepresented in the area of intellectual achievements (cf Nobel Prizes). This statistical fact can be easily explained by the statistical fact that there are far, far fewer women of high intelligence than there are men.

There is to my knowledge only one legitimate evaluation where we need to use race, even if we know all the biologically expressed qualities of the individual. This is in relation to the traits of the *children* of the individual. Here the entire genome of the individual comes into play and understanding the genetics of the children requires race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again agreed. But drawing conclusions about the *statistical* behavior of many individuals from a specific race or group is not immoral. It is a fact that women are dramatically underrepresented in the area of intellectual achievements (cf Nobel Prizes). This statistical fact can be easily explained by the statistical fact that there are far, far fewer women of high intelligence than there are men.

Well, historically women did not have their rights recognized nearly as much as men did.

Today, I don't see that women are still "dramatically underrepresented in the area of intellectual achievements."

What is your source that there are "far, far fewer women of high intelligence than there are men"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, historically women did not have their rights recognized nearly as much as men did.

True.

Today, I don't see that women are still "dramatically underrepresented in the area of intellectual achievements."

But they are. Look at math, physics, chess, economics, philosophy, chemistry etc. The overwhelming majority of achievers are men.

What is your source that there are "far, far fewer women of high intelligence than there are men"?

This is a well-known fact in psychometrics. Women are on average slightly less intelligent than men, and more significantly, their distribution is narrower than that of men. I.e. there are fewer idiots and geniouses among women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But drawing conclusions about the *statistical* behavior of many individuals from a specific race or group is not immoral. It is a fact that women are dramatically underrepresented in the area of intellectual achievements (cf Nobel Prizes). This statistical fact can be easily explained by the statistical fact that there are far, far fewer women of high intelligence than there are men.
There are two quite separate questions here. The first is what the explanation is for "under-representation" of females in certain areas of intellectual achievement (basically, the real stuff as opposed to Studies Studies). I disagree with your proffered explanation regarding intelligence, and propose a value- and choice-based explanation instead. The major disagreement is over whether people have "statistical behavior". I claim that we are not statistical machines, and therefore that "statistical behavior" is an anti-concept. My behavior is not statistical, it is chosen and calculated. Some people, who think they are bipedal chinchillas or something like that, do have an appalling tendency to -- individually -- make the decision to act one way or the other based on what the understand to be the "statistical norm" for their self-chosen identity group du jour is. So are you arguing on the basis of this "group think" assimilatory behavior? I'm not at all denying that this is a fact, just that such cultural assimilation is a mandatory fact.

If you want to make scientific claims about psychometrics, you need to trot out the scientific proof that there's a objectively justified test of intelligence (by which I mean "one that provable measures intelligence and not something else") which women perform worse on than men. If that's what you're claim is -- I'll let you decide where you want to put your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an interesting side note, a study I read about a couple years ago found that people with an above average IQ(110-130) had the highest incomes. Higher then those with a lower IQ as well as those with the gifted to genius IQ's.

On a similar note - if you look at the distribution of income based on your education level, you'll see that it keeps rising as you go from Elementary to Secondary to Bachelor's Degree, and peaks at Master's Degree it then falls down for people with Doctorate Degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My behavior is not statistical, it is chosen and calculated.

Whether you like it or not I can with great statistical certainty say that you are unlikely to be able to jump 2 meters in height, run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds etc. Why? Because of the specific biological constraints embodied in you. You are not a statistical machine, but you are most certainly constrained by your physiology. Those constrains result in very real statistical behaviors (or absence of them). A person of IQ 75 can choose any pathway he likes, but he is probably never ever going to create something like the theory of relativity.

So are you arguing on the basis of this "group think" assimilatory behavior?

No, I am arguing that brain physiology places limitations on an individuals choices. A very large percentage of the population can never, ever be Nobel Prize winners in physics, even if they wanted to and tried their very hardest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a similar note - if you look at the distribution of income based on your education level, you'll see that it keeps rising as you go from Elementary to Secondary to Bachelor's Degree, and peaks at Master's Degree it then falls down for people with Doctorate Degrees.

The correlation between income and IQ is quite strong, but it weakens at the top level, and dramatically increases at the bottom. This is precisely what we would expect when IQ is a limiting factor. High IQ-people have a much greater variety of careers to choose from, ranging from low income jobs to high income jobs. This, in combination with free will generates a much greater spectrum of actual choices. For low IQ people, however, mostly low income jobs are available. Hence, the correlation is much stronger at the lower end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. But what consequences do you think your supposedly rational beliefs on racism will have? After all, all morals and philosophy have their final result in politics and, on a longer scale, history.

IMHO, arguments over racism can be settled over what intentions one has when rationally assessing people based on race and what consequences such assessments will have. For example, would you agree to racial segregation or racial quotas?

Also, I would recommend you to read the essay "Racism" in Virtue of Selfishness to see Rand's position on racism.

I'm in favor of Capitalism, so in my view this shouldn't have any implications for the role of government. I think the government should protect individual rights no matter what. I would agree with you that if one thinks that it is moral for the government to control private behavior or regulate the economy, acknowledging these differences between the races could have some unfortunate implications.

I think basically the only implication this has is how one preliminarily assesses other people. It won't always provide benefit, in fact, sometimes it may hurt you (lost opportunities), but on average, having and using this information will help you more than it will hurt you.

I will look into the essay you mentioned, but I'm slightly skeptical of its value, because as I mentioned, I think the definition is inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facts can never be racist. Facts can never be immoral. If it is a fact that blacks on average have a heritably lower IQ than whites, then this cannot be immoral nor racist.

I disagree, I think facts can be racist. Immorality/irrationality is not inherent to the definition of racism. I draw support for this from the predominant attitude of extreme "political correctness" today. You seem to have a different definition of racism than most people. Where I live now, and where I bodde i Norge, most people thought even conducting a study comparing the races is racist, so holding the view that you and I have would certainly qualify as racist by most peoples standards. (Of course, this is based on my experience, and there may be areas where this is not true, but certainly not in coastal America or Norway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not intending to offend anyone, allow me to say that my "thoughts about racism" is that it is the by-product of a shallow, superficial, egocentric society. That there actually isn't (or at least shouldn't be) any racism as there exists but one race on this planet, and that is humanity.

We all need to come to grips with the fact that the people of the world do not consist of a box of Crayola crayons wherein one is easily defined by their particular pigment and what it/they may have to contribute/offer to the picture of life that is being drawn for us, or rather, that we draw for ourselves.

We are, instead, all one people that have each been subjected to, and are a result of, the various environments on this particular planet which we inhabit and their effects upon us, yet still we are the same..., human, no more and no less than the next person, our potential limited only by the extent to which we hinder ourselves/allow ourselves to be hindered by such frivolous perceptions as the pigment of someone's skin.

Intellect isn't presupposed on coloration, despite what I've seen some here contend, rather access to cultural, scholastic, or scholarly influences, and humanity needs to put these ignominious contexts of superiority based solely on skin tone/pigmentation behind it and move forward as a people, as a whole, in order for it to insure any form of realizable longevity in this universe, in this life span of the species known as humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether you like it or not I can with great statistical certainty say that you are unlikely to be able to jump 2 meters in height, run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds etc.
I don't understand what that means. If I'm Patrik Sjöberg, I'm guaranteed to be able to jump that high. Anyhow, we're talking about behavior, and you're confusing behavior with physical strength and agility. Let's get it back on track: we're talking about the mind. But before we leave the physical prowess issue, how certain are you that I can cross-country ski? BTW I live 300 meters from the ski tracks. A ballpark estimate would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyhow, we're talking about behavior, and you're confusing behavior with physical strength and agility.

He's definately talkng about behaviour by mentioning the brain's physiology -propenisity to crime, intelligence, athleticism - are all determined by these factors. By assuming genetics to be the dominant factor in shaping the brain's physiology and also assuming each "race" is relatively homogeneous in the distribution of traits one can say probablistically how a certain member of a race will behave in certain situations.

But the key point here is why attempt to create these constructs in the first place. Unlike real science very little social science exists without some ideological baggage at its source (social science was founded with a vision of society first after all). Engaging in this kind of talk makes racist policies more acceptable, reduces individualliberty, and cuts down the ability to see those who are outside the theoretically created norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what that means. If I'm Patrik Sjöberg, I'm guaranteed to be able to jump that high. Anyhow, we're talking about behavior, and you're confusing behavior with physical strength and agility. Let's get it back on track: we're talking about the mind. But before we leave the physical prowess issue, how certain are you that I can cross-country ski? BTW I live 300 meters from the ski tracks. A ballpark estimate would suffice.

The reason I used agility and strength as examples is because this is *precisely* the physical equivalent of intelligence. Intelligence is mental speed/strength/energy, and it is an innate physiological quality largely determined by genes and nutrition. Making statistical claims based on *limiting factors* (such as strenght, height, IQ) must never be confused with making statistical claims about *behavior*. Even though I know nothing about the interests, character and morality of any pygmy, I can make a prediction that no pygmy will ever win the Olympics in high jump, simply because height is a limiting factor. This is precisely why *low* IQ is a much better predictor of behavior than high IQ. Low IQ is a limiting factor which excludes a lot of possible actions, whereas high IQ is not.

I disagree, I think facts can be racist. Immorality/irrationality is not inherent to the definition of racism. I draw support for this from the predominant attitude of extreme "political correctness" today. You seem to have a different definition of racism than most people. Where I live now, and where I bodde i Norge, most people thought even conducting a study comparing the races is racist, so holding the view that you and I have would certainly qualify as racist by most peoples standards. (Of course, this is based on my experience, and there may be areas where this is not true, but certainly not in coastal America or Norway.)

Well, this goes to show that certain people are anxious to convert language into political weapons. Think about it, how on Earth can facts be racist!?!? Isn't there something obviously wrong with most people's definition of racism if the mere *fact* of racial differences is racist?

Such a definition of racism is a false one, used to stigmatise and put labels on people searching the truth about racial differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's definately talkng about behaviour by mentioning the brain's physiology -propenisity to crime, intelligence, athleticism - are all determined by these factors.

Absolutely not. I am talking about limiting factors. Let me give you an example. Suppose you have 100 immoral people. These are people that when pushed will violate the rights of others. Further suppose that you then take 50 of these immoral people and place them in morally challenging situations: aggrevate them, let them live in poverty, give them hard work. The other 50 immoral people you place in morally relaxing situations: don't aggrevate them, let them have plenty of money, allow them to be able to get by on little work etc. Now, which group of immoral people do you think will have the highest crime rate? A) the morally challenged, or B) the morally unchallenged? I'd put my money on group A.

Thus, even if you have two groups that have an equally bad personal character, one of the groups is going to be overrepresented in crime due to the morally challenging situations they face.Some of these situations are going to manifest themselves due to genetics. For instance, physically strong people are going to face situations where they can beat other people to submission more often than physically weak people. This simple fact alone will make elderly less prone to physical violence than young people, and men more prone to violence than women. The same is true for testosterone. People with high testosterone are more easily aggrevated than others and hence face the morally challenging situation of "losing their temper" more often than people of low testosterone. People of low intelligence more often face the challenge of living with little money than people of high intelligence. People of high intelligence can get away with being lazy, people of low intelligence cannot.

Because of the limiting factors of our biology we can make predictions about behavior. Behavior is still chosen, but the morally challenging situations one finds one self in may not be.

Edited by Onar Åm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistical correlations apply to populations of measurements and not to individual entities. When you think on a scale of a population - you can consider it a fact that such correlation exist. When dealing with planting fields of corn - statistics can be a useful tool in picking the right type of corn species for your purposes - you won't be dealing with individual corn plants - all you care about is the average trait.

Statistical predictions apply to populations.

Statistical correlations are not facts on individual level. Instead, on that scale, facts are unique metaphysical identity of a particular single individual. Anything other than judging a man by his own character and actions is unjust.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Making statistical claims based on *limiting factors* (such as strenght, height, IQ) must never be confused with making statistical claims about *behavior*.
Well, statistically speaking, the probability of any man jumping more that 2.4 meters is effectively zero. And yet the probability that Patrik Sjöberg can jump more than 2.4 meters is 100% (he even did it twice). So how can an impossibility be a certainty?

There is a limiting factor to the effect that a cow cannot jump over the moon. I could believe that there is a limiting factor that men cannot (on Earth) jump more that 4 meters. However, you have not proven that there is any such limiting factor as applies to intelligence which is specific to blacks. The only limit that applies is one on the computation of the score, i.e. where numbers higher than a certain value are meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistical correlations apply to populations of measurements and not to individual entities.

True.

When you think on a scale of a population - you can consider it a fact that such correlation exist. When dealing with planting fields of corn - statistics can be a useful tool in picking the right type of corn species for your purposes - you won't be dealing with individual corn plants - all you care about is the average trait.

Statistical predictions apply to populations.

Again true, and on the same note one can use to predict population averages such as GDP per capita. You can also use statistical traits to make assessments about people's behaviors. For instance, men are overrepresented in Nobel Prizes. Is this due to sexism in academia? Not if winning a Nobel prize requires a high IQ and women are dramatically underrepresented in the Nobel prize IQ-level. In 2000 far more black than white votes were discounted in the Florida presidential election. Racism? Not if successfully voting requires a minimum threshold and far more blacks than whites fall below this threshold. Jews are dramatically overrepresented among the exceptionally rich and powerful. A display of power lust and ruthless hustling? Not if becoming rich and powerful requires extraordinary intelligence and jews are significantly overrepresented among the exceptionally intelligent. Every single 100 meter sprint finalist in the last few olympics have been black. Just black sports enthusiasm? Not if blacks are dramatically overrepresented among people of exceptional physical abilities.

There are a lot of statistics out there that people are interested in explaining, and statistical biological differences among the races and sexes help provide a more accurate explanation.

Anything other than judging a man by his own character and actions is unjust.

Fully agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a limiting factor to the effect that a cow cannot jump over the moon. I could believe that there is a limiting factor that men cannot (on Earth) jump more that 4 meters. However, you have not proven that there is any such limiting factor as applies to intelligence which is specific to blacks. The only limit that applies is one on the computation of the score, i.e. where numbers higher than a certain value are meaningless.

I think you're confusing the issue. One line of reasoning concerns whether biologically inherited factors can result in predictable behavioral statistics (i.e. overrepresentation in crime statistics etc.). The answer to this question is YES. Not because biology determines character, but rather because biology partly determines what kind of situations/challenges an individual will face during his life time.

A second line of reasoning concerns whether IQ is one such limiting factor which affects behavioral statistics, and the answer to this is clearly yes. There is a very strong correlation between IQ and income, especially between *low* IQ and *low* income. There is also a similar correlation between low IQ and crime, not because low IQ makes you immoral, but because it exposes you to more morally challenging situations.

A third line of reasoning concerns whether there are statistical differences in intelligence between the races due to genetic factors. The answer to this question is also yes.

Combining all these three lines of reasoning you get a partial explanation to the observation that blacks on average are overrepresented in crime, low income, illiteracy and other social statistics. If you DON'T factor in real biological differences between the races you might end up drawing wrong conclusions about the observed facts. For instance, many people explain black overrepresentation in crime with a bad culture (the gangsta culture). Thus, they are claiming that there is an overrepresentation of immoral people among blacks. However, it could very well be that there is no cultural/moral differences between blacks and whites, but rather that the overrepresentation of low IQ among blacks exposes more of them to morally challenging situations which they choose to solve with crime. In other words, it is crucial to know about these biological differences to draw the correct inferences about the observed facts. (In reality there is very likely a combination: blacks are both overrepresented in crime because of overrepresentation in low IQ *and* because of bad culture.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again true, and on the same note one can use to predict population averages such as GDP per capita. You can also use statistical traits to make assessments about people's behaviors. For instance, men are overrepresented in Nobel Prizes. Is this due to sexism in academia? Not if winning a Nobel prize requires a high IQ and women are dramatically underrepresented in the Nobel prize IQ-level.

It maybe both, or none of those reasons. Reasons for over or under representation in a population can be complex and must be proven to be the cause for another observable trend.

Even if you do find such a correlation on a population level - this tells you absolutely nothing about the actual ability of an individual woman or man. You maybe passing on Ayn Rand level of ability because this individual happens to be a woman.

In 2000 far more black than white votes were discounted in the Florida presidential election. Racism? Not if successfully voting requires a minimum threshold and far more blacks than whites fall below this threshold. Jews are dramatically overrepresented among the exceptionally rich and powerful. A display of power lust and ruthless hustling? Not if becoming rich and powerful requires extraordinary intelligence and jews are significantly overrepresented among the exceptionally intelligent. Every single 100 meter sprint finalist in the last few olympics have been black. Just black sports enthusiasm? Not if blacks are dramatically overrepresented among people of exceptional physical abilities.

Connecting two population trends is not proof of causation. You don't have enough evidence to draw the conclusions you have driven. Politics and marketing are examples of fields in which the knowledge of population trends is useful because they deal with populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that there is any such thing as differences in IQ between races (because IQ is demonstrably affected by environmental influences) but if there is, it's at most a weak upper limit on achievement. It's absurd to elevate it to the level of culture and philosophy as a force for change. It's irrational for the average person to blame or praise their genes for their failure or success in life.

Once again, Ayn Rand's 1963 essay "Racism" is essential reading on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this goes to show that certain people are anxious to convert language into political weapons. Think about it, how on Earth can facts be racist!?!? Isn't there something obviously wrong with most people's definition of racism if the mere *fact* of racial differences is racist?

Such a definition of racism is a false one, used to stigmatise and put labels on people searching the truth about racial differences.

Right, so it follows that by the standard definition, racism is not necessarily bad.

Statistical correlations are not facts on individual level. Instead, on that scale, facts are unique metaphysical identity of a particular single individual. Anything other than judging a man by his own character and actions is unjust.
I'm not sure why it would be unjust. But even if it was, should one care if taking this information into account will lead to better decisions, on average? It seems as if you have some egalitarian view that one owes everyone an equal chance regardless of your judgement, but this assertion has never been proven. Also, doesn't it follow from this statement that racial profiling is immoral? If not, please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not convinced that there is any such thing as differences in IQ between races (because IQ is demonstrably affected by environmental influences) but if there is, it's at most a weak upper limit on achievement. It's absurd to elevate it to the level of culture and philosophy as a force for change.

Then how do you explain the differences that cannot be explained by nurture that have been mentioned?

Also, who is promoting this as a force for change?

It's irrational for the average person to blame or praise their genes for their failure or success in life.
Perhaps at life in general, but not at one particular activity. There are certainly activities in which genetics matter greatly. Consider a person who is born extremely ugly, for example: it is very unlikely that he will have great success in modeling. If he is also born with a really low IQ, the only reason why I would agree that it would be irrational of him to blame genetics for his lack of success is not that it is false, but that such resignation will not help him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but if there is, it's at most a weak upper limit on achievement.

The evidence strongly suggest otherwise. For the least intelligent (IQ<85), the effects on achievement are quite dramatic, particularly in a society where manual labour is in much less demand.

It's absurd to elevate it to the level of culture and philosophy as a force for change.

The opposite is to claim that intelligence is irrelevant to the individual and the society which is clearly, patently false. The individual clearly and unambiguously benefits from a higher IQ, both in himself and in others.

It's irrational for the average person to blame or praise their genes for their failure or success in life.

Obviously, but that's not what we are talking about here. A crippled person can as a factual statement claim that his physical disability prevents him from becoming a runner. This is not "to blame" his biology for "his failure" to become a runner, it is a mere statement of fact. Life is the standard of value, which obviously means that success needs to be measured by the standard of the biological nature of the individual. If an individual is paralyzed then learning to walk is a tremendous achievement, whereas for a healthy person the same task is quite normal. Failure for one person is success for another.

But just because YOU must live with your biological limitations does not mean that you have to blindly accept the cards blindly dealt to your children by evolution. If you could choose to improve your childs health, longevity and intelligence, would you do it? Probably, because you evaluate these as objectively BETTER qualities to possess, enabling your child to live a potentially richer life than yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...