Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is why I added the proviso, "all other things being equal"--i.e., no considerations outside of geographic and genetic considerations can distinguish the activities of the two companies, ex hypothesi.
How do you validate that hypothesis? If the hypothesis has not been validated, is it proper to depend on its truth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is circular. In Onar's attempt to validate his hypothesis, you asked whether its truth could lend to any possible application. I give you an application, and you say that it is invalid because the hypothesis upon which it rests is not yet validated.

Besides, it is, as I said, a provisional assumption. That is, provided the assumption were true, we discuss what may follow. If the hypothesis were true, it would have this above-mentioned application. Now we need consider whether the hypothesis is true, about which I have utterly no knowledge since I haven't begun to investigate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is circular. In Onar's attempt to validate his hypothesis, you asked whether its truth could lend to any possible application. I give you an application, and you say that it is invalid because the hypothesis upon which it rests is not yet validated.
No, I'm simply pointing out that your ceteris paribus has no cash value. You cannot depend on that assumption as a given: in fact it is false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well first, if indeed my ceteris paribus had no cash value, I am perplexed as to why you would have asked for consideration of just such a hypothetical when you asked if a statistic like that had any possible application.

But secondly, and in this case I think it more importantly, I would like to see a more detailed criticism of the information provided by Onar in order to verify that the assumption is false.

[Edit: Moreover, though, I would like to broach a related point while we're at it: Is racism wrong per se? In the above posts I pointed out that the genes of a plant cannot produce a conscious organism, and then further asked whether all organisms with consciousness have the same power of consciousness or if different genes can produce different powers. If the later is possible, then it seems we must admit that different races--having physiological differences--might also have different neurophysiologies and so structurally and quantitatively different powers of thought. If I'm not mistaken, we've already recorded such distinctions in the neurophysiologies of men and women.]

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But secondly, and in this case I think it more importantly, I would like to see a more detailed criticism of the information provided by Onar in order to verify that the assumption is false.
I can't see how Onar's information constitutes a proofthat all things are equal, so if yo can explain why you think it does, I can answer your question.
Is racism wrong per se?
No, it is wrong per quod. You may have forgotten that we're not rationalists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to remind you that statistics are created, and not naturally occurring objects; and we are assuming, to make the context most applicable to your life, that some vendor is offering you a statistic and you have to decide whether the buy the statistic and act on it (literally and

metaphorically). Do you have sufficient reason to trust the source (and why)? Are you willing to listen to, and evaluate, competing statistics that contradict the conclusions of provider A -- even if A's statistics square with your emotional prejudices and B contradict them? That is, are you more interested in knowing reality, or in justifying a decision?

I understand the dificulties with statistics. But the fact that they can be and often are misused does not disqualify them anymore then murder invalidates the right to own guns.

At a horse race you can purchase a booklet giving a horses track record. Obviously causal knowledge, such as a horses sprained ankle would be preferable, but the decision usually has to be made based on the horses statistical performance. A 3/2 is far more likely to win then a 15/1. The payouts even take this into account. Is taking this probability into account in the absence of causal data something which should require one to check his premises?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the fact that they can be and often are misused does not disqualify them anymore then murder invalidates the right to own guns.
Right, and the fact that a particular statistical usage has managed to be correct doesn't invalidate the fact that often the correlations are in error. Thus you need to care about how the statistics were created, and what it is a statistic about.
At a horse race you can purchase a booklet giving a horses track record.
That's probably a reasonable use, given the simplicity of the data. But I don't see how this relates to race and crime statistics (or similar uses). Horse track statistics tell you about an individual, and you can use the pattern of the past to make a reasonable inference about the future, for that individual. Let me be clear on this: if a man murders once, that for me is a clear enough indiction of that man's nature that we don't even neeed to ask statistical questions.

Do they have books that tell you how often white horses win vs. black horses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be clear on this: if a man murders once, that for me is a clear enough indiction of that man's nature that we don't even need to ask statistical questions.

Wouldn't you have to figure in the reasons that led to the murder?

Like say if a girl was sexually abused by her stepfather for five years, then she murders him in his sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you have to figure in the reasons that led to the murder?

Like say if a girl was sexually abused by her stepfather for five years, then she murders him in his sleep.

No, that would not change anything important. Statistical questions wouldn't add anything important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a little problem understanding the problem of using statistics and genetics on crime. No-one would be surprised if pygmies statistically performs badly in basketball, and it's obviously genetic. Why then not crime? Our behavior is determined not only by our free will, but also by antecedent factors. I can without hesitation and doubt state that elderly are severely underrepresented on the violent crime statistics. Does this mean that people become more moral with age? No, I would think that physique has a lot to do with it. If you're weak and frail you obviously can't be violent.

From this it also should be pretty obvious that men are more likely to be violent than women: they are stronger and have a greater capacity to enact violence than women. This does not mean that men are less moral than women, it just means that men have a biology that enables them to confront moral dilemmas with respect to violence more often. I argue that this is the same reason that people of low intelligence statistically are more criminal. They face moral dilemmas and hard choices more often than more intelligent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, and the fact that a particular statistical usage has managed to be correct doesn't invalidate the fact that often the correlations are in error. Thus you need to care about how the statistics were created, and what it is a statistic about.

I never said that I didn't care how they were created. Of course their methodology is important. As I said before, I know very little about the science of racial differences. But if a study shows some kind of difference with a high correlation, regardless of whether or not it is causal or genetic, that information gives you a degree of predictability. I see no rational reason why it shouldn't be taken into account.

That's probably a reasonable use, given the simplicity of the data. But I don't see how this relates to race and crime statistics (or similar uses). Horse track statistics tell you about an individual, and you can use the pattern of the past to make a reasonable inference about the future, for that individual. Let me be clear on this: if a man murders once, that for me is a clear enough indiction of that man's nature that we don't even neeed to ask statistical questions.

Do they have books that tell you how often white horses win vs. black horses?

Not any that I know of, but there are significant differences between an arabian and a quarter horse.(Arabians are known for endurance and being a little crazy) This is true generally and should be taken into account even if some quarter horses have more stamina then some arabians or some arabians have more gentle natures then some quarter horses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...there are significant differences between an arabian and a quarter horse.(Arabians are known for endurance and being a little crazy) This is true generally and should be taken into account even if some quarter horses have more stamina then some arabians or some arabians have more gentle natures then some quarter horses.
How would one take this into account? Do you mean in a context where one knows nothing about the horse, cannot look at the horse, cannot see either of them run, cannot examine their records? Or are you saying that one ought to take it into account that a horse is Abrabian, apart for the more direct evidence about the individual horse? Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would one take this into account? Do you mean in a context where one knows nothing about the horse, cannot look at the horse, cannot see either of them run, cannot examine their records? Or are you saying that one ought to take it into account that a horse is Abrabian, apart for the more direct evidence about the individual horse?

I think it would certainly be wise to take it into account if no other knowledge was had. But even if I did have other specific knowledge I think I might still take it into account in addition to any other knowledge I might have. If it was a longer distance then their usual race, for example, the increased likelihood of better stamina might help me decide to place my bet on them if their stats, appearance and behavior seemed otherwise equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a little problem understanding the problem of using statistics and genetics on crime. No-one would be surprised if pygmies statistically performs badly in basketball, and it's obviously genetic. Why then not crime?
Because crime isn't obviously genetic. If you have evidence that committing crimes is a genetic trait, that would be the first step in making the case. However, I would be very surprised if you could establish a significant trend in that direction for the entire black race.
If you're weak and frail you obviously can't be violent.

From this it also should be pretty obvious that men are more likely to be violent than women: they are stronger and have a greater capacity to enact violence than women.

There are two main flaws in this rationale, so far. First it assumes that greater physical strength causes violence, and not that lesser strength limits the ability to be violent. Second, it also assumes that we are still cave-men, beating each other with clubs. Violence can be perpetrated in many technologically enhanced ways, thanks to the invention of the gun. In fact, you would predict that weak people are more prone to violence, because weak people lack confidence and need to compensate for their physical inabilities by being more violent (with weapons, especially). Now whether any of these predicted correlations turns out to be true is an unaddressed scientific question. Supposing, for chuckles, that it were established that strong people are inclined towards violence. Then right there, you have a better predictor of who not to hire, and you can discard low-R correlations.
I argue that this is the same reason that people of low intelligence statistically are more criminal. They face moral dilemmas and hard choices more often than more intelligent people.
It's more likely that IQ scores and criminal behavior are both consequences of a single cause, namely the rejection of man's nature, thus facing frequently moral dilemmas isn't actually relevant. Are you planning on connecting this to race? My suggestion above is to first establish a heritable personality trait that's at least robust within a family for 200 years. If there is an immorality gene, it is not highly robust, and I cannot see how it would have infected all of Africa and not infected the rest of the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a little problem understanding the problem of using statistics and genetics on crime. No-one would be surprised if pygmies statistically performs badly in basketball, and it's obviously genetic. Why then not crime? Our behavior is determined not only by our free will, but also by antecedent factors. I can without hesitation and doubt state that elderly are severely underrepresented on the violent crime statistics. Does this mean that people become more moral with age? No, I would think that physique has a lot to do with it. If you're weak and frail you obviously can't be violent.

From this it also should be pretty obvious that men are more likely to be violent than women: they are stronger and have a greater capacity to enact violence than women. This does not mean that men are less moral than women, it just means that men have a biology that enables them to confront moral dilemmas with respect to violence more often. I argue that this is the same reason that people of low intelligence statistically are more criminal. They face moral dilemmas and hard choices more often than more intelligent people.

onar, showing that low intelligence can cause criminal behaviour is not showing that low intelligence is caused by genes. showing that low intelligence is caused by genes is also not showing that low intelligence is caused by "melanin genes" or "tall genes" or whatever. You could choose to believe these things if you wish, but believing doesn't make it so, because of the primacy of existence.

And statistics can be used to confirm something that you know but never to prove anything (for you to know). if you don't know what they are supposed to be confirming, you can't use them for any specific predictions - as a rational man.

In the recent history of boxing, there have been more black world heavyweight champions than white heavyweight champions. You hear that there is a fight between a black heavywieight boxer and a white heavyweight boxer for the belt. You have a million dollars to bet, but you don't know anything at all about the two boxers. which one would you bet on?

As a RATIONAL man, i wouldn't bet my million dollars under such conditions; i would insist on knowing a few more facts about the two boxers or withhold my bet, unless i'm under duress (in which case i would just pray for God's guidance!). i might bet my one cent, but not my million dollars. Point is that, as long as the decision you are making is important to you (with your LIFE as your standard), you can't make a rational decision when you do not have useful information on the specific matter. A situation of employing someone, for example, is so important that you can't afford not to find as much information as possible to rationally differentiate between two applicants. Same thing with a marriage situation: you can't just say, "look, mother, i didn't have enough time to know the (intellectual) differences between the two women so i married the brunette rather than the blonde based on statistics of how many blondes are dull compared to brunettes, all else being equal."

[The current heavyweight champion of the world, by the way, is white.]

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because crime isn't obviously genetic.

I didn't say so. Impulsiveness, aggressiveness and short planning horizon clearly have a genetic component though.

If you have evidence that committing crimes is a genetic trait, that would be the first step in making the case. However, I would be very surprised if you could establish a significant trend in that direction for the entire black race.

I was now not speaking about race, just about genetics. Race obviously matters in terms of genetics, but not all people of some race share the same genes.

There are two main flaws in this rationale, so far. First it assumes that greater physical strength causes violence, and not that lesser strength limits the ability to be violent.

If you are weak and frail you are less likely to end up in barfights and other directly physical expressions of violence, because your weakness is a limiting factor. If you have low testosterone level you are also less likely to become aggrevated, and thus prevents you from getting into moral dilemmas. Old people have lower testosterone levels than young people. Men have higher testosterone levels than women. And blacks have *on average* higher testosterone levels than whites (which in turn on average have higher testosterone levels than orientals). I find it likely that low testosterone level is a limiting factor in presenting an individual with situations that requires dealing with aggression and impulsiveness. Therefore *on average* you will find old people less violent than young people, men less violent than women, and orientals less violent than whites and whites on average less violent than blacks. Notice here that high testosterone level does not *cause* one to be violent, it merely causes one to be more likely to respond aggressively.

It's more likely that IQ scores and criminal behavior are both consequences of a single cause, namely the rejection of man's nature, thus facing frequently moral dilemmas isn't actually relevant.

This is highly unlikely. IQ is not affected by irrationality. The nazi leadership were extremely intelligent (130+) and socialists are smarter than average. Leftist intellectuals are just as intelligent as rational intellectuals. Irrationality is a specific kind of idiocy, namely one pertaining to value judgments. IQ tests don't present you with value judgments and are therefore not affected.

The fact of the matter is that most violent people have a low intelligence, but not the other way around.

Are you planning on connecting this to race?

Only statistically.

My suggestion above is to first establish a heritable personality trait that's at least robust within a family for 200 years. If there is an immorality gene, it is not highly robust, and I cannot see how it would have infected all of Africa and not infected the rest of the world.

No-one is claiming that there is an immorality gene. As I have stated elsewhere, if you correct the statistics for intelligence most racial differences disappear. Clearly here *low intelligence* is the predictor, not race per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impulsiveness, aggressiveness and short planning horizon clearly have a genetic component though.
Maybe this would be a simple enough point to elaborate on. I'll come back to the other points later, but how about if you enlighten me on this point. As you know, the obvious alternative explanation is learning, so it would be good to point to studies that control for learning. What's this evidence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember the original article, but I just googled it, and found something here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152983.

:twisted: In the thirties , Jews were the stars of basketball . So, let's not use racial determinism ! That is not individualist understanding . That is as Rand wrote to ascribe to oneself virtues one has not earned . Here she is just right . :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Onar, thanks for that link. But is this the information you used to say that "the Nazi leadership were extremely intelligent (130+)"?

Firstly, they were not extremely intelligent as the article you have linked to correctly points out. It says "they were not original thinkers." Extremely intelligent people are original thinkers (e.g. the "Objectivist leadership").

And secondly, at least from this sample, it was a bit of an exaggeration for you to generalise that the Nazi leadership had 130+ I.Q. Only 6 out of this sample of 21 Nazi leaders had an IQ above 130 (or nine, if you include those with just 130), and not one of them had an IQ that reflects originality. Or do you have another link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Onar, thanks for that link. But is this the information you used to say that "the Nazi leadership were extremely intelligent (130+)"?

No, it was taken from memory.

Firstly, they were not extremely intelligent as the article you have linked to correctly points out.

Well, I did define extremely intelligent as 130+.

And secondly, at least from this sample, it was a bit of an exaggeration for you to generalise that the Nazi leadership had 130+ I.Q. Only 6 out of this sample of 21 Nazi leaders had an IQ above 130 (or nine, if you include those with just 130), and not one of them had an IQ that reflects originality. Or do you have another link?

The average IQ of the listed 21 was 128. That's pretty close to 130+, wouldn't you say? I'm actually quite happy with getting the number so close purely from memory and glance. However, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. It seems to me that you are more interested in quarreling than in the main point, namely that the highly irrational nazi philosophy didn't make the leadership stupid as measured by IQ. IQ is largely independent of philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how Onar's information constitutes a proofthat all things are equal, so if yo can explain why you think it does, I can answer your question.

I never said it provided a proof that all things are equal--in fact, I have made no claim about Onar's information at all.

No, it is wrong per quod. You may have forgotten that we're not rationalists.

No, I'm just forcing you to take a position for which you must claim responsibility. Now that we have it settled that racism is--so the claim goes--wrong per quod, then I would simply like to see a refutation of Onar's evidence, which at least superficially supports the claim that average intelligence varies significantly between races. My suspicion is that it is only a superficial support since I highly doubt that we actually can measure intelligence (I think there is more to intelligence than quickness of reaction time, ability to reason geometrically, etc.), and I doubt that the sampled population was sufficiently non-biased.

Do they have books that tell you how often white horses win vs. black horses?

If they did and a significant number of white horses won more often than black horses, would it not be wiser to bet on white horses?

I think the heart of the case to be made is this: A ) Is intelligence in humans predictably correlated with brain size? B ) If so, does one race typically have a larger brain than another and, C ) does that race also have a greater average intelligence than another?

If ( A ) is answered affirmatively, then it seems genetics does at least determine your capacity to become intelligent--though free will may determine how much of this capacity is actualized. If ( A ), ( B ), and ( C ) are answered affirmatively, then it seems that some races have a typically higher intellectual capacity than other races. And since our conversation presumes, unless someone objects, that racism is wrong per quod, then none of the questions may be answered without looking at the relevant information.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...