Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actually you everyday mundane economic growth is not due to geniuses, but due to the smart fraction of the population which is related to average IQ.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

I followed that link and the "smart fraction" theory is based on research from a book called "IQ and the Wealth of Nations".

Go to Wikipedia to see the weaknesses of that research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

Here's something from there:

Criticism

Lynn has been frequently criticized as a Pioneer fund grantee.

The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[21] The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.

Many nations are very heterogeneous ethnically. This is true for many developing countries. It is very doubtful that an often limited number of participants from one or a few areas are representative for the population as whole.

Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.

A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13-16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5-17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6-12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10-14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.[22]

The notion that there is such a thing as a culturally neutral intelligence test is disputed.[23][24][25][26][27] There are many difficulties when one is measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. Use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties and possible misunderstandings in other cultures.[28] To adapt to this, some IQ test rely on non-verbal approaches, which involve pictures, diagrams, and conceptual relationships (such as in-out, big-small, and so on).

One common criticism is that many of the countries with the best average scores are those where testing (e.g. American SATs, baccalaureate examinations) is a crucial aspect of the educational process, and that many of these tests (esp. the SATs) have been shown to be very similar to IQ tests. In these nations, because students study extensively for the high-stakes examinations, it is quite possible that IQ scores are higher because people are subjected to frequent examinations for which they prepare extensively.

There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study of 21 European cities and the Ghanaian capital Accra used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. A comparison of the reported to actual data from only a single study found 5 errors in 19 reported IQ scores.[29][30]

As noted earlier, in many cases arbitrary adjustments were made by authors to account for the Flynn effect or when the authors thought that the studies were not representative of the ethnic or social composition of the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. So blacks have actually *figured out* the formula on which all IQ Tests are based?

I wrote "some IQ-problems." How you managed to warp that into "all IQ tests" is beyond me. Also, The Flynn effect is not limited to blacks.

2. Once you have figured the formula out, you will "always be able to solve these problems"? Onar, it's just 16 points increase; that doesn't sound like someone who has figured out "the formula".

I can give you an example. Sudoku. From the very start I was not merely interested in solving the sudoku-puzzles, I wanted to discover the solution strategies on my own without reading about them. In the beginning solving Sudoku was quite challenging, partly because I didn't know the formulas. Then I discovered the formulas and this improved my performance radically, but my intelligence is surely not increased. Today I am able to solve very difficult sudoku puzzles without using any aid numbers. I do this deliberately to increase the 'g'-loading, i.e. to increase the IQ-threshold of the task. Otherwise it is too easy for me. Solving Sudoku puzzles for me involves holding a lot of numbers in short term memory. Since my memory is a very limited resource I need to manage it as efficiently as possible. The way I do this is by optimizing my search strategies. Through induction I have learnt to spot the most probable logical paths of the puzzle. This increases search speed and reduces the number of elements I need to hold in short term memory, and thereby increases the likelyhood of solving the problem. Without these formulas and knowledge of this problem I would not have been able to solve these puzzles.

IQ-problems are no different. If you don't know the formula upon which the problem is built you first have to discover the formula and this is very time consuming. Knowing such formulas in advance helps to improve the odds and in my view explains the Flynn effect.

As to the critique of IQ and Wealth of Nations, Lynn has recently published a new book called "Racial differences in Intelligence" which greatly updates the studies in IQWoN. They all show the same result. Clearly there is an error margin, but this is not so large as to make the differences go away. There are also other very important applications of the threshold theory of intelligence. La Griffe du Lion explores many of them, and two of the most intriguing are these:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/elec2000.htm

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/g.htm

The first of these, "The case of the uncounted ballots" uses the threshold theory to show that the 2000 election in Florida can be regarded as the largest IQ-test performed in modern history. It confirms that the IQ gap between blacks and whites are real.

The second of these uses the threshold theory to show that general intelligence 'g' has a bell curve distribution by comparing the differences between the races and genders. The method not only shows that there is a normal distribution but confirms that the IQ-tests are correct.

Both these are very creative ways of using real world intelligence tests to show that IQ measures something real that matters in the real world. Based on IQ we can predict who will be able to vote or pass various academic tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote "some IQ-problems." How you managed to warp that into "all IQ tests" is beyond me. Also, The Flynn effect is not limited to blacks.

No, you did not say "some", you actually said "many", so we both misquoted you!

Anyway, the context of your statement was the black rise in IQ, as observed by the Thomas Sowell article, which is why i asked if blacks had figured out this formula (at least for the tests they've taken). And by the way, wouldn't you say finding the Sudoku formula was quite a mentally challenging task for you? Would a person with IQ of 77 find this formula? I would be interested to see, in other words, some of the problems whose formulas have been figured out by low-IQ people so that they could do better in future tests.

IQ-problems are no different. If you don't know the formula upon which the problem is built you first have to discover the formula and this is very time consuming. Knowing such formulas in advance helps to improve the odds and in my view explains the Flynn effect.

Even the link you used for your theory acknowledges the validity of the Flynn Effect (as a real rise in IQ) and incorporates it into the developmental predictions of the theory, so i don't understand why you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

The first of these, "The case of the uncounted ballots" uses the threshold theory to show that the 2000 election in Florida can be regarded as the largest IQ-test performed in modern history. It confirms that the IQ gap between blacks and whites are real.

You are certainly not a researcher, are you? The Florida election could probably confirm that the IQ gap between blacks and whites in Florida (or at the very most, in the USA) are [sic] real, that's all. And when was that ever in contention, anyway? Unless by "real" you mean something much more metaphysical than just "factually true". Otherwise, everyone knows there is a statistical gap between the two races in America. The contention begins with the question "why?", and the Florida election can't answer that, I'm afraid. (Anyway, I'll follow your links later to see exactly what they mean by "real", or is there perhaps something I'm missing in the word "gap"?).

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you did not say "some", you actually said "many", so we both misquoted you!

Now, which would you say was essentially closer to "many IQ-problems": 1) "some IQ-problems" or 2) "all IQ-tests"?

Anyway, the context of your statement was the black rise in IQ, as observed by the Thomas Sowell article, which is why i asked if blacks had figured out this formula (at least for the tests they've taken).

And if you had realized the plurality of my statement you would have understood that there is not ONE formula for all IQ-problems.

And by the way, wouldn't you say finding the Sudoku formula was quite a mentally challenging task for you? Would a person with IQ of 77 find this formula?

Probably not, at least not without playing sudoku a lot. HOWEVER, someone could easily TEACH him some of the formulas and he would be able to master them with training. Then his sudoku performance would radically incrase.

I would be interested to see, in other words, some of the problems whose formulas have been figured out by low-IQ people so that they could do better in future tests.

One such formula is that many simple IQ problems have a linear progression of the type "1 2 3 ?." Have a look at

http://www.iqtest.dk/

The first 5-10 problems are of this simple character. Problem 17 and 19 are also such a progression types, but slightly more advanced. Problem 14, 15 and 27 are XOR-formulas, 16 and 18 are OR-formulas. 23, 24 and 26 are typical multiple independent progression type. The first major problem that is not a typical of these standard formulas is number 25, which is a combination of a progression and a state change. 11 and 29 are product transformations. The problems that are truly hard in this test that requires figuring out the formula on the fly are 37 and 39. (I'm not going to give the answer)

The point is this: once you've been exposed to progression, XOR and OR problems, they become formulas that you remember and look for. Knowing about these concepts in advance is obviously a huge advantage as opposed to having to discovering them on the fly. My claim is that people are becoming more familiar with logical problems and therefore are better prepared to do the highly formula-based ones.

Even the link you used for your theory acknowledges the validity of the Flynn Effect (as a real rise in IQ) and incorporates it into the developmental predictions of the theory, so i don't understand why you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. The Flynn effect probably has TWO independent causes: 1) people are getting better at solving IQ-problems due to better knowledge of IQ-tests, and 2) due to better nutrition people are getting somewhat smarter. We know the latter from the simple fact that people are getting taller (until recently) and IQ is correlated with height.

You are certainly not a researcher, are you?

No, just an independent thinker.

The Florida election could probably confirm that the IQ gap between blacks and whites in Florida (or at the very most, in the USA) are [sic] real, that's all.

True, but the Florida election was such a simple task (voting) that it is very hard to see how this could be strongly culturally influenced.

Unless by "real" you mean something much more metaphysical than just "factually true".

I mean that the claims that IQ-tests are designed for whites are vigorously proven false. The difference is not due to racism, measuring errors or culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for some reason, you're inclined to say that it counts as "evidence"? If there is no evidence, how in the world could a person refute such "evidence"? That's like nailing jelly to seaweed.

Oh come off it. You undoubtedly know that I was posting this as supposed evidence to which I would be interested to see a reply. If you're not interested, don't waste your time.

This is very unfair. I would claim that we don't really have a very good quantum theory of physics either. The state of theoretical physics is a sorry morass. We know that the equations work (i.e. have predictive power) but that's about it. Nevertheless, to through out such a successful theory as QM just because we don't have a proper interpretation of it is wildly exaggerated. QM still has immense predictive power and therefore deserves to be taken serious as truth. The same is true for intelligence. It has extraordinary predictive power and on this basis alone it must be taken seriously.

The difference between quantum theory and this claim about the measure-ability of intelligence is that, at least quantum physics knows what would constitute proof or disproof of a given claim. Here, there is no definition of intelligence and so we do not know when the claim that a given race is more intelligent has been proved or disproved.

How on earth can culture impact brain size, gray matter, glucose metabolic rate, and perceptual reaction times and discriminatory power?

Perhaps the choice to exercise brain activity at a young age, diet, and other factors could all be relevant influences.

I have read quite a few studies. Most of these studies are summarized by the works of people like Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton. The link to "Race, Evolution and Behavior" I provided was to the *abridged* popularized version of the much longer and more scholar book. This book is packed with scientific references to the peer reviewed litterature, as are all the other of these books.

From what I've read, however, the peer reviews have been unkind.

True, but the Florida election was such a simple task (voting) that it is very hard to see how this could be strongly culturally influenced.

This seems to be a centerpiece of your argument, so we should probably focus on it. Do we have a proof that this task is so simple that it cannot be strongly culturally influenced? I could very well imagine childhood games and activities influencing the ability to perform basic tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You undoubtedly know that I was posting this as supposed evidence to which I would be interested to see a reply.
You obviously have to know that my point was, you were wrong in claiming that this Rushton nonsense counts as evidence and that it is wrong of you to call it "evidence". And now you're just trying to avoid taking responsibility for your mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you had realized the plurality of my statement you would have understood that there is not ONE formula for all IQ-problems.

There you go again. What "plurality" was there to realise from your statement? Your statement was:

Actually it has more to do with familiarity with IQ-tests. Many IQ-problems are built on a formula and once you have figured out this formula you will always be able to solve these problems. However, *knowledge accumulation* has not increased in society, strongly suggesting that the underlying general intelligence has not increased and that the Flynn effect is a measuring artifact.

How you managed to warp "A formula" into "the pluarlity of my statement" is beyond me. Now, i now know what you meant by your ambiguous statement and there is no need to explain it again, but there was no way of "realising" it from "the plurality" of your statement.

The point is this: once you've been exposed to progression, XOR and OR problems, they become formulas that you remember and look for.

I think i understand what you are saying, except it has a small problem. it doesn't explain why IQ keeps rising from generation to generation. The "formulas" have largely been figured out (if they are as simple as you say they are), so there should have come a point where there is no more rise in IQ because the same formulas are just re-taught from generation to generation. which means the IQ rise should have come to a standstill, wouldn't you agree? SECONDLY, it is not every country that has the kind of exposure to IQ Tests that you have in America, so this "figuring out the formulas" might not apply to them, and yet Flynn effect affects them too. For example, I only saw one IQ Test from the time i started school to the time i graduated at university; most people i know have never seen one, and they are university graduates.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. The Flynn effect probably has TWO independent causes: 1) people are getting better at solving IQ-problems due to better knowledge of IQ-tests, and 2) due to better nutrition people are getting somewhat smarter. We know the latter from the simple fact that people are getting taller (until recently) and IQ is correlated with height.

I got the impression that you were discounting any possibility (whatever explanation) that people were actually becoming smarter, when you said:

... the underlying general intelligence has not increased and that the Flynn effect is a measuring artifact.

Finally, your statement,

"We know the latter from the simple fact that people are getting taller (until recently) and IQ is correlated with height.
concretely demonstrates the danger of the fallacy of reasoning from statistical "correlations". You have taken a mere statistic and used it as scientific proof for something else without establishing causality. So, "all else being equal" a taller person will be smarter than a shorter person? Which means (I'm sure) you would also give a job to a taller person if you do not have enough time to differentiate between two job applicants?

True, but the Florida election was such a simple task (voting) that it is very hard to see how this could be strongly culturally influenced.

I mean that the claims that IQ-tests are designed for whites are vigorously proven false. The difference is not due to racism, measuring errors or culture.

I don't think IQ Tests are designed for whites. I accept that whites generally have a higher IQ than blacks, but i also think that this has nothing to do with whiteness/blackness (until you can prove that it does).

I also get the impression that we mean different things by "culture". Which of these two statements do you think i am making?

1. blacks and whites have different cultures, but the IQ Tests are designed only for white culture and it makes the blacks appear unintelligent when they are just as smart.

2. Culture can affect the intelligence of a person; a lot of blacks in America have been influenced by bad culture, and some whites have been influenced by bad culture. So, it's possible that the reason whites are generally smarter than blacks, as shown by IQ differences, is due to this cultural difference.

I am saying number 2 (and i think this is the position of most of your opponents here), but you seem to be arguing against (strawman) number 1, which is a liberal or multiculturalist position.

As an example of whites in bad culture, watch the Jerry Springer show today (it's a relatively new show in my country!), or Eminem. And as an example of a black man who is simply not infleunced by bad culture, i present Thomas Sowell, the guy who wrote that article above on IQ.

Whatever your theory is, it has to have a very good (causal) explanation for the "exceptions". Merely stating "there is an exception to every rule" is merely rationalising. In science there is no exception to any rule, and this is a scientific proposition you are making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i understand what you are saying, except it has a small problem. it doesn't explain why IQ keeps rising from generation to generation.

Well, it doesn't. The latest research shows that the Flynn-effect is waning.

The "formulas" have largely been figured out (if they are as simple as you say they are), so there should have come a point where there is no more rise in IQ because the same formulas are just re-taught from generation to generation.

Correct.

which means the IQ rise should have come to a standstill, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, at some point education exhausts the general knowledge of IQ-problems, and improved nutrition exhausts the increase in brain size. That point seems to have come now in the developed world.

SECONDLY, it is not every country that has the kind of exposure to IQ Tests that you have in America, so this "figuring out the formulas" might not apply to them, and yet Flynn effect affects them too. For example, I only saw one IQ Test from the time i started school to the time i graduated at university; most people i know have never seen one, and they are university graduates.

Are you seriously suggesting to me that university graduates are never exposed to anything resembling abstract, logical problems!? You don't actually have to see an IQ-test in order to learn the formulas. All you need to is to be exposed to similar type logical problems. University should provide plenty of that.

I got the impression that you were discounting any possibility (whatever explanation) that people were actually becoming smarter,

There has been no increase in the genetic basis of intelligence. There is some evidence that improved nutrition has improved the underlying general intelligence somewhat, but not anything near the 30 IQ points of the Flynn-effect. Most of this secular rise in IQ has nothing to do with an underlying increase in 'g.'

Finally, your statement, concretely demonstrates the danger of the fallacy of reasoning from statistical "correlations". You have taken a mere statistic and used it as scientific proof for something else without establishing causality.

Causality IS established: a common factor, namely nutrition. Improved nutrition makes people taller, but it also makes their brains bigger and smarter.

So, "all else being equal" a taller person will be smarter than a shorter person?

Yes, on average, because shorter people have smaller brains on average.

Which means (I'm sure) you would also give a job to a taller person if you do not have enough time to differentiate between two job applicants?

Well, we are talking about such miniscule effects here that you can't really get a lot of useful information from just the height alone.

Whatever your theory is, it has to have a very good (causal) explanation for the "exceptions". Merely stating "there is an exception to every rule" is merely rationalising. In science there is no exception to any rule, and this is a scientific proposition you are making.

There has been done a lot of studies on heritability of IQ. It is very high, probably higher than 80%. If we include nutrition the number probably rises to well above 90%, leaving less than 10% to be explained by culture. One such convincing study is twins reared apart. They show that monozygotic twins raised by completely different families will have very similar IQs. Typically the IQ will be much closer between the twins than between the twin and its parents and siblings.

Another important piece of evidence is brain size. Culture doesn't affect brain size. (nutrition may though) And there is significant differences in average brain size between the races.

The third and perhaps most convincing evidence against cultural influence on IQ is the fact that the children of the 10% richest blacks have a lower IQ than the children of the 10% poorest whites. Basically, white trailer trash red necks produce smarter kids than the Thomas Sowells. This completely demolishes any shred of cultural explanation and points very strongly in terms of genetics. Why? Because of the genetic phenomenon known as regression to the mean. If two parents are taller than average then they will statistically have kids that also are taller than average, but not as tall as the parents. We say that the children have regressed to the mean. Now, low-IQ whites will tend to have children that regress *upwards* toward the white mean of 100, whereas high-IQ blacks will have children that tends to regress *downward* toward the black mean of 83. The differences in means between blacks and whites are so large that dumb whites will statistically get smarter kids than smart blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, white trailer trash red necks produce smarter kids than the Thomas Sowells.

It's only an irrational faith in statistics without science that can cause an otherwise intelligent person to say something as stupid as this.

I'm done with this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously have to know that my point was, you were wrong in claiming that this Rushton nonsense counts as evidence and that it is wrong of you to call it "evidence". And now you're just trying to avoid taking responsibility for your mistake.

More than that, I know that you were just looking for another reason get on somebody's case.

Was it a mistake to call it "evidence"? I don't know--I haven't read it, and it was presented to me as evidence so I had no reason to doubt it and a modicum of reason to believe it was evidence. Moreover, it is a record of facts, as far as I can tell. The conclusions drawn from these facts are questionable (and I have been questioning them). So in the end, I think you know what you can do with your accusations about responsibility.

Now that our banter has come to such a fruitful culmination, though, if you have nothing substantive to say about actual the topic, I'll need to pass over your posts in silence--for economy time, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only an irrational faith in statistics without science that can cause an otherwise intelligent person to say something as stupid as this.

I'm done with this guy.

Can you perhaps explain why this is irrational? Regression to the mean is one of the best observed phenomena in biology. Would you be very surprised if an unusually tall pair of pygmies produce lower kids than unusually short pair of europeans? Would you call this irrational?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, white trailer trash red necks produce smarter kids than the Thomas Sowells.

If you assume that IQ correlates to real-world success, then Thomas Sowell has demonstrated above-average intelligence by his work, so his children will likely inherit his "genius IQ" genes. The same goes for the trailer trash.

IQ is at most a weak upper limit on intelligence and success. It is strongly influenced by factors such as nutrition and education, and does not guarantee that an individual's potential for genius will be realized.

I think Ayn Rand defines racism very well:

[Racism] is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you assume that IQ correlates to real-world success, then Thomas Sowell has demonstrated above-average intelligence by his work, so his children will likely inherit his "genius IQ" genes. The same goes for the trailer trash.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting little note there. However more interesting would be data to support the assumption that having an higher IQ is a significant cause of the higher incomes.

It is interesting that the figures claim that within that range incomes are higher than those with genius IQ's. I guess this is partially because genius can be under-appreciated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting little note there. However more interesting would be data to support the assumption that having an higher IQ is a significant cause of the higher incomes.

It is interesting that the figures claim that within that range incomes are higher than those with genius IQ's. I guess this is partially because genius can be under-appreciated?

It's correlational and not causal, obviously. If I remember correctly the article suggested that the above average IQ folks were better at the application of their ideas then genius IQ types.

So say a very intelligent creative person has a great idea for a new product and starts to work on it. Soon the "grand idea" becomes the drudgery of operations managment and expense reports. After a short time they might have another great idea and lose interest in work required of the first. Whereas someone with an above average IQ might be more apt at dealing with the concretes and less needful of the mental stimulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you assume that IQ correlates to real-world success, then Thomas Sowell has demonstrated above-average intelligence by his work, so his children will likely inherit his "genius IQ" genes. The same goes for the trailer trash.
I think you are taking it too literally. When he said the "Thomas Sowells", he was referring to the richest 10% of blacks.

Also, I disagree with the definition you provided:

[Racism] is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

The green stuff is fine, but the red part does not follow. Why the jump from internal body chemistry to collective ancestors?

I would instead say racism is the following belief:

Behavior, character, intelligence, etc is determined by internal body chemistry.

There is a link between race and differences in internal body chemistry.

Therefore, in some cases you can preliminarily asses a person based on their race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a subtle form of determinism. Would you say that humans can never overcome atleast some factors not under their voluntary conrol?

I don't understand why this is any more determinism than the fact that we cannot fly or breathe under water. We are limited beings, our biology places limitations on us, including reproductive ones. As to your second factor, sure I think we can overcome some factors not under their voluntary control. We can build airplanes to fly, we can use diving equipment to breathe under water, and we can educate our kids and thereby let them reap the benefit of hundreds of years of progress by the most eminent and intelligent thinkers.

In the long run there is most definitely things we can do to improve our biology. In the future we will be able to identify "smart" genes and "dumb" genes, thereby enabling parents to make a rational choice about how their children's biology should be. Remember, two parents with completely ordinary intelligence can produce an exceptionally smart kid by lucky random combinations of genes. Think about the possibilities if one could take control over random reproduction and make it part of the volitional process. That is within our grasp right now, and in a generation it could be common. That's taking free will to its ultimate logical conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you assume that IQ correlates to real-world success, then Thomas Sowell has demonstrated above-average intelligence by his work, so his children will likely inherit his "genius IQ" genes. The same goes for the trailer trash.

Yes, but elementary biology states that there will be regression towards the mean. That is, Thomas Sowell's children will on average be smarter than the *black* mean, but not as smart as Thomas Sowell. Similarly, dumb whites will on average have children that are dumber than the *white* mean, but not as dumb as their parents. This regression is so strong and the difference between the race means so large that Thomas Sowell's kids are likely to be less smart than the kids of dumb whites.

It is strongly influenced by factors such as nutrition and education, and does not guarantee that an individual's potential for genius will be realized.

Education does not influence general intelligence significantly, but nutrition place a major role, particularly for malnourished or undernourished

I think Ayn Rand defines racism very well:

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are taking it too literally. When he said the "Thomas Sowells", he was referring to the richest 10% of blacks.

Correct.

I would instead say racism is the following belief:

Behavior, character, intelligence, etc is determined by internal body chemistry.

There is a link between race and differences in internal body chemistry.

Therefore, in some cases you can preliminarily asses a person based on their race.

Whoa! Intelligence is a *biological* property, like height. Character on the other han is a *moral* property, i.e. one chosen by the individual. Mixing these in the same definition of racism misses the mark. Assessing someone's intelligence exclusively based on race would be racism, because the variation in intelligence is large within a race. However, note that this is induced from facts, not deduced from definitions. If it were true that intelligence varied very little within a race it wouldn't be racism to judge someone's intelligence by race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this is any more determinism than the fact that we cannot fly or breathe under water.
But things like flying in the air and breathing under water have been achieved. Would you say they are "superficial"?

In the long run there is most definitely things we can do to improve our biology. In the future we will be able to identify "smart" genes and "dumb" genes, ...... That is within our grasp right now, and in a generation it could be common. That's taking free will to its ultimate logical conclusion.
That is true. So would youstill stick to the "blacks are dumb by birth" theory even then (after a generation)? (Correct me if I have misunderstood your theory).

Therefore, in some cases you can preliminarily asses a person based on their race.
I agree with all of your reasons. But there is a name for the conclusion you have drawn from those reasons: prejudice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! Intelligence is a *biological* property, like height. Character on the other han is a *moral* property, i.e. one chosen by the individual. Mixing these in the same definition of racism misses the mark. Assessing someone's intelligence exclusively based on race would be racism, because the variation in intelligence is large within a race. However, note that this is induced from facts, not deduced from definitions. If it were true that intelligence varied very little within a race it wouldn't be racism to judge someone's intelligence by race.

In my view, "character" is a subset of how a person acts. I don't think this is independent of brain chemistry, but I'm not interested in debating "free will" right now, so let us strike character from the definition for now.

I see that you agree with Rand's definition. Can you explain the jump from body chemistry to collective ancestors, or do you insist that racism must necessarily be irrational? Keep in mind that my definition, minus character, would still be seen as racist by most people. If I said for example that white people have a higher IQ than black people, on average, and that is because of genetic differences, that would be seen as racist. Indeed, even performing tests to see if this is true is seen as immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all of your reasons. But there is a name for the conclusion you have drawn from those reasons: prejudice.

If you look at the link you provided, though, the overall theme is "the irrational belief that ___", so I don't think that fits. Moreover, if someone stood up somewhere in public today, and I said "white people are smarter than black people, on average", what do you think they would call him? If you say something other than racist, you are giving people too much credit, I think. When most people think of racist, they don't differentiate between rational and irrational reasoning behind it, they simply determine if you preliminarily asses a person based on their race or not. This has been my experience, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When most people think of racist, they don't differentiate between rational and irrational reasoning behind it, they simply determine if you preliminarily asses a person based on their race or not. This has been my experience, at least.
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But things like flying in the air and breathing under water have been achieved. Would you say they are "superficial"?

People are able to overcome the limitations of their biology with technology, but this does not make the limitations of their biology any less real.

That is true. So would youstill stick to the "blacks are dumb by birth" theory even then (after a generation)? (Correct me if I have misunderstood your theory).

Where do you get this from? I'm discussing genetic realities NOW. Obviously genes are as changable and moldable as anything else in reality.

I see that you agree with Rand's definition. Can you explain the jump from body chemistry to collective ancestors, or do you insist that racism must necessarily be irrational? Keep in mind that my definition, minus character, would still be seen as racist by most people. If I said for example that white people have a higher IQ than black people, on average, and that is because of genetic differences, that would be seen as racist. Indeed, even performing tests to see if this is true is seen as immoral.

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.

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...