(May 31, 2018 at 9:45 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 31, 2018 at 9:31 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: About IQ as it relates to race.

What about IQ as it relates to race? Are you asking if I think there are inherent differences in intelligence between the races? If so, my answer is I don't know. I'm inclined to be skeptical of the claim that there are inherent differences in intelligence, but not having studied the subject in any depth, I must acknowledge that my opinion is not an informed one. If you're asking me if I think there are measurable differences between the intelligence of different races, that's a different question, but one to which I again must answer that I don't know, though I would be more hesitant to jump to conclusions about the latter rather than the former.

(May 31, 2018 at 9:31 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also do you accept research that hasn't been peer reviewed as scientific?

You're getting rather abstruse here. If you're asking me whether I believe that a book reporting scientific results has to be peer reviewed to be valid, then no I don't think so. That simply doesn't follow. Would I have greater confidence in the research if it was peer reviewed? That's a different question, which I would probably answer in the affirmative. By itself, I don't find the lack of peer review necessarily damning. Apparently they're getting plenty of peer review post publication, so I'm not sure it matters.

The research is shit though.

(June 1, 2018 at 9:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If Huggy's contention is that the races are inherently equal in intelligence, I've yet to see good evidence for that.  So the question is, Huggy, are you saying that you believe the inherent intelligence of the races is equal, and if so, what justification do you have for that belief?

That's not how the null hypothesis works. Why would the default position be that every human is different?

(June 1, 2018 at 11:05 am)Khemikal Wrote: You mean, if i took the test ten times..my score would only deviate 1 or 2 points?  That seems dubious.  

-and the differential in affluent and poor groups within the larger subset?  What does that look like?

No that's not what I meant.

For example, the mean IQ of the US is reported as 98 but it should be read as 98 +/- 1.

---

(June 1, 2018 at 11:23 am)ohreally Wrote:

(June 1, 2018 at 9:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If Huggy's contention is that the races are inherently equal in intelligence, I've yet to see good evidence for that.  So the question is, Huggy, are you saying that you believe the inherent intelligence of the races is equal, and if so, what justification do you have for that belief?

That's not how the null hypothesis works. Why would the default position be that every human is different?

Because there is no reason for populations that have evolved in separate geographical regions and vary in the mean value of several phenotypic traits to have exactly the same mean IQ.

What makes you think that the null hypothesis is that there are no differences in mean IQ's among the races?

(June 1, 2018 at 11:29 am)Alexmahone Wrote:

(June 1, 2018 at 11:05 am)Khemikal Wrote: You mean, if i took the test ten times..my score would only deviate 1 or 2 points?  That seems dubious.  

-and the differential in affluent and poor groups within the larger subset?  What does that look like?

No that's not what I meant.

For example, the mean IQ of the US is reported as 98 but it should be read as 98 +/- 1.

Then you didn;t answer the question, and it;s an instructive question.  Differences between individuals and groups can be consumed by a margin of error. Meh, moving forward-

Within -that- sub group of (largely) whites....is there any disparity between affluent and poor test takers?  How about the difference between an even smaller subgroup, african americans, and africans?  What does that look like? How about another subgroup? Differences between test takers with two white parents, one white and one black, and two black? How about two american, one american one african, and two african?

These are the questions, and these are the reasons that the "race scholar" is not considered credible. The research failed to account for disparities between geographic, cultural, and socio-economic factors that are known to effect test takers. Even if we lay aside the dodginess of "race".....it's not clear that the differences noted (if they arent consumed by margins of error) are actually measuring a difference in race, explicitly.

...........

(June 1, 2018 at 11:29 am)Alexmahone Wrote:

(June 1, 2018 at 11:05 am)Khemikal Wrote: You mean, if i took the test ten times..my score would only deviate 1 or 2 points?  That seems dubious.  

-and the differential in affluent and poor groups within the larger subset?  What does that look like?

No that's not what I meant.

For example, the mean IQ of the US is reported as 98 but it should be read as 98 +/- 1.

---

(June 1, 2018 at 11:23 am)ohreally Wrote: That's not how the null hypothesis works. Why would the default position be that every human is different?

Because there is no reason for populations that have evolved in separate geographical regions and vary in the mean value of several phenotypic traits to have exactly the same mean IQ.

What makes you think that the null hypothesis is that there are no differences in mean IQ's among the races?

Then what would be the null? I suggest reading the definition of the phrase first.

(June 1, 2018 at 11:23 am)ohreally Wrote:

(June 1, 2018 at 9:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If Huggy's contention is that the races are inherently equal in intelligence, I've yet to see good evidence for that.  So the question is, Huggy, are you saying that you believe the inherent intelligence of the races is equal, and if so, what justification do you have for that belief?

That's not how the null hypothesis works.  Why would the default position be that every human is different?

The null hypothesis simply states that whatever you are seeking to demonstrate is really not there, despite what you think are the evidence for it being there.

The null hypothesis could either be 1.  there is a difference in average intelligence between two groups, or 2. there is not a difference in the average intelligence between two groups.

Null hypothesis 1 is applicable if the proposition being tested is average intelligence is essentially the same between groups.  Null hypothesis 2 is applicable if the proposition being tested is average intelligence is essentially different between groups.

Null hypothesis makes no supposition about what the base case assumption should be. It is simply the counter to wherever the proposition being advocated.

For a proposition to be credited as being supported by evidence, it is necessary to show that if the counter to the proposition is actually true, there is no significant probability that the same evidence could nonetheless still be found.

(June 1, 2018 at 11:23 am)ohreally Wrote:

(June 1, 2018 at 9:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If Huggy's contention is that the races are inherently equal in intelligence, I've yet to see good evidence for that.  So the question is, Huggy, are you saying that you believe the inherent intelligence of the races is equal, and if so, what justification do you have for that belief?

That's not how the null hypothesis works.  Why would the default position be that every human is different?

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily on firm footing here, as already discussed, I'm new to the subject. However that seems rather circular. We assume the homogeneity of the species in order to frame what we will consider as evidence against that homogeneity. I don't know. I'll have to give it some thought. To be honest, the question may be a little above my pay grade.

What happens ultimately if we do determine that the races have inherent differences in intelligence?

(June 1, 2018 at 11:47 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(June 1, 2018 at 11:23 am)ohreally Wrote: That's not how the null hypothesis works.  Why would the default position be that every human is different?

The null hypothesis simply states that whatever you are seeking to demonstrate is really not there, despite what you think are the evidence for it being there.

The null hypothesis could either be 1.  there is a difference between average intelligence between to groups, or 2. there is not a difference between the average intelligence between two groups.

Null hypothesis 1 is applicable if the hypothesis being tested is average intelligence is essentially the same between groups.  Null hypothesis 2 is applicable if the hypothesis being tested is average intelligence is essentially different between groups.

This doesn't seem right to me.  Maybe i'm totally wrong in my whole thought process.  Shouldn't the null be that there is no difference in IQ between races.  You either find statistically significant data and void the null or find nothing.

(June 1, 2018 at 11:52 am)ohreally Wrote:

(June 1, 2018 at 11:47 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: The null hypothesis simply states that whatever you are seeking to demonstrate is really not there, despite what you think are the evidence for it being there.

The null hypothesis could either be 1.  there is a difference between average intelligence between to groups, or 2. there is not a difference between the average intelligence between two groups.

Null hypothesis 1 is applicable if the hypothesis being tested is average intelligence is essentially the same between groups.  Null hypothesis 2 is applicable if the hypothesis being tested is average intelligence is essentially different between groups.

This doesn't seem right to me.  Maybe i'm totally wrong in my whole thought process.  Shouldn't the null be that there is no difference in IQ between races.  You either find statistically significant data and void the null or find nothing.

No, Anom has it right.  The null hypothesis is just the default counterpoint to any assertion/hypothesis being tested.  To prove an assertion/hypothesis you would have to show the null hypothesis to be incorrect.  

"Smoking causes cancer" ->  a claim.  The null hypothesis would be "Smoking does NOT cause cancer."  Through all the medical and scientific testing we've done, the null hypothesis was proven incorrect, and we know that smoking is a cause of cancer.