Race and IQs

[Edwardo Piet]

I think intelligence is entirely genetic. I don't think the same is true of IQ. I think IQ tests measure something very narrowly and the fact the test is multiple choices means you can guess if you don't know and get a correct answer. It's timed so if you run out of time you get a fail on that answer. You can retake the test and score higher next time. It seems to mostly measure how good you are at taking IQ tests lol.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I personally hate IQ tests and only ever score average on them because I get really distracted figuring out how each question is flawed. I mean asking what the odd one out is? There are so many ways to answer that question. It can only ever be a glimpse of certain abilities. Intelligence is far too broad to be measured using a single test because the whole point of intelligence is to be able to adapt to and generalise over new environments, problems and situations. Something that cannot be captured by an IQ test. This is why the more you do them the better you get at doing them.

[Alexmahone]

I know this is a taboo topic but you made a choice when you clicked on this thread after reading the title...

I have encountered research by several reputed scientists that says that the mean IQ's of different races are different. They are (for the major races):

East Asians: 105
Whites: 99
South Asians / North Africans: 84
Africans: 70

Mixed races usually have IQ's that lie between the composite races. Blacks in the US have a higher mean (85) than Africans due to a combination of European ancestry and better nutrition.

(There are also scientists who claim that the mean IQ's of different races are exactly equal but fail to provide any evidence supporting this.)

My question: Does merely believing in the validity of such research make a person a racist? Is there any objection to this being taught at schools or universities? For the record, I belong to one of the intellectually inferior races, so I may be being a little slow...

I encourage you to treat an African with IQ of 160 as if he had an IQ of 70 and challenge him to a game of wits to the death. The result might be that the average IQ of humanity will tick up slightly when he has disposed of you.

Average IQ of humanity: around 88
My IQ: around 110

No, the average IQ of humanity will tick down slightly when I die.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think IQ tests measure a form of intelligence. There are others though.

[Anomalocaris]

I personally hate IQ tests and only ever score average on them because I get really distracted figuring out how each question is flawed. I mean asking what the odd one out is? There are so many ways to answer that question. It can only ever be a glimpse of certain abilities. Intelligence is far too broad to be measured using a single test because the whole point of intelligence is to be able to adapt to and generalise over new environments, problems and situations. Something that cannot be captured by an IQ test. This is why the more you do them the better you get at doing them.

I took IQ test three times and gained about 15 points with each successive test. Either IQ test itself makes me smarter or test taking experience effects test scores.

[Edwardo Piet]

I personally hate IQ tests and only ever score average on them because I get really distracted figuring out how each question is flawed. I mean asking what the odd one out is? There are so many ways to answer that question.

You remind me of me.

It can only ever be a glimpse of certain abilities.

Indeed.

Intelligence is far too broad to be measured using a single test because the whole point of intelligence is to be able to adapt to and generalise over new environments, problems and situations.

Indeed.

Something that cannot be captured by an IQ test. This is why the more you do them the better you get at doing them.

Indeed.

I think the creator of the IQ test must have had a mildly above average pseudo intellect

---

I think IQ tests measure a form of intelligence. There are others though.

I think intelligence is just the capacity to understand stuff. But in the broadest possible way. And there are many ways to understand things and many types of different things that can be understood (stuff that IQ tests don't even measure).

I don't think IQ tests are about understanding stuff I think they're about noticing calculating, concentrating on and remembering stuff. It's not even a measure of left-brained thinking as the left brain does more than what IQ tests measure. And then there's still the whole right brain to account for.

Indeed, people who are unintelligent will be unable to notice and spot or calculate certain things because they're unintelligent. But being unintelligent is merely one way to fail to spot that stuff. Many people who are highly intelligent could also fail to spot that stuff. Many highly intelligent people struggle with concentrating, they're daydreamers, they're scatterbrained, they don't have amazing memories or brains like calculators. But they understand deep concepts that many other people don't. IQ tests don't seem to measure depth of understanding... just speed, calculation, concentration and astuteness. Having a brain like a mathematician is different to being smart. Computers are awesome at math and computers don't understand anything at all. You could also teach a parrot a bunch of facts and it would parrot them back to you. Neither memory nor calculation are sufficient indicators of intelligence. Some people are great at calculating and remembering stuff within their very limited scope of conceptualization.

Here's a great quote on the matter. This is the way I see it:

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." - Arthur Schopenhauer

IQ not only only measures the targets that the average person can see... it only measures part of some of the targets that the average person can see.

[Pat Mustard]

I have encountered bullshit by several idiot hacks that asserts without evidence that the mean IQ's of different races are different.

Fixed this sentence to make it accurate. The way you wrote it was simply a one lie piled upon another in an unsafe and rickety fashion.

Question, are you posting this kind of shit to be "provocative"*, or are you really this thick?

*In the far right way of "just asking questions".

---

I recall when Jensenism was a big topic of discussion.  The idea as I recall was that sub-saharan Africans suffered from being isolated from the wider gene pool across Eurasia because of repeated migrations back and forth.

Plus it turns out that there's more genetic variance in two sub-Saharan tribes living less than a day's walk from each other than there is in the whole Eurasian gene pool. Makes sense when you think where humanity evolved and the huge bottleneck where humans left Africa from.

[Edwardo Piet]

My question: Does merely believing in the validity of such research make a person a racist?

Only if the person asking the question is a false-liberal SJW who cares more about how others will perceive a truth than the truth itself.

[henryp]

Why are so many people taking IQ tests. I thought they were pretty much for identifying children with developmental disabilities. With all of the standardized test scores (SAT, ACT, GRE) it doesn't seem like it has a point, again, outside of identifying special needs kids.

Regarding the OP, it makes sense any group of people with a large money/education advantage is going to churn out smarter kids on average than those without. But that's just a general statistic. Doesn't mean anything for individuals, though.

[Alexmahone]

I have encountered bullshit by several idiot hacks that asserts without evidence that the mean IQ's of different races are different.

Fixed this sentence to make it accurate.  The way you wrote it was simply a one lie piled upon another in an unsafe and rickety fashion.

So I guess you're one of those liberals who think that everyone is equal. Interestingly, if you think the mean IQ's of different races are the same, the burden of proof is on you.