Race and IQs

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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 agree that IQ has its limitations: perhaps intelligence  transcends humanity's conception of IQ and humanity is just a mere blip on some broader, more advanced spectrum of intelligence.  Now, this is not meant to flatter you, but based on your posts here, I'd consider you to be among this forum's smartest members hands down.

That said, based on what I've learned about IQ tests, they're most accurate when measuring IQ in individuals with average intellectual ability; they are not designed to measure exceptional/gifted individuals, especially those people who are meticulous thinkers.  Consequently, if it is suspected that an individual may be gifted, then it is vital that the tester is aware of this fact and has experience testing such individuals.  Hence, when measuring IQ in gifted individuals, an entire battery of tests and lots of testing time is needed in order to obtain an accurate result.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's the gist of what I have to say: IQ tests are flawed. And bear in mind, when I was about six, I had an IQ test that gave me a score of 176, so it's not like I'm bitter about getting a low score. Just to take one example: in the lead-up to the Nuremberg Trials, Joachim von Ribbentrop wound up getting the highest score. Bear in mind, he was one of those Nazis that literally all other Nazis hated, and in this case, because of his smugness matched only by his utter incompetence, including being the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs for the last seven years of the regime without knowing what his foreign policy even was, and spending two years as German Ambassador to England during the appeasement era, and given his idiotic handling of it all, it's a wonder it got anywhere.

I'm not sure of the exact differences between "Races" IQ-wise, although one thing's sure: if 50% of Africans reach a score that puts them on the "retarded" end of the scale (and I mean that in the most literal sense of the word, since 70 ), there's probably something wrong with the test. IQ test scores (at least for adults) are designed to be normally distributed, and the mean score becomes 100. When the average becomes less or more than 100, it's generally assumed that the scored would need to be recalibrated. And, while the proportion of "races" in this population represented aren't given, I have to say, there would have to be an unusually large number of "East Asians" in the mix for this to not be seriously eyebrow raising.

And, even if the results are absolutely correct, this does not necessarily mean that it means there's something inherently wrong with the "races" in question. It's pretty well-established that nurture can play as important a role as nature, and that an enriched environment can help change things, and given the environment a disproportionately high number of black people live in, it makes sense that their brains' growth got stunted. IQ is not set in stone. Maybe believing that black people, on the whole, have a lower IQ might not be inherently racist, but the key would have to require acknowledging that environmental factors play a huge role in it, and, indeed, emphasisising their role in IQs and hoping that with better opportunities, those scores (among many other things) can change for the better. To do otherwise is to take black people by the hands and go:

[henryp]

Just to be clear, you guys aren't taking IQ tests on the internet, and thinking those are real IQ tests, are you?

[Huggy Bear]

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...

Post the source of your data because i'm detecting a red flag...

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.

*emphasis mine*


Also if exit polls are any indication of intelligence, they reflect the opposite.

[Alexmahone]

I'm not sure of the exact differences between "Races" IQ-wise, although one thing's sure: if 50% of Africans reach a score that puts them on the "retarded" end of the scale (and I mean that in the most literal sense of the word, since 70 ), there's probably something wrong with the test. IQ test scores (at least for adults) are designed to be normally distributed, and the mean score becomes 100. When the average becomes less or more than 100, it's generally assumed that the scored would need to be recalibrated. And, while the proportion of "races" in this population represented aren't given, I have to say, there would have to be an unusually large number of "East Asians" in the mix for this to not be seriously eyebrow raising.  

If you think the mean IQ of everyone on earth is supposed to be 100, you're mistaken.

IQ tests are normed/calibrated so that the mean IQ of Britain is 100. This is called the Greenwich Standard. The mean IQ's of other countries/races are then measured relative to this Greenwich Standard. The mean IQ of everyone on earth is probably around 88.

Dr Philippe Rushton, a leading race scholar, has said that sub-Saharan Africans should not be considered mentally retarded but as having the intelligence of the average white 11-year old.

---

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...

Post the source of your data because i'm detecting a red flag...

Dr Richard Lynn, Dr Philippe Rushton, Dr Richard Herrnstein and Dr Charles Murray are leading scholars whose research has come to these conclusions.

[SaStrike]

IQ tests are flawed. I always score 140-160

[Amarok]

Dr Philippe Rushton was not a leading anything .He was a hack .

---

Dr Richard Lynn, Dr Philippe Rushton, Dr Richard Herrnstein and Dr Charles Murray are leading scholars whose research has come to these conclusions.

Hacks

[Rev. Rye]

Dr Richard Lynn, Dr Philippe Rushton, Dr Richard Herrnstein and Dr Charles Murray are leading scholars whose research has come to these conclusions.

So, it's The Bell Curve you're using. Explains so much.

Honestly, the big problem there isn't so much the research as the Social Darwinist lens that the authors there tend to use to explain the data. The idea that race exists in any meaningful scientific means (for a more scientifically valid version of the race concept, see "clines,") is a very questionable one.

[Amarok]

Racialism is pseudoscientific garbage .

[The Grand Nudger]

..lol, it was only a matter of time until it turned racist.