Race and IQs

[Anomalocaris]

Just so people know, my IQ is 500,008

Over 1,000,000.

---

Just so people know, my IQ is 500,008

I have the low, low I.Q. of 140.

In Celsius or kelvin?

[Tiberius]

For what it’s worth, this Wikipedia article has some useful information on IQ disparity between races: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

[Alexmahone]

Dr Philippe Rushton says that race is more than skin deep. You can tell a person's race even from their bone or DNA. That proves that race is a meaningful concept, not just a social construct.

That doesn’t answer my question.

It is possible to say the Pacific Ocean and Indian oceans are different, but where you chose to demarcate one from the other can still greatly effect their average traits.

I can only imagine that you're inquiring about how mixed races are classified. My guess is that it'd be best to handle them separately.

[CapnAwesome]

For what it’s worth, this Wikipedia article has some useful information on IQ disparity between races: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

I don't know how people can think that a test derived in 1917 is not going to have racial bias. Especially when they changed the first version of the test when women scored higher than men to even up the scored. Just shows how easily manipulated they are.

I can't fathom why we'd use tests designed in 1950 even, much less 1917.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yup.  To prove the assertion "there is a difference in IQ between races" correct, they would have to prove the null hypothesis "there is no difference in IQ between races" false.

And if someone wanted to prove the assertion "there is no difference in IQ between races" correct, they would have to prove the null hypothesis "there IS a difference in IQ between races" false.

With either claim, you (whoever is trying to prove one or the other) does the legwork, gathers the data, calculates all the statistics, etc.

And Jorm is correct - just because someone fails to disprove the null hypothesis doesn't mean the null hypothesis is necessarily true.  It just means that their efforts have not yet disproved the null hypothesis.  Like if some theist is unable to prove that god exists, that doesn't support the assertion that god does NOT exist, it just means that we lack proof for the existence of a god.  Or, just because I cannot disprove the null hypothesis of a number of gumballs in a jar being even, doesn't mean that the number of gumballs is actually even - we just can't prove that it's odd, right now, with the available evidence/methods.

If you could humor me or if you're bored.    So can I summarize what you said as the following:

Null Hypothesis A= "There is no god"  They do a test to find a god and don't find anything so the null hypothesis is not disproved yet there could still be a god.

Null Hypothesis B = "There is a god"  (so what test do we do here?  Exactly the same as A?) we don't find a god and disprove the null.

My thinking was that in either scenario above I'll never have evidence that there is no god, I'll just continually have no evidence there is one.  And I'll never have evidence there is no relationship between IQ and race, I'll just continually have no evidence there is one.

Sorry, just got out of a meeting.

You're half right with the above.

If I'm trying to prove "There is a god," i have to prove that the statement "there is no god" is incorrect.  I do my tests (what those tests are, who knows.  leave that up to the theists).  If I don't end up with sufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis, then I have not confirmed my hypothesis.  But failing to disprove something is not the same as proving its opposite - so just because i can't prove a god exists at this moment with current methods, does NOT prove that "There is no god" is correct.

If I'm trying to prove "there is no god", i have to prove that the statement "there is a god" is incorrect.  Again, I have no idea how anyone would test this.  I would most likely end up with insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis, and would not be able to prove that "there is a god" is incorrect.  But the same thing applies - just because I cannot prove there is no god doesn't mean that a god in fact exists.

I'll never have evidence that there is no god, I'll just continually have no evidence there is one

That's exactly right.  That's what atheism is.  You don't need to prove the opposite in order to reject a proposition.

Additionally, as Anmo mentioned there are statistics and probabilities involved in scientific claims that are hairy enough already - but throwing in supernatural claims and unfalsifiable assertions and magic and shit just makes it a million times worse.

[Pat Mustard]

Just so people know, my IQ is 500,008

That's actually surpisingly low, given your posting history. Mine's currently ∞, and it's only that because I'm currently drunk.

---

---

[paulpablo]

Just so people know, my IQ is 500,008

I have the low, low I.Q. of 140.

Where did you get tested?

[Anomalocaris]

That doesn’t answer my question.

It is possible to say the Pacific Ocean and Indian oceans are different, but where you chose to demarcate one from the other can still greatly effect their average traits.

I can only imagine that you're inquiring about how mixed races are classified. My guess is that it'd be best to handle them separately.

No. There is no sharp boundary between so called races. races grade into eachother gradually.

---

Just so people know, my IQ is 500,008

That's actually surpisingly low, given your posting history.  Mine's currently ∞, and it's only that because I'm currently drunk.

---

---

The ∞ being in the denominator.

[Silver]

I have the low, low I.Q. of 140.

Where did you get tested?

It was through the school. To be honest, though, I don't place much importance on I.Q.

[Huggy Bear]

I personally feel that it is worthwhile considering the bias of the researchers but it only serves as a hint as to what they are deliberately ignoring if they are  clearly biased. The bias is not itself reason to dismiss the evidence and I think that was Jor's point. Science works by providing evidence. And if you suspect that a study is biased then you have good reason to look for and expect to find counter-evidence to refute it.

Actually, I was defending myself against CapnAwesome's counterpoint, and put my mouth in motion before putting my brain in gear.  I do however hold to my second point that Huggy is effectively trying to kill the message -- meaning the hypothesis that there are inherent differences -- by shooting the messenger -- the advocates and research of those supporting the hypothesis.  If I had not been kneejerk reacting to CapnAwesome's challenge, that would have been the point I should have made.  That being said, I still hold to that second point.  As a matter of logic, refuting the evidence for A is not evidence for its opposite B.  That is a classic argument from ignorance, and unless B is independently supported, we have no reason to conclude B based upon the refutation of a particular argument or piece of evidence for A.  Tuskegee airmen and the intelligence of African immigrants doesn't do it for me.  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?

*emphasis mine*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

The null hypothesis and the alternate hypothesis are types of conjectures used in statistical tests, which are formal methods of reaching conclusions or making decisions on the basis of data. The hypotheses are conjectures about a statistical model of the population, which are based on a sample of the population. The tests are core elements of statistical inference, heavily used in the interpretation of scientific experimental data, to separate scientific claims from statistical noise.

"The statement being tested in a test of statistical significance is called the null hypothesis. The test of significance is designed to assess the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis. Usually, the null hypothesis is a statement of 'no effect' or 'no difference'." It is often symbolized as H0.

The statement that is being tested against the null hypothesis is the alternative hypothesis. Symbols include H1 and Ha.

Statistical significance test: "Very roughly, the procedure for deciding goes like this: Take a random sample from the population. If the sample data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then do not reject the null hypothesis; if the sample data are inconsistent with the null hypothesis, then reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the alternative hypothesis is true."

Do you possess some information that gives you reason to believe there are inherent differences in races intellectually?