4 ms·

> When you understand the reason This right here is the problem. Armed with a small amount of data about information over a population on average gives you ab

> When you understand the reason This right here is the problem. Armed with a small amount of data about information over a population on average gives you absolutely no information about any specific case, and the green-skinned child gets special treatment to bring them up to scratch, where the blue-skinned child gets written off as "she's achieving less well because blue-skinned children do". That's the problem, and that's why people in "polite societies" ignore these studies.

mhuffman 10y ago
You realize there is not a small amount of data regarding racial IQ differences right? It is (was) one of the most studied social science fields before it fell out of fashion. You also seem to want to reduce something to skin-color that has been scientifically identified as more than skin color.
- peteretep 10y ago
  Please could up explain the point you're trying to make? The first sentence suggests that you think my point is lack of evidence is a problem, the second suggests you think my argument relies on one specific factor rather than being generalisable to all.
  - mhuffman 10y ago
    Sure, there are two points: 1) Your point is based on ignoring often repeated and consistent (over decades) science; and 2) I think your argument generalizes something (to skin color) that is very specific (I.Q.) I will go further and say that I think you are being disingenuous about reducing the problems that affect different races to simply skin color.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      1) I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's unimportant for any practical purpose, and the only people who seem to get excited about it are people with an existing axe to grind, which is why it's not generally discussed in the op's "polite" society. 2) The article this conversation is attached to is specifically genetics related.
      - mhuffman 10y ago
        1) It is very important as it has been found to directly relate to educational achievement and later SES. The fact that "polite" society turns a blind eye does not make have less of an impact. 2) Yes, but the comment you were replying to (and made) was not.
wtbob 10y ago
> Armed with a small amount of data about information over a population on average gives you absolutely no information about any specific case That's akin to saying that being armed with all of medical science's knowledge about appendicitis gives one absolutely no information about any specific case. There's a valuable point buried deeply there (every case is different), but the statement itself is just plain wrong. A physician or surgeon must have reasons to treat a specific instance of appendicitis differently than the statistically expected range of instances; a person would have reasons to treat a random green or blue person differently than the statistically expected range of persons. > the green-skinned child gets special treatment to bring them up to scratch, where the blue-skinned child gets written off as "she's achieving less well because blue-skinned children do". Economically speaking, investing resources in bringing green children up to scratch has a higher rate of return than doing the same for blue children. That really does mean that spending resources on the latter is wasting them on average (although certainly not in specific cases, where it really is a good investment). So, do you impoverish the world by wasting resources or do you enrich it by prudently investing them?

mhuffman 10y ago

You realize there is not a small amount of data regarding racial IQ differences right? It is (was) one of the most studied social science fields before it fell out of fashion. You also seem to want to reduce something to skin-color that has been scientifically identified as more than skin color.

peteretep 10y ago
Please could up explain the point you're trying to make? The first sentence suggests that you think my point is lack of evidence is a problem, the second suggests you think my argument relies on one specific factor rather than being generalisable to all.
- mhuffman 10y ago
  Sure, there are two points: 1) Your point is based on ignoring often repeated and consistent (over decades) science; and 2) I think your argument generalizes something (to skin color) that is very specific (I.Q.) I will go further and say that I think you are being disingenuous about reducing the problems that affect different races to simply skin color.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    1) I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's unimportant for any practical purpose, and the only people who seem to get excited about it are people with an existing axe to grind, which is why it's not generally discussed in the op's "polite" society. 2) The article this conversation is attached to is specifically genetics related.
    - mhuffman 10y ago
      1) It is very important as it has been found to directly relate to educational achievement and later SES. The fact that "polite" society turns a blind eye does not make have less of an impact. 2) Yes, but the comment you were replying to (and made) was not.

wtbob 10y ago

> Armed with a small amount of data about information over a population on average gives you absolutely no information about any specific case That's akin to saying that being armed with all of medical science's knowledge about appendicitis gives one absolutely no information about any specific case. There's a valuable point buried deeply there (every case is different), but the statement itself is just plain wrong. A physician or surgeon must have reasons to treat a specific instance of appendicitis differently than the statistically expected range of instances; a person would have reasons to treat a random green or blue person differently than the statistically expected range of persons. > the green-skinned child gets special treatment to bring them up to scratch, where the blue-skinned child gets written off as "she's achieving less well because blue-skinned children do". Economically speaking, investing resources in bringing green children up to scratch has a higher rate of return than doing the same for blue children. That really does mean that spending resources on the latter is wasting them on average (although certainly not in specific cases, where it really is a good investment). So, do you impoverish the world by wasting resources or do you enrich it by prudently investing them?