4 ms·

It's an empirical matter, but my hunch is that most of the people who focus on correlations between intelligence and ethnic groups or phenotypical perceived "ra

It's an empirical matter, but my hunch is that most of the people who focus on correlations between intelligence and ethnic groups or phenotypical perceived "race" are racists. Many people aren't aware that you can be a racist without knowing it. (In a broader sense we're all racists, as practically everybody overgeneralizes based on stereotypes.) It's important to stress that the differences between members of the perceived groups ("ethnicities", "country of origin", "mother tongue", "a certain look") are much larger within that group than any measurable differences between averages of those groups. That is not to say that some research in these areas cannot make sense for e.g. policy making. For example, people who have suffered severe malnutrition in their childhood can have lower IQ on average, and the same is the case for many other environmental and social factors, of course. The reason why people like to focus on intelligence is that unlike other human characteristics like strength, intelligence is almost universally used as a kind of honorific. If you tell someone that he or she is intelligent, this will make them proud. If you tell someone he or she is not very intelligent, this will be taken as a grave insult. Additionally, everybody overestimates his own intelligence. All of this is kind of ironic, because intelligence is highly overrated. Intelligence doesn't count much, it's what you make of it. Moreover, whether you like it or not, society does not have a need for more highly intelligent people. There are not enough jobs for them. Last but not least, people who think of themselves as being very intelligent usually haven't tried to solve hard enough problems.

4bpp 9y ago
There is a lot I am tempted to call out in this post, but just for a particularly glaring example, > It's important to stress that the differences between members of the perceived groups ("ethnicities", "country of origin", "mother tongue", "a certain look") are much larger within that group than any measurable differences between averages of those groups. Surely the differences in income, the binary variable of being-in-STEM, recruiter favourability shown towards CVs etc. between members of the perceived groups ("skin colour", "gender", "mother tongue", ...) are much larger within that group than any measurable differences between averages of those groups too. Does that mean you are arguing that the gender pay gap, representation in STEM fields and unfair hiring practices are all irrelevant? (For what it's worth, there's only a few examples where differences between groups actually dwarf differences within groups, all of which seem very famous, e.g. grip strength vs. gender.)
- jonathanstrange 9y ago
  No, I didn't, as I made very clear in the post. (keyword: "policy making") I also hope that you don't believe that intelligence and salary are in any way on a par. Intelligence is at least partly genetically inherited (notwithstanding other factors). Salary is not. To make your analogy correct, consider someone who claims that women are less intelligent than men. That person is most likely a sexist, even though I do not deny that from time to time there may be people who actually believe to have data to back up the claim. Even if there is data, the comparison makes almost no sense except for certain cases of policy making, since the variation of intelligence amongst the group of women and man is so much higher than the difference between the averages of the groups.
  - mr_overalls 9y ago
    > Intelligence is at least partly genetically inherited (notwithstanding other factors). Salary is not. Studies show that salary is, in fact, quite heritable. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases/2015/07/23/parental-income-has-outsized-influence-on-childrens-economic-future http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases/2...
lopmotr 9y ago
You seem to be defining racism as being interested in differences between races. I don't think that's a common definition. Personally, I'm interested in it because there are so many people interested in blaming one race for the problems of another or in assuming that a large group of people of one race will behave the same as another in the same situation. People wonder why African countries are so poor and look everywhere for possible reasons except at the people themselves. People think the Chinese "should have" a religion because they're quite rude and inconsiderate but don't consider that they might be so genetically different that they don't need or can't sustain the fantasy of a religion the way white people can. I just made up that last one, but I'm certainly open to its possibility.
- jonathanstrange 9y ago
  The point is that there are no races in the sense people talk about them colloquially. Phenotypical 'race' doesn't match genetic makeup well enough to serve as a reliable indicator of anything. Nationalities like Chinese have even less to do with genetic makeup, and Africa is a whole continent, so talking about African countries as a whole is pretty much nonsense unless you're referring to their geographical location on the same continent.
  - lopmotr 9y ago
    There really are lots of strong correlations between race and measurable qualities. That alone means it's a real concept - it has predictive power. Simple examples are hair color and eye coolor.

4bpp 9y ago

There is a lot I am tempted to call out in this post, but just for a particularly glaring example, > It's important to stress that the differences between members of the perceived groups ("ethnicities", "country of origin", "mother tongue", "a certain look") are much larger within that group than any measurable differences between averages of those groups. Surely the differences in income, the binary variable of being-in-STEM, recruiter favourability shown towards CVs etc. between members of the perceived groups ("skin colour", "gender", "mother tongue", ...) are much larger within that group than any measurable differences between averages of those groups too. Does that mean you are arguing that the gender pay gap, representation in STEM fields and unfair hiring practices are all irrelevant? (For what it's worth, there's only a few examples where differences between groups actually dwarf differences within groups, all of which seem very famous, e.g. grip strength vs. gender.)

jonathanstrange 9y ago
No, I didn't, as I made very clear in the post. (keyword: "policy making") I also hope that you don't believe that intelligence and salary are in any way on a par. Intelligence is at least partly genetically inherited (notwithstanding other factors). Salary is not. To make your analogy correct, consider someone who claims that women are less intelligent than men. That person is most likely a sexist, even though I do not deny that from time to time there may be people who actually believe to have data to back up the claim. Even if there is data, the comparison makes almost no sense except for certain cases of policy making, since the variation of intelligence amongst the group of women and man is so much higher than the difference between the averages of the groups.
- mr_overalls 9y ago
  > Intelligence is at least partly genetically inherited (notwithstanding other factors). Salary is not. Studies show that salary is, in fact, quite heritable. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases/2015/07/23/parental-income-has-outsized-influence-on-childrens-economic-future http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases/2...

lopmotr 9y ago

You seem to be defining racism as being interested in differences between races. I don't think that's a common definition. Personally, I'm interested in it because there are so many people interested in blaming one race for the problems of another or in assuming that a large group of people of one race will behave the same as another in the same situation. People wonder why African countries are so poor and look everywhere for possible reasons except at the people themselves. People think the Chinese "should have" a religion because they're quite rude and inconsiderate but don't consider that they might be so genetically different that they don't need or can't sustain the fantasy of a religion the way white people can. I just made up that last one, but I'm certainly open to its possibility.

jonathanstrange 9y ago
The point is that there are no races in the sense people talk about them colloquially. Phenotypical 'race' doesn't match genetic makeup well enough to serve as a reliable indicator of anything. Nationalities like Chinese have even less to do with genetic makeup, and Africa is a whole continent, so talking about African countries as a whole is pretty much nonsense unless you're referring to their geographical location on the same continent.
- lopmotr 9y ago
  There really are lots of strong correlations between race and measurable qualities. That alone means it's a real concept - it has predictive power. Simple examples are hair color and eye coolor.