3 ms·

Not sure why you're so optimistic to be honest. In our world, human population groups evolved in isolation for one hundred thousand years[0]. And at least as m

Not sure why you're so optimistic to be honest. In our world, human population groups evolved in isolation for one hundred thousand years[0]. And at least as measured, the difference between the lowest and highest IQ groups is about 35 points.[1] Men and women are closer in many respects, but it depends on the arena. Men still have double the upper body strength that women do and about seven times the testosterone. When you're talking about anything physical, it's impossible to treat men and women the same (speaking in terms of group outcomes). And even in the psychological realm where there's a lot of overlap in trait distributions - even small differences that produce a 6:4 ratio around the average, as many gender differences do, become absolutely massive at the edge of the bell curve - like 50:1. And the nature of our modern world is that it's at the edge of the curve where the big results are made - the very smartest physicists, the most capable engineers, the most dedicates CEOs are who are driving outcomes. Far from making egalatarianism easy or even, it seems like the way our world is set up makes it simply impossible. It might even be easier if the differences were bigger! They'd be impossible to deny and we'd just learn to cope with that. Right now we're in a weird place where the differences are huge and impactful, but there are just enough individual exceptions and just enough fuzziness to deny that they exist at all. I think we need some ethical framework that can be moral and evenhanded and kind without having to pretend that distinct groups are the same; a morality based on false beliefs about the physical world cannot stand. [0] The last common ancestry between the San people from southern Africa and Eurasians was roughly 100,000 thousand years ago. For Australian Aborigines, it's about 70,000 years. For the larger sub-Saharan African populations, it's about 50,000 years. In contrast, Chihuahuas and Bernese mountain dogs have perhaps 3,000 years of separation. [1] Obviously some of this is environmental, but the scientific consensus seems to be that a good chunk of it probably is not.

Balgair 7y ago
> And at least as measured, the difference between the lowest and highest IQ groups is about 35 points.[1] I may be very confused here, but are you saying that there are genetically separated people that have a 35 pt IQ difference? If that is true, I would love to see the source.
- zarkov99 7y ago
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609001275 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligenc...
- datashow 7y ago
  You can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence Lowest nations are around 70 (can be lower than that). Highest nations are around 100 (can be higher than that).
  - lsiebert 7y ago
    See but we know that things like nutrition, toxins like lead, education, wealth, family structure, infection rates, and other factors that also differ between nations affect intelligence. That's not even getting into Differential item function, the use of IRT vs fixed testing or other statistical and psychometric factors that may impact the measurements. You can't just compare two samples without controlling for confounding differences. Science can't even fully explain the Flynn effect, in which industrial nationals have had IQs going up 3 points per decade on average within the country, and people are trying to use IQ to talk about differences between sample populations.
    - datashow 7y ago
      You can always compare two samples without controlling for confounding differences. However, you need to controlling for confounding differences when you want to explain the differences. When we say there is a difference in IQ between two groups, we are not saying the difference is genetic. The raw difference in IQ does have a meaning by itself. I do agree with you that there are questions regarding to measurement issues and confounding issues. But it is hard to believe all the group differences can be explained away by solving these issues.
      - 7y ago
CuriouslyC 7y ago
One problem here is that you brought up IQ, which is a garbage metric. Different populations have adapted to different environments. Maybe some groups are better at certain types of mental activities such as rotating a 2 dimensional image in their head, but the groups that are worse at those tasks are better at other things that you're just not measuring. Humans intelligence is many dimensional, and IQ is a one dimensional quality that is biased to certain facets of intelligence. As for your end of the bell curve comment, COMPENSATION might push to 50:1 at the ends of the bell curve as people get into bidding wars for the top tier talent, but the actual spread of ability is the same at the tails as it is near the mean.
- vixen99 7y ago
  No, it's not a garbage metric. The idea is popular with those who don't know the literature. Christopher Hitchens wrote 'there is an unusually high and consistent correlation between the stupidity of a given person and their propensity to be impressed by the measurement of IQ'. In this case, a wonderful putdown by and for people who don't know any better and certainly not the scientific literature. Check out the studies in polygenic analysis that's showing how cognitive ability, personality and health rely on common genetic pathways. There are overwhelming correlations between intelligence and real life measures. https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/47823/strenze_tarmo.pdf https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/47823/strenze_ta... https://archive.ph/PCvgk https://archive.ph/PCvgk https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/11/10/031138 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/11/10/031138
  - CuriouslyC 7y ago
    IQ measures very specific things, in a very specific way which is biased towards people who made the test. It doesn't measure overall capability, and it's quite easy to teach people to take the test, resulting in 15-20 point increases in score after a few months of practice. Usually, it's racist elitist assholes who hold IQ up as this important measure, mostly because malnourished people from different cultures who aren't white don't tend to do as well, thus confirming their cherished desire for aryan superiority. Try surviving in the Australian outback and tell me how stupid aborigines are...

Balgair 7y ago

> And at least as measured, the difference between the lowest and highest IQ groups is about 35 points.[1] I may be very confused here, but are you saying that there are genetically separated people that have a 35 pt IQ difference? If that is true, I would love to see the source.

zarkov99 7y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609001275 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligenc...
datashow 7y ago
You can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence Lowest nations are around 70 (can be lower than that). Highest nations are around 100 (can be higher than that).
- lsiebert 7y ago
  See but we know that things like nutrition, toxins like lead, education, wealth, family structure, infection rates, and other factors that also differ between nations affect intelligence. That's not even getting into Differential item function, the use of IRT vs fixed testing or other statistical and psychometric factors that may impact the measurements. You can't just compare two samples without controlling for confounding differences. Science can't even fully explain the Flynn effect, in which industrial nationals have had IQs going up 3 points per decade on average within the country, and people are trying to use IQ to talk about differences between sample populations.
  - datashow 7y ago
    You can always compare two samples without controlling for confounding differences. However, you need to controlling for confounding differences when you want to explain the differences. When we say there is a difference in IQ between two groups, we are not saying the difference is genetic. The raw difference in IQ does have a meaning by itself. I do agree with you that there are questions regarding to measurement issues and confounding issues. But it is hard to believe all the group differences can be explained away by solving these issues.
    - 7y ago

CuriouslyC 7y ago

One problem here is that you brought up IQ, which is a garbage metric. Different populations have adapted to different environments. Maybe some groups are better at certain types of mental activities such as rotating a 2 dimensional image in their head, but the groups that are worse at those tasks are better at other things that you're just not measuring. Humans intelligence is many dimensional, and IQ is a one dimensional quality that is biased to certain facets of intelligence. As for your end of the bell curve comment, COMPENSATION might push to 50:1 at the ends of the bell curve as people get into bidding wars for the top tier talent, but the actual spread of ability is the same at the tails as it is near the mean.

vixen99 7y ago
No, it's not a garbage metric. The idea is popular with those who don't know the literature. Christopher Hitchens wrote 'there is an unusually high and consistent correlation between the stupidity of a given person and their propensity to be impressed by the measurement of IQ'. In this case, a wonderful putdown by and for people who don't know any better and certainly not the scientific literature. Check out the studies in polygenic analysis that's showing how cognitive ability, personality and health rely on common genetic pathways. There are overwhelming correlations between intelligence and real life measures. https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/47823/strenze_tarmo.pdf https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/47823/strenze_ta... https://archive.ph/PCvgk https://archive.ph/PCvgk https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/11/10/031138 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/11/10/031138
- CuriouslyC 7y ago
  IQ measures very specific things, in a very specific way which is biased towards people who made the test. It doesn't measure overall capability, and it's quite easy to teach people to take the test, resulting in 15-20 point increases in score after a few months of practice. Usually, it's racist elitist assholes who hold IQ up as this important measure, mostly because malnourished people from different cultures who aren't white don't tend to do as well, thus confirming their cherished desire for aryan superiority. Try surviving in the Australian outback and tell me how stupid aborigines are...