6 ms·

> No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified ass

by rfdbsd 7y ago

> No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified assumption. Why should I assume you're correct by default? Until you actually provide any plausible reason why I should take it seriously, your claim is invalid. The impetus is on _you_.

frogger23127 7y ago
Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality Of course there's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" toward this research, but those aren't valid refutations.
frogger23128 7y ago
Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments.
- rfdbsd 7y ago
  You clearly didn't even read these wikipedia pages. Although they are about two different publications (one from 2002 and the other from 2006), each book is basically the exact same, and the latter presents the exact same flimsy evidence as the former. Also, from the contents of these very same wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Recep... > Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that "we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified." They also wrote that cross country comparisons are "virtually meaningless."[4] > Richardson (2004) argued, citing the Flynn effect as the best evidence, that Lynn has the causal connection backwards and suggested that "the average IQ of a population is simply an index of the size of its middle class, both of which are results of industrial development". The review concludes that "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade."[3] > In a book review for the Journal of Economic Literature, Thomas Nechyba wrote that "such sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."[6] > The methods of the study were criticized by Richard E. Nisbett for relying on small and haphazard samples and for ignoring data that did not support the conclusions.[10] > University of Reading geographer Stephen Morse also criticized the book (as well as IQ and the Wealth of Nations), arguing that the authors' hypothesis rests on "serious flaws". Morse also argued: "The central dilemma of the Lynn and Vanhanen case rests with their assumption that national IQ data are primarily (not wholly) a function of innate ability, which in turn is at least partly generated by genes. There are many assumptions of cause–effect in here, and some of them involve substantial leaps of faith."[11] > Evolutionary biologist Satoshi Kanazawa claimed in 2008 to have found support for Lynn's theories.[10] Kanazawa's study has been criticized for using the Pythagorean theorem to estimate geographic distance, despite the fact that this theorem only applies to flat surfaces and the Earth's surface is roughly spherical. Other problems identified in this study include that Kanazawa incorrectly assumed that individuals migrated from Africa to other continents migrated as the crow flies, and ignored that geographic distance and evolutionary novelty do not always correspond to each other.[11] > Earl Hunt cited Lynn and Vanhanen's work as an example of scientists going far beyond the empirical support to make controversial policy recommendations, and as such as examples of irresponsible uses of science. Hunt argues that in their argumentation they both made the basic mistake of assigning causality to a correlation without evidence, and that they made "staggeringly low" estimates of Sub-Saharan African IQs based on highly problematic data. He considers that by their negligence of observing good scientific practice Lynn and Vanhanen are not living up to the basic responsibility of scientists to make sure that their results can function as reasonable empirical support for policy decisions.[19] > There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments. This is simply not true. I'm arguing that your claim is not based on solid rational foundations. You are the one throwing around irrational accusations, not me.
  - frogger23128 7y ago
    I am well aware that some people dispute it, but the fact is that IQ scores are consistently lower for some races. Similar studies have been done and always reach the same conclusions. You can easily replicate this result yourself. No one has been able to refute the basic data. The differences are self evident when comparing places such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. Also observe that the Jews are extremely over represented in the list of Nobel Prize winners. Your emotions make you blind to this obvious reality. Isaac Newton, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wernher von Braun; where are their Africans peers?
  - frogger23129 7y ago
    I am aware that some people dispute it, but the fact is that IQ scores are consistently lower for some races. Similar studies have been done and always reach the same conclusions. No one has been able to refute the raw data and it is easily replicated. The differences are self evident when comparing cities such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. Also observe that the Jews are extremely over represented in the list of Nobel Prize winners. Isaac Newton, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wernher von Braun; where are their African or Papua New Guinea peers? EDIT: Having lower IQ doesn't make anyone less human, so this is no justification for actual hateful racism. Nature is a blind process. Some populations have selected higher IQ and they have a powerful advantage, whether we like it or not.
    - modo_mario 7y ago
      > The differences are self evident when comparing cities such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. And nobody denies it. Yet plenty would ask to what extent and how has nutrition, education (notably during development), and other environmental factors have been factored in trying to draw conclusions from that. India for example tends to score lower and that despite no lack of genetic intermingling with surrounding areas yet should anyone trying to find a cause not consider for example iodine deficiency which is more common there?
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      See this recent submission/discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253289 ”Superior IQs associated with mental and physical disorders, research suggests” That rings true with observations I've made of high-IQ types, myself possibly included - I've generally done well on intelligence tests and with some types of intellectual endeavours, but that hasn't translated to life success, and I've suffered a lot of physiological (including neurological) illness. I've observed this pattern in plenty of others.

by rfdbsd 7y ago

frogger23127 7y ago

Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality Of course there's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" toward this research, but those aren't valid refutations.

frogger23128 7y ago

Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments.

rfdbsd 7y ago
You clearly didn't even read these wikipedia pages. Although they are about two different publications (one from 2002 and the other from 2006), each book is basically the exact same, and the latter presents the exact same flimsy evidence as the former. Also, from the contents of these very same wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Recep... > Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that "we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified." They also wrote that cross country comparisons are "virtually meaningless."[4] > Richardson (2004) argued, citing the Flynn effect as the best evidence, that Lynn has the causal connection backwards and suggested that "the average IQ of a population is simply an index of the size of its middle class, both of which are results of industrial development". The review concludes that "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade."[3] > In a book review for the Journal of Economic Literature, Thomas Nechyba wrote that "such sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."[6] > The methods of the study were criticized by Richard E. Nisbett for relying on small and haphazard samples and for ignoring data that did not support the conclusions.[10] > University of Reading geographer Stephen Morse also criticized the book (as well as IQ and the Wealth of Nations), arguing that the authors' hypothesis rests on "serious flaws". Morse also argued: "The central dilemma of the Lynn and Vanhanen case rests with their assumption that national IQ data are primarily (not wholly) a function of innate ability, which in turn is at least partly generated by genes. There are many assumptions of cause–effect in here, and some of them involve substantial leaps of faith."[11] > Evolutionary biologist Satoshi Kanazawa claimed in 2008 to have found support for Lynn's theories.[10] Kanazawa's study has been criticized for using the Pythagorean theorem to estimate geographic distance, despite the fact that this theorem only applies to flat surfaces and the Earth's surface is roughly spherical. Other problems identified in this study include that Kanazawa incorrectly assumed that individuals migrated from Africa to other continents migrated as the crow flies, and ignored that geographic distance and evolutionary novelty do not always correspond to each other.[11] > Earl Hunt cited Lynn and Vanhanen's work as an example of scientists going far beyond the empirical support to make controversial policy recommendations, and as such as examples of irresponsible uses of science. Hunt argues that in their argumentation they both made the basic mistake of assigning causality to a correlation without evidence, and that they made "staggeringly low" estimates of Sub-Saharan African IQs based on highly problematic data. He considers that by their negligence of observing good scientific practice Lynn and Vanhanen are not living up to the basic responsibility of scientists to make sure that their results can function as reasonable empirical support for policy decisions.[19] > There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments. This is simply not true. I'm arguing that your claim is not based on solid rational foundations. You are the one throwing around irrational accusations, not me.
- frogger23128 7y ago
  I am well aware that some people dispute it, but the fact is that IQ scores are consistently lower for some races. Similar studies have been done and always reach the same conclusions. You can easily replicate this result yourself. No one has been able to refute the basic data. The differences are self evident when comparing places such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. Also observe that the Jews are extremely over represented in the list of Nobel Prize winners. Your emotions make you blind to this obvious reality. Isaac Newton, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wernher von Braun; where are their Africans peers?
- frogger23129 7y ago
  I am aware that some people dispute it, but the fact is that IQ scores are consistently lower for some races. Similar studies have been done and always reach the same conclusions. No one has been able to refute the raw data and it is easily replicated. The differences are self evident when comparing cities such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. Also observe that the Jews are extremely over represented in the list of Nobel Prize winners. Isaac Newton, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wernher von Braun; where are their African or Papua New Guinea peers? EDIT: Having lower IQ doesn't make anyone less human, so this is no justification for actual hateful racism. Nature is a blind process. Some populations have selected higher IQ and they have a powerful advantage, whether we like it or not.
  - modo_mario 7y ago
    > The differences are self evident when comparing cities such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. And nobody denies it. Yet plenty would ask to what extent and how has nutrition, education (notably during development), and other environmental factors have been factored in trying to draw conclusions from that. India for example tends to score lower and that despite no lack of genetic intermingling with surrounding areas yet should anyone trying to find a cause not consider for example iodine deficiency which is more common there?
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    See this recent submission/discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253289 ”Superior IQs associated with mental and physical disorders, research suggests” That rings true with observations I've made of high-IQ types, myself possibly included - I've generally done well on intelligence tests and with some types of intellectual endeavours, but that hasn't translated to life success, and I've suffered a lot of physiological (including neurological) illness. I've observed this pattern in plenty of others.