4 ms·

Obviously they should teach it the deep and complex history of institutionalized racism through, slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, red lining, and the pris

Obviously they should teach it the deep and complex history of institutionalized racism through, slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, red lining, and the prison industrial complex that has led to a massive wealth and education gap. But low key that would also scare the average middle class American too hard, so probably better off to just do intense internal censors to avoid difficult thoughts

lzaaz 4y ago
How does that correlate with an average, current IQ of 85?
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  Damn. You aren't really supposed to say the quiet part out loud fam, I feel like "race realism" is pretty frowned upon in almost every social setting outside of very smelly people... Obviously having generations of people put into bad schools and not be provided opportunities to have "good jobs" will lead to you not being able to take an IQ test well. IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Like, any gray haired black person in America will remember having actual Jim Crow laws persecute them and it was literally legal to discriminate people for housing in America until 1977. It will take a massive amount of time to heal those social wounds that were inflicted on our fellow humans.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomp 4y ago
    > IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Actually IQ is highly genetic, and the amount it’s inherited actually goes up as one ages (meaning that while education and upbringing can influence IQ temporarily, genetics eventually dominates). Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
    - runarberg 4y ago
      If you do this kind of research on a population where education has been less and less exclusive over the generations then surely you will find out that a score the correlates highly with education will correlate more among family members among your older population (where education was only available to richer families) then the younger (where education is accessible to the broader public). This trend should persist as long as the quality of education remains unevenly distributed. You should also find very little to no heritability before or at the start of formal education (say age 10 and younger), and then heritability should increase as the discrepancies in the quality of education between families materialize. To summarize this effect (called Wilson Effect) says nothing about how “genetic” IQ is, only that it correlates with the quality of education and that quality of education is not evenly distributed between families. PS. As a manifestation on how insignificant this effect is in the scientific literature, Wilson Effect doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, referring you to [the Heritability of IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) which references a paper about this effect only once in the beginning summary.
      - tomp 4y ago
        Read the paper I linked to. The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Therefore, the strongest evidence for heritability of IQ (and the fact that it increases with age) comes from twin studies, where twins were separated at birth (by adoption).
        runarberg 4y ago
        From your source: > Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood independent of dementia (Panizzon et al., 2014); other results suggest a decline to about 60% after age 80 (Lee, Henry, Trollor, & Sachdev, 2010), but another study suggests no change in later life (McGue & Christensen, 2013). Your source is actually just partially about the Wilson effect, it only spends a handful of paragraphs about it as it enumerates it among the “top 10 Findings From Behavioral Genetics”. The pivotal study is actually a meta-analysis —or rather a summary of studies—from 2013[1]. Read it if you want to be more convinced of this pseudo-science. In the 10 years since the publication of this pivotal study, this Wilson effect has gone nowhere. Not even a wikipedia page to show for it. > The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Don’t be so sure. Twin studies on intelligence are reeked with bad science and malicious data manipulation. A lot of the researchers conducting these studies in the 70s and 80s were eugenicists doing scientific racism. Some even went so far as to forcefully separate twins into convenient families so they could be “studied” (See Peter B. Neubauer). The method of twin studies was actually proposed by non-other then Francis Galton (which should settle all discussion on the link to the eugenicist movement), and now century and a half later, we are still not convinced on the merits of this method. Given this history, I don’t think it is smart to take any results from twin and adaption studies seriously. Some researchers don’t want to go that far, so if they actually look more broadly they conclude that these effects go away if you include people adopted into lower income families. James Flynn (of the Flynn-effect) actually argues for a Family effect on intelligence[2] as a result. But—as I say—I think Flynn is giving twin studies weight that shouldn’t be given, and would claim that results are inconclusive. I actually want to go further and say not only that results are inconclusive, but they are irrelevant. Like I said, this is all pseudo-science. IQ is no different from SAT in that it is a metric whose only value is it’s score. It provides no insight into what we call intelligence, only some skills that people have acquired. Finding out how much better you can become at this skill by merits of your genes is a weird question that ultimately proves nothing. 1: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu... 2: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=Imps9j0XKp&sig=uz-uxLrhdw_EOLrW28xCDQc9daU https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=...
nverno 4y ago
Or, just remind people that these race-based arguments are generally pushed by people using motivated reasoning. Skin-deep statistics obscure seeing true causal factors. I'm not sure anything would be more beneficial to humans, socially, than the death of race.
- runarberg 4y ago
  There is a case to be said about factor analysis (which IQ is based on) is the AI of the 20th century. It was the most powerful statistical tool of the time (just like deep learning is today), needed a lot of data, increasing the data increased the accuracy, and if you used biased data, you got biased outcome. There is one big difference though, you kind of have to be targeted in your bias if your using factor analysis, while AI the bias reflects society. This is because you can effectively train your AI with terabytes of data, but with factor analysis, if you do that the biased results you wanted, will probably become statistically insignificant. This leads me to believe that the scientific racism behind intelligence testing was quite deep. And the people behind this pseudo-science were as intent in making their racist “discoveries” as the people behind ChatGPT are in making sure their model doesn’t reflect racist views.
  - nverno 4y ago
    > There is one big difference though, you kind of have to be targeted in your bias if your using factor analysis, while AI the bias reflects society Good point. I agree, factor analysis is a great tool, but can easily end up showing what the researcher is looking for instead of deeper truths. The problem being, often the factors used aren't causal factors but just correlated, which often seems to be the case for race-based stuff (from the little I've looked at). > And the people behind this pseudo-science I think it's probably pseudo-science to the extent that most social science is pseudo-science, in that the results may be based on scientific methodology, but are only useful in the context of whatever social theory they've made up.
TheHappyOddish 4y ago
Yes, train it on American history and American ways of dealing with problems. That should scale out nicely to the world who use it.

lzaaz 4y ago

How does that correlate with an average, current IQ of 85?

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
Damn. You aren't really supposed to say the quiet part out loud fam, I feel like "race realism" is pretty frowned upon in almost every social setting outside of very smelly people... Obviously having generations of people put into bad schools and not be provided opportunities to have "good jobs" will lead to you not being able to take an IQ test well. IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Like, any gray haired black person in America will remember having actual Jim Crow laws persecute them and it was literally legal to discriminate people for housing in America until 1977. It will take a massive amount of time to heal those social wounds that were inflicted on our fellow humans.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tomp 4y ago
  > IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Actually IQ is highly genetic, and the amount it’s inherited actually goes up as one ages (meaning that while education and upbringing can influence IQ temporarily, genetics eventually dominates). Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
  - runarberg 4y ago
    If you do this kind of research on a population where education has been less and less exclusive over the generations then surely you will find out that a score the correlates highly with education will correlate more among family members among your older population (where education was only available to richer families) then the younger (where education is accessible to the broader public). This trend should persist as long as the quality of education remains unevenly distributed. You should also find very little to no heritability before or at the start of formal education (say age 10 and younger), and then heritability should increase as the discrepancies in the quality of education between families materialize. To summarize this effect (called Wilson Effect) says nothing about how “genetic” IQ is, only that it correlates with the quality of education and that quality of education is not evenly distributed between families. PS. As a manifestation on how insignificant this effect is in the scientific literature, Wilson Effect doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, referring you to [the Heritability of IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) which references a paper about this effect only once in the beginning summary.
    - tomp 4y ago
      Read the paper I linked to. The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Therefore, the strongest evidence for heritability of IQ (and the fact that it increases with age) comes from twin studies, where twins were separated at birth (by adoption).
      - runarberg 4y ago
        From your source: > Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood independent of dementia (Panizzon et al., 2014); other results suggest a decline to about 60% after age 80 (Lee, Henry, Trollor, & Sachdev, 2010), but another study suggests no change in later life (McGue & Christensen, 2013). Your source is actually just partially about the Wilson effect, it only spends a handful of paragraphs about it as it enumerates it among the “top 10 Findings From Behavioral Genetics”. The pivotal study is actually a meta-analysis —or rather a summary of studies—from 2013[1]. Read it if you want to be more convinced of this pseudo-science. In the 10 years since the publication of this pivotal study, this Wilson effect has gone nowhere. Not even a wikipedia page to show for it. > The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Don’t be so sure. Twin studies on intelligence are reeked with bad science and malicious data manipulation. A lot of the researchers conducting these studies in the 70s and 80s were eugenicists doing scientific racism. Some even went so far as to forcefully separate twins into convenient families so they could be “studied” (See Peter B. Neubauer). The method of twin studies was actually proposed by non-other then Francis Galton (which should settle all discussion on the link to the eugenicist movement), and now century and a half later, we are still not convinced on the merits of this method. Given this history, I don’t think it is smart to take any results from twin and adaption studies seriously. Some researchers don’t want to go that far, so if they actually look more broadly they conclude that these effects go away if you include people adopted into lower income families. James Flynn (of the Flynn-effect) actually argues for a Family effect on intelligence[2] as a result. But—as I say—I think Flynn is giving twin studies weight that shouldn’t be given, and would claim that results are inconclusive. I actually want to go further and say not only that results are inconclusive, but they are irrelevant. Like I said, this is all pseudo-science. IQ is no different from SAT in that it is a metric whose only value is it’s score. It provides no insight into what we call intelligence, only some skills that people have acquired. Finding out how much better you can become at this skill by merits of your genes is a weird question that ultimately proves nothing. 1: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu... 2: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=Imps9j0XKp&sig=uz-uxLrhdw_EOLrW28xCDQc9daU https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=...

nverno 4y ago

Or, just remind people that these race-based arguments are generally pushed by people using motivated reasoning. Skin-deep statistics obscure seeing true causal factors. I'm not sure anything would be more beneficial to humans, socially, than the death of race.

runarberg 4y ago
There is a case to be said about factor analysis (which IQ is based on) is the AI of the 20th century. It was the most powerful statistical tool of the time (just like deep learning is today), needed a lot of data, increasing the data increased the accuracy, and if you used biased data, you got biased outcome. There is one big difference though, you kind of have to be targeted in your bias if your using factor analysis, while AI the bias reflects society. This is because you can effectively train your AI with terabytes of data, but with factor analysis, if you do that the biased results you wanted, will probably become statistically insignificant. This leads me to believe that the scientific racism behind intelligence testing was quite deep. And the people behind this pseudo-science were as intent in making their racist “discoveries” as the people behind ChatGPT are in making sure their model doesn’t reflect racist views.
- nverno 4y ago
  > There is one big difference though, you kind of have to be targeted in your bias if your using factor analysis, while AI the bias reflects society Good point. I agree, factor analysis is a great tool, but can easily end up showing what the researcher is looking for instead of deeper truths. The problem being, often the factors used aren't causal factors but just correlated, which often seems to be the case for race-based stuff (from the little I've looked at). > And the people behind this pseudo-science I think it's probably pseudo-science to the extent that most social science is pseudo-science, in that the results may be based on scientific methodology, but are only useful in the context of whatever social theory they've made up.

TheHappyOddish 4y ago

Yes, train it on American history and American ways of dealing with problems. That should scale out nicely to the world who use it.