3 ms·

I appreciate that I think you've acknowledged that genetic factors play a role in mental abilities. Debating the question of whether there's a single factor at

by sfblah 4y ago

I appreciate that I think you've acknowledged that genetic factors play a role in mental abilities. Debating the question of whether there's a single factor at play or multiple factors is a reasonable thing to do. Regardless of the truth there, it's pretty clear the factor or factors show significant overlap, as skill in one area of mental ability tends to predict skill in other abilities. As for your argument about IQ studies going nowhere, you're not arguing in good faith. IQ research is a third rail because it's been tied by the left to eugenics and racism. This is the same reason colleges are (at their great peril) abandoning use of the SAT.

runarberg 4y ago
So ultimately, after all this spilled ink, the argument boils down to a debate about left-wing vs. right-wing politics. Sure, we’ve gone this far, why not continue. I just want you consider one thing: Is it really “the left’s” fault that eugenics have been tied to IQ research, or should we perhaps blame the number of eugenicists which promoted this construct. I’ll let you decide on that. But also remember that known eugenicist and disgraced psychologist Richard Lynn was on the editorial board for the science journal Intelligence until 2018, they very same journal that published the paper OP posted some 30 parent posts ago about the supposed evidence for the Reverse Flynn effect. But I’m sure you can find a way to blame that on left wing politics as well.
- sfblah 4y ago
  I don't know much about Richard Lynn, but I like your use of the notion that he's "disgraced." It reminds me of Mao's China. A point I'd make is this: It's obvious from what you wrote that you're left wing. I think you've admitted as much. You're now I think assuming I'm right wing, but the thing is I'm not. I'm pro-choice, voted for Biden and both Clintons, support universal health care, support repeal of the 2nd amendment, support generalized income assistance, etc. My position on IQ is actually at odds with my political compatriots. That should tell you something. Yours is not, and that's one of the reasons I know you're not arguing in good faith. It's just a religion to you.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    You should probably learn about Richard Lynn if you want to be an advocate for IQ. It is healthy—although not strictly necessary—to know the history of the construct you are pushing, particularly if said construct comes with dubious policy proposals. No, Richard Lynn is truly a disgrace. He has been found manipulating research data, cherry-picking, and purposefully misinterpreting results in a way to favor his political agenda. This has resulted in him being stripped of his emeritus professor title. His racist and eugenicists talking points have also landed him on a Southern Poverty Law Center list of known white nationalists. A true disgrace if there ever was one. Also note that Richard Lynn has been cited many times by supporters of IQ (including multiple times in The Bell Curve). I know this us guilt by association, but when it comes these kind of people, I for one am willing to judge associates along with main offenders. Perhaps this is religion to me, and perhaps I’m arguing in bad faith, if that’s what it takes to argue against racist believes, than so be it. It is worth it. But consider this. Perhaps I’m not just a dogmatic anti-racist, but also informed by a university education in psychology, and by the scientific literature in the field of psychology. Even fellow anti-racist Albert Einstein always admitted his dogma about his believes in the universe, and he was not wrong about any of it (with few exceptions; notably that quantum entanglement could be explained with localized hidden variables).
    - sfblah 4y ago
      Reading about the latest racist is sort of boring. It's like reading about how MLK was a philanderer and a plagiarist or how Michael Jackson may or may not have been a pedophile. It's beside the point. I'd rather focus on people's useful contributions. Well, except for Elizabeth Holmes. I make an exception there. I actually appreciate your candor. I believe strongly in equality of opportunity. I do not believe accepting falsehoods as fact or drowning those seeking truth in frivolous arguments is likely to get us there. I do actually think it is possible to have a world where we accept that IQ is genetically heritable and yet people treat each other kindly. I am convinced that a refusal to accept IQ as a genetic trait is the cornerstone of the belief system underlying claims of systemic racism and the like. In fact, if I believed IQ were largely environmental, I would immediately join in that chorus. The problem is, IQ is genetic, and what society is actually doing is demonizing large groups of people in a fashion that resembles the Salem Witch Trials for being "racists" when in fact most situations can be explained in a far more pedestrian way by simply acknowledging that some people just aren't all that smart. None of this is to say that zero racists exist in the world. Of course they do, and they should be vigorously combatted. But to suggest that racism is a founding principle of western culture or that it is the basic reason for differential outcomes between groups just isn't true. Not in 2023.

by sfblah 4y ago

runarberg 4y ago

So ultimately, after all this spilled ink, the argument boils down to a debate about left-wing vs. right-wing politics. Sure, we’ve gone this far, why not continue. I just want you consider one thing: Is it really “the left’s” fault that eugenics have been tied to IQ research, or should we perhaps blame the number of eugenicists which promoted this construct. I’ll let you decide on that. But also remember that known eugenicist and disgraced psychologist Richard Lynn was on the editorial board for the science journal Intelligence until 2018, they very same journal that published the paper OP posted some 30 parent posts ago about the supposed evidence for the Reverse Flynn effect. But I’m sure you can find a way to blame that on left wing politics as well.

sfblah 4y ago
I don't know much about Richard Lynn, but I like your use of the notion that he's "disgraced." It reminds me of Mao's China. A point I'd make is this: It's obvious from what you wrote that you're left wing. I think you've admitted as much. You're now I think assuming I'm right wing, but the thing is I'm not. I'm pro-choice, voted for Biden and both Clintons, support universal health care, support repeal of the 2nd amendment, support generalized income assistance, etc. My position on IQ is actually at odds with my political compatriots. That should tell you something. Yours is not, and that's one of the reasons I know you're not arguing in good faith. It's just a religion to you.
- runarberg 4y ago
  You should probably learn about Richard Lynn if you want to be an advocate for IQ. It is healthy—although not strictly necessary—to know the history of the construct you are pushing, particularly if said construct comes with dubious policy proposals. No, Richard Lynn is truly a disgrace. He has been found manipulating research data, cherry-picking, and purposefully misinterpreting results in a way to favor his political agenda. This has resulted in him being stripped of his emeritus professor title. His racist and eugenicists talking points have also landed him on a Southern Poverty Law Center list of known white nationalists. A true disgrace if there ever was one. Also note that Richard Lynn has been cited many times by supporters of IQ (including multiple times in The Bell Curve). I know this us guilt by association, but when it comes these kind of people, I for one am willing to judge associates along with main offenders. Perhaps this is religion to me, and perhaps I’m arguing in bad faith, if that’s what it takes to argue against racist believes, than so be it. It is worth it. But consider this. Perhaps I’m not just a dogmatic anti-racist, but also informed by a university education in psychology, and by the scientific literature in the field of psychology. Even fellow anti-racist Albert Einstein always admitted his dogma about his believes in the universe, and he was not wrong about any of it (with few exceptions; notably that quantum entanglement could be explained with localized hidden variables).
  - sfblah 4y ago
    Reading about the latest racist is sort of boring. It's like reading about how MLK was a philanderer and a plagiarist or how Michael Jackson may or may not have been a pedophile. It's beside the point. I'd rather focus on people's useful contributions. Well, except for Elizabeth Holmes. I make an exception there. I actually appreciate your candor. I believe strongly in equality of opportunity. I do not believe accepting falsehoods as fact or drowning those seeking truth in frivolous arguments is likely to get us there. I do actually think it is possible to have a world where we accept that IQ is genetically heritable and yet people treat each other kindly. I am convinced that a refusal to accept IQ as a genetic trait is the cornerstone of the belief system underlying claims of systemic racism and the like. In fact, if I believed IQ were largely environmental, I would immediately join in that chorus. The problem is, IQ is genetic, and what society is actually doing is demonizing large groups of people in a fashion that resembles the Salem Witch Trials for being "racists" when in fact most situations can be explained in a far more pedestrian way by simply acknowledging that some people just aren't all that smart. None of this is to say that zero racists exist in the world. Of course they do, and they should be vigorously combatted. But to suggest that racism is a founding principle of western culture or that it is the basic reason for differential outcomes between groups just isn't true. Not in 2023.