4 ms·

There is recent research into intra-race correlations. You need to stop lying. First to yourself. Try having a factual basis for the words that you write.

kristopolous 3y ago
I knew the scepter of "race science" would come up from one of the "big brains = smart" people. Cool. Let's end this now. I'm done responding.
- SamReidHughes 3y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra-
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    Thinking that “intra-race” – a sociological concept – is a meaningful concept in biology, is a brown M&M. It suggests the research probably isn't any good. Sure, in places like the US, or Apartheid-era South Africa, “race” might have enough of an impact on people's lives that controlling for it is a quick and easy way to clean up your data. But absent social factors, by itself, there's no reason to believe that it's something you need to control for; and if you have access to that information, there are always more direct factors you can control for.
Tor3 3y ago
The concept of "race" is social, and not used in science. The vast majority of biologists will laugh you out of the room if you start blabbering about "race". To go from genes varying the amount of melanin in your skin to then divide humans into "races" is crazy. I've worked all over the world through all of my long career, with people from all over, and if there's one thing I have learned it's that people are people, everywhere, you find all kinds of personalities, but the thing is - it doesn't matter if you're looking in your neighbourhood street or somewhere on the other side of the globe.
- SamReidHughes 3y ago
  The research I'm referring to, with intra-race comparisons, as I stated, would avoid the question of racial factors affecting or not affecting the results. So your reply is a complete non sequitor.
  - Tor3 3y ago
    What you're saying makes no sense. Humans don't have "races". So there's nothing to compare in the first place.
    - SamReidHughes 3y ago
      The comparisons, being intra-race, are between people of the same race. How does that mean there's nothing to compare?
      - Tor3 3y ago
        The point is: There is no biological concept of "race", therefore you can't have "race research" or "comparisions". "race" is a purely social construct more common in certain countries than others.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  I understand what the poster is trying to suggest but it's still not normalizing the right things. Children with "bigger brains" perform better because they've matured faster and have better executive control than their peers. That's why you can strongly correlate childhood academic performance on birth month. The ones that do better don't have "larger" brains as adults. If you take people with equal economic opportunities and the same social advantages, you cannot stratify that population based on brain mass and correlate it with anything meaningful. Besides, if this was true then, say the staff at MIT would be NBA sized giants working their big brains and little persons would all have severe cognitive impairments. None of this is the case. Even on strict IQ, which is what these people like to use, it still doesn't work. The highest IQ scorers are normal sized, normal shaped people. They aren't walking around with giant deformed skulls The logical implications of the hypothesis simply don't exist and every study I've seen that tries to demonstrate it gets criticized as actually just showing a proxy measurement for things like nutrition, age, economic status, etc It's also why the phenomena only appears in large population studies. Taller people, on average, grew up with more advantages and access to resources which is why they're taller. As a population, they will do better then their disadvantaged peers. Duh.

kristopolous 3y ago

I knew the scepter of "race science" would come up from one of the "big brains = smart" people. Cool. Let's end this now. I'm done responding.

SamReidHughes 3y ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra-
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  Thinking that “intra-race” – a sociological concept – is a meaningful concept in biology, is a brown M&M. It suggests the research probably isn't any good. Sure, in places like the US, or Apartheid-era South Africa, “race” might have enough of an impact on people's lives that controlling for it is a quick and easy way to clean up your data. But absent social factors, by itself, there's no reason to believe that it's something you need to control for; and if you have access to that information, there are always more direct factors you can control for.

Tor3 3y ago

The concept of "race" is social, and not used in science. The vast majority of biologists will laugh you out of the room if you start blabbering about "race". To go from genes varying the amount of melanin in your skin to then divide humans into "races" is crazy. I've worked all over the world through all of my long career, with people from all over, and if there's one thing I have learned it's that people are people, everywhere, you find all kinds of personalities, but the thing is - it doesn't matter if you're looking in your neighbourhood street or somewhere on the other side of the globe.

SamReidHughes 3y ago
The research I'm referring to, with intra-race comparisons, as I stated, would avoid the question of racial factors affecting or not affecting the results. So your reply is a complete non sequitor.
- Tor3 3y ago
  What you're saying makes no sense. Humans don't have "races". So there's nothing to compare in the first place.
  - SamReidHughes 3y ago
    The comparisons, being intra-race, are between people of the same race. How does that mean there's nothing to compare?
    - Tor3 3y ago
      The point is: There is no biological concept of "race", therefore you can't have "race research" or "comparisions". "race" is a purely social construct more common in certain countries than others.
kristopolous 3y ago
I understand what the poster is trying to suggest but it's still not normalizing the right things. Children with "bigger brains" perform better because they've matured faster and have better executive control than their peers. That's why you can strongly correlate childhood academic performance on birth month. The ones that do better don't have "larger" brains as adults. If you take people with equal economic opportunities and the same social advantages, you cannot stratify that population based on brain mass and correlate it with anything meaningful. Besides, if this was true then, say the staff at MIT would be NBA sized giants working their big brains and little persons would all have severe cognitive impairments. None of this is the case. Even on strict IQ, which is what these people like to use, it still doesn't work. The highest IQ scorers are normal sized, normal shaped people. They aren't walking around with giant deformed skulls The logical implications of the hypothesis simply don't exist and every study I've seen that tries to demonstrate it gets criticized as actually just showing a proxy measurement for things like nutrition, age, economic status, etc It's also why the phenomena only appears in large population studies. Taller people, on average, grew up with more advantages and access to resources which is why they're taller. As a population, they will do better then their disadvantaged peers. Duh.