6 ms·

You're probably not searching with a genuine effort to find the good ones. There's the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. The authors found a politically in

You're probably not searching with a genuine effort to find the good ones. There's the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. The authors found a politically incorrect result and tried to cover it up by inventing a new hypothesis (which they hadn't tested) after they'd collected their data. I also read a fairly comprehensive secondary research paper trying to support the no-biological-differences theory and when it came to Ashkenazi Jews, they admitted the only plausible explanation was genetic superiority. This is an area where the science all points in one direction but popular opinion is in the other direction. People don't look at the research. Probably because they don't want to understand, they just want to spread their political ideology. Nobody, as far as I know, has ever shown that no races are inferior.

dmbche 2y ago
What's the conclusion everyone is missing? I'm sure you know how unscientific IQ tests are, I'm surprised that's what you're bringing up here as being "good science" being shut down politically. Just trying to correlatw the two tests they used is absolutely subjective, I would take a step back and reexamine the parts of those studies that convinced you of whatever beliefs you have - it seems like a shoddy foundation.
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  IQ test have genuine predictive power when applied to large groups. So no, they're not unscientific. In fact, the idea of IQ tests being useless or culturally biased is a now-outdated excuse that people used to use to justify the different results between ethic groups. It's now well accepted that different ethnic groups have different average IQs, and that IQ is a useful predictor of various life outcomes. What the politically-motivated researchers don't agree on is whether that's entirely environmental or partly genetic. Everyone agrees that it's at least partly environmental. There's honestly no evidence for the environmental-only theory of intelligence. That's the popular politically correct belief but every study I've ever seen or heard of either fails to support it or supports the opposite.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pasabagi 2y ago
    In general the thing people find obnoxious about this kind of argument is that both 'race' and 'IQ' have their origin in eugenics, but are meaningless in genetics. The genetic variation across one race (say black) is much greater than the variation between races. There are no well-established genetic predictors of IQ. So, even if you do find evidence that there is a statistical correlation between these two unscientific and essentially meaningless concepts, your correlation is equally unscientific and meaningless.
    - biorach 2y ago
      Thank you
    - Vecr 2y ago
      Can't you train a predictor on skull shape/bone length and IQ and go from there? Yeah there's no causation there, but you should be able to give a percentage that someone's IQ is above a certain number depending on high-rez MRI scan input of skull and bone length measurements.
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        Or make asset worth a predictor.
      - pasabagi 2y ago
        You can train a predictor on anything: that's how the famous cases of 'racist AI' came about. The point is, you can't establish a causal relationship without accounting for confounders. If you're starting with a question established by racists, with 'race' and 'IQ' as your two poles, and human populations as your data, good luck managing that.
    - te_chris 2y ago
      This guy clearly is just trying to bang on about racial superiority but coaxing it in terms of "they won't let us say the thing". Your response neatly shuts him down. Well done.
defrost 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... where the bulk of scientists agreed in various ways that the confounding problems made it exceedingly implausible that differences were either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based? > This is an area where the science all points in one direction but popular opinion is in the other direction. Or maybe an area where the science is inconclusive but personal opinion shades the reading and subsequent presentation?
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  > exceedingly implausible that differences were [...] or entirely environmentally based "entirely environmentally based" is the popular and un-scientific belief that I disagree with. So you agree with me?

dmbche 2y ago

What's the conclusion everyone is missing? I'm sure you know how unscientific IQ tests are, I'm surprised that's what you're bringing up here as being "good science" being shut down politically. Just trying to correlatw the two tests they used is absolutely subjective, I would take a step back and reexamine the parts of those studies that convinced you of whatever beliefs you have - it seems like a shoddy foundation.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago
IQ test have genuine predictive power when applied to large groups. So no, they're not unscientific. In fact, the idea of IQ tests being useless or culturally biased is a now-outdated excuse that people used to use to justify the different results between ethic groups. It's now well accepted that different ethnic groups have different average IQs, and that IQ is a useful predictor of various life outcomes. What the politically-motivated researchers don't agree on is whether that's entirely environmental or partly genetic. Everyone agrees that it's at least partly environmental. There's honestly no evidence for the environmental-only theory of intelligence. That's the popular politically correct belief but every study I've ever seen or heard of either fails to support it or supports the opposite.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pasabagi 2y ago
  In general the thing people find obnoxious about this kind of argument is that both 'race' and 'IQ' have their origin in eugenics, but are meaningless in genetics. The genetic variation across one race (say black) is much greater than the variation between races. There are no well-established genetic predictors of IQ. So, even if you do find evidence that there is a statistical correlation between these two unscientific and essentially meaningless concepts, your correlation is equally unscientific and meaningless.
  - biorach 2y ago
    Thank you
  - Vecr 2y ago
    Can't you train a predictor on skull shape/bone length and IQ and go from there? Yeah there's no causation there, but you should be able to give a percentage that someone's IQ is above a certain number depending on high-rez MRI scan input of skull and bone length measurements.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      Or make asset worth a predictor.
    - pasabagi 2y ago
      You can train a predictor on anything: that's how the famous cases of 'racist AI' came about. The point is, you can't establish a causal relationship without accounting for confounders. If you're starting with a question established by racists, with 'race' and 'IQ' as your two poles, and human populations as your data, good luck managing that.
  - te_chris 2y ago
    This guy clearly is just trying to bang on about racial superiority but coaxing it in terms of "they won't let us say the thing". Your response neatly shuts him down. Well done.

defrost 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... where the bulk of scientists agreed in various ways that the confounding problems made it exceedingly implausible that differences were either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based? > This is an area where the science all points in one direction but popular opinion is in the other direction. Or maybe an area where the science is inconclusive but personal opinion shades the reading and subsequent presentation?

EnigmaFlare 2y ago
> exceedingly implausible that differences were [...] or entirely environmentally based "entirely environmentally based" is the popular and un-scientific belief that I disagree with. So you agree with me?