4 ms·

Did you even read the article you point to? It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. The passage that you highlight doe

by cauch 2y ago

Did you even read the article you point to? It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. The passage that you highlight does not say that there is a gap not explained by socio-economical status, it says "it is not ONLY socio-economical". It does not say there is no biases in the the test construction, it says "there is no OBVIOUS biases". And it ends up with "At present, no one knows". It was in 1996. Since then, more studies have been done, based on a black people sample that sees its socio-economical status evolving, and the picture became clearer, showing that what the authors did not know in 1996 are now understood, and it turns out it's mainly bias and socio-economical status. So, yes, in 1996, believing in "Whites are smarter than Blacks" was quackery, the same way that few months ago, falling for the LK-99 superconductor craze was falling for quackery: you had to be an idiot to not notice you cannot jump to conclusion. The article you quote here is saying exactly that: you cannot reliably say "Whites are smarter than Blacks", because we don't know why we see a gap, it can be a simple statistical fluctuation or a spurious correlation that we haven't discovered yet. It is explicitly said in the article conclusion: "In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place". They say that Bostrom confident tone that Whites are smarter than Blacks is clearly out of place.

hackinthebochs 2y ago
> It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. There's nothing bad form about that. Nothing you say undermines the relevance of the point or somehow minimizes it. >and the picture became clearer, showing that what the authors did not know in 1996 are now understood, and it turns out it's mainly bias and socio-economical status. Feel free to provide the studies that demonstrate this.
- cauch 2y ago
  > I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. "cherry picking" is a term used to talk about picking the "nice" context and not picking the "not nice" context, and therefore depicting the situation in a misleading way. The article that you quote was a reaction from the APA to the Black IQ controversies and is widely viewed as the APA taking the position that saying "Whites are smarter than Blacks" as not supported by APA. It is what someone understand when they read the full conclusions (other interpretations do not make sense). > Feel free to provide the studies that demonstrate this. It's very easy to find them. The fact that you are not aware of these shows that you are not very aware of the state of the art in the subject. But for example: Kaplan, Jonathan Michael (January 2015). "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called "X"-factors: environments, racism, and the "hereditarian hypothesis"". Birney, Ewan; Raff, Jennifer; Rutherford, Adam; Scally, Aylwyn (24 October 2019). "Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer" Dickens, William T.; Flynn, James R. (2006). "Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples" Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric (2012). "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin"
  - hackinthebochs 2y ago
    >is widely viewed as the APA taking the position that saying "Whites are smarter than Blacks" as not supported by APA. The thing is, I never claimed otherwise. My claim was very specific, and I used the APA review as a citation of that specific point. Namely, that the measured Black-White IQ gap is not crackpot science but is accepted by most people who study the issue. >It's very easy to find them. The fact that you are not aware of these shows that you are not very aware of the state of the art in the subject. Usually people's claims overstep the actual evidence in their claimed citations. The gambit is that their interlocutor won't look or won't understand what they're reading if they did. Your citations are a case-in-point. The first one is not about IQ at all, but about the changes in household wealth due to the Great Recession. The fourth one is a commentary piece that doesn't explicitly defend the point of contention. The second piece's title looks like commentary, so I didn't bother with it. The third one defends the claim that the Black-White gap has reduced by 5 points, which is at least somewhat relevant, but doesn't at all defend your claim that the Black-White IQ gap has been demonstrated to be fully explained by bias and socioeconomic status.

by cauch 2y ago

hackinthebochs 2y ago

> It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear. I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. There's nothing bad form about that. Nothing you say undermines the relevance of the point or somehow minimizes it. >and the picture became clearer, showing that what the authors did not know in 1996 are now understood, and it turns out it's mainly bias and socio-economical status. Feel free to provide the studies that demonstrate this.

cauch 2y ago
> I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. "cherry picking" is a term used to talk about picking the "nice" context and not picking the "not nice" context, and therefore depicting the situation in a misleading way. The article that you quote was a reaction from the APA to the Black IQ controversies and is widely viewed as the APA taking the position that saying "Whites are smarter than Blacks" as not supported by APA. It is what someone understand when they read the full conclusions (other interpretations do not make sense). > Feel free to provide the studies that demonstrate this. It's very easy to find them. The fact that you are not aware of these shows that you are not very aware of the state of the art in the subject. But for example: Kaplan, Jonathan Michael (January 2015). "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called "X"-factors: environments, racism, and the "hereditarian hypothesis"". Birney, Ewan; Raff, Jennifer; Rutherford, Adam; Scally, Aylwyn (24 October 2019). "Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer" Dickens, William T.; Flynn, James R. (2006). "Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples" Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric (2012). "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin"
- hackinthebochs 2y ago
  >is widely viewed as the APA taking the position that saying "Whites are smarter than Blacks" as not supported by APA. The thing is, I never claimed otherwise. My claim was very specific, and I used the APA review as a citation of that specific point. Namely, that the measured Black-White IQ gap is not crackpot science but is accepted by most people who study the issue. >It's very easy to find them. The fact that you are not aware of these shows that you are not very aware of the state of the art in the subject. Usually people's claims overstep the actual evidence in their claimed citations. The gambit is that their interlocutor won't look or won't understand what they're reading if they did. Your citations are a case-in-point. The first one is not about IQ at all, but about the changes in household wealth due to the Great Recession. The fourth one is a commentary piece that doesn't explicitly defend the point of contention. The second piece's title looks like commentary, so I didn't bother with it. The third one defends the claim that the Black-White gap has reduced by 5 points, which is at least somewhat relevant, but doesn't at all defend your claim that the Black-White IQ gap has been demonstrated to be fully explained by bias and socioeconomic status.