4 ms·

>The average IQ among black Americans is 85, and the average testosterone level among black males is 20% higher than it is among whites. Both of these traits ar

by kamau 12y ago

>The average IQ among black Americans is 85, and the average testosterone level among black males is 20% higher than it is among whites. Both of these traits are strong predictors of violent behavior.< The racists have come out to play.

peterfirefly 12y ago
Hopefully you agree that it is an empirical question? If it isn't possible to go out and look at the world to see if the average IQ is 85 then it isn't possible to see that it isn't 85. Now, I wonder if somebody has done that and what the results were...
- kamau 12y ago
  Spare me. Statements such as those are almost always concerned with promoting and upholding white supremacy/racism. Would the statement been given any legitimacy if it was stated that '...the average white IQ is 85...'? I doubt it. The fact that a statements like these are made with no or dubious evidence is bad enough. Asserting that there is an empirical question here, when said dubious statement is refuted, is the icing on the cake. P.S. I do understand that this is an empirical statement/question. But so is the assertion that there is a teapot on the moon.
  - ebfe 12y ago
    What exactly are you trying to say? The fact that the average black IQ in America is 85 is an empirically proven fact. [1] You can certainly argue that IQ is a flawed measurement of intelligence, or that the IQ gap stems solely from environmental factors, but just flat out plugging your ears and denying that studies have found the mean black IQ to be 85 is an absurd display of intellectual dishonesty. [1]http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
    - kamau 12y ago
      You cant say that it is an empirically proven fact, anc then concede that it is a possibly flawed measurement. I'm all too familiar with racists, and you sir/mam look familiar. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jason-richwine-race-iq-genetics-95765.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jason-richwine-race-iq...
      - IkmoIkmo 12y ago
        > I'm all too familiar with racists You must be familiar with Rushton then, the author of the study he cited. I'd be hard pressed to name a more blatant racist than Rushton in academia... I really can't take that study seriously.
        ebfe 12y ago
        "The belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is wrong because the belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is wrong." I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you, but do you not see something incredibly tautological with that line of reasoning?
        vidarh 12y ago
        The belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is on its face obviously true, unless one were to postulate that skin colour is not a genetic trait. As such it becomes at best disingenuous to interpret the fact that he called Rushton a blatant racist as implying merely a belief in biological differences in general. Further he did not say it is wrong. He said he can't take the study seriously when coming from a blatant racist. Presumably because he does not trust that Rushton is able to put aside that bias and treat the subject seriously and honestly. While one can try to let the work stand on its own, the problem with that if you don't trust the intentions of the researcher is that it is tremendously easy to fudge data, or be selective with your data, to get whatever result you want.
    - IkmoIkmo 12y ago

by kamau 12y ago

peterfirefly 12y ago

Hopefully you agree that it is an empirical question? If it isn't possible to go out and look at the world to see if the average IQ is 85 then it isn't possible to see that it isn't 85. Now, I wonder if somebody has done that and what the results were...

kamau 12y ago
Spare me. Statements such as those are almost always concerned with promoting and upholding white supremacy/racism. Would the statement been given any legitimacy if it was stated that '...the average white IQ is 85...'? I doubt it. The fact that a statements like these are made with no or dubious evidence is bad enough. Asserting that there is an empirical question here, when said dubious statement is refuted, is the icing on the cake. P.S. I do understand that this is an empirical statement/question. But so is the assertion that there is a teapot on the moon.
- ebfe 12y ago
  What exactly are you trying to say? The fact that the average black IQ in America is 85 is an empirically proven fact. [1] You can certainly argue that IQ is a flawed measurement of intelligence, or that the IQ gap stems solely from environmental factors, but just flat out plugging your ears and denying that studies have found the mean black IQ to be 85 is an absurd display of intellectual dishonesty. [1]http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
  - kamau 12y ago
    You cant say that it is an empirically proven fact, anc then concede that it is a possibly flawed measurement. I'm all too familiar with racists, and you sir/mam look familiar. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jason-richwine-race-iq-genetics-95765.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jason-richwine-race-iq...
    - IkmoIkmo 12y ago
      > I'm all too familiar with racists You must be familiar with Rushton then, the author of the study he cited. I'd be hard pressed to name a more blatant racist than Rushton in academia... I really can't take that study seriously.
      - ebfe 12y ago
        "The belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is wrong because the belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is wrong." I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you, but do you not see something incredibly tautological with that line of reasoning?
        vidarh 12y ago
        The belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is on its face obviously true, unless one were to postulate that skin colour is not a genetic trait. As such it becomes at best disingenuous to interpret the fact that he called Rushton a blatant racist as implying merely a belief in biological differences in general. Further he did not say it is wrong. He said he can't take the study seriously when coming from a blatant racist. Presumably because he does not trust that Rushton is able to put aside that bias and treat the subject seriously and honestly. While one can try to let the work stand on its own, the problem with that if you don't trust the intentions of the researcher is that it is tremendously easy to fudge data, or be selective with your data, to get whatever result you want.
  - IkmoIkmo 12y ago