3 ms·

Assume men and women select for different characteristics--for instance, women select for intelligent men, while men select for XYZ women (with XYZ being anythi

Assume men and women select for different characteristics--for instance, women select for intelligent men, while men select for XYZ women (with XYZ being anything other than intelligence.) Assume that the average white IQ is 100 and the average black IQ is 85, and assume that there is a genetic component to these numbers. The average black woman (IQ: 85) will select a white male of >85 IQ. Her average offspring will probably have >85 IQ. The average white woman (IQ: 100) will select a black male of >100 IQ. Her average offspring will probably have >100 IQ. Therefore, the differences in sexual selection between men and women can result in genetically distinct offspring given bm/wf, wm/bf pairings. So the logic is...there is no logic.

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
pius 19y ago
You're assuming a whole lot more than that, most notably that the researchers used incredibly poor methodology, forgetting to control for the IQ of the parents.
- mynameishere 19y ago
  I would be utterly shocked if they controlled for anything--most social experiments like this use what data they can get, and are, as you say "incredibly poor". The closest thing to a reasonable experiment in this regard are studies of separated twins--studies Gladwell obviously doesn't mention, as they show exactly what everyone knows, that intelligence is largely inherited. The German study that he brings up at the end has been dredged up over and over and over for many years and is apparently not easily repeatable. Again, most readers can't tell the difference between a data point and a proof. Anyway, he's the one making a claim, and he's the one who needs to show that the methodology is sound, not me.
  - pius 19y ago
    " . . . studies Gladwell obviously doesn't mention, as they show exactly what everyone knows, that intelligence is largely inherited. You're misconstruing Gladwell's position. He's not arguing against inheritance of intelligence; he's arguing against a biologically innate and immutable race-based component to intelligence. "Anyway, he's the one making a claim, and he's the one who needs to show that the methodology is sound, not me." Actually, you made the latest claim. You set up a somewhat absurd strawman for what Gladwell argued and then tried to lampoon it and make his position look illogical when, in fact, the interpretation you constructed relies on the researchers literally ignoring the most basic of statistics. That needed to be pointed out, lest people buy the strawman and actually get swayed to believe that black people are biologically less intelligent than whites.
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      I hardly made a "strawman", which would require a construction of the form, "Gladwell said XYZ", which I did not do. Rather, I showed a single example of how different kinds of pairings could result in different kinds of results. Here is an example of a strawman argument, for your reference: There are a lot of pseudo-scientists out there who claim that IQ tests are perfectly accurate, not at all culturally biased, and are in fact objective, innate measures of intelligence. Anyway, as for researchers literally ignoring basic statistics Their statistics may be pure as a mountain spring. It doesn't matter. What I suspect is that there are factors they completely didn't account for--something that happens to every scientist. It tends to happen more to scientists trying to prove political points. he's arguing against a consistent, innate, statistically significant, race-based component to intelligence He needs to quit picking-and-choosing studies then. I've seen the German study, and I'm glad to take it into account, and if there are repeated examples, I'll take them into account also. Well, here's something most of us have probably seen already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations ...the thing to reflect upon here isn't that innaccuracies exist (because they do). Rather, the gross consistency of the results--why do poor countries like Thailand and Malaysia have passable scores compared to Africa? Do Africans suffer from a particularly racist sort of poverty? Why does a country like Iraq--living under a dictator, facing decades of war and mass starvation and international isolation have a higher average IQ than every African country? More racism? Why would China, a country that still has hundreds of millions of peasants score much better than every African country? Compare China to Hong Kong--areas with racial similitude, but vastly--diametrically--different histories and circumstances, with every advantage going to Hong Kong. Should not the difference be greater than 7 points? Eventually, the question is, "How much evidence does it take?" and the answer is obviously, "No amount of evidence is enough". It's an idealogical question. Let me present the inevitable extremes. The list of Jewish scientists (which wikipedia warns is "incomplete") is broken down into numerous sections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_p... The list of African Americans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_African_Americans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_African_Americans ...contains no scientists at all. Yes, I know some exist, but no one thought well enough to add any. Blame the community, I guess. Not to belabour the point, but Jews are numerically inferior to African-Americans, and have suffered a fair amount of uncomfortable circumstances. So, how to explain the wild differences? Again, when does the evidence become overwhelming..?

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]

pius 19y ago

You're assuming a whole lot more than that, most notably that the researchers used incredibly poor methodology, forgetting to control for the IQ of the parents.

mynameishere 19y ago
I would be utterly shocked if they controlled for anything--most social experiments like this use what data they can get, and are, as you say "incredibly poor". The closest thing to a reasonable experiment in this regard are studies of separated twins--studies Gladwell obviously doesn't mention, as they show exactly what everyone knows, that intelligence is largely inherited. The German study that he brings up at the end has been dredged up over and over and over for many years and is apparently not easily repeatable. Again, most readers can't tell the difference between a data point and a proof. Anyway, he's the one making a claim, and he's the one who needs to show that the methodology is sound, not me.
- pius 19y ago
  " . . . studies Gladwell obviously doesn't mention, as they show exactly what everyone knows, that intelligence is largely inherited. You're misconstruing Gladwell's position. He's not arguing against inheritance of intelligence; he's arguing against a biologically innate and immutable race-based component to intelligence. "Anyway, he's the one making a claim, and he's the one who needs to show that the methodology is sound, not me." Actually, you made the latest claim. You set up a somewhat absurd strawman for what Gladwell argued and then tried to lampoon it and make his position look illogical when, in fact, the interpretation you constructed relies on the researchers literally ignoring the most basic of statistics. That needed to be pointed out, lest people buy the strawman and actually get swayed to believe that black people are biologically less intelligent than whites.
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    I hardly made a "strawman", which would require a construction of the form, "Gladwell said XYZ", which I did not do. Rather, I showed a single example of how different kinds of pairings could result in different kinds of results. Here is an example of a strawman argument, for your reference: There are a lot of pseudo-scientists out there who claim that IQ tests are perfectly accurate, not at all culturally biased, and are in fact objective, innate measures of intelligence. Anyway, as for researchers literally ignoring basic statistics Their statistics may be pure as a mountain spring. It doesn't matter. What I suspect is that there are factors they completely didn't account for--something that happens to every scientist. It tends to happen more to scientists trying to prove political points. he's arguing against a consistent, innate, statistically significant, race-based component to intelligence He needs to quit picking-and-choosing studies then. I've seen the German study, and I'm glad to take it into account, and if there are repeated examples, I'll take them into account also. Well, here's something most of us have probably seen already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations ...the thing to reflect upon here isn't that innaccuracies exist (because they do). Rather, the gross consistency of the results--why do poor countries like Thailand and Malaysia have passable scores compared to Africa? Do Africans suffer from a particularly racist sort of poverty? Why does a country like Iraq--living under a dictator, facing decades of war and mass starvation and international isolation have a higher average IQ than every African country? More racism? Why would China, a country that still has hundreds of millions of peasants score much better than every African country? Compare China to Hong Kong--areas with racial similitude, but vastly--diametrically--different histories and circumstances, with every advantage going to Hong Kong. Should not the difference be greater than 7 points? Eventually, the question is, "How much evidence does it take?" and the answer is obviously, "No amount of evidence is enough". It's an idealogical question. Let me present the inevitable extremes. The list of Jewish scientists (which wikipedia warns is "incomplete") is broken down into numerous sections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_p... The list of African Americans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_African_Americans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_African_Americans ...contains no scientists at all. Yes, I know some exist, but no one thought well enough to add any. Blame the community, I guess. Not to belabour the point, but Jews are numerically inferior to African-Americans, and have suffered a fair amount of uncomfortable circumstances. So, how to explain the wild differences? Again, when does the evidence become overwhelming..?