"Mind you I am not suggesting nor do I believe that there are significant differences in average intelligence between the races, I don't want to believe that ... but suppose there are? Can we live with that?"
This is the other side of this problem. It's a fear based, as far as I can tell, on nothing.
"Mind you I am not suggesting nor do I believe that there are significant differences in average intelligence between the races, I don't want to believe that ... but suppose there are? Can we live with that?"
This is the other side of this problem. It's a fear based, as far as I can tell, on nothing.
Let's say that there are significant differences in average IQ. Let's say we find definitive proof that the average black person has an IQ ten points lower than the white person. So what now? How many employers currently use IQ tests? How relevant is IQ (as long as it's above a certain base level) to most jobs? What mechanism should we use to tell the difference between an above average black person and a below average white person? And what would we gain by doing so? How much of an impact does hard work have in addressing these differences? Why don't we have a "determination" or a "perseverance" quotient?
Underlying all of these debates is this idea that the IQ performance of our "race" is a reflection on us as individuals, or needs to impact the way we run society in some way. But there are dumb white people and dumb black people. Smart black people and smart white people. There are people of all "races" who are immensely talented artistically or practially but not good at IQ tests or tests in general.
This is why the pursuit of equality of *opportunity* is so important. The playing field isn't level. It never was. But there are people way dumber than me who are way richer. And people who are way smarter than me who are way poorer. There are so many factors that goevrn where you end up in life. All this fuss about the racial breakdown of a single measure of a single type of intelligence seems so silly to me.
A ten point difference would be unmistakable and not masked well by overlap. I was thinking suppose there was a difference of one or two points; airborne tetraethyl lead from the days of leaded gasoline lowered IQ by 2.5 points for urban children, and we didn't even learn about that for a long time. Four times that and we would know.
Again, I don't believe there is a significant difference.
"A ten point difference would be unmistakable and not masked well by overlap."
I admit I'm not an expert, but wouldn't that depend on where the difference occured on the scale? The diference between a 70 and 80 IQ would be very clear I think. But would that be the case for a 100 and 110?
But yeah, I guess the wider point is that definitive proof of an average racial IQ gap wouldn't change much about how society ran.
Ten points is a LOT no matter where it is, except maybe for the difference between 170 and 180. A 110 IQ person is qualitatively different from a 100; more intellectually engaged, more curious, more likely to be a reader.
Even between 70 and 80 you have the difference between someone who can care for himself and hold a menial job and someone who likely can't.
I was imagining something like 0.2 points. The bigots would take that and say all black people are retarded. Real people would call it statistically insignificant.
If I'm not mistaken +/- one standard deviation from nominal is IQ 85-115 which is the middle of low and high average (68% of humanity). IQ 70-130 is two +/- standard deviations (95% of humanity). Since we don't wear a red badge of IQ we don't really know the IQ of people we work with beyond levels of perceived competence. I doubt that I could guess anyone's IQ with accuracy, but then I've never cared to try.
You're not mistaken, those figures are right. And ± 3SDs is 99.7%.
I would swear that in the past it was 10 points that comprised a standard deviation.
I wouldn't try to guess numbers either but there is an unmistakable indication when you're talking to smart people: they grasp what you're saying before you finish the sentence.
I hate to be the conveyor of bad news, but there is a LOT of research on this matter over the decades. The measured differences tend towards about one standard deviation, tho the gap narrowed for a while then then rose again. But don't take my word for it, do your own research.
Let me hasten to add (sigh, so easy to be misunderstood by somebody, not saying you), that a measured difference between population groups does not automatically imply a genetic difference, and says nothing meaningful about individuals. The range within population groups is still far larger than any difference between means.
I take IQ measurements as an intermediate measurement, NOT as some unalterable and permanent fact (at the group level over generations), because we know from research that environment plays a very significant role, and environment can be changed. What it might mean is that some of our interventions might best be upstream of that measurement - that is, to raise the measure IQ at the population level. Once a person's g factor has solidified, it tends not to change much over a lifetime, and while it's only one measure of an individual, it does seem to have substantial effects on their success, including their income.
Let's not get silly and cite exceptions. That like disputing the fact that more men than women are in prison for violent crimes, by noting a particularly violent woman, or a particularly non-violent man. Cherry picked exceptions will alway occur in in sizable population, but do not disprove any statistics. And no widely read author disputes that many other factors are important, in total usually more important, than general intelligence. However, general intelligence (as an intermediate measurement of our success) does have a significant influence on outcomes.
Basically, I'm saying that taking g off the taboo list would allow us to attempt deeper interventions in order to try to better equalize opportunities. If we ignore all cognitive factors, materially equal opportunity as good as it is, will not produce equal outcomes, period. An attempt to influence the environmental factors which in turn influence measured cognitive ability should be a part of any attempt society makes to equalize opportunity in the broader sense.
Think about the problems with confining interventions exclusively to those downstream of cognitive ability. One thing such a limited policy tends to do is try to remove any measure of ability or knowledge from society, because they may not say what we want them to. So remove the SAT for example, or avoid teaching math above algebra in high school - so that some students don't reach their potential, and thus reducing the differential achievement.
And that doesn't have to be. I completely understand the fear that accurate and scientifically valid knowledge can potentially be misused, but I disagree that the proper approach to avoiding that is to suppress truth and salient science, as neo-progressive ideology is driven to do. (Any truth or science which doesn't reinforce the narrative, to be more specific). I believe the right answer is to vigorously counter any mis-interpretation mis-application with facts and evidence.
A technological society which treats objective reality and the scientific journey to incrementally improve our understanding of it - as just another story made up by those in power to remain in power, is not going to last very long, and the fall is not going to be pretty since our population carrying capacity depends on keeping the technology functioning.
My deepest principle of political philosophy is to base one's policies first and foremost on an accurate understanding of objective reality; any philosophy which fails to impedance match with reality is going to go down, no matter how pleasant it sounds in the abstract. We then use our rational intelligence to devise reality-based policies in tune with our values and goals, producing the best feeling result we can within the parameters of being reality based. I recognize that values to large degree analogize with axioms - things we cannot prove, but must assume. But to be functional, they must be layered atop objective reality, rather than trying to over-ride it. Neo-progressive ideology does not handle this well.
I'll give a brief example. Why not just print US $1 Billion in cash per person and give it to every resident of the country? Some people would find this a very attractive notion - they would love it if everybody was rich beyond imagining, and believe that this would accomplish it. But no matter how hard they try to sell me on how wonderful that outcome would be and why it's more fair - I am not buying, because my understanding of money and wealth indicates that such a policy would not achieve its ends, regardless of how noble its intentions. So - reality get primacy, values second, policy derives from both of these and does the best it can in an imperfect world of tradeoffs to optimize for the desired goals and values. In that order.
"Mind you I am not suggesting nor do I believe that there are significant differences in average intelligence between the races, I don't want to believe that ... but suppose there are? Can we live with that?"
This is the other side of this problem. It's a fear based, as far as I can tell, on nothing.
Let's say that there are significant differences in average IQ. Let's say we find definitive proof that the average black person has an IQ ten points lower than the white person. So what now? How many employers currently use IQ tests? How relevant is IQ (as long as it's above a certain base level) to most jobs? What mechanism should we use to tell the difference between an above average black person and a below average white person? And what would we gain by doing so? How much of an impact does hard work have in addressing these differences? Why don't we have a "determination" or a "perseverance" quotient?
Underlying all of these debates is this idea that the IQ performance of our "race" is a reflection on us as individuals, or needs to impact the way we run society in some way. But there are dumb white people and dumb black people. Smart black people and smart white people. There are people of all "races" who are immensely talented artistically or practially but not good at IQ tests or tests in general.
This is why the pursuit of equality of *opportunity* is so important. The playing field isn't level. It never was. But there are people way dumber than me who are way richer. And people who are way smarter than me who are way poorer. There are so many factors that goevrn where you end up in life. All this fuss about the racial breakdown of a single measure of a single type of intelligence seems so silly to me.
A ten point difference would be unmistakable and not masked well by overlap. I was thinking suppose there was a difference of one or two points; airborne tetraethyl lead from the days of leaded gasoline lowered IQ by 2.5 points for urban children, and we didn't even learn about that for a long time. Four times that and we would know.
Again, I don't believe there is a significant difference.
"A ten point difference would be unmistakable and not masked well by overlap."
I admit I'm not an expert, but wouldn't that depend on where the difference occured on the scale? The diference between a 70 and 80 IQ would be very clear I think. But would that be the case for a 100 and 110?
But yeah, I guess the wider point is that definitive proof of an average racial IQ gap wouldn't change much about how society ran.
Ten points is a LOT no matter where it is, except maybe for the difference between 170 and 180. A 110 IQ person is qualitatively different from a 100; more intellectually engaged, more curious, more likely to be a reader.
Even between 70 and 80 you have the difference between someone who can care for himself and hold a menial job and someone who likely can't.
Ah, okay, fair enough, in that case, pretend I wrote "two or three" instead of "ten."
I was imagining something like 0.2 points. The bigots would take that and say all black people are retarded. Real people would call it statistically insignificant.
If I'm not mistaken +/- one standard deviation from nominal is IQ 85-115 which is the middle of low and high average (68% of humanity). IQ 70-130 is two +/- standard deviations (95% of humanity). Since we don't wear a red badge of IQ we don't really know the IQ of people we work with beyond levels of perceived competence. I doubt that I could guess anyone's IQ with accuracy, but then I've never cared to try.
You're not mistaken, those figures are right. And ± 3SDs is 99.7%.
I would swear that in the past it was 10 points that comprised a standard deviation.
I wouldn't try to guess numbers either but there is an unmistakable indication when you're talking to smart people: they grasp what you're saying before you finish the sentence.
I hate to be the conveyor of bad news, but there is a LOT of research on this matter over the decades. The measured differences tend towards about one standard deviation, tho the gap narrowed for a while then then rose again. But don't take my word for it, do your own research.
Let me hasten to add (sigh, so easy to be misunderstood by somebody, not saying you), that a measured difference between population groups does not automatically imply a genetic difference, and says nothing meaningful about individuals. The range within population groups is still far larger than any difference between means.
I take IQ measurements as an intermediate measurement, NOT as some unalterable and permanent fact (at the group level over generations), because we know from research that environment plays a very significant role, and environment can be changed. What it might mean is that some of our interventions might best be upstream of that measurement - that is, to raise the measure IQ at the population level. Once a person's g factor has solidified, it tends not to change much over a lifetime, and while it's only one measure of an individual, it does seem to have substantial effects on their success, including their income.
Let's not get silly and cite exceptions. That like disputing the fact that more men than women are in prison for violent crimes, by noting a particularly violent woman, or a particularly non-violent man. Cherry picked exceptions will alway occur in in sizable population, but do not disprove any statistics. And no widely read author disputes that many other factors are important, in total usually more important, than general intelligence. However, general intelligence (as an intermediate measurement of our success) does have a significant influence on outcomes.
Basically, I'm saying that taking g off the taboo list would allow us to attempt deeper interventions in order to try to better equalize opportunities. If we ignore all cognitive factors, materially equal opportunity as good as it is, will not produce equal outcomes, period. An attempt to influence the environmental factors which in turn influence measured cognitive ability should be a part of any attempt society makes to equalize opportunity in the broader sense.
Think about the problems with confining interventions exclusively to those downstream of cognitive ability. One thing such a limited policy tends to do is try to remove any measure of ability or knowledge from society, because they may not say what we want them to. So remove the SAT for example, or avoid teaching math above algebra in high school - so that some students don't reach their potential, and thus reducing the differential achievement.
And that doesn't have to be. I completely understand the fear that accurate and scientifically valid knowledge can potentially be misused, but I disagree that the proper approach to avoiding that is to suppress truth and salient science, as neo-progressive ideology is driven to do. (Any truth or science which doesn't reinforce the narrative, to be more specific). I believe the right answer is to vigorously counter any mis-interpretation mis-application with facts and evidence.
A technological society which treats objective reality and the scientific journey to incrementally improve our understanding of it - as just another story made up by those in power to remain in power, is not going to last very long, and the fall is not going to be pretty since our population carrying capacity depends on keeping the technology functioning.
My deepest principle of political philosophy is to base one's policies first and foremost on an accurate understanding of objective reality; any philosophy which fails to impedance match with reality is going to go down, no matter how pleasant it sounds in the abstract. We then use our rational intelligence to devise reality-based policies in tune with our values and goals, producing the best feeling result we can within the parameters of being reality based. I recognize that values to large degree analogize with axioms - things we cannot prove, but must assume. But to be functional, they must be layered atop objective reality, rather than trying to over-ride it. Neo-progressive ideology does not handle this well.
I'll give a brief example. Why not just print US $1 Billion in cash per person and give it to every resident of the country? Some people would find this a very attractive notion - they would love it if everybody was rich beyond imagining, and believe that this would accomplish it. But no matter how hard they try to sell me on how wonderful that outcome would be and why it's more fair - I am not buying, because my understanding of money and wealth indicates that such a policy would not achieve its ends, regardless of how noble its intentions. So - reality get primacy, values second, policy derives from both of these and does the best it can in an imperfect world of tradeoffs to optimize for the desired goals and values. In that order.