Should I take African Americans with me or does it make sense to amend immigration policies going forward instead?
As long as somebody can make some money with/off you, you can stay in the US.
1 Like
This made me laugh
Is your ideal world in such that we limit entry from races with “lower average IQ?”
If so, have you figured out how to put 7 billion people into a correct race category without subjecting them all to dna testing?
Mostly shut down all immigration to America with small amounts of exceptions.
It’s a lot simpler than you might imagine
Better take everyone just to be on the safe side. Can’t have anyone lowering the white iq average.
Would you then agree, due to your heritage and other factors with how you see things, that the best thing you could do for this country is to leave?
Did they make a South Park episode about Raj yet? Is he the actual SkankHunt?
1 Like
“Unfairly”? Not sure why you’re trying to put that sort of word in my mouth. If a bathroom scale is off, we don’t say it’s ‘unfair.’
I am saying that mainstream IQ tests are skewed toward certain sorts of cognitive abilities, and that this in turn renders them imperfect measures of ‘intelligence.’
Edit: Just read @anon50325502’s highlighted (I still haven’t figured out how you do that) excerpt above. Superb.
Yeah, I gotta call BS here. I’m pretty confident you have no idea what that figure depicts, much less the underlying theory of intelligence to which it is related. And I’m not going to reply to an ‘argument’ that you yourself do not understand.
Is there a third option? Because I wasn’t going for either of these.
I don’t understand the question. Whatever intelligence is (and I can’t offer a great definition), IMO people differ in the amount (for lack of a better term) they have. Does that address what you were asking?
1 Like
If I had coffee in my mouth, I would have spat all over the keyboard when raj posted the Figure along with this wonderful “I have no idea but here are some words that sound vaguely related to the topic” explanation:
Besides which, anyone else notice something about that Figure as it pertains to raj’s argument?
Hint: read the footnote at the bottom.
Second hint: notice that it says “A” stands for additive genetic influences and “E” stands for unique environmental influences.
Third hint: notice that it says “Parameter estimates with an asterisk are significantly greater than zero” which is statistics-talk for “If something has an asterisk, our data support that this has a nonzero effect; if it has no asterisk, our data are not strong enough to suggest an effect.”
Fourth hint: notice that the effect sizes for “E” all have asterisks by them (indicating statistically significant effects of the Environmental factors) while the effect sizes for “A” have virtually no asterisks by them (and for many, the effect is actually 0.00) indicating that there are no statistically significant “additive genetic influences” on the respective components of g factor.
Add it all up, and congratulations, rajster. You posted a Figure that wholly suggests that “g factor” is almost entirely a product of “unique environmental influences” and that “additive genetic influences” have a trivial-or-nonexistent effect on every component of the “g factor” - basically, a Figure that invalidates literally everything you’re saying in this thread about genetics playing a larger role in intelligence than environment.
We have reached the singularity, everyone.
10 Likes
Wouldn’t you like to know muhahahaahah…
(It’s just the snip tool…)
1 Like
1 Like
Ok, seriously:
Except that it shouldn’t be, because the logical extension of the position that you quoted as being “good enough” is that these populations don’t have high IQs (biased test attributes keyed toward our American Way or similar) in large part because they didn’t have the opportunity to develop the skills that modern society values, NOT because they are biologically incapable or “inferior” or whatever nonsense.
In other words, your position has been that IQ is genetically determined–and this article along with the evidence therein contradicts you. This article shows that notion to be false on multiple fronts, including the biasing of the test attributes as well as a rapid rise in IQ scores that cannot be genetic because it is far too rapid (Flynn effect).
Fan-fucking-tastic sir. I salute you.
I actually didn’t take time to read the bottom of the figure because like ED I surmised he had no idea what he was talking about. This makes it so, so much better
Here is the source of the image I posted. Read it then get back to me
g is 86% heritable 
[quote=“Aragorn, post:831, topic:228119, full:true”]
Except that it shouldn’t be, because the logical extension of the position that you quoted as being “good enough” is that these populations don’t have high IQs (biased test attributes keyed toward our American Way or similar) in large part because they didn’t have the opportunity to develop the skills that modern society values, NOT because they are biologically incapable or “inferior” or whatever nonsense.[/quote]
Oh I was just running with usmccds conclusion and seeing if I could get him to agree that low IQ populations do not offer a skill set valuable in the West. I fully accept IQ is largely biologically driven.
Since you cannot point out what’s causing the Flynn effect and every attempt to try to close achievement gaps have failed, how is the existence of rising IQs even relevant (w/ respect to immigration)? Plus there are also some genetic based theories to explain the Flynn effect, one being children are maturing a lot faster physically and mentally than before.
Here’s commentary from Steven Sailer:
[quote]
After 1986, 2.7 million illegal aliens were amnestied, the majority in California. The subsequent history of the public schools in California and Californias economy (e.g., mortgage defaults) suggests that evidence for Mr. Lindseys optimism about amnesty raising IQs is limited, to say the least. [/quote]
Hey Raj, you’ve been fixated on IQ for a long time which makes me curious.
So whats yours?
I’m highly confident that you have no idea what most of that paper means, only that you could find the sentence that said “g was 86% heritable” and think that actually supports your point.
For those of us who can actually interpret the content of your kindly-provided reference, we see that the scientists conducting the study gave a large number of cognitive tests to the study participants. Pay heed to this passage:
“At the level of the individual cognitive tests, variable-specific additive genetic influences contributed very little to the observed variance, most were less than 5%. The only significant
variable specific genetic influences were observed for the Hidden Figures test, which accounted for approximately 15% of the variance. Variable-specific unique environmental influences ranged from 20% of the variance for Hidden Figures test to 45% of the variance for AFQT Vocabulary, Digit Span Backwards, and Letter Sequencing Condition of the D-KEFS Trail Making test.”
What that loosely means is that there does appear to be a common “g factor” that is manifested in correlation across test performances, but that the genetic influences added almost nothing to predictive value of how participants performed on any individual component of the test.
So I should amend my previous critique slightly. You’re not entirely wrong - the article does support the existence of a shared “g factor” that has some relation to performance across different intelligence tests - but the genetic influences have virtually no predictive effect on the individual test results, while environmental factors did have significant impacts on nearly all of the individual test results. So you’re just mostly wrong.
To be honest, ED should probably pick up here, as I’m a humble biostatistician that works mostly in cardiovascular research, while he actually has a cognitive psych background and might know more about this specific line of research.
1 Like
You’d be best served to go through this link I’ve posted multiple times. It sums up the case for race & IQ.