[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Someone please define “wrong street” to me in the context of a kid walking down one as a minority.
I am confused on this topic. [/quote]
a street with a racist guy with a gun who is willing to use it.[/quote]
Oh right, that mythical place in Florida where white people hide in bushes waiting for black kids to show up.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I actually have my own theory that everyone is equally intelligent.[/quote]
It’s called egalitarianism. When egalitarianism is applied to racial intelligence levels, it fails. Each race has a different average brain size and difference average ratio between grey and white matter. For all the races to end up with equal intelligence levels is just about as close to a statistical impossibility as you can get and every valid study ever done on this topic has shown this is simply not the case. It would be nice if all the races had equal intelligence levels, but that’s just matter of factly less likely than all the races ending up with equal aggregate athletic proficiency. [/quote]
Have you ever did any real research into IQ testing and its critiques? Please post your research that shows that income is tied into higher IQ because frankly everything I have seen doesn’t follow this.
Unless you are simply saying to hit a certain baseline income you need a certain base IQ so if you are sub 100 you are more likely to have a lower income. There is nothing that equates to this on the other side. The higher an IQ is has no correlation to income after a certain sweet spot.
Terman’s old study amply showed this…and its the exact opposite of what he was looking for and its likely the largest IQ study ever done.
He selected genius kids in Cali by IQ testing several times cutting the lower IQ kids each time to get his study pool. Then he followed them through their lives. (he lent a bit of bias even by writing letters of recomendation, but I digress). Basically in the end even he concluded that intelligence and achievement at best have an imperfect relationship.
He even rejected William Shockley and Luis Alvarez which shows his system to be beyond suspect.
Other critics were a bit harsher saying that a completely random group of kids picked would have achieved the same success, which since its largely true puts whatever it is that IQ measures a bit up in the air. Though to show that no matter how gifted one might be one can believe in some total horseshit Shockley became big in the idea that lower intelligence breeding was fucking up the race and science should take a hand even maybe make a nobel laureate sperm bank.
Terman also was an early member of something called the Human Betterment Society which had some noble aims Tiger Time would be down with. Lets just say such an association might make him a bit biased at the very least.
So this guy Terman is pretty much the linchpin of IQ testing at least for the 50 or 60 years from 1930 to 1980 or so. He put the Stanford in Stanford Binet after all. And he changed the focus from identifying those that might need more help to those that were gifted.
This would be a link to Raven’s test which is an IQ test that is culture bias free(in theory) for anyone that is interested.
Here’s a pretty good start.
As you’ll read here, some studies actually show the IQ/income correlation goes as high as 0.5. Once again, arm size to arm strength only correlates at 0.24, less than half. Also once again, once controlled for IQ, the race/income gap vanishes. This is huge.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]
Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.
As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.
So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.
So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.
Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]
Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.
Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.[/quote]
I actually don’t see how what you’ve said is a counter argument. I’m pretty sure I stated that not only do some races have bigger brains, but the grey to white matter ratio is also different, which makes sense given what you’ve said about grey matter and intelligence.
Also, your cross-species argument is silly. I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but given that we’re talking about one species, Humans, and we’re all about the same size, this argument is a non-sequitur.
And to finish off your hubris-littered haymaker of a counter argument, “Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.”
Please, at least build up a Wikipedian understanding of this topic before charging in so boldly. [/quote]
Brain size and intelligence generally do not relate within a species. Einstein had a small brain.
[/quote]
Actually, brain size correlates to IQ at about 0.4. This is enormous. This is 1.6x the correlation between arm size and arm strength.
But there is something to be said about this topic. Women tend to have roughly equal IQ’s with men despite having smaller brains. this is typically thought to be the result of a more compact brain and is also why some people think Einstein was so smart; closer neurons.
Are you suggesting blacks have more compact brains?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]
Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.
So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]
Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.
Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]
But that would imply a large cultural influence.[/quote]
Mebbe.
If that was true though, it would also explain why people who see reading a book as a sign of sympathizing with the enemy do not so well on IQ tests.
[/quote]
Which again is cultural. My grandmother was almost just south of white…as in light skinned but “black” facial features enough to know she isn’t. Her husband was jet black. He would often go missing in the middle of the night so she had to buy Pearl Drops toothpaste so he could be found.
I remember getting made fun of at one school I attended (the only one majority black) where I was teased for how I spoke. Apparently, I spoke “white”. That is the community many of these kids are raised in. Education is not valued (mind you, I do think this is changing lately) and the focus is not on praising pure intellect mostly because of the condition many of those kids are living in and the options they think are available to them.
This can not be ignored with standardized tests or completely left out of the equation.[/quote]
This is another theory I find plausible. I vaguely remember reading about a crime report from the 1800’s that actually showed blacks had lower crime rates, both in total and as a % of population, than whites. I haven’t been able to find it, but assuming it’s true, it suggests a culture of violence as the problem, not the low IQ/high T mixture.
It would take more than just that report, obviously, but it is a valid counter-theory.
The warring nature of Africa can also plausibly be explained in this way if one looks at Africa in terms of Lloyd DeMause’s psycho-history theory (which I adhere to), but this theory still requires the low aggregate African IQ to explain this. [/quote]
I know that we’re well into tiger time but wake up. Africans were less warlike than white colonists otherwise they wouldn’t have been enslaved. The conquerors’ methods are always the most brutal. The state of modern Africa is a legacy of slavery and superimposing an incompatible government onto a honeycomb-like system of tribes. [/quote]
Intelligence driven technological discovery applied to weaponry > barbarism.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]
Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.
So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]
Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.
Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]
But that would imply a large cultural influence.[/quote]
Mebbe.
If that was true though, it would also explain why people who see reading a book as a sign of sympathizing with the enemy do not so well on IQ tests.
[/quote]
Which again is cultural. My grandmother was almost just south of white…as in light skinned but “black” facial features enough to know she isn’t. Her husband was jet black. He would often go missing in the middle of the night so she had to buy Pearl Drops toothpaste so he could be found.
I remember getting made fun of at one school I attended (the only one majority black) where I was teased for how I spoke. Apparently, I spoke “white”. That is the community many of these kids are raised in. Education is not valued (mind you, I do think this is changing lately) and the focus is not on praising pure intellect mostly because of the condition many of those kids are living in and the options they think are available to them.
This can not be ignored with standardized tests or completely left out of the equation.[/quote]
This is another theory I find plausible. I vaguely remember reading about a crime report from the 1800’s that actually showed blacks had lower crime rates, both in total and as a % of population, than whites. I haven’t been able to find it, but assuming it’s true, it suggests a culture of violence as the problem, not the low IQ/high T mixture.
It would take more than just that report, obviously, but it is a valid counter-theory.
The warring nature of Africa can also plausibly be explained in this way if one looks at Africa in terms of Lloyd DeMause’s psycho-history theory (which I adhere to), but this theory still requires the low aggregate African IQ to explain this. [/quote]
I know that we’re well into tiger time but wake up. Africans were less warlike than white colonists otherwise they wouldn’t have been enslaved. The conquerors’ methods are always the most brutal. The state of modern Africa is a legacy of slavery and superimposing an incompatible government onto a honeycomb-like system of tribes. [/quote]
Right because, as we all know, there was no slavery in Africa before the white man came…
Black slavery has been blown way out of proportion. I’m actually surprised to see this argument from you. Are you aware that when colonists came to South Africa, it was almost completely devoid of African’s? African’s actually moved into South Africa because they saw benefit from European technology.
This is actually part of a much bigger topic that I just don’t have the energy to go into right now. For now, I think it’s enough to say that Africa absolutely had tribal warfare and slavery before the colonists.
Sad.
Houston, Utah, Tiger… don’t really care about you guys. But sad knowing that alot of white ppl still think like this. Comments such as racism goes “both ways”, referring to person as “white” (or “black”) is racist, you guys have black friends so know what you’re talking about, have been through a little racist episode, etc. Don’t even wanna get in the IQ stuff.
I haven’t experienced racism really until I started dating this black girl. And I see it happening to her ALL THE TIME. Just a few examples off the top of my head:
She is trying on dresses in a store. While she is changing, the sales person forces her to move to a closer booth.
Walking in Apple Store. She has security guard 2 inches behind her.
Old woman in grocery store staring at her like she is from another planet.
Neighbours make no eye contact when she greets them, just stare at the ground.
Out in the country, if we go camping or cottage, people giving her that look.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
Police stats are increasingly reliant on quotas (not just in the U.S); they are primarily meant to reflect police performance first, crimes rates second. Drug counsellors in many countries know the addresses of major dealers,and so do the cops, but it is better to stake out the dealer’s houses and arrest the customers than arrest the dealers. It pads out arrest statistics so much better (shh! I’m not supposed to know this so it’s not true).[/quote]
This is interesting, but it’s certainly not a game-changer and it’s only marginally relevant.
And before some fool brings it up, yes mistakes happen, but not enough to be statistically significant in this case.[/quote]
Well, statistics are sub-marginally relevant to the topic, as a decision to shoot someone should not be stat-based. The decision should be made based on a threat to personal safety, and if you have the ability to remove yourself to a safe distance, you should do it.
But, to address your point, if crime figures are micro-managed for drug arrests, so are the figures for every other crime. I’m telling you that arrests in general are made on a points system, not on priority: It’s better to arrest 5 users than one dealer (five arrests are better than one), yet the problem is still there. Don’t assume for a second that narcotics and homicides are mutually exclusive, but if the stats say they are, it must be true.
What use are stats when crime, like every other business, is managed, not solved?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I actually have my own theory that everyone is equally intelligent.[/quote]
It’s called egalitarianism. When egalitarianism is applied to racial intelligence levels, it fails. Each race has a different average brain size and difference average ratio between grey and white matter. For all the races to end up with equal intelligence levels is just about as close to a statistical impossibility as you can get and every valid study ever done on this topic has shown this is simply not the case. It would be nice if all the races had equal intelligence levels, but that’s just matter of factly less likely than all the races ending up with equal aggregate athletic proficiency. [/quote]
Have you ever did any real research into IQ testing and its critiques? Please post your research that shows that income is tied into higher IQ because frankly everything I have seen doesn’t follow this.
Unless you are simply saying to hit a certain baseline income you need a certain base IQ so if you are sub 100 you are more likely to have a lower income. There is nothing that equates to this on the other side. The higher an IQ is has no correlation to income after a certain sweet spot.
Terman’s old study amply showed this…and its the exact opposite of what he was looking for and its likely the largest IQ study ever done.
He selected genius kids in Cali by IQ testing several times cutting the lower IQ kids each time to get his study pool. Then he followed them through their lives. (he lent a bit of bias even by writing letters of recomendation, but I digress). Basically in the end even he concluded that intelligence and achievement at best have an imperfect relationship.
He even rejected William Shockley and Luis Alvarez which shows his system to be beyond suspect.
Other critics were a bit harsher saying that a completely random group of kids picked would have achieved the same success, which since its largely true puts whatever it is that IQ measures a bit up in the air. Though to show that no matter how gifted one might be one can believe in some total horseshit Shockley became big in the idea that lower intelligence breeding was fucking up the race and science should take a hand even maybe make a nobel laureate sperm bank.
Terman also was an early member of something called the Human Betterment Society which had some noble aims Tiger Time would be down with. Lets just say such an association might make him a bit biased at the very least.
So this guy Terman is pretty much the linchpin of IQ testing at least for the 50 or 60 years from 1930 to 1980 or so. He put the Stanford in Stanford Binet after all. And he changed the focus from identifying those that might need more help to those that were gifted.
This would be a link to Raven’s test which is an IQ test that is culture bias free(in theory) for anyone that is interested.
Here’s a pretty good start.
As you’ll read here, some studies actually show the IQ/income correlation goes as high as 0.5. Once again, arm size to arm strength only correlates at 0.24, less than half. Also once again, once controlled for IQ, the race/income gap vanishes. This is huge. [/quote]
Ok this is from what you quoted no? which is pretty much in opposition to what you are contending and its from your own source.
"Some researchers claim that “in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much.”[71][72]
Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance.[73] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.[74]
Taking the above two principles together, very high IQ produces very high job performance, but no greater income than slightly high IQ. Studies also show that high IQ is related to higher net worth.[75]
The American Psychological Association’s 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[39]
Some studies claim that IQ only accounts for (explained variance) a sixth of the variation in income because many studies are based on young adults (many of whom have not yet completed their education). On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance).
A 2002 study[76] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an individual’s location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ."
Is this what’s called hoisted on your own petard?
[quote]hit the gym wrote:
Sad.
Houston, Utah, Tiger… don’t really care about you guys. But sad knowing that alot of white ppl still think like this. Comments such as racism goes “both ways”, referring to person as “white” (or “black”) is racist, you guys have black friends so know what you’re talking about, have been through a little racist episode, etc. Don’t even wanna get in the IQ stuff.
I haven’t experienced racism really until I started dating this black girl. And I see it happening to her ALL THE TIME. Just a few examples off the top of my head:
She is trying on dresses in a store. While she is changing, the sales person forces her to move to a closer booth.
Walking in Apple Store. She has security guard 2 inches behind her.
Old woman in grocery store staring at her like she is from another planet.
Neighbours make no eye contact when she greets them, just stare at the ground.
Out in the country, if we go camping or cottage, people giving her that look.[/quote]
Think like what?
That jumping conclusions is bad?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
Exactly. I once saw an IQ test where the answer was ‘Thelonius Monk’. It wasn’t a conventional question; it was a word challenge. The highest scores will also come from people who are the most interested in IQ testing and have the most experience in completing them. It’s an acquired skill, not a measure of intelligence. [/quote]
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]
OK…so if everyone is telling Tiger Lilly this, why is he still typing?[/quote]
Well, that is not quite true.
For what its worth, the better you do in IQ tests, the more money you are likely to make.
Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]
I’ve had my IQ tested but the results were kept from me until I got out of college. I never put much reliance in them but can see how culture and exposure can affect the outcome to some degree. Both of my parents were teachers. My mom had me reading on a middle school level in Kindergarten. I did horrible in high school. I was Dean’s List in college. I do not believe they can dictate any level of success in life and that seems to be what some are arguing.
This is definitely not my field of study…but I do know something about genetics.[/quote]
Well, the fact is they do dictate ones level of success, but only if you let them. There are engineers with lower IQ’s than the average janitor. For the individual, I believe hard work is the main determining factor for success. It’s just that when you look at large populations, work ethic becomes a wash and genetic factors pan out.
My girlfriend’s high school average is about 15% higher than mine, despite being over 20 IQ points lower than me, so I know the kind of difference the extra mile can make. You get out of life what you put into it. I think this is something we can agree on.[/quote]
You have in no way shown that they dictate success. You have shown correlation only.
It is entirely possible that they are both caused by another factor.
You are failing in your basic logic.
For example: If a kid is apathetic, they may put 0 effort into an IQ exam because they just plain don’t care. That apathy could also cause a general lack of success in life.
A low IQ doesn’t mean low intelligence, and it doesn’t mean it is the cause of success.[/quote]
All right, I’m just going to put this out there for everyone; If you’re not going to read all of my posts here, don’t read any of them. I’m getting annoyed at how often I have to repeat myself because you guys are reading one post, assuming you’ve got the whole picture, and charge in with arguments I’ve addressed in other posts, even on the same page in many cases.
From this point forward, everyone who makes an argument already addressed is going to receive a response from me that simply reads “<”; As in, go back and look over my other posts because your question/argument is already answered there.
<
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]
Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.
As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.
So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.
So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.
Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]
Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.
Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.[/quote]
I actually don’t see how what you’ve said is a counter argument. I’m pretty sure I stated that not only do some races have bigger brains, but the grey to white matter ratio is also different, which makes sense given what you’ve said about grey matter and intelligence.
Also, your cross-species argument is silly. I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but given that we’re talking about one species, Humans, and we’re all about the same size, this argument is a non-sequitur.
And to finish off your hubris-littered haymaker of a counter argument, “Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.”
Please, at least build up a Wikipedian understanding of this topic before charging in so boldly. [/quote]
While your use of google scholar is impressive and I appreciate how you cherry picked something from the first page to support something close to what you said, there are years of research garnering more support for relative brain mass, cortical convolution, cortical thickness, etc. than absolute brain mass for being a greater indicator of intelligence.
Neuroanatomical correlates of intelligence - ScienceDirect (2009, neuranatomical features)
In vivo brain size and intelligence - ScienceDirect (1991, relative brain mass)
http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2011/WCECS2011_pp428-432.pdf (2011, cortical complexity)
Also try not to quote studies discrediting your position brohan, weakens your argument.
Tiger time: “I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio…”
Tiger time immediately quoting a study saying something to the contrary of something he is apparently well aware of: "“Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.” "
Also you passingly mentioned a difference in grey to white matter without any elaboration whatsoever in a post I did not address.
[quote]roybot wrote:
But, to address your point, if crime figures are micro-managed for drug arrests, so are the figures for every other crime. [/quote]
The problem with this is it still assumes that blacks are actually committing these homicide.
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]
Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.
As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.
So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.
So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.
Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]
Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.
Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.[/quote]
I actually don’t see how what you’ve said is a counter argument. I’m pretty sure I stated that not only do some races have bigger brains, but the grey to white matter ratio is also different, which makes sense given what you’ve said about grey matter and intelligence.
Also, your cross-species argument is silly. I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but given that we’re talking about one species, Humans, and we’re all about the same size, this argument is a non-sequitur.
And to finish off your hubris-littered haymaker of a counter argument, “Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.”
Please, at least build up a Wikipedian understanding of this topic before charging in so boldly. [/quote]
While your use of google scholar is impressive and I appreciate how you cherry picked something from the first page to support something close to what you said, there are years of research garnering more support for relative brain mass, cortical convolution, cortical thickness, etc. than absolute brain mass for being a greater indicator of intelligence.
Neuroanatomical correlates of intelligence - ScienceDirect (2009, neuranatomical features)
In vivo brain size and intelligence - ScienceDirect (1991, relative brain mass)
http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2011/WCECS2011_pp428-432.pdf (2011, cortical complexity)
Also try not to quote studies discrediting your position brohan, weakens your argument.
Tiger time: “I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio…”
Tiger time immediately quoting a study saying something to the contrary of something he is apparently well aware of: "“Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.” "
Also you passingly mentioned a difference in grey to white matter without any elaboration whatsoever in a post I did not address.[/quote]
I know this, that’s why I acknowledged it before you even hit the scene.
Contradictory? In what way?
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I actually have my own theory that everyone is equally intelligent.[/quote]
It’s called egalitarianism. When egalitarianism is applied to racial intelligence levels, it fails. Each race has a different average brain size and difference average ratio between grey and white matter. For all the races to end up with equal intelligence levels is just about as close to a statistical impossibility as you can get and every valid study ever done on this topic has shown this is simply not the case. It would be nice if all the races had equal intelligence levels, but that’s just matter of factly less likely than all the races ending up with equal aggregate athletic proficiency. [/quote]
Have you ever did any real research into IQ testing and its critiques? Please post your research that shows that income is tied into higher IQ because frankly everything I have seen doesn’t follow this.
Unless you are simply saying to hit a certain baseline income you need a certain base IQ so if you are sub 100 you are more likely to have a lower income. There is nothing that equates to this on the other side. The higher an IQ is has no correlation to income after a certain sweet spot.
Terman’s old study amply showed this…and its the exact opposite of what he was looking for and its likely the largest IQ study ever done.
He selected genius kids in Cali by IQ testing several times cutting the lower IQ kids each time to get his study pool. Then he followed them through their lives. (he lent a bit of bias even by writing letters of recomendation, but I digress). Basically in the end even he concluded that intelligence and achievement at best have an imperfect relationship.
He even rejected William Shockley and Luis Alvarez which shows his system to be beyond suspect.
Other critics were a bit harsher saying that a completely random group of kids picked would have achieved the same success, which since its largely true puts whatever it is that IQ measures a bit up in the air. Though to show that no matter how gifted one might be one can believe in some total horseshit Shockley became big in the idea that lower intelligence breeding was fucking up the race and science should take a hand even maybe make a nobel laureate sperm bank.
Terman also was an early member of something called the Human Betterment Society which had some noble aims Tiger Time would be down with. Lets just say such an association might make him a bit biased at the very least.
So this guy Terman is pretty much the linchpin of IQ testing at least for the 50 or 60 years from 1930 to 1980 or so. He put the Stanford in Stanford Binet after all. And he changed the focus from identifying those that might need more help to those that were gifted.
This would be a link to Raven’s test which is an IQ test that is culture bias free(in theory) for anyone that is interested.
Here’s a pretty good start.
As you’ll read here, some studies actually show the IQ/income correlation goes as high as 0.5. Once again, arm size to arm strength only correlates at 0.24, less than half. Also once again, once controlled for IQ, the race/income gap vanishes. This is huge. [/quote]
Ok this is from what you quoted no? which is pretty much in opposition to what you are contending and its from your own source.
"Some researchers claim that “in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much.”[71][72]
Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance.[73] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.[74]
Taking the above two principles together, very high IQ produces very high job performance, but no greater income than slightly high IQ. Studies also show that high IQ is related to higher net worth.[75]
The American Psychological Association’s 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[39]
Some studies claim that IQ only accounts for (explained variance) a sixth of the variation in income because many studies are based on young adults (many of whom have not yet completed their education). On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance).
A 2002 study[76] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an individual’s location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ."
Is this what’s called hoisted on your own petard? [/quote]
In opposition? I think you’re underestimating the magnitude of an IQ/income correlation of 0.25-0.5.
Once again, this level of correlation is enough to remove the race/income gap when controlled for IQ.
Obviously there’s a point of diminishing return, but it’s way beyond the 100 IQ point threshold, which is really all that’s relevant given that this is the average white IQ.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]
Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.
As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.
So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.
So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.
Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]
Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.
Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.[/quote]
I actually don’t see how what you’ve said is a counter argument. I’m pretty sure I stated that not only do some races have bigger brains, but the grey to white matter ratio is also different, which makes sense given what you’ve said about grey matter and intelligence.
Also, your cross-species argument is silly. I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but given that we’re talking about one species, Humans, and we’re all about the same size, this argument is a non-sequitur.
And to finish off your hubris-littered haymaker of a counter argument, “Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.”
Please, at least build up a Wikipedian understanding of this topic before charging in so boldly. [/quote]
While your use of google scholar is impressive and I appreciate how you cherry picked something from the first page to support something close to what you said, there are years of research garnering more support for relative brain mass, cortical convolution, cortical thickness, etc. than absolute brain mass for being a greater indicator of intelligence.
Neuroanatomical correlates of intelligence - ScienceDirect (2009, neuranatomical features)
In vivo brain size and intelligence - ScienceDirect (1991, relative brain mass)
http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2011/WCECS2011_pp428-432.pdf (2011, cortical complexity)
Also try not to quote studies discrediting your position brohan, weakens your argument.
Tiger time: “I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio…”
Tiger time immediately quoting a study saying something to the contrary of something he is apparently well aware of: "“Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.” "
Also you passingly mentioned a difference in grey to white matter without any elaboration whatsoever in a post I did not address.[/quote]
I know this, that’s why I acknowledged it before you even hit the scene.
Contradictory? In what way?[/quote]
It states brain-to-body mass ratio, neuroanatomical measures such as neocortical properties, etc are worse indicators of cognitive abilities than whole brain size . You said intelligence is better predicted using measures accounting for brain-to-body mass ratio like Encephalization quotient. The idea presented by the meta analysis (sketchy to begin with…) is mutually exclusive with your statement. Additionally you criticized my use of non-humans and then quoted a study on non-human primates.
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Which does not necessarily mean that IQ tests test what would traditionally be called intelligence, whatever that is. [/quote]
Also a good point. IQ correlates with average brain size almost perfectly until you look at the Inuit. They average an IQ of about 98 or so, despite having the largest brains.
As it turns out, the reason for this is because the Inuit have prodigious spacial memory, a skill requiring more brain mass. Spacial memory is an aspect not really relevant to modern IQ tests, even ones that control for ‘G’ and when an alternate IQ test was produced that specifically tested for spacial memory, the Inuit scored an average of 106 versus the white median of 100. The proposed reason for their advanced spacial memory is due to the demands placed on them by the terrain they live in. The areas they live in are barren and any given area is nearly indistinguishable from any other given area, so it’s vital that the Inuit are capable of navigating around using seemingly insignificant landmarks.
So you have something to relate this to, the average North East Asian Mongoloid IQ is 105 versus the 100 white median.
So, IQ tests are imperfect. It’s absolutely possible that blacks posses a form of intelligence not recorded by IQ tests, so if you guys want to make a valid counter argument, THIS is where you need to be. I’m deliberately giving you guys a handicap because, frankly, this is the sort of information you guys should already be privy to before you decide to step up to bat with me on this issue. I can understand why you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this field, but that’s no excuse for the arrogance some of you express in your posts. I’m absolutely willing to hear you out and even change my position if you can show me to be wrong, but the vast majority of you need to step up your game if this is your goal.
Also, any form of intelligence blacks may be prodigious in that is not recorded in conventional IQ tests has already been shown to have no effect on the average black income and the general state of Africa. Hmm, I suppose I didn’t give you much of a handicap after all… [/quote]
Please don’t speak out of your ass, you’re lack of knowledge about basic neuroscience is becoming a bit too glaringly obvious. Mental capacity is more correlated with brain surface area than over all mass, numerous animals having larger brains than our own (elephants, average sperm whale brain mass is 7X that of a human) while brain mass is more closely correlated to body size than anything else. More surface area=more grey matter=more of the brain that actually has to do with what is traditionally thought of as intelligence.
Also while certain brain areas do display more electrical activity during different thought processes to definitively say that they are mostly associated with that region is again laughable, there is far too much interplay at an electrical and non-electrical level to posit such claims.[/quote]
I actually don’t see how what you’ve said is a counter argument. I’m pretty sure I stated that not only do some races have bigger brains, but the grey to white matter ratio is also different, which makes sense given what you’ve said about grey matter and intelligence.
Also, your cross-species argument is silly. I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but given that we’re talking about one species, Humans, and we’re all about the same size, this argument is a non-sequitur.
And to finish off your hubris-littered haymaker of a counter argument, “Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.”
Please, at least build up a Wikipedian understanding of this topic before charging in so boldly. [/quote]
While your use of google scholar is impressive and I appreciate how you cherry picked something from the first page to support something close to what you said, there are years of research garnering more support for relative brain mass, cortical convolution, cortical thickness, etc. than absolute brain mass for being a greater indicator of intelligence.
Neuroanatomical correlates of intelligence - ScienceDirect (2009, neuranatomical features)
In vivo brain size and intelligence - ScienceDirect (1991, relative brain mass)
http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2011/WCECS2011_pp428-432.pdf (2011, cortical complexity)
Also try not to quote studies discrediting your position brohan, weakens your argument.
Tiger time: “I’m well aware that intelligence is more accurately predicted when you look at the brain-to-body mass ratio…”
Tiger time immediately quoting a study saying something to the contrary of something he is apparently well aware of: "“Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. The total weight of the species is greater than the predicted sample only if the frontal lobe is adjusted for spacial relation.” "
Also you passingly mentioned a difference in grey to white matter without any elaboration whatsoever in a post I did not address.[/quote]
I know this, that’s why I acknowledged it before you even hit the scene.
Contradictory? In what way?[/quote]
It states brain-to-body mass ratio, neuroanatomical measures such as neocortical properties, etc are worse indicators of cognitive abilities than whole brain size . You said intelligence is better predicted using measures accounting for brain-to-body mass ratio like Encephalization quotient. The idea presented by the meta analysis (sketchy to begin with…) is mutually exclusive with your statement. Additionally you criticized my use of non-humans and then quoted a study on non-human primates.[/quote]
Ugh, look up a couple of inches. You see where I said that brain to body mass ratio is irrelevant because we’re only talking about one species? There you go. It’s good for determining intelligence levels across species, but not within, as shown by this primate study. Breath between the lines a little, bud.
I criticized your use of the sperm whale brain size as evidence of racial egalitarianism. This isn’t the same as using a study on primates as evidence that whole brain size is a better measure of intelligence within a species.
Still waiting on the “outrage” over suggesting that blacks have a natural athletic advantage, especially over Asians.
I guess only the brain is off limits by evolution, hmm?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Still waiting on the “outrage” over suggesting that blacks have a natural athletic advantage, especially over Asians.
I guess only the brain is off limits by evolution, hmm?[/quote]
Never go full retard it makes it too obvious.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Right because, as we all know, there was no slavery in Africa before the white man came…
Black slavery has been blown way out of proportion. I’m actually surprised to see this argument from you. [quote] I’m full of surprises [/quote] Are you aware that when colonists came to South Africa, it was almost completely devoid of African’s? African’s actually moved into South Africa because they saw benefit from European technology.
This is actually part of a much bigger topic that I just don’t have the energy to go into right now. For now, I think it’s enough to say that Africa absolutely had tribal warfare and slavery before the colonists. [/quote]
Debate away…
Warlike races are not inclined to be enslaved, nor do they make “good” slaves (see Mayans and Aztecs and their extinction/ lasting legacy. Oh and vikings) Tribal warfare and inter-tribal captivity are not the same as commercial slavery. In modern terms, tribal warfare is defused during a sports game; the parallel can be be seen in war dances.
You assume that Africa needed to be invaded in order to progress.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IQ tests are, at best, marginally useful identifying things like learning disabilities WITHIN a normalized population.[/quote]
Not to completely derail this, but Jews rock on IQ tests, are like 1% of the world population, and have half the world’s Nobel Prizes. Not to mention writing the book that is the cornerstone of our ethics.
So there is something to IQ test, IMHO.[/quote]
Yeah, but for what its worth, for the longest time Jews started to read at three working their way through the Torah, instead of “Bob has a ball, watch Bob and his ball”.
Add to that a heritage that insinuates that everything you have better fit into your suitcase and into your head and who knows what that leads to. [/quote]
But that would imply a large cultural influence.[/quote]
Mebbe.
If that was true though, it would also explain why people who see reading a book as a sign of sympathizing with the enemy do not so well on IQ tests.
[/quote]
Which again is cultural. My grandmother was almost just south of white…as in light skinned but “black” facial features enough to know she isn’t. Her husband was jet black. He would often go missing in the middle of the night so she had to buy Pearl Drops toothpaste so he could be found.
I remember getting made fun of at one school I attended (the only one majority black) where I was teased for how I spoke. Apparently, I spoke “white”. That is the community many of these kids are raised in. Education is not valued (mind you, I do think this is changing lately) and the focus is not on praising pure intellect mostly because of the condition many of those kids are living in and the options they think are available to them.
This can not be ignored with standardized tests or completely left out of the equation.[/quote]
This is another theory I find plausible. I vaguely remember reading about a crime report from the 1800’s that actually showed blacks had lower crime rates, both in total and as a % of population, than whites. I haven’t been able to find it, but assuming it’s true, it suggests a culture of violence as the problem, not the low IQ/high T mixture.
It would take more than just that report, obviously, but it is a valid counter-theory.
The warring nature of Africa can also plausibly be explained in this way if one looks at Africa in terms of Lloyd DeMause’s psycho-history theory (which I adhere to), but this theory still requires the low aggregate African IQ to explain this. [/quote]
I know that we’re well into tiger time but wake up. Africans were less warlike than white colonists otherwise they wouldn’t have been enslaved. The conquerors’ methods are always the most brutal. The state of modern Africa is a legacy of slavery and superimposing an incompatible government onto a honeycomb-like system of tribes. [/quote]
Intelligence driven technological discovery applied to weaponry > barbarism.
[/quote]
Zimmerman’s trigger finger wasn’t driven by intelligence.