The question of racial differences in IQ is scientifically invalid
The question racial differences in IQ is scientifically pointless
My key points:
It is a pointless question to ask because the answer only matters for people who believe in the false narrative of race in the first place.
The appropriate question to ask is whether IQ is inherited. The next question if it is inherited is which genes determine IQ?
So ultimately we end up at genetics and IQ. "Race" as a topic of scientific enquiry is invalid because there is no way to genetically define what race even is. Ancestry as a topic of scientific enquiry is appropriate.
So the race ideology (or religion) doesn't help us to more effectively find the genes which influence intelligence. Nor does belief in racial categories tell us what we can do if we do find these genes. Searching for differences between races is introducing memes to encourage continued belief in race and as a side effect of promoting these memes, we get even more racism (based on ignorance of genetics).
In one of my older posts I came out against the idea of banning or blaming guns for school shootings. I mentioned the fact that extreme violence may have a genetic basis. I even pointed out examples of genes and proposed the question:
"Should gene editing technology be used to remove the violent predisposition?"
If we were to discover that genes play a major role in IQ and actually find the genes associated with IQ being lower (or higher) then I would ask the same question. I would point out the genes and ask the question of whether gene editing technology should be used to treat low IQ. After all if it's a matter of editing some genes and it will raise the IQ score then it becomes quite important if it is believed that IQ truly determines success in life (such as the belief of Jordan Peterson).
Race offers invalid categories which discourages people from finding their actual identity. The actual identity being found by having their genome sequenced, discovering their ancestry, finding out which genes they have (or don't have), and to make decisions off that.
The only way to get any useful information is to measure yourself directly. Once you have this then you will know what percentage African, European, Asian, or whatever else you might be. From this personalized digital self (quantified self) you can discover your genetic vulnerabilities and even potentially correct them using genome editing if required.
The race IQ debate doesn't seem to mention genome sequencing very much at all. Nor does it mention genome editing very much. In fact, the focus is taken off genetics and put on "race" and other quite outdated pseudo-scientific ways of thinking about genetics. So my opinion is that the entire debate is a distraction from actually finding the genes associated with IQ if they exist, and actually doing something constructive if those genes are found (such as to allow parents/patients to edit their genes if they have some genetic reason for lower IQ).
References
- https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17210248/sam-harris-ezra-klein-charles-murray-transcript-podcast
- https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html
- https://www.quora.com/Does-your-race-determine-your-IQ
- https://www.quora.com/Do-certain-races-have-a-higher-IQ
Rave has always been a touchy one and people still tend to put down anything on rave that they can . But I do believe that your IQ comes from your background , your experiences, your ability to learn
this does not make all equal! Sorry.
Regardless if you call it race or not, fact is there are differences between black and white (and yellow), not only physiologically. E.g. in sprint diciplines black poeple always win, whereas in swimming whites always win. Coincidence?
You think all IQ test, which constantly yield the highest scores among Asians, are all invalid? There are so many racial correlations, you can´t deny this.
Also in medicine this is increasingly recognized. E.g. a drug was licensed by FDA only in black people because it was found it doesn´t work in the other "races". The Japanese and Chinese Health Authorities are as well beyond the old "there are no races" ideologists, as they ask for clinical studies in their population as well prior approving drugs.
I guess there are not many modern genetic studies about races, like you mentioned, because any scientist who would dare to find genetic differences would immediately get shitstormed for even asking those questions, wouldn´t he. But this doesn´t prove there aren´t differences, it just shows that there is no free science in this topic.
By the way, there is a gene associated to IQ.
In any case, "censuring debaters favouring genetic explanations of intelligence differences is not the answer", please read more here
You beat me to it, I'm actually half way finished writing a meditation on the Sam Harris / Ezra Klein podcast you reference here too. And you said you do not follow "thought leaders", au contraire. "Follow" what they say maybe. Follow as in become a follower? I hope not, and that is not what I do either.
On topic, this is along the lines of what I thought. For what it's worth Sam Harris did bring up "why look at IQ in race at all" in the original interview with Charles Murray, in fact he asked it twice in a row, despite getting a direct answer for it the first time. The answer from Murray was that it is explicitly used in public policy so is relevant.
I however side with you on this. Race is a bogus concept. Saying that can get you into hot water of course. People who identify as part of a certain race will think you're taking something away from them, the group identity. Well you are. That's the point. If you have to have a group identity why not it be the fellowship of humanity?
People such as Klein usually say something then like, well it's easy as a member of the powerful group to be privileged enough to not have to "see" race. Those who deal with racism every day cannot be blind to it. Or in other words, dismissing the concept of race means you dismiss the reality of racism. This is tricky. How I personally view it is that the supposed scientific concept of race is bogus, but that the cultural concept of race is real, in the sense that people believe in it, and thus act on it.
Let me explain. The first is as you say it, so I won't go into detail. As it is put in that first interview, a "race" is like a big family that has some interbreeding and so re-enforced some genetic traits. However the cultural concept of race is not scientific. It's based on how someone looks (their skin, facial features, body type, hair, etc.) how they talk, dress, walk and generally conduct themselves with respect to culture. When someone experiences a racial prejudice, it's because of those things, often stereotyped (for example, that someone who looks a certain way is stupid). Stereotypes are sort of like a statistical mean, very very crude and rough way to distill a minimum of relevant information. There is always a reason behind them, but like the mean they are informationally light. In fact that is their function, people forget, to be a powerful summary stat, but basing anything on them apart from summary is not smart.
Being treated as stupid because of how you look, talk or whatever is definitely a problem. Like any statistics, this rough average has some historical analysis behind it. That doesn't mean it describes the distribution, i.e. when you meet someone you cannot predict them accurately based on it. Further, the model has likely not been updated in a long time, as is usually the case with cultural information.
This all goes some way I think to invalidate the scientific concept of race. I agree, the correct approach is genealogy. You said before that culture was something that gets in the way of progress. In the sense of cultural baggage discussed here, I concur. However instead of abandoning it wholesale, a new culture must emerge. It's clear in the last 12 months more than ever that the last attempt at that has failed.
Let me comment on a few things you said:
Race is used to dehumanize rather than to humanize. Race was invented primarily to dehumanize certain people for the purpose of encouraging slavery. To be impacted by racism is to have the misfortune to be born into the wrong race, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and "wrong race" is a race which is receiving negative stereotypes. These negatively stereotyped races do not experience the same feelings of group pride that a positively stereotyped race would receive. This puts memes and the mass mind in a position to influence the self esteems of millions of people for reasons which have nothing to do with merit, or accomplishment. Individual accomplishment, or team accomplishment, is different than to inherit the mistakes or successes of people grouped into a race by other people. Races are not teams, and to put race in that definition promotes racism and racial separatism.
Racism is the belief that race as a concept is real. The effects of racism (negative or positive stereotyping, bias in hiring, bias in treatment, etc) are side effects of the belief system itself. Colorism for example xists even among people grouped up as the same race. Black and white hispanic populations, or light and dark skinned Asian, or light and dark skinned black Americans, have to deal with this colorism where a national beauty standard or trend makes pale skin somehow the new beauty ideal. This isn't racism but is a side effect of it's own, and so even if there were no concept of race there would still be beauty standards.
Beauty takes many forms too. While skin tone is one form it can take, it can also take the form of height, or for those who are sapiosexual perhaps people who have higher IQ are similar in attractiveness to people who are taller or who have pale skin tone. I don't see these traits as anything more than traits, but beauty standards are culturally defined (and IQ is part of that).
We know pale or dark skin does functionally matter. People with pale skin do better at absorbing vitamin D but at the same time are much more vulnerable to skin diseases. Tall people are able to do some things that short people can't do as well such as dunk a basketball but short people have certain advantages as well because people who are very tall do not seem to have as much longevity. People who have the genetics to be thin, who have a fast metabolism, are able to eat whatever they like without counting calories but then because their metabolism is faster they age faster too because we know from studies caloric minimization extends lifespan. A less efficient use of calories might not always be good even if it looks good physically.
So what does this all mean? It means these beauty standards are arbitrary. They don't seem to be rationally determined. In addition they seem to come from top down influence by thought leaders who set trends rather than anything else. So maybe in the 80s something is in fashion which for some reason isn't in fashion right now but it doesn't have to be for any rational or wise reason.
I don't disagree with anything here, I think it complements what I stated nicely.
if you want me to resteem your post to over 72,500 followers go here https://steemit.com/@a-0-0
Genes + environment + education play a big part in how smart you become.
Whites usually have access to the internet and libraries, Asians too.
In war-torn or poor countries, most people have no internet or libraries (middle east, Africa, etc.) which logically results in a lower IQ as people simply have no means to educate themselves).
Culture, traditions & religion play a huge role too.
If most of your ancestors were born and raised in war-torn or poor countries, then you are probably going to have a mediocre IQ too.
However, just because you grow up in a safe environment doesn't mean you are automatically smarter than others.
Most people in western society remind me of the walking dead because they are superficial and most haven't read a book in their entire life.
Conclusion: If there is a will to become smarter you will find the means to educate yourself. Observing nature for example (a hobby of Darwin).
To rule out these environmental factors, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was done. Check out the results.
Environmental factors haven't been completely ruled out. If you're convinced it does rule it out then perhaps you're committing confirmation bias? That is you look for a study to fit your argument and racial narrative? Do you really think that study completely rules out all environmental factors?
Lead for instance has been shown to decrease IQ. How can you say for sure pollution in the environment or even the water isn't responsible?
And that's just lead.
References
Who is free from confirmation bias. Everybody is pulling out the studies which favor the own model. Are you saying that you never do this?
And of course environmental factors need to be considered, too. There are many reasons that lead to a specific IQ of a specific person. I just say that ancestry is one of them.
Not everyone has the same exact bias. A more appropriate thing to say is "who is free from bias"?
The way not to have confirmation bias is to not have a personal stake in the result. My only point from my post is that the answer to this question isn't valuable to science.
I would say no one is free from bias which is exactly why I'm a transhumanist. I'm trying to transcend my human limitations (biases, attention scarcity, etc). The point isn't that either of us will not make logical errors, whether confirmation bias, or any kind of fallacy, but the point is that if we do our knowledge search in the correct manner, using the correct tools, we can debias (remove our bias from our most critical decisions as much as we can).
Confirmation bias in your case would mean you're more motivated to try to convince me and others that your worldview is the correct worldview. In my opinion this is the wrong motivation. If the goal is to benefit science (genetic science for example) or to somehow improve the condition of the world, then my argument is the race IQ debate accomplishes neither of these two goals.
In fact, I would say based on what I'm seeing so far the debate only confuses people about the science and creates false divisions among people which are irrelevant from a long term perspective. What is the value of dividing people by race and then sorting them by IQ?
Another well written, interesting article. Thanks for sharing @Dana-Edwards
You got a 1.64% upvote from @upmewhale courtesy of @dana-edwards!
Earn 100% earning payout by delegating SP to @upmewhale. Visit http://www.upmewhale.com for details!
You got a 1.90% upvote from @postpromoter courtesy of @dana-edwards!
Want to promote your posts too? Check out the Steem Bot Tracker website for more info. If you would like to support the development of @postpromoter and the bot tracker please vote for @yabapmatt for witness!
This post has received a 0.94 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @dana-edwards.