IQ is fundamentally flawed

Author: drlebronski

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
Race "realists" often use low IQ in african americans as evidence whites are superior.

"“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Roger Highfield, director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London.
“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” said Dr Highfield, a co-author of the study published in the journal Neuron."

even then they use heritability 
"The term 'heritability,' as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how 'genetically inheritable' that trait is. Further, it does not inform us about what causes a trait, the relative influence of genes in the development of a trait, or the relative influence of the environment in the development of a trait. Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases. We, therefore, suggest that continued use of the term does enormous damage to the public understanding of how human beings develop their individual traits and identities. "




#2
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,675
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
lol im blocked by you? 
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,675
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
your funny
Topic's author
#4
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
some more evidence against race "realism"

Another important study was published in the journal Developmental Psychology in 1986. The author observed that black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean IQ score than age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained this gap. Nisbett et. al's 2012 review found that these differences in socialization "were large enough to account for virtually the entire Black–White gap in IQ," lending more credence to the environmental argument.


A 2012 paper by Richard Nisbett (co-authored with James Flynn and other leaders in the field), published in the American Psychologist, reviewed numerous studies conducted over the past decades, finding that the evidence "fails to support a genetic hypothesis.” The authors instead argue for an environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap.


In addition, a 2017 study in the Journal of Intelligence examined trans-racial adoptions, finding that "there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites." This supports the "nil hypothesis" (i.e. "that adoptees of different races have similar IQs when raised in the same environment"), indicating that there is no genetic IQ gap between races.


#5
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@drlebronski
The basic problem with Charles Murray's arguments about race and IQ is that the average scores of particular demographic groups do not remain constant over time.  The key, relevant data-set would be the United States' military's historical IQ scores of its recruits.  For example, Jewish draftees to fight in WWI had about the same IQ as blacks, whites and others.  This was at a time when the average level of educational attainment among Jewish populations was roughly the same as those other groups.  For the most part, they were poorly educated migrants from foreign countries.  Two generations later, that trend changed dramatically and presented some of the results Murray talked about.  Similar trends are observed with other groups as well, and relative IQ increases tend to associate with increases in socioeconomic status and educational attainment.  

Thomas Sowell has published on this, fairly extensively.  
Topic's author
#6
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@coal
relative IQ increases tend to associate with increases in socioeconomic status and educational attainment.  
If your saying socioeconomic status greatly influences IQ i agree with you but i also dont think iq means anything really
#7
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@drlebronski
IQ measures a lot.  But it doesn't measure which race is smartest.
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I will repeat one thing I have said before.

There are four strands of intelligence:

  1. speedy thinking/calculating
  2. huge memory bank storage
  3. deep thinking capacity in terms of how many steps in one can go strategically along a line of planning and/or understanding
  4. the ability to teach the less intelligent ideas that originally they'd have been quite literally too unintelligent to comprehend (you can call this 'complexity attrition' or whatever you like).
IQ combines speedy thinking/calculating with the depth of thinking concept.

Before you point out 'pattern recognition' is a fifth type that IQ also can be involved with measuring, pattern recognition is a subset of speedy thinking.

#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
The extremely creative use of intelligence is a subset of deep thinking and speedy thinking all at once.
#10
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@drlebronski
Your links don't work.
#11
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
"“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Roger Highfield, director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London.
“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” said Dr Highfield, a co-author of the study published in the journal Neuron."
These guys seem to be removing g-loaded facets that would be typically attributable to IQ scores, and narrowing criteria down to "short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility." The article doesn't explain why they've decided to change the criteria, how it's superior and what was wrong with IQ. With a bare assertion (logical fallacy), they just assert their definition of intelligence without any justification with sentences like this: “several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two.” Moreover, why is this superior to IQ? Does this control for cultural bias? Does your criteria for intelligence explain all the results?

Also, they're obfuscating the fact that IQ measures a variety of g loaded intelligence metrics, by stating that, "The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people". Again, multiple factors go into measuring IQ.

I think they're arguing in bad faith when they say, "The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests." IQ correlates with itself at 0.88, because things like tiredness and cultural bias on tests can influence the result and make it non-g loaded. Thus, IQ will never explain all of the variation in test performance, but it explains the vast majority of it.

They also conclude with the objectively incorrect statement of, "We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements." This probably requires its own thread, but I've briefly addressed how this statement is absolutely incorrect (read from "Secondly": "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ). It's good that they flatly assert this because WE know that there is a great debate on this topic, and for them to state that anti-race realism is something we already know is true, proves that they're absolutely abusing appeals to authority to make their arguments, rather than valid logic.

Overall, this article is largely an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy), wherein they say "researchers say this" and "scientists say that". They don't explain themselves, they just assert things because, for example, a "scientist" has said it. This authoritarian view knowledge (i.e. that it's only true if officials say it), is pure garbage and illogical.

Topic's author
#12
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
Also, they're obfuscating the fact that IQ measures a variety of g loaded intelligence metrics, by stating that, "The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people". Again, multiple factors go into measuring IQ.

Source? what g-factors go into IQ tests?
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
I'd like to see if there is an IQ difference between a ghetto African American and an actual African from Nigeria.

Maybe that explains the massive wealth gap between the two.

/sarcasm
#14
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Where you'd see the difference is in the children of Nigerian (or any African migrants) to the United States.  They are among the hardest working people in this country.  Their work ethic is culturally similar to what you'd expect from Asians. 
#15
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
Also, they're obfuscating the fact that IQ measures a variety of g loaded intelligence metrics, by stating that, "The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people". Again, multiple factors go into measuring IQ.

Source? what g-factors go into IQ tests?
The fact that you're asking this question proves you don't understand what IQ tests are.

Firstly, it's g loaded factors, not "g-factors". G (general intelligence) is what you are testing to determine.

Secondly, you don't need a source to know that tests need to be g loaded, in order to better ascertain general intelligence through the proxy of IQ. Lol. If you aren't measuring for g loaded factors, you're measuring things like whether someone understands the language you're speaking. For example, if you give an IQ test in Mandarin, most White people are going to fail that test because they don't understand the language, not because they have low IQ. We don't need a "source" to know that hahaha.

Thirdly, as for g loaded factors, there can be many. For once, RationalMadman has decided not to be an oversensitive droll and provide a great post on what could be considered g loaded: IQ is fundamentally flawed (debateart.com) . However, things like memory can be environmentally influenced by things such as mnemonics, and thus if that isn't controlled for (e.g. making sure no one has been taught mnemonics), this reduces the g loaded impact of mnemonics on IQ.

Fourthly, are you going to address the rest of what I wrote? You've only addressed one paragraph out of the five, so I assume you simply agree with everything else I wrote (and thus now believe that the article you posted is garbage).