Re: Race, intelligence, and anti-racist prejudice (Was: Genetic Evolution)

Lennart Regebro (hda9lre@hda.hydro.com)
23 Feb 1995 08:03:01 GMT

In article <D4Dw9L.3Bt@eskimo.com>, lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>Third, accept the definition of intelligence being what an IQ test
>measures. Since significant corelations between economic status, crime,
>teenage pregnancy, academic ability And IQ score have been shown to
>exist, it is a useful measure.

It might be a useful measure on how well you fit into a society, but it is _not_ a measure of intelligence. IQ tests only measure your ability to make logical concluions out of a set of information. Thats _not_ the same thing as intelligence, it is only a _part_ of what intelligence is about.

Racial difference in intelligence is definitely _not_ posible to measure with IQ tests, since IQ tests does _not_ measure intelligence. It is possible to measure racial differences in IQ score, though. Prolems doesn't appear until somebody makes the hasty conclusion that IQ score = Intelligence. It doesn't.
One fine reason why, is that you can _learn_ how to get high IQ scores. I have. I like taking IQ test and nowadays usually score quite high, around 150. That was not the case ten years ago. The thing is that you learn how to solve the type of problems that IQ tests have. Have I become more intelligent? No, of course not.

IQ Score is also subject to cultural differences. IQ test are typically made by western males...

>Newsweek is being stupid on purpose to suit their own PC agenda. Blood
>type is one trait that can be used to help determine genetic distance.
>However, it is not a good indicator by itself. One needs a whole genetic
>constellation.

That is probably exactly what newsweek tried to say. There is no single trait that appears in only one race. Since each trait usually groups together totally different people, its very hard to make out any races.

Also, since these traits usually blur at borders, it even harder to make out races.

>Since Newsweek has apparently ignored this fact, it's obvious that they
>are presenting a bias and incorrect view.

Sure, they are biased, there view is to show that the concept of human races isn't a very clear on, right? (I'm guesing, since I didn't read this, but I have a feeling it tells the same story as the Scientific American article on this subject.)

But is that necessarily incorrect, just because it's biased? Nope.

>It really doesn't matter what it measures, but what it's corelated with.
>It has proven to be a significant data point in predicting many things.
...
>Humm. See page 134 of _The Bell Curve_. It's been done. If you are two
>SD's below average, then you have a 25% probability of being in poverty.
>2 SDs above, then the probability of being in poverty is 2%.

So people with lower IQ scores have lower income, higher teenage pregnancy rates and so forth. Does that mean that low IQ is the source of social problems, or that social problems are a reason to low IQ?