. The males generally did better of the mathematical and spatial portions while females did better on verbal and interpersonal intelligence(whatever that is).
On some tests, they refer to this as the social competency. It's the abiltiy to recognize affective response, issue it between and among people.
IIRC from my textbooks, when we discussed IQ and intelligence tests, they're mainly to be taken only as a prediction of future academic achievement given instruction, but that they don't measure genuine "inate" intelligence, instead current ability.
Darth Wong wrote:People shouldn't get into the trap of assuming that the argument must be false because it is so offensive. It is always possible, although at present unsubstantiated by evidence, that there is actually an IQ gap between whites and blacks. The problem is that even if this were the case, 99% of the two ethnicities would overlap anyway, so the two races as a whole would not show significant deviation.
That's what happens if you superimpose a pair of Bell curves whose median points are slightly offset.
Black infants adopted by white parents tend to outscore average whites, IIRC.
Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs of all ethnic groups, something that's a bit harder to pin down solely on culture because it represents nearly an entire standard deviation.
Darth Wong wrote:People shouldn't get into the trap of assuming that the argument must be false because it is so offensive. It is always possible, although at present unsubstantiated by evidence, that there is actually an IQ gap between whites and blacks. The problem is that even if this were the case, 99% of the two ethnicities would overlap anyway, so the two races as a whole would not show significant deviation.
That's what happens if you superimpose a pair of Bell curves whose median points are slightly offset.
Black infants adopted by white parents tend to outscore average whites, IIRC.
Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs of all ethnic groups, something that's a bit harder to pin down solely on culture because it represents nearly an entire standard deviation.
Natural selection. They had to be smarter just to survive in medieval europe. For 1700 years or so Ashkenazi jews were not allowed to own property. They were regularly subject to persecution etc etc. Just to survive they had no choice but to be more savvy than everyone else. that is about the only explanation I have other than genetic drift.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Xeriar wrote:Black infants adopted by white parents tend to outscore average whites, IIRC.
I wonder though what is the IQ scores of adopted children as compared to non-adopted children. Home life effects IQ scores somewhat dramatically. A couple who adopts a child and has to go through a large process to get the child might be, on average, more caring and attentive than your average parent in general.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
Gil Hamilton wrote:Given that Dr. Franklin did virtually all the legwork in discovering DNA's structure (including the absurdly clever method of separating DNA crystals), she should have gotten the Noble prize, not the least of which on being a pioneer in work on the structure of viruses, including polio... but never did, even posthumously after her early death to cancer.
The Nobel Prize is never granted posthumously (unless the candidate dies after nomination). Since Dr. Franklin died several years before the prize was awarded to Crick and company, she was ineligible. I won't speculate on what the Nobel committee would have done if she were still alive.
Gil Hamilton wrote:Given that Dr. Franklin did virtually all the legwork in discovering DNA's structure (including the absurdly clever method of separating DNA crystals), she should have gotten the Noble prize, not the least of which on being a pioneer in work on the structure of viruses, including polio... but never did, even posthumously after her early death to cancer.
The Nobel Prize is never granted posthumously (unless the candidate dies after nomination). Since Dr. Franklin died several years before the prize was awarded to Crick and company, she was ineligible. I won't speculate on what the Nobel committee would have done if she were still alive.
This is true. The thing is, she got shafted while she was still alive.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Gil Hamilton wrote:Lots of things affect IQ. They've found, for instance, that girls and boys who have minimal contact with their mothers and fathers (respectively), have a significant drop in IQ compared to children who do, without significant variation based on race, and even more when one or both is abusive in some way. It can be found that variations on IQ scores based on race turn out to not have much to do with race.
However, James Watson was always a prick. He didn't even discover the actual correct structure of DNA. He and Crick actually only sniffed out that it was a double helix on their own, but their model was inside out. A woman named Rosalind Franklin and her associate Maurice Wilkins were the ones who discovered the correct structure of DNA, with both Dr. Franklin discovering both crystallized forms, how to separate the two forms, and producing the x-ray crystallographic evidence that allowed the correct model to be made.
Watson and Crick did discover base pairs in DNA and that they could be used as the means for heredity, but what happened was the Watson and Crick got access to her results very likely without her knowledge and published them with their own conclusions and model.
Given that Dr. Franklin did virtually all the legwork in discovering DNA's structure (including the absurdly clever method of separating DNA crystals), she should have gotten the Noble prize, not the least of which on being a pioneer in work on the structure of viruses, including polio... but never did, even posthumously after her early death to cancer. What's worse (and here's what's actually dickish), Watson when writing about the discovery of DNA completely downplays Franklin's role, saying she was Witkins underling and that the men did all the work.
Thank you.
I will say again, he and crick also did not cite the date they stole from her in their paper. SHe laid out the structure of DNA to the point aht all they basically did was win the nobel prize for putting a model together with a kit
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Xeriar wrote:
Black infants adopted by white parents tend to outscore average whites, IIRC.
Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs of all ethnic groups, something that's a bit harder to pin down solely on culture because it represents nearly an entire standard deviation.
Natural selection. They had to be smarter just to survive in medieval europe. For 1700 years or so Ashkenazi jews were not allowed to own property. They were regularly subject to persecution etc etc. Just to survive they had no choice but to be more savvy than everyone else. that is about the only explanation I have other than genetic drift.
Not only that, but Jewish culture values literacy and intelligence. The smartest children became Rabbis, who were allowed to procreate, and did so.
Dark Heresy: Dance Macabre - Imperial Psyker Magnus Arterra
BoTM
Proud Decepticon
Post 666 Made on Fri Jul 04, 2003 @ 12:48 pm
Post 1337 made on Fri Aug 22, 2003 @ 9:18 am
Post 1492 Made on Fri Aug 29, 2003 @ 5:16 pm
Master of Ossus wrote:Literacy as a proxy for intelligence, though, is highly dubious.
No argument; the way the story was related to me is that slave owners looking to manipulate the population thought that literate black slaves were too smart to be allowed to live (or breed).
Note: I'm semi-retired from the board, so if you need something, please be patient.
"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have," he said.
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.
"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Scientific endeavour
And in comments published in The Independent newspaper on Friday, Dr Watson tries to clarify his position.
"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.
"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."
Master of Ossus wrote:Literacy as a proxy for intelligence, though, is highly dubious.
No argument; the way the story was related to me is that slave owners looking to manipulate the population thought that literate black slaves were too smart to be allowed to live (or breed).
I mean, I can easily see why literate slaves would be dangerous to the slaveowners (especially since the checks of runaway slaves relied so heavily on examining the written passes slaves had, and slave owners weren't uniformly great writers, anyway). I don't think it had to do with intelligence, though. It seems like slaveowners could identify intelligent slaves with other means--they did live in close quarters with slaves, most of the time, and had extensive contacts with them--but literacy seems to have been feared more as a skill than as a measure of intelligence.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
Literate slaves might have started to nag at the conscience of the slaveowners, who'd be reminded of common humanity.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
Pelranius wrote:Literate slaves might have started to nag at the conscience of the slaveowners, who'd be reminded of common humanity.
Sort of like those brilliant Jewish people tugged at the conscience of the often highly educated SS officers herding them into gas showers? Don't give slaveowners the credit of humanity; they don't deserve it.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Darth Wong wrote:I heard about this controversy. As usual, a disturbingly large percentage of right-wingers are coming out of the woodwork to cry "scientific censorship", as if he's actually being censored rather than simply not being allowed to besmirch an institution's reputation by speaking at one of their functions and thereby appearing to have their endorsement.
But remember, if you dare to call those jism stains on their racism then you're just "playing the race card"! Only the right wing is allowed to inject race into an issue!
Truth be told, it seems the main tenet of the Right Wing moral code is: "It's only wrong when they do it!"
Not an armored Jigglypuff
"I salute your genetic superiority, now Get off my planet!!" -- Adam Stiener, 1st Somerset Strikers
Pelranius wrote:Literate slaves might have started to nag at the conscience of the slaveowners, who'd be reminded of common humanity.
Sort of like those brilliant Jewish people tugged at the conscience of the often highly educated SS officers herding them into gas showers? Don't give slaveowners the credit of humanity; they don't deserve it.
Exactly. Educated slaves had a nasty habit of leading slave revolts, whether it was LeOverture in Haiti or Gabriel Prosser and Nat Turner in Virginia.
"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have," he said.
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.
"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Scientific endeavour
And in comments published in The Independent newspaper on Friday, Dr Watson tries to clarify his position.
"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.
"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."
He doesn't support the conclusion that black's are genetically inferior, he's supporting the investegation into the matter.
How convenient that he says this after people are starting to kick him in the face over this. But if this is the real motive, why compare Africans to Americans? If you want to know what genetically makes a musician or an engineer, why not reduce the number of uncontrolled variables and use groups of people raised in roughly equivalent standards of living in the same culture, but with divergent interests and aptitudes?
If this is his real "clarified" motive, he is surely advocating an incredibly stupid way of investigating it.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have," he said.
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.
"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Scientific endeavour
And in comments published in The Independent newspaper on Friday, Dr Watson tries to clarify his position.
"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.
"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."
He doesn't support the conclusion that black's are genetically inferior, he's supporting the investegation into the matter.
How convenient that he says this after people are starting to kick him in the face over this. But if this is the real motive, why compare Africans to Americans? If you want to know what genetically makes a musician or an engineer, why not reduce the number of uncontrolled variables and use groups of people raised in roughly equivalent standards of living in the same culture, but with divergent interests and aptitudes?
If this is his real "clarified" motive, he is surely advocating an incredibly stupid way of investigating it.
Don't be too harsh on the man. It's not like he's actually done much scientific work before.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
Darth Holbytlan wrote:The Nobel Prize is never granted posthumously (unless the candidate dies after nomination). Since Dr. Franklin died several years before the prize was awarded to Crick and company, she was ineligible. I won't speculate on what the Nobel committee would have done if she were still alive.
This is true. The thing is, she got shafted while she was still alive.
No argument there. It just wasn't the Nobel committee that shafted her. Crick, not to mention her cancerous ovaries, on the other hand...
Maybe I've been too lazy to read everything but what is Dr Watson's (har har) specific methodology for eliminating the environmental factor from his studies? Any analysis of anything by race has to eliminate this, by definition.
Mayabird wrote:... when in Africa everyone is very dark except for albinos. In the U.S., it's a social construct more than any actual genetic thing.
So true, for two words: Vin Diesel. He can convincingly play either black or white.
"Show me a commie pilot with some initiative, and I'll show you a Foxbat in Japan."
Flagg wrote:Hell, don't most IQ tests also have a gender bias?
Hmm.. donig a quick scan of the literature, it seems that males tend to score higher than females, but an insignificant amount, under two points. The males generally did better of the mathematical and spatial portions while females did better on verbal and interpersonal intelligence(whatever that is).
I read an interesting claim in this article that although men and women average out about the same, men have a wider distribution of intelligence, with more extremely intelligent and more imbecilic men than women.
"Talk not of flight, for I shall not listen to you: I am of a race that knows neither flight nor fear, and my limbs are as yet unwearied." Battle with Aeneas and Pandarus - Book V
Diomedes wrote:I read an interesting claim in this article that although men and women average out about the same, men have a wider distribution of intelligence, with more extremely intelligent and more imbecilic men than women.
I'm not sure about IQ tests, but that is a definite trend seen when it comes to male and female scores an all sorts of other tests (regular classroom exams, standardised tests, so forth)
