User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 66

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    I 'll be repeating myself now, but I think we use too easily the word "genetic".
    If I use a sample of people of different races and have them take an IQ test, whatever difference should I find, I cannot interpret the result as being "genetic". The IQ test is a very un-scientific tool to prove anything and, as toonia said, it is culturally biased.
    Genetic characteristics are characteristics that correspond to an identified gene or genetic mechanism. And up to now, there are not convincing studies of genes related with intelligence.
    And one more thing: it is not proved that there genetic differences between races, or the various races would have been called sub-species. Human beings of all races have very similar genetic structures, and the differences between them are mostly phenotypical

  2. #22
    Senior Member Veneti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    XNTX
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sona View Post
    So I've been doing some research on this controversial subject and I've come across some interesting information, I believe some of you guys maybe interested in.

    According to research by J. P. Rushton - In a book titled: "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" he catogrized three biological races (or subspecies) of man - Orientals (i.e., Mongoloids or Asians), Blacks (i.e., Negroids or Africans), and Whites (i.e., Caucasoids or Europeans).

    He stated:

    So Asians are smarter then Africans the Africans are at the lower end and the White (Europeans) are in between the both.

    Actually guys I don't have time... Am attending a wedding soon...

    Anyway you can read it here:
    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org...n_Behavior.pdf

    You need PDF viewer.

    Furthermore, here is a good article you can read which just summaries it:
    Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic (Sahara my not like this)

    Although, I do suggest you read the book.
    Ok, I guess you are Asian. You are male.

    Hmm... and just what country do you currently live in? And why?

  3. #23
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Is there any subject where people are more sceptical and paranoid than IQ and intelligence?

  4. #24
    Senior Member Kyrielle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    Is there any subject where people are more sceptical and paranoid than IQ and intelligence?
    Where humans as a species originated from, possibly.

  5. #25
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyrielle View Post
    Where humans as a species originated from, possibly.
    So much denial ...

  6. #26
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    I 'll be repeating myself now, but I think we use too easily the word "genetic".
    If I use a sample of people of different races and have them take an IQ test, whatever difference should I find, I cannot interpret the result as being "genetic". The IQ test is a very un-scientific tool to prove anything and, as toonia said, it is culturally biased.
    Genetic characteristics are characteristics that correspond to an identified gene or genetic mechanism. And up to now, there are not convincing studies of genes related with intelligence.
    And one more thing: it is not proved that there genetic differences between races, or the various races would have been called sub-species. Human beings of all races have very similar genetic structures, and the differences between them are mostly phenotypical

    I don't mean to support Sona, cause the studies he shows are... how do you say... biased and useless.

    However, instead of genetic, it should say hereditary. All of the studies so far have shown a dramatic influence from x linked genes - that is to say, intelligence genes are passed through mothers/grandmothers. In that sense, they are very genetic... the problem is, no particular combination of genes is known, just the statistical correlation along those lines. So I'd agree - genetic is the wrong word to use, but it isn't entirely wrong.

    The evidence says that certain races skew up and down on the median IQ score - this is important because the upper upper thresholds and lower thresholds don't seem to skew significantly, so it's only the peak of the bell curve. From the tests that attempt to correct for cultural bias, socialisation and mental training, the gap is quite small. It certainly cannot be generalised accurately.

    It is suggested that it is actually environmental influences that are largely relevent - that is to say, diet and pressure on mental performance... and that seems supported by cultural preferences that match up with each "race's" preference. Of course, it could also mean sexual selection is biased towards those preferences... Not a lot of research is done in this area and really, it's incredibly complicated and difficult to administer full IQ tests to such a gigantic sampling, along with factoring in socialisation and everything else. Anyone who claims certainty in this are is an idiot.

    One of the interesting things that comes out of the IQ research is how males are generally more extreme in all cases. For example, Sona is a clear example of an emotionally unstable person - males don't get the benefit of "averaging" out their genes, leaving them with serious imbalances. Sometimes it's good (ie: higher IQ) or bad (ie: mentally retarded), but almost all males end up with far more serious complications of some type than women... This includes balanced minds. The problem is in how things are distributed. It is accurate to say that "men are more present in the genius range", ignoring that they are also the most mentally retared, less stable and so forth. On average, they aren't any smarter - in fact the hereditary relevance makes it just about impossible for that to be true.

    The same can be said for the race bit - the multitude of factors that go into creating a distilled g loaded test makes it virtually impossible to not contain the results to just the dataset created. There are averages, medians and all sorts of measurement/distribution problems. Then there are the hundreds of known factors that play a difference (ie: theoretically, the number of kids each social demographic has could influence average and median IQs!)

    Which is, of course, why I think the OP is moronic.

    (As a side note, the other issue is that it is known that specific tests were engineered intentionally to bias the results against certain races. As such, I'd doubt any research at all on this topic.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, of course: Tickle is aimed at the adolescent female population, and that's a demographic that Sona respects quite highly, intellectually wise.
    It always ends up with me asking - how many people have taken a full fledge g-loaded IQ test? I've had this conversation many many times and it is rare that even one person in the group has taken the WAIS, KAIT or something similar. And in those cases, it's almost always as part of a battery of tests (ie: pre-military, career planning... but even that is rare now.)

    Until you have taken one of those, telling me what your "IQ is" just makes me wonder how smart you really are. Accepting crappy test results on a research tool is just... uhhh.... meh. (Not to say that it should never come up, but seriously - using tickle tests? WTF! You might as well write "L" on your face.)

  7. #27
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veneti View Post
    Hmm.. I don't really want to start some sort of race arguement, as there's plenty of dummies in all races.

    I did laugh though when I had a look at the AOL IQ test... Us UK males have an average IQ of 113 which is higher than the Germans and Europeans which are all higher than America's (At 102).

    nb: Genetic diversity has nothing to do with intellect, environmental fit in a heavily contested region (such as Europe) may well. Survival of the fittest, or most intelligent?
    Europeans are more introverted. The introverts like to sit in the library and study.
    The Americans have Hollywood. The majority of the top class actors and directors used to be Britons, or sons and daughters of recent immigrants.

    Very recent immigrants built the weapons during WW2 that made Japan surrender.

    Now they have toughened the immigration laws.
    We shall see a rapid decline of intelligence in America.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    ...However, instead of genetic, it should say hereditary. All of the studies so far have shown a dramatic influence from x linked genes - that is to say, intelligence genes are passed through mothers/grandmothers. In that sense, they are very genetic... the problem is, no particular combination of genes is known, just the statistical correlation along those lines. So I'd agree - genetic is the wrong word to use, but it isn't entirely wrong.
    The evidence says that certain races skew up and down on the median IQ score - this is important because the upper upper thresholds and lower thresholds don't seem to skew significantly, so it's only the peak of the bell curve. From the tests that attempt to correct for cultural bias, socialisation and mental training, the gap is quite small. It certainly cannot be generalised accurately.
    I am not aware of such studies, but I 'd still be skeptical, since I cannot imagine in what conditions could one pick a random sample of people. A statistical correlation between a phenomenon (i.e. intelligence) and some hereditary charateristics (i.e. racial, sexual, etc.) can be used and interpreted by a variety of ways, and it can be done by practically anything, for instance eating habits and morals ("people who consume red meat have louse morals"), etc.
    I am not aware either of the studies you mention about the intelligence influence from x genes, but I suppose a serious study could indeed observe a correlation between a phenomenon and characteristics and try to study in depth the biological/genetic correlations.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    ...It is suggested that it is actually environmental influences that are largely relevent - that is to say, diet and pressure on mental performance... and that seems supported by cultural preferences that match up with each "race's" preference. Of course, it could also mean sexual selection is biased towards those preferences... Not a lot of research is done in this area and really, it's incredibly complicated and difficult to administer full IQ tests to such a gigantic sampling, along with factoring in socialisation and everything else. Anyone who claims certainty in this are is an idiot...
    That is why I believe intelligence studies should be examined by a sociological/anthropological point of view and not biological. Even in terms of statistical correlation, there should be reference to individuals of a certain race who grew up in a totally different racial-cultural environment. A statistical research in which most or all the factors and conditions are different in the examined cases cannot be very descriptive.

  9. #29
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    I am not aware of such studies, but I 'd still be skeptical, since I cannot imagine in what conditions could one pick a random sample of people. A statistical correlation between a phenomenon (i.e. intelligence) and some hereditary charateristics (i.e. racial, sexual, etc.) can be used and interpreted by a variety of ways, and it can be done by practically anything, for instance eating habits and morals ("people who consume red meat have louse morals"), etc.
    I'd search for twin studies in intelligence - the bulk of the research in hereditary intelligence (and other factors) were done that way. The external factors rarely have to be controlled for (outside of sex, age, etc) since they tend to be self correcting - twins brought up in different environments don't have many common factors. As such, the false links you describe is difficult to create in those studies.

    But I think you are saying something I do agree with - this is still at a very direct and linear example... extrapolating that intelligence is hereditary is one thing; applying that rule to an entire population isn't accurate.

    I am not aware either of the studies you mention about the intelligence influence from x genes, but I suppose a serious study could indeed observe a correlation between a phenomenon and characteristics and try to study in depth the biological/genetic correlations.
    This one I'm hazier on because I don't have much interest in it - it was a conversation I had with a psychologist and a psychiatrist that clarified what had been found. Intelligence has been one of my major interests for a very long time, but the biology really doesn't interest me that much. It's the ramifications that I care about.

    Besides which, the majority of genes are there, so it'd be kina surprising if it wasn't. It doesn't really say much of anything. The only reason I mention it is because intelligence clearly does have a significant genetic component... but it's not exactly clear cut where it starts/ends or what it is.

    That is why I believe intelligence studies should be examined by a sociological/anthropological point of view and not biological. Even in terms of statistical correlation, there should be reference to individuals of a certain race who grew up in a totally different racial-cultural environment. A statistical research in which most or all the factors and conditions are different in the examined cases cannot be very descriptive.
    I'll disagree about the biology on principle - while it is relevant to have the performance predictive tests, like g loaded tests, it is equally important to derive how they are created.

    But I do completely agree on maintaining the dataset, or at the very least, standardising both tests in their own environment then cross-testing population samples.

  10. #30
    Member Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    9w6
    Posts
    93

    Default

    His pattern lacks the individualism of a naturally occurring one.

    Ask yourselves, "Who has the most to gain by seeding a dislike of Islam in a community of primarily Western thinkers?"

    Perhaps he's not a troll, but just another brick in the wall. Which side of the wall he's on is nearly irrelevant since it's the same wall.
    "One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor." - George Carlin

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] What are the differences in NFP and NFJ flirting?
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 05:28 PM
  2. [NT] Differences in ENTP and ENTJ sense of humor
    By sakuraba in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 08:51 PM
  3. Sex differences in corporate management
    By RDF in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 12:08 PM
  4. Differences in type descriptions
    By Maverick in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-28-2007, 04:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO