I've been reading about IQ and interacting with racists for years and never heard a race realist or racist claim that Indians and Latinos have the same IQ. Never heard one say all members of the same race have the same genetic IQ. Never heard the phrase "brown IQ" either. Honestly, I've never heard anyone claim this stuff. Can you actually name a prominent race realist who makes the claims you mentioned here?
Well I mean if you open twitter once in a while you will find out that one of the way racist people try to insult is by calling the others Low IQ.They really struggle to understand what average means.
And considering how they use brown to mean"everyone who is not white or east asian" sometimes even to black people...I think it is fair say that some do believe that.
Thanks for taking the time to engage so deeply with my writing. Your article is very good, and you make some excellent points that I'll need to think about more carefully. You are correct that in my earlier piece I am primarily seeking to take issue with the "race essentialists" and not with the more nuanced points regarding IQ that you lay out in your article.
What's strange is that you originally restacked my article with a flippant statement about how, as a white woman, I am clearly too fragile to acknowledge the existence of racial difference because it makes me "uncomfortable." If you had actually argued with me about the merits of my points then we would have had a more fruitful exchange and I would have acknowledged that you are correct on many levels here.
I think that introducing an IQ screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S. is a very bad idea, for many reasons.
By the way I was using "quixotic" in accordance with this dictionary definition: "unrealistic and impractical." Those who wish to preserve a particular gene pool think (wrongly, IMO) that they are pursuing an idealistic and noble goal but it is not an attainable or sensible one.
Singapore doesn't IQ test prospective immigrants. Most of the initial immigrants to Singapore were from the poorest of the poor in Malaysian and Indonesian society.
Many countries have bad data. As well, actual race realists don't support anything like what DLA supposes. The closest anyone comes to saying it's entirely or primarily genetic is in reference to first-world conditions, which itself is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Certainly on the question of the EuroAm-AfroAm I.Q. gap, there can't possibly be an environmental explanation when the latter have a half-standard-deviation lower average I.Q.s than Ukranians, who have a lower per-capita GDP than Mexico.
I'm sure plenty of racists do, but racists are not race realists. Racists just hate foreigners and outsiders. Race realists merely recognize that race is a thing that exists and is real. Which it is. It's as real as families. Races are just really big families, and you can say as much about a race as you can about a family.
Archaic hominid ancestry doesn't predict IQ because African IQ is the same as Pakistani, Indian, and Native American IQ. You are the race essentialist I am referring to in this article who didn't bother to read it.
Not going to make what? Sub-Saharan Africa has produced absolutely nothing. No written language, not even the wheel. In contrast, the other ethnicities you mention have produced brain surgeons and physicists. Who do you think you're kidding? Equality is a false god. Give it up already.
This is an extremely disingenuous piece of you, DLA. Race realism is not racism. It merely means you recognize races of people are things that exist, same as you recognize that families exist. Everything else is irrelevant next to that fact. The bigotry you described is merely racism, which itself merely requires a hatred of foreigners, and which requires no necessary beliefs on biology or reality to justify said hatred.
Nor do actual race realists believe environment has nothing to do with I.Q. It does. Learning to read is a good example of an environmental factor that raises I.Q. As well, second- and third-world societies, like Albania and the Philippines, are still often dysfunctional enough to where environmental factors are likely to lower the population average I.Q. Not so in the U.S., where the AfroAm population, though poorer on average than EuroAms, are still many times wealthier than the average Albanian or Filipino. For that matter, they're also much wealthier than the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Taiwanese. What possible environmental explanation could there be for the AfroAm-Northeastasian I.Q. gap? The environmentalists have never had an answer. Hereditarians do.
I never said "race realism is racism." I never use the term bigotry or describe hatred in my definition of race realism. I don't know why you are lying about what I am saying when it is plain to see.
While I agree that people who argue IQ is irrelevant don't engage with the topic honestly, I find arguments to the contrary just as unconvincing. I was making a mental list of problems in this article, but it's also way too long. I don't know where to begin.
I'm a normie lib. If you are interested, I can give you some specific criticisms to make your argument more convincing to people like myself. Big picture: you need to break this into multiple pieces, one with your overarching argument, and then a bunch of smaller pieces that cover each point. Some of your assertions are extremely shaky, and since you're covering a controversial topic, they need to be airtight. Or just acknowledge you don't have an airtight case, and don't try to defend the weaker parts at all.
1. I have doubts about malnutrition and toxins lowering IQ. They probably do but I'm not really aware of anything that goes beyond 1-3 IQ points.
2. Continuinig on the same note the biggest IQ change I am aware of is Flynn effect. I view it in a way that it is possible to increase IQ by learning test parts that are not on G. I've seen some evidence that if the school's curriculum shifts away from math results fall. My guess is that the biggest inconsistencies we see in regards to some nations having lower that expected IQ is possibly war or come other change that could impact IQ negatively as we get info from tests that are not perfectly G loaded. Also, I'm making an educated guess on this one but just like p-hacking if you try to estimate many nations some will inevitably get a score that is far too low or far too high. I'm not denying that exceptions can happen, I can imagine various ways they could happen but if the rule almost always right I would think that it's not that bad of a rule.
3. I believe 105 IQ is only for East Asians. Phillippinos don't belong to that group. Tibet kind of does, but they are a bit more distinct from regular Han Chinese.
Say what you will, race realists on the internet do in fact argue as if races are homogeneous. They are often mesmerized by group averages to the point of being unable to think clearly about within-group variation. I have seen it over and over.
Buried in here is an argument that immigration has historically been good for labour rights, because, as you note, there were a lot of radical migrants whose agitation ended in some real gains for workers.
Mandatory preconditions, before even entering into a debate on what "Intelligence quotient" tests actually measure: for measurements of "national IQ" to be valid, every nation and every language group would have to be given a similar examination, and every national population would have to be represented by a similarly accounted random sample.
Do you have evidence for that being the case? Without a uniform standard, the concept of "national IQ" isn't worth discussing, much less concluding that the results are valid.
I address this argument quite thoroughly. Even if IQ were "merely" a cultural compatibility test, it would still be meaningful and relevant. You are moralizing by claiming this is "unfair" without considering the practical political effects.
A "cultural compatibility" argument presumes that representative population samples took the same test, and that cultural differences account for any resulting disparities. That hasn't been established. Not by you, by me, and not by anyone that I know.
Cultural compatibility is an argument that's been used to account for the variance in results by ethnicity within the English-speaking US population. It's the main reason that Raven's Progressive Matrices was developed, to replace the Stanford-Binet and Weschler.
You're familiar with all of those tests, yes? I haven't head of any others. Have you?
How well do you think you could do at a verbal test like the Weschler Inventory if it was given to you in Chinese? Do you think you'd manage well at a Raven's Progressive Matrices test if you had to have the questions explained to you in a quick advance run-through? You do realize that high functioning verbal autistics are known to score up to two standard deviations higher on the RPM than the Weschler, yes? Do you realize that it's becoming increasingly clear that the obverse is also the case? What does that profound scoring difference indicate about "Spearman's g"? You do know what I'm referring to, yes? After all, you should. You're writing about "IQ."
But as far as differentiating between the criteria of IQ tests, we aren't there yet. First we need to establish how all of those "national population IQs" were measured. As I said earlier--you don't seem to have understood me--AS A PRE-CONDITION, a representative age sample in each nation needs to have been given the same test, in their primary native language. Is that the case? Or are you simply indulging in the unexamined assumption
that there's been some authoritative worldwide statistical sampling and testing regime to produce the numbers you've plainly swallowed uncritically?
Wrong. You can still make predictions, while broadening the margins of error, based on imperfect and inconsistent methods (because perfect, and perfectly consistent psychological measures do not exist. That's why we have confidence intervals etc).
So one aptitude test is isomorphic with another, whether it's a pass-fail with one question or a 40-question multi-subject inventory translated from the original French?
How much abstract reasoning ability comes into play when making speculations without evidence?
That is one of your questions, and it's the one I haven't understood. What precisely do you mean when you say that these measures involve abstract reasoning? How do you determine whether the researchers are ‘making up shit'? Have you read any of the Lynn papers?
From Wikipedia: "Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies, the authors average and adjust existing studies and use other methods to create estimates.
For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.[citation needed]..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
How is that not simply making up shit? It's a classic example of Foucault's notion that that Power manufactures Knowledge, rather than the other way around. I've admittedly read little Foucault, but if he actually does buy into that idea as having bedrock merit. rather than as a critical observation of how the defining criteria of Knowledge can get twisted, he's wrong.
You make a lot of good points. Of course, you can just move essentialism one category down, and indeed East Asians do better than the other Asian types, and there's quite a bit of heterogeneity among Hispanics.
Of course those are population averages; one big reason the USA has such high-earning Indians and Chinese is because immigration from those countries was quite selective.
An interesting question is whether all interracial dating is the same. Data's from 2010, but looks like the Wasian mix trumps either pure type in income at least:
I've been reading about IQ and interacting with racists for years and never heard a race realist or racist claim that Indians and Latinos have the same IQ. Never heard one say all members of the same race have the same genetic IQ. Never heard the phrase "brown IQ" either. Honestly, I've never heard anyone claim this stuff. Can you actually name a prominent race realist who makes the claims you mentioned here?
Racial essentialists believe that Indians are a mix of the Caucasoid race and Australian aboriginals.
Are you trolling? How is this an answer lmao
Race essentialists believe Africans are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. You are lying.
Again, this has nothing to do with the bizarre claims mentioned.
Who thinks all members of the same race literally have the same IQ potential?
You realize when people like Jared Taylor (I assume that's the type you’re talking about) say “black iq” they mean the average IQ among blacks?
But the weirdest one is that all browns, ranging from Indians to Mexicans to Arabs, have the same IQ of 90. Who thinks this?
You are such a kike
Notice how you keep insulting and name call without any arguments.
If it your ideology makes you behave like a child,I wonder if it does make sense
Now let's see how you are going to insult me because you feel superior to the rest and I dared to call you out
Lmao what
Damn that retarded?Jeez sorry
Hahaha I figured you'd be blind to your hypocrisy and double down, lmao keep rocking mate
Well I mean if you open twitter once in a while you will find out that one of the way racist people try to insult is by calling the others Low IQ.They really struggle to understand what average means.
And considering how they use brown to mean"everyone who is not white or east asian" sometimes even to black people...I think it is fair say that some do believe that.
Thanks for taking the time to engage so deeply with my writing. Your article is very good, and you make some excellent points that I'll need to think about more carefully. You are correct that in my earlier piece I am primarily seeking to take issue with the "race essentialists" and not with the more nuanced points regarding IQ that you lay out in your article.
What's strange is that you originally restacked my article with a flippant statement about how, as a white woman, I am clearly too fragile to acknowledge the existence of racial difference because it makes me "uncomfortable." If you had actually argued with me about the merits of my points then we would have had a more fruitful exchange and I would have acknowledged that you are correct on many levels here.
I think that introducing an IQ screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S. is a very bad idea, for many reasons.
By the way I was using "quixotic" in accordance with this dictionary definition: "unrealistic and impractical." Those who wish to preserve a particular gene pool think (wrongly, IMO) that they are pursuing an idealistic and noble goal but it is not an attainable or sensible one.
"I think that introducing an IQ screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S. is a very bad idea, for many reasons."
It's funny how Singapore does the opposite of what you wrote here and wouldn't you know it, Singapore is a rich country with low crime.
Singapore doesn't IQ test prospective immigrants. Most of the initial immigrants to Singapore were from the poorest of the poor in Malaysian and Indonesian society.
He's jewish. He doesn't care about any of what you wrote.
Tibetan regional IQ is extremely inconsistent. Many sources say it's in the low to mid 90s, others say it is low 80s
Many countries have bad data. As well, actual race realists don't support anything like what DLA supposes. The closest anyone comes to saying it's entirely or primarily genetic is in reference to first-world conditions, which itself is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Certainly on the question of the EuroAm-AfroAm I.Q. gap, there can't possibly be an environmental explanation when the latter have a half-standard-deviation lower average I.Q.s than Ukranians, who have a lower per-capita GDP than Mexico.
I'm sure plenty of racists do, but racists are not race realists. Racists just hate foreigners and outsiders. Race realists merely recognize that race is a thing that exists and is real. Which it is. It's as real as families. Races are just really big families, and you can say as much about a race as you can about a family.
I keep being amazed by your enthusiasm to engage with irrelevant midwits out of their depth.
"there's always a bigger fish," as qui-gon gin would say
You should invite her on pod anyway for good faith discussion. You have brought worse people .
She is a proffesor, probably a high salary with low working hours provided by tax payer money
https://open.substack.com/pub/darbysaxbe/p/on-being-owned-by-the-deep-left?r=rwfhz&utm_medium=ios
The fact that sub-Saharans have an archaic hominid ancestor which the rest of us don't share is the most important factor of all.
Didn't read the first page of my 20 page article, ngmi.
Don't use abbreviations like that, because I have no idea what they mean.
"not going to make it"
Archaic hominid ancestry doesn't predict IQ because African IQ is the same as Pakistani, Indian, and Native American IQ. You are the race essentialist I am referring to in this article who didn't bother to read it.
Not going to make what? Sub-Saharan Africa has produced absolutely nothing. No written language, not even the wheel. In contrast, the other ethnicities you mention have produced brain surgeons and physicists. Who do you think you're kidding? Equality is a false god. Give it up already.
Superb set of arguments.
You are quite catastrophically midwitted
This is an extremely disingenuous piece of you, DLA. Race realism is not racism. It merely means you recognize races of people are things that exist, same as you recognize that families exist. Everything else is irrelevant next to that fact. The bigotry you described is merely racism, which itself merely requires a hatred of foreigners, and which requires no necessary beliefs on biology or reality to justify said hatred.
Nor do actual race realists believe environment has nothing to do with I.Q. It does. Learning to read is a good example of an environmental factor that raises I.Q. As well, second- and third-world societies, like Albania and the Philippines, are still often dysfunctional enough to where environmental factors are likely to lower the population average I.Q. Not so in the U.S., where the AfroAm population, though poorer on average than EuroAms, are still many times wealthier than the average Albanian or Filipino. For that matter, they're also much wealthier than the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Taiwanese. What possible environmental explanation could there be for the AfroAm-Northeastasian I.Q. gap? The environmentalists have never had an answer. Hereditarians do.
I never said "race realism is racism." I never use the term bigotry or describe hatred in my definition of race realism. I don't know why you are lying about what I am saying when it is plain to see.
You are jewish
You are my biggest hate fan. You disrespect your own time. Will you die childless and alone?
While I agree that people who argue IQ is irrelevant don't engage with the topic honestly, I find arguments to the contrary just as unconvincing. I was making a mental list of problems in this article, but it's also way too long. I don't know where to begin.
I'm a normie lib. If you are interested, I can give you some specific criticisms to make your argument more convincing to people like myself. Big picture: you need to break this into multiple pieces, one with your overarching argument, and then a bunch of smaller pieces that cover each point. Some of your assertions are extremely shaky, and since you're covering a controversial topic, they need to be airtight. Or just acknowledge you don't have an airtight case, and don't try to defend the weaker parts at all.
A full response.
https://avgustmisrahi.substack.com/p/on-the-catastrophe-of-jewish-pseudo
I wish death upon you and all of your subscribers.
He is jewish, so he probably has tay sachs and his own genes are war with nature
This is precisely my contention
It's mutations all the way down (creating disordered thinking)
A couple of things I would disagree with:
1. I have doubts about malnutrition and toxins lowering IQ. They probably do but I'm not really aware of anything that goes beyond 1-3 IQ points.
2. Continuinig on the same note the biggest IQ change I am aware of is Flynn effect. I view it in a way that it is possible to increase IQ by learning test parts that are not on G. I've seen some evidence that if the school's curriculum shifts away from math results fall. My guess is that the biggest inconsistencies we see in regards to some nations having lower that expected IQ is possibly war or come other change that could impact IQ negatively as we get info from tests that are not perfectly G loaded. Also, I'm making an educated guess on this one but just like p-hacking if you try to estimate many nations some will inevitably get a score that is far too low or far too high. I'm not denying that exceptions can happen, I can imagine various ways they could happen but if the rule almost always right I would think that it's not that bad of a rule.
3. I believe 105 IQ is only for East Asians. Phillippinos don't belong to that group. Tibet kind of does, but they are a bit more distinct from regular Han Chinese.
Say what you will, race realists on the internet do in fact argue as if races are homogeneous. They are often mesmerized by group averages to the point of being unable to think clearly about within-group variation. I have seen it over and over.
Buried in here is an argument that immigration has historically been good for labour rights, because, as you note, there were a lot of radical migrants whose agitation ended in some real gains for workers.
Mandatory preconditions, before even entering into a debate on what "Intelligence quotient" tests actually measure: for measurements of "national IQ" to be valid, every nation and every language group would have to be given a similar examination, and every national population would have to be represented by a similarly accounted random sample.
Do you have evidence for that being the case? Without a uniform standard, the concept of "national IQ" isn't worth discussing, much less concluding that the results are valid.
I address this argument quite thoroughly. Even if IQ were "merely" a cultural compatibility test, it would still be meaningful and relevant. You are moralizing by claiming this is "unfair" without considering the practical political effects.
A "cultural compatibility" argument presumes that representative population samples took the same test, and that cultural differences account for any resulting disparities. That hasn't been established. Not by you, by me, and not by anyone that I know.
Cultural compatibility is an argument that's been used to account for the variance in results by ethnicity within the English-speaking US population. It's the main reason that Raven's Progressive Matrices was developed, to replace the Stanford-Binet and Weschler.
You're familiar with all of those tests, yes? I haven't head of any others. Have you?
How well do you think you could do at a verbal test like the Weschler Inventory if it was given to you in Chinese? Do you think you'd manage well at a Raven's Progressive Matrices test if you had to have the questions explained to you in a quick advance run-through? You do realize that high functioning verbal autistics are known to score up to two standard deviations higher on the RPM than the Weschler, yes? Do you realize that it's becoming increasingly clear that the obverse is also the case? What does that profound scoring difference indicate about "Spearman's g"? You do know what I'm referring to, yes? After all, you should. You're writing about "IQ."
But as far as differentiating between the criteria of IQ tests, we aren't there yet. First we need to establish how all of those "national population IQs" were measured. As I said earlier--you don't seem to have understood me--AS A PRE-CONDITION, a representative age sample in each nation needs to have been given the same test, in their primary native language. Is that the case? Or are you simply indulging in the unexamined assumption
that there's been some authoritative worldwide statistical sampling and testing regime to produce the numbers you've plainly swallowed uncritically?
Maybe he took an IQ test and wants to hold onto that score which says he is smarter than so many other people
Wrong. You can still make predictions, while broadening the margins of error, based on imperfect and inconsistent methods (because perfect, and perfectly consistent psychological measures do not exist. That's why we have confidence intervals etc).
So one aptitude test is isomorphic with another, whether it's a pass-fail with one question or a 40-question multi-subject inventory translated from the original French?
How much abstract reasoning ability comes into play when making speculations without evidence?
What exactly do you mean by ‘abstract reasoning’?
In this case, the ability to simply make up shit without any need to support it in the reality-based world.
how about offering an answer to my first question? That's the more pertinent one to examine.
That is one of your questions, and it's the one I haven't understood. What precisely do you mean when you say that these measures involve abstract reasoning? How do you determine whether the researchers are ‘making up shit'? Have you read any of the Lynn papers?
From Wikipedia: "Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies, the authors average and adjust existing studies and use other methods to create estimates.
For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.[citation needed]..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
How is that not simply making up shit? It's a classic example of Foucault's notion that that Power manufactures Knowledge, rather than the other way around. I've admittedly read little Foucault, but if he actually does buy into that idea as having bedrock merit. rather than as a critical observation of how the defining criteria of Knowledge can get twisted, he's wrong.
You make a lot of good points. Of course, you can just move essentialism one category down, and indeed East Asians do better than the other Asian types, and there's quite a bit of heterogeneity among Hispanics.
Of course those are population averages; one big reason the USA has such high-earning Indians and Chinese is because immigration from those countries was quite selective.
An interesting question is whether all interracial dating is the same. Data's from 2010, but looks like the Wasian mix trumps either pure type in income at least:
https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-highest-earning-type-of-interracial-couple-2012-2
(Just ask the Chua-Rubenfeld sisters.)