I’m at a pool to draft this.
This is an interesting pool, though. I see lots of folks every day I’m here, of fair complexion reading books and exercising their thumbs on devices…in the shade; presumably to avoid screen glare—a sure sign of high intelligence, just as I’m exercising as I type here. Conversely, I see a lot of folks of darker complexion out soaking up the sunlight: simple basking, or in the water. It’s such a very clear association, with only a few outliers. Another observation: the outliers on the low intelligence side of fair complexion seem to be out in the sun often enough early in the swim season, while the outliers on the higher intelligence side of darker complexions end up in the shade often later in the season. So the association is definitely distributed, with significant crossover.
But to address the fatty part of the distribution, the darker adults are so apparently inept that they’re playing around in the water with these little, brownish skined people who, for some inexplicable reason, repetitively yell…”Marco”…”Polo”…over and over and over! …How stupid is that?
Pools can be very, very confusing. Is light skin causing people to better educate themselves via books and the higher learning represented by “Likes” on their Facebook accounts? Is dark skin causing adults to entertain silly childish games of verbal repetition and with no apparent point?
While there could be a lot of associations worth looking at (breast & penis size, stature, the ratio of arm length to leg length, arm circumference to waist, skull circumference, etc.) all of them pale in comparison to pale vs. dark skin. It’s so damn easy and obvious. It’s only all that other stuff that’s arbitrary. …What we can safely dismiss is that there’s not some kinda cause lurking here. The association is just far too strong in this pool.
Now I better understand other kinds of pools, like gene pools. [/toungincheek]
…Coupla weeks ago I put this up: Judgment Passed: Everybody is Wrong About I.Q. Pretty controversial post with a decent number of comments. What was kind of ironic, though, was how many white people showed up to assert that the post was wrong about there not being an association between race and IQ (no such claim was made; quite to the contrary). Other white people—as though unknowingly signaling that such associations don’t really count for much—seemed to very easily entirely miss the whole point of the post, which was:
- Some guy wrote a Harvard PhD dissertation on the association between race & IQ. It’s controversial so let’s blog about it.
- Lefties tend to take two approaches, the first being to deny that race really exists—which is dumb—and the other being to cover their ears and go lalalalalala, then attempt to ban mention or discussion—which is also dumb.
- Righties tend to assume that they know what intelligence is, acknowledge and emphasize the racial association with that convenient “knowledge,” but usually stop short of blatantly asserting that white people are smart and black people are dumb—for obvious reasons (that’s just dumb).
- Another association is offered, that of nutrition, but not in any way assertive of absolute causality. But, after all, if a brain is starved of nutrients while another is replete, how far a stretch to speculate that the well nourished brain will perform better in learning the stuff necessary to make them a good cog in the machine (“intelligence”)?
- A white chick goaded a bunch of white folks into putting on a less than super intelligent display.
The whole thing was made even funnier by emails I got pointing me to similar inabilities to comprehend, particularly in the case of a certain Joisey Girl sporting reptilian-80s-styled eye makeup—who most surely only dates guys with mullets.
Not to worry though, whiteys. It’s all just associations.
I guess I misjudged though, because I got the Judgy Bitch’s whole point in a nanosecond, which is why I asked to post it. Initially, as comments began coming in within minutes of publishing, demonstrating deep consideration, I started fielding them. Then I just stopped and turned to other things for some hours.
Later on I got to it and answered stuff beginning here, and so on and so forth for a lot of comments. And then, all of a sudden, shortly after I’d finished and turned on the TeeVee, BANG! A comment from someone with not only experience being tested over and over from when she was 5 until she got her PhD (physical chemistry—it’s just like “women’s studies”), but has actually participated in the evolution of constructing IQ tests. Now, I’m assuming she always tested quite low and doesn’t really know much about it at all, but you can decide for yourself.
Richard, I just noticed this post. Fantastic – everything you say (though I can’t stand JB and usually disagree, but I recognize it’s mostly her writing/attitude that grates).
I have to agree on everything you’ve written in your post and your comments/replies – I’m amazed!
Nigel sums it best. [Ed: “IQ tests are a load of old bollix”]
Your example with the Hadza and rectilinear shapes is perfect and if anyone doesn’t get the inherent bias in any ‘aptitude’ test after that, they just are not trying.
Since I was 5 and until I graduated with my last graduate degree, I took dozens of “IQ tests” and was studied by the Canadian psychological society chapter in Quebec. Once an adult, I was a tester for modifications on a bevy of tests that make-up what is still popularly known as the IQ test. The reason I bring this up is because the emphasis was on finding bias, but here’s the kicker, it was Not cultural bias that we looked for Because that was even then considered Inevitable. There’s a heck of a lot of research on that, then and up to now (the bias on which I had to feedback was in test delivery, the way you ask the questions can make it harder or easier to do, especially the auditory portion).
A big problem for any ‘hardwire’ argument btw is posed by immigrants, specifically, somewhere between second and third generation the ‘race’ difference of some immigrant populations vanishes even in the average (for that generation).
The reason the Harvard guy got his thesis accepted is exactly because he did Not try to claim a genetic aka inheritable aka ‘hardwired’ difference, but managed to convincingly link test performance to race as far as race can commonly be determined.
So yeah, to then try to use that in immigration policy is dishonest, for many reasons, any single one of these reasons being enough to knock out the idea of ‘IQ’ testing in immigration, so for example, anything from the problem of averages and the individual variability that you bring up all the way to the case where some race may be monolithically ‘dumb’ per our tests, in which case it would matter Why they performed badly on them since that would say whether or not it’s a Changeable performance, especially for the kids. Anyway, since when does an immigrant country need only rocket scientists, or even only ‘average’ cashiers/tellers?
Humans as integrated beings, yes, exactly. [Ed: a reference to one of my comments]
Oh but wait, the anti-imigrant camp would then want to have tests for ‘hard-working’, ‘persevering’, ‘creative’, ‘artistic’, ‘strong’, ‘enduring’, ‘emotionally stable’, and… yah, while we’re at it, let’s breed like-to-like, slot them in occupations for life and sterilize the underperforming….oh, wait someone wrote that book already.
There are many points to take away from this but the principal one is that of the attempt to make tests non-culturally biased by instead using math—as though IQ testing is like when aliens found V’ger and sent it back to us, or we put math shit in space capsules in general, just wild ass guessing that people who go into space and retrieve it know a little math.
So we make the math as simple as possible. Geometry: straight lines, points—and their assemblage into curves—planes, intersections, angular ratios and such. Problem is, a “non-intelligent” human animal who never interacted with modern civilization has seen only two straight lines in his life, both manmade: an arrow and a spear. I assert that’s the root of your “intelligence”—and the rest is merely details, degrees, and scale any competent mind can learn on average, given time and attention. Just as in my AHS presentation—where I stole the idea from Frank Forencich—that the very root of human epistemology is the paw print; not just the print or a picture of it, but the recognition that a very lot can be known or reasonably speculated, tested, refined…and enough that it could further survival in a way that no other animal is capable of.
I have a modest suggestion. Instead of pulling people into our context and judging them by what we had the advantage of experiencing from day one of birth, we find a new word. Because it’s NOT “intelligence.” H. Sapiens intelligence is that they can survive in the integrated context of their environment as adaptive beings. And it’s an a priori fallacy to even suggest such is not the case for any viable population anywhere, no matter how remote. They exist. In complex social structures. I defy you to tell me that’s not intelligence of a human kind. You just want to test for scale, your scale. That’s what you want to do. To wit:
Just be honest. Just admit that our IQ tests really judge an individual’s mastery of scalar techniques and skills available in our context of life. In the HG world, some individuals are better than others, just as it is in our Rocket Surgery world. But in general, I assert that on average, we’ll fair worse on their ”intelligence” tests than they do. And if we were honest and actually really displayed the very best essence of humanity that we ceaselessly pat ourselves on the back for, we’d just come out and say that they probably fair poorer on average, simply ’cause it’s kinda Greek to them and who can understand Greeks except my Greek commenter, quoted above? Give ’em some time—a few generations—to assimilate and integrate—but oh, oh, wait...isn’t that what all these stellar examples of humanity are trying to prevent in the first pace?
Confirmation bias taken to fulfilled prophesy? YES. And exactly so.
Y’all are shooting at the wrong target because it’s so easy—color blindness is an outlying trait. But having beaten up mercilessly on the veiled racists, let me suggest that probably most aren’t really racists at all. They might really be something else that needs to be understood, integrated and refined. Before I do that, a word to the Commie Party and the Stupid Party:
Commies: let’s just be honest and admit that you want as many ignorant, dependent people unaccustomed to our culture as possible, because they are the easiest to snake oil-sell for votes. With all your talk of “opportunity,” your actions undercut, with one dependency program after another.
Stupids: while you surely recognize what the commies are up to, you’re too stupid to take up the easy and obvious solution. Why? Because you’re not just stupid, but afraid. You can’t give up the public trough you benefit from—just as much as the commies, who want to share it with the unwashed masses at your expense. So you fight a futile, stupid war seemingly not realizing you’re about 150 million against 150 million commies + billions of ignorants the world over being promised your money to vote for your enemies. How stupid is that?
So aside from just getting rid of the idea and practice of a public trough for IQ satisfactory whiteys in general that ought be done instanter, how about dump the silly racism and become Culturists—and prejudicially, a practitioner of Culturism? I have been, for a long tiime. After some years of thinking and making distinctions and never mentioning it to anyone, I recall finally discussing it in an inebrated state with Beatrice, on my 40th birthday—which would have been January, 2001. It goes like this:
- People are generally born equal with a full range of potentials. Cultures are man made, some a function of environment, difficulty of survival, and so on.
- Culture, while very heavily associated with race, ethnicity, and religion, is completely devoid of any such requirements. For example, white women can marry an Islamist and proceed to be as stupid as she has the potential to be, acting it out by covering and shutting off her mind and body from the world.
- It is completely OK and encouraged to judge harshly any culture or sub-culture (like redneck or hip-hop), because it’s man made and has nothing to do with genes. One isn’t born a 14th century, dirt-scratching savage, into the exalted league of virgin piercers by means of blowing themselves and a bunch of others up—that’s man made.
- Race is highly associated, but it’s not the cause. Moronic stupidity and hierarchical authoritarian convenience is the cause.
I was reluctant to blog about it. Came up with the idea years before taking about it with Bea, started this blog in 2003, and finally blogged it in a post I called “Culturism,” in 2005. Were I to write that post today it would read differently, I know. While I have often considered simply doing a from-scratch post on it, I have resisted that as well, because I believe the essence is still sound 8 years later and reflects my thinking at least 8 years prior to that.
It’s not even very long, because it’s pretty simple.