Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

link.springer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#31

Post by JoeAltmaier »

candiodari wrote: post #30
_Schizotypy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something is the only game in town doesn't mean you should use it, that logic doesn't make sense. We need to work on developing better systems rather than saying "oh well, it's the only thing we've got!"

You don't understand. IQ isn't "the only game in town" because there aren't any other games, it's the only game in town because all other games were gradually unmasked to all be the "IQ game". IQ started out being one of about 5 measurements of people. Because of the age, one other measure was "nobility". Well, corrected for IQ, it turned out, that didn't matter. Same happened to many others. You can characterize and…

Not my experience. Being a good tester is a different skill than being a good developer. Management/leadership requires different talents than team membership. Folks excel at one but not another. All uncorrelated with IQ.

Not to mention music, boxing, acting, teaching and on and on.

The only thing the silly 'IQ' correlates with is, taking IQ tests. I think its all part of the education vicious cycle. People who were good at school subjects (preparing for tests at root) end up teaching school. So we end up with that skill being held up as the principle valuable skill. Because 'educated' people value it. So it must be true.

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#32

Post by candiodari »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #31
candiodari wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand. IQ isn't "the only game in town" because there aren't any other games, it's the only game in town because all other games were gradually unmasked to all be the "IQ game". IQ started out being one of about 5 measurements of people. Because of the age, one other measure was "nobility". Well, corrected for IQ, it turned out, that didn't matter. Same happened to many others. You can characterize and…

Not my experience. Being a good tester is a different skill than being a good developer. Management/leadership requires different talents than team membership. Folks excel at one but not another. All uncorrelated with IQ. Not to mention music, boxing, acting, teaching and on and on. The only thing the silly 'IQ' correlates with is, taking IQ tests. I think its all part of the education vicious cycle. People who were…

IQ is a measure of how easy it is for someone to acquire a new skill, not really about which specific skills they have.

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#33

Post by JoeAltmaier »

candiodari wrote: post #32
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my experience. Being a good tester is a different skill than being a good developer. Management/leadership requires different talents than team membership. Folks excel at one but not another. All uncorrelated with IQ. Not to mention music, boxing, acting, teaching and on and on. The only thing the silly 'IQ' correlates with is, taking IQ tests. I think its all part of the education vicious cycle. People who were…

IQ is a measure of how easy it is for someone to acquire a new skill, not really about which specific skills they have.

And I contradict that. Folks have talents, and interests, and learn some things easily and some evade them forever. There's a lot more going on, and its not just 'IQ greases the skids' for learning.

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#34

Post by candiodari »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #33
candiodari wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is a measure of how easy it is for someone to acquire a new skill, not really about which specific skills they have.

And I contradict that. Folks have talents, and interests, and learn some things easily and some evade them forever. There's a lot more going on, and its not just 'IQ greases the skids' for learning.

Oh sure. If someone really doesn't want to learn, they mostly won't. And of course, yes, that happens a lot.

There's a European proverb I quite like which roughly goes "glasses nor lights will help if the owl does not want to see", meaning exactly that. It doesn't matter how easy something is if the person doesn't want to do it.

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#35

Post by JoeAltmaier »

candiodari wrote: post #34
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I contradict that. Folks have talents, and interests, and learn some things easily and some evade them forever. There's a lot more going on, and its not just 'IQ greases the skids' for learning.

Oh sure. If someone really doesn't want to learn, they mostly won't. And of course, yes, that happens a lot. There's a European proverb I quite like which roughly goes "glasses nor lights will help if the owl does not want to see", meaning exactly that. It doesn't matter how easy something is if the person doesn't want to do it.

Still not making myself clear. Some folks will never learn to be a leader, even if they are very intelligent. Things like that are not measured by IQ. Unrelated to being willing to learn. There are many brain-based talents and skills going unmeasured by 'IQ'. Acting. Lying. Empathizing. And on and on.

It may be a symptom of what's wrong with our technological Western view of the world, that we ignore/discount all these when taking the measure of a person.

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#36

Post by candiodari »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #35
candiodari wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sure. If someone really doesn't want to learn, they mostly won't. And of course, yes, that happens a lot. There's a European proverb I quite like which roughly goes "glasses nor lights will help if the owl does not want to see", meaning exactly that. It doesn't matter how easy something is if the person doesn't want to do it.

Still not making myself clear. Some folks will never learn to be a leader, even if they are very intelligent. Things like that are not measured by IQ. Unrelated to being willing to learn. There are many brain-based talents and skills going unmeasured by 'IQ'. Acting. Lying. Empathizing. And on and on. It may be a symptom of what's wrong with our technological Western view of the world, that we ignore/discount all the…

Maybe it's just me but I resent this way of thinking. The science behind IQ is based around statistics and coming up with rational, reasoned way to measure it, and then testing statistical hypotheses.

It CANNOT be argued against, for me, by any argument assuming that one's "view" of the situation has anything to do with reality. That is the exact opposite of science, and different only in details to any other religion. If you want to have your postmodern view of the world, go and enjoy it. But you've left science behind.

Also: if you believe postmodernism, and that your view can change reality, please explain to me: no matter how much I believe a chair flies, it never flies. I wanted to really test this when I was 19, I literally spent 3 days trying that (2 on a spoon, and this was before the matrix so nothing to do with that, 1 day on a chair). Needless to say didn't work. It wasn't a waste of time, but it proved to me that me spending enormous effort to change my view of the world changes precisely nothing. That science is the only way forward. I have also noticed that me putting in 3 days of sincere effort is far more than anyone I've ever met defending how "one's view changes X" has ever put into it.

If such efforts fail to change a spoon, then please explain how any view can change the outcome of studies involving tens of thousands of participants, over more than a century of study. And yes, it's been tested with people who didn't have a western world view too. Same result.

So go enjoy your postmodern world view. Seriously. I'm sure it gets you many girls around the campfire. But never again suggest that any such view can compete with any insight gained by real science. Science is right, and not just when it comes to IQ. You are no better than a homeopathic doctor. You are wrong and should restrict your views to settings involving alcohol.

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

exploderwhale wrote: post #25
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #13

I think the bigger debate is whether eugenics or anti-dysgenics should be a policy goal of the government. Whether we like it or not - if we don't pass our best genes down to our children we are hurting future generations. I suspect the fact that we've turned so against eugenics goes hand in hand with the fact that we've also destroyed the environment, the financial well-being, and even the mental health of the next…

It is an implicit policy goal of the government e.g. sex segregation in prisons.

Sex segregation in prisons is based on maintaining discipline, resting (like many other instances of sex segregation) on the unstated (and always known false) assumption that everyone is heterosexual.

It isn't based on eugenics, which is why conjugal visits are a thing.

Re: How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm (2018)

#38

Post by dragonwriter »

goldenkey wrote: post #27
ForHackernews wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you're asking in good faith: a racist who pretends not to be a racist. They'll often show up asking "Why can't we just have a reasonable discussion about low IQs in the Sub-Saharan African phenotype?" and ready with a Gish gallop list of dubious studies. If this post stays up, I'm sure they'll make an appearance.

Isn't it pretty much proven that IQ is mostly determined by genetics, and that races like the Ashkenazi Jews are extremely above average compared to the rest of the world? Tell me - what is racist about this scientific fact: Black people are stronger and run faster (indubitably due to slavery / selective breeding.) Jews are smarter (most nobel prizes.) Races are different, sure. To say that smarter or stronger means…

> Isn't it pretty much proven that IQ is mostly determined by genetics

The evidence currently seems to suggest that just barely more than half of variation in IQ is genetic.

> and that races like the Ashkenazi Jews are extremely above average

No. Askhenazi Jews specifically (not some group of “races” of which they are an example) are signficantly above average (that is, the tested samples are above average of other samples in a way which is extremely improbable if the real population average of the group isn't actually higher, too), but not extremely higher.

> Tell me - what is racist about this scientific fact: Black people are stronger and run faster (indubitably due to slavery / selective breeding.) Jews are smarter (most nobel prizes.)

Those two claims are not a fact, they are two separate racial stereotypes, one of which is offered with a parenthetical explanation for a potential set of causes, the other with a parenthetical apparently about an putative effect for which the offered stereotype is conjectured as a cause, and both ignore social reasons why the groups involved might be overrepresented in the highly visible top-tier performers in given categories without the group itself having a general advantage, much less a genetic one.

Post reply on HN