Actually you have no idea what the statistical likelihood of ethnic groups having similar average intelligence is. Intelligence is much more complicated than height. Of course your choice of height is a pretty interesting, given that nutrition plays a very big role in the differing average heights of nationalities.
Really Intelligent Person wrote:
I find this reaction comical. The fact of the matter is it would be unbelievably statistically improbable for each of the planet's ethnic groups to have the same average general intelligence. It would be similar to expecting each of the planet's ethnic groups to have similar average height or to have similar average eyesight. All the data suggests there are differences; the only reason everybody calls foul on it is because they think being more intelligent makes them superior people. Instead of attacking the source of the problem (equating innate intelligence with worth as a human being), we just lie to ourselves about differences between averages in groups.
This ^ is about right.
One thing that you do not say (and perhaps are not implying) is that anyone has any idea how to properly measure groups' general intelligence accounting for cultural and other circumstantial differences.
Many unintelligent people (obviously this does not include the two of us) who might make a similar argument to the one that you make assume (whether communicated or not) that their group is among the more intelligent groups. It is very possible that the more intelligent groups are those whose evolutionary circumstances have been most harsh and who, judging by cultural acheivements, might be mistakenly assumed to be the least intelligent.
Why? Since 'intelligence' is not a univariate measure, how can you cardinally rank them and what does the statement mean. Even with a univariate measure that is continuous you have the vacuous result that none of them, statistically, can be 'equal'. However, if the difference are small relative to the variance across members of the group (and across our errors, random and systematic, in measuring them) then is there any content in saying that it is statistically improbable for them to be equal? In fact, in such a situation if you went and randomly measured k individuals from each population and compared the aggregate measure the samples would give essentially even likelihoods of A > B and B > A.
Think of the phrase, a distinction without a difference. It does not fully capture the problems with your assertions but it illustrates the short comings.
Another thing this reminds me of is students in statistics that do not understand the difference between statistically significantly different and substantially different. You can have each without the other.
Diamond was very aware of the minefield he was stepping into and the only way he could talk about what he wanted to talk about was to dismiss out of hand any connection between race and intelligence.
The problem is, despite multidisciplinary squabbling about the definitions of race and intelligence (see above), and near universal distain for IQ tests, the puzzling fact that no one has been able to convincingly explain away the significant degree of variation seen in the U.S.
Is there a real difference?
Is it the tests?
Or are the differences entirely ones of culture, and environment?
Reminds me of the arguments about the dominance of Kenyans in distance events, no?
Clearly, the least plausible argument is to entirely blame the tests.
The most satisfying would be to proclaim at least some measurable difference.
The truth is most likely a combination of all three and Diamond's out of hand dismissal, not that I blame him for it (anything else would have been career suicide) makes his book reek that particular stench of academia.
I worked as an engineer at a large aerospace company --now owned by Boeing-- many years ago. I was prompted and managed 35 people before I left. Here's how the the hiring decision process worked. This standard for the company and other all large firms.
Given the choice between two people. Candidate one is a top graduate at a highly regarded university, who has a significantly higher than average IQ. Candidate two is a better than average graduate of an very good university, who has an above average but not significant.
Which do you hire? Always hire the candidate two unless there is a highly specialized opening for candidate one. Highly specialized openings were extremely rare and had to be justified to highest levels of management.
So, why hire the candidate with the lower IQ and lower class standing?
Candidate two will work harder and almost always do whatever job they are given. They learn to do the job and nearly all learn to do it very well. Candidate two becomes an excellent and productive employee.
Candidate two is nearly always unhappy to start out as a non-super star employee. They only want the best work. They don't care that the best work is being done by the employees with the greatest experience. Candidate two "knows" they can do the job better. Candidate two is usually becomes an unhappy employee and is most likely to leave the company than employee one is.
Which employee is the winner? Is it candidate two who gets and keeps a very good job? Is it candidate one who struggles to get the perfect job and likely will out-earn candidate one during their working life?
of lessor intelligence wrote:
I worked as an engineer at a large aerospace company --now owned by Boeing-- many years ago. I was prompted and managed 35 people before I left. Here's how the the hiring decision process worked. This standard for the company and other all large firms.
Given the choice between two people. Candidate one is a top graduate at a highly regarded university, who has a significantly higher than average IQ. Candidate two is a better than average graduate of an very good university, who has an above average but not significant.
Which do you hire? Always hire the candidate two unless there is a highly specialized opening for candidate one. Highly specialized openings were extremely rare and had to be justified to highest levels of management.
So, why hire the candidate with the lower IQ and lower class standing?
Candidate two will work harder and almost always do whatever job they are given. They learn to do the job and nearly all learn to do it very well. Candidate two becomes an excellent and productive employee.
Candidate two is nearly always unhappy to start out as a non-super star employee. They only want the best work. They don't care that the best work is being done by the employees with the greatest experience. Candidate two "knows" they can do the job better. Candidate two is usually becomes an unhappy employee and is most likely to leave the company than employee one is.
Which employee is the winner? Is it candidate two who gets and keeps a very good job? Is it candidate one who struggles to get the perfect job and likely will out-earn candidate one during their working life?
OLI, do you want to proofread your post (esp. regarding "one" and "two") and repost? It's a little hard to follow, as is...
I completely agree with you. Personality is a better indication of "real world" success than IQ. But I don't buy into Malcolm Glawell's OUTLIER, it's all about putting in 10,000 hours and some timing spiel. Personality is a product of nature and nurture-- most likely more nature than nurture-- and however you want to define it, intelligence is part of that soup.
What you are doing is testing for competence rather than intelligence. Familiar with Voltaire's quote, "The good is the enemy of the great?" Lots of evolutionary reasons for that we don't need to get into but...
...it's the business equivalent of hitting on an average looking chick rather than the hot one. Usually the guys here get it wrong and hit on the ugly chick...she's just smart enough to be suspicious and shoots them down.
did you notice the nic i used? i leave grammer and speling check-ing to the trolls of letsrun.
The choices of eyesight and height were both purposeful; they both are very dependent on the specific environment in which the individual was raised. However, both also have very large genetic components. The largest difference in the analogy was the difficulty in measuring intelligence vs. the ease with which one measures the other variables. This has an obvious purpose; the analogy doesn't increase someone's capacity to understand the idea if it doesn't relate to something they are more familiar with. The fact that there are more complicated genetic factors that influence intelligence than there are for height and eyesight is immaterial to the discussion.
26mi235 wrote:
Why? Since 'intelligence' is not a univariate measure, how can you cardinally rank them and what does the statement mean. Even with a univariate measure that is continuous you have the vacuous result that none of them, statistically, can be 'equal'. However, if the difference are small relative to the variance across members of the group (and across our errors, random and systematic, in measuring them) then is there any content in saying that it is statistically improbable for them to be equal? In fact, in such a situation if you went and randomly measured k individuals from each population and compared the aggregate measure the samples would give essentially even likelihoods of A > B and B > A.
Think of the phrase, a distinction without a difference. It does not fully capture the problems with your assertions but it illustrates the short comings.
Another thing this reminds me of is students in statistics that do not understand the difference between statistically significantly different and substantially different. You can have each without the other.
This post is basically the definition of begging the question.
Chances are I've taken more grad level statistics than you have; don't insult me.
of lessor intelligence wrote:
did you notice the nic i used? i leave grammer and speling check-ing to the trolls of letsrun.
OK Tweedle Dum - you completely mixed up candidates one and two. You called both candidates "candidate two". This is not grammar and spell checking.
How often would you say you got completely mixed up and hired the wrong person? You switched candidates at least twice in that post.
Yet you figured it out. Amazing how our minds work. The point has been made.
Really Intelligent Person wrote:
I find this reaction comical. The fact of the matter is it would be unbelievably statistically improbable for each of the planet's ethnic groups to have the same average general intelligence. It would be similar to expecting each of the planet's ethnic groups to have similar average height or to have similar average eyesight. All the data suggests there are differences; the only reason everybody calls foul on it is because they think being more intelligent makes them superior people. Instead of attacking the source of the problem (equating innate intelligence with worth as a human being), we just lie to ourselves about differences between averages in groups.
While you are right to say that identical means are impossible, that says nothing about how the variance in means compares to the variance of individuals within groups. Given the extreme difficulty of identifying innate, i.e purely genetic, differences in intelligence, your claim that "all the data suggest there are differences" is no where near the state of the science.
Given the impossible task of untangling racial/cultural test bias why is it acceptable for institutions to award racial preferences. By all accounts if selective institutions did not engage in the practice 96-97 % of students would be white or Asian.
Where this becomes interesting in light of Diamond's arguments is, if the test gap is to be thought of as ENTIRELY the result of cultural factors then the institutional practice of promoting diversity actually promulgates racial disparity.
If we want the New Guinea tribesman to score higher on his IQ test, then find a nice family, preferably two Asian doctors, to adopt him.
The problem is the racial test bias WIDENS in adolescence, even in those subjects who have been adopted by white/Asian parents, and despite the fact that it narrowed substantial in preadolescence.
The only explanation for this adolescent widening is a vague blame of social/cultural rediscovery, as if the first time they heard Tupac they dtopped studing calculus, when an equally, if not more valid explanation would be the indisputable scientific fact that young black males have higher serum testosterone levels from 7-24
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/10/1041.full
Assuming we all can agree there's nothing racially biased about the testing here...
My IQ in the 3rd grade was 134. My IQ now is the same. There is a difference between IQ and knowledge.
[quote]bmi overweight wrote:
I guess I'll reiterate what MANNNN said - you (el jefe) are assuming the conclusion in your argument.
Additionally, while it is true that the difference in IQ scores exist, this does not indicate a difference in innate intelligence. The true test of this would be to raise a New Guinean in a European culture (i.e. adopted parents), and ideally vice versa as well (i.e. European child raised in New Guinea by New Guinean parents). Then repeat this at least 30 times and now test for IQ, keeping the test constant. Only under those quasi-experimental conditions can we begin to compare IQ scores in order to show evidence for some supposed innate difference in intelligence between groups of people.
No study that I know of has every used such a methodology, which is part of the reason why well-reasoned people dismiss such IQ comparisons offhand. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in IQ, and until a WELL-DESIGNED, fully crossed (from a statistical standpoint) study rejects this hypothesis, any such comparison is fundamentally flawed.
Junk Master wrote:
Given the impossible task of untangling racial/cultural test bias why is it acceptable for institutions to award racial preferences.
You are under the mistaken impression that the admission to a college is a reward for test scores. It isn't. The elite universities are interested in training leaders and want these leaders to be in diverse fields in diverse communities.
Middle Professor, test scores are the only admissions criteria being discussed here-- all the rest, extracurriculars etc are assumed equal.
Are you assuming racial diversity is a necessity for leadership in diverse fields?
Should we be seeking to train leaders in communities, that if one doesn't buy into the concept of some bias, are the very CAUSE of this bias?
Does average intelligence really matter at all? Given that there is greater variation within a population than between populations, It would be assumed that in both societies there would people of above average intelligences. Those are the people making breakthroughs and developing new technologies and not average joe. If those people are stuck hunting, gathering, and harvesting sago they are most certainly not inventing gunpowder. I don't care if your IQ is 175, if you are have no opportunity for reflective thought and specialization because you want to eat you are not going to come up with any remarkable breakthrough.
What the hey, looks like we're bvmping troll threads today...