some general comments on race and iq:
1)we must keep in mind that we are only speaking about averages of large numbers and not individuals. anecdotal references to individuals are therefore irrelevant ("i work with a lot of smart black guys"; "the chinese guy down the street is kind of slow"; "Langston Hughes was a great poet"; etc)
2) ad hominem arguments, in which an argument is dismissed merely on the basis of some unsavoury qualities of the person who made it, are also irrelevant. just because adolf hitler said that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that 2+2 doesn't in fact =4 (re: pioneer fund, dr.lynn, etc.)
3)the cultural bias of iq tests is far from evident. in fact, the main argument for beleiving that they are is the underachievment of some groups on these tests. this is a circular argument. iq tests involve mostly culturally neutral elements such as numbers, shapes, and patterns.
4) iq involves only one particular kind of intelligence. this is not the same as saying that it is separate from intelligence. the kind of intelligence measured by iq tests is relevant for the aquisition of a wide range of skills that are valued in the contemporary marketplace.
5) challenges to scientific validity of the concept of race are instances of the "line drawing fallacy": just because a group cannot be defined such that all x are either within or without the group does not mean that the concept of the group is meaningless. for example, baldness is not clearly defined: how few hairs do you have to have on your head to be considered bald? no one knows, but this does not stop us from successfully referring to baldness. the concept of race is increasingly being used by scientists to track genetic disorders (ty sachs [sp?] in the jewish poulation, sickle cell amongst blacks, etc.) please see steven pinker's recent book, the blank slate, for more on this.
6)the burden of proof lies with those who wish to argue that the average iq of(negroes, blacks, african aborigines, bantus, whatever) is not in fact lower than that of other groups, as a variety of factors besides the tests indicate that it is:
a)the theory of evolution. there was a long period during which some groups were migrating out of africa while others remained. it is inconceivable that the forces of natural selection brought to bear during this period exclusively affected things such as nose shape and hair texture while leaving the brain unaffected.
b)history. the lag in iq is often explained in terms of the oppression to which blacks have been subjected (slavery, colonialism, apartheid), but this is to invert the "causal arrows" that indicate what caused what and what was caused by what. the oppression of blacks was made possible by their lack of technology, which in turn can best be explained by low average iq, as this kind of intelligence is relevant for technological pursuits. we should note that this dearth of technology in subsaharan (black) africa includes the absence of any written language or numerical system. therefore, it is the low iq which caused the oppression and not the other way around.
c) comparative anatomy. i am unaware of any successful refutation of the claim that average cranium size is lower amongst blacks than other groups. rather, attempts are made to dismiss the relevance of cranium size to intelligence, which is to invert the burden of proof once again. that cranium size is correlated with mental capacity is evident when comparing the lower animals. if it is irrelevant in the case of comparing humans, we would need to see a cogent argument to that effect.
d)performance on other tests such as those for school admissions remain lower for blacks even within groups of the same economic status in many different countries across the globe.
so what is the conclusion of all this? what is the relevance to contemporary society? well, for one thing it does not mean that we can just look at a black person and presume that s/he has limited intelligence. this would be to ignore point#1)stressing the difference between group assessments and those of individuals, as well as point #4) about different kinds of intelligence. on the other hand, it does mean that there is no reason for us to expect that harvard's student body should be 12% black or that wits' should be 75% black. i beleive that what is necessary is for other kinds of intelligences besides that measured by iq to be accorded places of value, allowing all groups, as well as all individuals, to excel in their own way.
1)we must keep in mind that we are only speaking about averages of large numbers and not individuals. anecdotal references to individuals are therefore irrelevant ("i work with a lot of smart black guys"; "the chinese guy down the street is kind of slow"; "Langston Hughes was a great poet"; etc)
2) ad hominem arguments, in which an argument is dismissed merely on the basis of some unsavoury qualities of the person who made it, are also irrelevant. just because adolf hitler said that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that 2+2 doesn't in fact =4 (re: pioneer fund, dr.lynn, etc.)
3)the cultural bias of iq tests is far from evident. in fact, the main argument for beleiving that they are is the underachievment of some groups on these tests. this is a circular argument. iq tests involve mostly culturally neutral elements such as numbers, shapes, and patterns.
4) iq involves only one particular kind of intelligence. this is not the same as saying that it is separate from intelligence. the kind of intelligence measured by iq tests is relevant for the aquisition of a wide range of skills that are valued in the contemporary marketplace.
5) challenges to scientific validity of the concept of race are instances of the "line drawing fallacy": just because a group cannot be defined such that all x are either within or without the group does not mean that the concept of the group is meaningless. for example, baldness is not clearly defined: how few hairs do you have to have on your head to be considered bald? no one knows, but this does not stop us from successfully referring to baldness. the concept of race is increasingly being used by scientists to track genetic disorders (ty sachs [sp?] in the jewish poulation, sickle cell amongst blacks, etc.) please see steven pinker's recent book, the blank slate, for more on this.
6)the burden of proof lies with those who wish to argue that the average iq of(negroes, blacks, african aborigines, bantus, whatever) is not in fact lower than that of other groups, as a variety of factors besides the tests indicate that it is:
a)the theory of evolution. there was a long period during which some groups were migrating out of africa while others remained. it is inconceivable that the forces of natural selection brought to bear during this period exclusively affected things such as nose shape and hair texture while leaving the brain unaffected.
b)history. the lag in iq is often explained in terms of the oppression to which blacks have been subjected (slavery, colonialism, apartheid), but this is to invert the "causal arrows" that indicate what caused what and what was caused by what. the oppression of blacks was made possible by their lack of technology, which in turn can best be explained by low average iq, as this kind of intelligence is relevant for technological pursuits. we should note that this dearth of technology in subsaharan (black) africa includes the absence of any written language or numerical system. therefore, it is the low iq which caused the oppression and not the other way around.
c) comparative anatomy. i am unaware of any successful refutation of the claim that average cranium size is lower amongst blacks than other groups. rather, attempts are made to dismiss the relevance of cranium size to intelligence, which is to invert the burden of proof once again. that cranium size is correlated with mental capacity is evident when comparing the lower animals. if it is irrelevant in the case of comparing humans, we would need to see a cogent argument to that effect.
d)performance on other tests such as those for school admissions remain lower for blacks even within groups of the same economic status in many different countries across the globe.
so what is the conclusion of all this? what is the relevance to contemporary society? well, for one thing it does not mean that we can just look at a black person and presume that s/he has limited intelligence. this would be to ignore point#1)stressing the difference between group assessments and those of individuals, as well as point #4) about different kinds of intelligence. on the other hand, it does mean that there is no reason for us to expect that harvard's student body should be 12% black or that wits' should be 75% black. i beleive that what is necessary is for other kinds of intelligences besides that measured by iq to be accorded places of value, allowing all groups, as well as all individuals, to excel in their own way.
) of course, this is true if we consider all genetic variations to be equal. if, however, we focus on 1 particular trait, such as intelligence, we find that interracial differences are greater than intraracial ones. basically, this means that while a black man has no more or less of a likelihood of having a smaller stomach, liver, or colon than a white man, he does have a greater likelihood of having a smaller brain than a white man
are restricted to superficial traits such as skin color and hair texture. this flies in the face of the already established correlation between race and disease. it also implies that a larger brain would not be naturally selected for as ice age humans migrated out of still warm africa, encountering an environment in which finding food and shelter required long organized hunts. what was their argument for this counter-intuitive claim?
mongrels
