Why does Race & IQ differences make people angry, but Gender differences does not?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Without looking at your study and only the title of that link, whats the chance that your study isn't looking at adult iq? lol

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

That's generally what IQ is. Historically it was defined as mental age over chronological age.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but comparing Childhood IQ scores with Adults is typically flawed, because our brains still continue to develop until we're at least 25 years old.

HOWEVER, it's scientifically known that Black people reach their peak faster compared to other races. This should theoretically explain why the IQ gap actually gets BIGGER over time, because Whites & Asians completely surpass them at a given age.

We also have the transracial adoption studies as direct proof of this. Black kids at age 7 did ok, but once they hit adulthood, their IQ's return back to their racial average (83). Meanwhile, the White children, in every adopted scenario, still scored 100 points or 1 standard deviation higher than the Black kids in life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Results

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

HOWEVER, it's scientifically known that Black people reach their peak faster compared to other races.

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source?

This should theoretically explain why the IQ gap actually gets BIGGER over time

I believe that's common for any IQ gap. Kids that are behind fall further behind as their education progresses, regardless of their race.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source?

Black people age faster

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953614004511

Black people are born quicker

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15075154/

Black children reach puberty faster than other races

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/puberty-starts-earlier-in-many-american-boys-201210225437

It actually all fits in with Rushton's theory of R/K selection in humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#Differential_K_theory

Species that are considered very intelligent, have the smallest amount offspring while also spending the most time raising them. Species that are considered less intelligent have the largest amounts offspring while spending very little time with them.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Do you have a source for the earlier peak in terms of IQ?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

I recall there was another article out there by Charles Murray, but this one is close enough.

But every study on the racial IQ gap has made the same observations. Anytime Blacks reach adulthood and get tested, their average IQ is ALWAYS 15 points behind adult Whites. This type of gap has existed since the first world war. It has never changed in a 100 years, and it's safe to say it's genes that cause that final difference.

Philippe Ruston once went to South Africa and tested the Blacks in their own continent. Same results. The Black students did worse than the White South Africans by 15 points.

https://youtu.be/uo0hCehlN8A?t=779

The race gap is universal. Nothing but actual eugenics can help fix the black race since other races evolved higher intelligence, while they stayed behind in Africa.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

Once kids fall behind that accelerates. That's not the same thing as reaching a peak earlier. Unless by peak you mean "leaning the fastest". In which case everyone peaks as an infant.

Anytime Blacks reach adulthood and get tested, their average IQ is ALWAYS 15 points behind adult Whites.

There's a lot less data for over 25s and IQ tests.

For instance Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap, Dickens and Flynn, PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE (2006), suggest that the gap has closed more slowly in over 25s, but the data was insufficient to show that it was more slowly at a 95% confidence:

The rate of gain for Blacks 25 and older in the WAIS data is smaller, but our data yield no reliable estimate for that age group. This is because the WAIS standardization samples included only a small number of individuals ages 25 to 74. The estimated rate of gain has a 95% confidence interval of 0.129. That is too large to allow us to reject the hypothesis that older Blacks had the same rate of gain as those under 25.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Once kids fall behind that accelerates. That's not the same thing as reaching a peak earlier. Unless by peak you mean "leaning the fastest". In which case everyone peaks as an infant.

That's incorrect. Black children still fall behind 100 points, which is considered the standard.

So yes, they've already hit their peak, compared to other races who do better than them. Both as children and adults.

There's a lot less data for over 25s and IQ tests.

What exactly is the significance of selecting for IQ's of 25 year olds vs 18? Especially when 18 is usually the age when teenagers have graduated High School and are allowed to attend University or College. By the time they actually finish some programs, they might already be in their early 20s. It's redundant, unless you have proof young adults get super smart near the end?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What exactly is the significance of selecting for IQ's of 25 year olds vs 18?

The under 25s all showed that Blacks had reduced the racial IQ gap. The over 25s they didn't report on, because the sample size was too small.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You're comparing two different groups with two different IQ/age curves. You don't even know the basics of this research and its really a waste of time when I can debunk your claims without even looking at your studies, just from the titles

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You're comparing two different groups with two different IQ/age curves.

Google has these 125 papers citing that source. Can you point me to one of the ones that clarifies your objections?

Or is this something that you've worked out, but all the people who know about this have missed?

You don't even know the basics of this research and its really a waste of time when I can debunk your claims without even looking at your studies, just from the titles

Oh the irony.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm not going to do your work for you. It is pretty common practice for the dishonest to not use adult IQ but rather teenage or 7-year old IQ because it allows them to paint the picture they want to paint, knowing that using adult iq would give a different result that they don't want.

The irony here is your lack of knowledge and your arrogance. We have all been where you are, you are not unique.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not going to do your work for you.

Okay, let me be clear then: You're wrong. The reason that there are no scholarly refutations of that paper in line with your argument is because your argument is not valid.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Did your paper use adult iq?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It used AFQT and NAEP scores.

Is AFQT adult in your book?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How old are the ones taking the AFQT? 25-30?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know.