When do experts stop being experts?

[dowie]

By everyone you mean... the public?

Give it up. You were wrong. He didn't release it to the public.

Eh? I refer you to the reply you've just quoted.

What was? You refuse to point at anything you actually are talking about, just asserting that there was "politics" that shouldn't have been in there. It's a short memo. It's right above. There's no reason to be vague other than to protect yourself against someone showing how it (if there is an "it") is reasonable and relevant to his point.

Well mostly because I'm not particularly interested in turning the thread into a discussion about the google memo. I've highlighted that it perhaps wasn't a good idea to throw in politics and present ideas as fact when they're not really that well established thats all.

 

[Orionaut]

I don't know if you're familiar with this or if you've just (impressively) stumbled across it on your own, but there was a study about fifteen years ago which showed that the predominant inheritable part of intelligence was derived from the intelligence of the mother.

So yes - if you want smart kids, marry a smart woman.

No I figured it out entirely for myself. via a combination of discovering the IQ SD thing many years ago and anecdotal observation.

And also using my engineering head.

If Life wants to experiment with a new gene, you stick it on the X chromosome.

This is to ensure that only Males are actually experimented on.

Females are the reproductive bottleneck, even if they pass on experimental genes, they are far too valuable to actually experiment on so having a pair of genes from different parents will mostly protect them from any harmful side effects of any new gene being tried out. (But they will also lose out on the benefits too, at least until the new gene becomes firmly established in the germ line)

(Sorry if this all seems a bit "Intelligent Design" but I cant think of a better way of putting it )

EG Colour Blindness.

Q: Is R/G Colour blindness an advantage or not?

A: Darwn doesn't know yet. Limited colour vision may seem to be a disadvantage, particularly as a "Gatherer", However (Anecdotal again) people with R/G Colour blindness seem to have far superior low light level vision and might make one a better "Hunter" (Or perhaps in this example, the development of R/G blindness might actually be evolving exactly the way Darwin intended reflecting the roles in traditional Human hunter/gatherer societies. Isn't darwin wonderful )

 

[rare]

Should we listen to his expert based on his years of experience and knowledge even if it's reprehensible? Or are we to discount it based on our modern enlightenment?

If it’s based on evidence it doesn’t matter if it’s reprehensible. Science and fact doesn’t really give a damn about feelings. The case can be made against it if there is supporting evidence to do so, but to dismiss something immediately because it offends our morals seems to be quite foolish to me.

 

[d_brennen]

Quite,

But back to the IQ thing.

I have always maintained that IQ does not measure intelligence at any fundamental level. The use of the word "Intelligence" is probably a very unfortunate choice of name for all the reasons that this thread demonstrates.

Some people want to assign labels to people based on race that conform to their existing bias, so it doesn't really matter to them.

 

[h4rm0ny]

If Life wants to experiment with a new gene, you stick it on the X chromosome.

This is to ensure that only Males are actually experimented on.

Well I have to say I'm impressed. I've never heard it put like that before and it's very insightful.

Your mother must be / have been one smart cookie!

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

I'd hazard the amount of inbreeding in certain races would lead to his statement being accurate in that respect.

 

[mmj_uk]

Whether there is scientific evidence or not I think it'd be safer to say "on average" as there are some immensely intelligent black people, just as on average black people are generally better physical athletes. I think mental ability is a lot harder to judge though because frankly the majority of the working population never reach anywhere near their intellectual potential.

Who really cares though? I think the real story here is how otherwise respected people are continuing to be ostracized for wrongthink. How can science work if scientists are scared to go against politically correct dogma?

 

[Orionaut]

Whether there is scientific evidence or not I think it'd be safer to say "on average" as there are some immensely intelligent black people?

Sure, but the numbers are small.

Currently MESA membership qualifies at 2SD above mean 130 (Lower than I had assumed actually, just checked it)

Now that means that around 1:50 "White" people are likley to qualify for membership (More Men than Women as I mentioned before), If we look at the USA (I am not sure whether the position is different in the UK or other western countries) then the "Mean" IQ for "Black" people is shifted a full SD to the left. This means that only around 1:1000 Black people are likley to qualify for MENSA membership.

Overall, this is still quite a large number of people when you have a population of many millions.

But It also means that proportionally you wont get to see many Black people at MENSA meetings. And nor will you at the top unis or boards of directors for big companies either unless they are pushed there as part of "Affirmative Action" programs

Which sometimes work out quite well, showing that a good education can actually make a big difference. There was a UK documentary a while ago I recall where some inner city Black kids were sent to a private boarding school. and you know what, they actually did really rather well for themselves.

There was a time when Local authorities would actually send "Problem " children to boarding school (Note, NOT Borstal) as a matter of routine. There were a few at mine back in the 60/70's. They did rather well too.

Shame everybody cant have the same opportunity early in their lives. It is very hard to go back after one has reached a certain point!

Whilst I support the idea of selective education (Grammar Schools) I have always felt that for a truly comprehensive and egalitarian education system one needs to have state boarding schools (Of all types) from secondary level onward (Possibly even later primary like Prep schools) with the schools being well away from the child's home patch.

Only that way can children from poor backgrounds have a real opportunity to escape their intellectual poverty. (And it wont cause any harm for the children from "Good" backgrounds because they would likely relish in it anyway)

 

[Irish_Tom]

Sure, but the numbers are small.


Currently MESA membership qualifies at 2SD above mean 130 (Lower than I had assumed actually, just checked it)


Now that means that around 1:50 "White" people are likley to qualify for membership (More Men than Women as I mentioned before), If we look at the USA (I am not sure whether the position is different in the UK or other western countries) then the "Mean" IQ for "Black" people is shifted a full SD to the left. This means that only around 1:1000 Black people are likley to qualify for MENSA membership.


Overall, this is still quite a large number of people when you have a population of many millions.


But It also means that proportionally you wont get to see many Black people at MENSA meetings. And nor will you at the top unis or boards of directors for big companies either unless they are pushed there as part of "Affirmative Action" programs


Which sometimes work out quite well, showing that a good education can actually make a big difference. There was a UK documentary a while ago I recall where some inner city Black kids were sent to a private boarding school. and you know what, they actually did really rather well for themselves.

Very interesting. As you mentioned previously, IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence at a fundamental level. It’s far more telling of environmental and cultural issues relating to ‘Black’ communities, especially in the US where they are, on average, more likely to be in poor urban areas.

There was a time when Local authorities would actually send "Problem " children to boarding school (Note, NOT Borstal) as a matter of routine. There were a few at mine back in the 60/70's. They did rather well too.


Shame everybody cant have the same opportunity early in their lives. It is very hard to go back after one has reached a certain point!


Whilst I support the idea of selective education (Grammar Schools) I have always felt that for a truly comprehensive and egalitarian education system one needs to have state boarding schools (Of all types) from secondary level onward (Possibly even later primary like Prep schools) with the schools being well away from the child's home patch.


Only that way can children from poor backgrounds have a real opportunity to escape their intellectual poverty. (And it wont cause any harm for the children from "Good" backgrounds because they would likely relish in it anyway)

While it may be a good idea in principle, you’d quickly be accused of abduction and social engineering.


It would be far better (albeit considerably harder) to reduce the poverty that affects the educational opportunities for all ethnicities.

 

[Raz]

It is politically correct because only white people are shamed about saying this kind of thing. I've never seen a person of another race shamed for something similar.

I don't know if people know this, but any serious people who have studied the racial iq subject will say that white people aren't the most superior. But you, like many others, who read filtered newspapers with their own agendas, will think that these people are saying white people have the most intelligence. This misinformation is then clinged to by idiot white supremists and virtue signalling people.

It's also interesting that while talking about racial iq is frowned upon, people openingly accept iq differences within the same race, or between genders as acceptable. I guess talking about anything other than race isn't a triggering issue.

No, you made something else of my point. It's almost like you had an agenda yourself...

I said there are people who use that kind of 'evidence', 'science' or whatever to pursue certain things. My point is the same whether it's data showing white people are more intelligent than everyone else, or if it's black people who are in fact the most intelligent. The fact is that there are people who believe in their own race's superiority and will use whatever information they can find to support that claim and convince others, and it's not like people haven't misused research or data to support their own agendas is it?

Another fact is that people who have a voice and a status sometimes need to be careful in how they express their views or research because, unfortunately, there are people around to will twist words, research, data etc.

Another fact is that I know plenty of people in real life who come from all races, cultures, religions etc that are highly intelligent and successful.

 

[GGizmo]

No, you made something else of my point. It's almost like you had an agenda yourself...

I said there are people who use that kind of 'evidence', 'science' or whatever to pursue certain things. My point is the same whether it's data showing white people are more intelligent than everyone else, or if it's black people who are in fact the most intelligent. The fact is that there are people who believe in their own race's superiority and will use whatever information they can find to support that claim and convince others, and it's not like people haven't misused research or data to support their own agendas is it? Another fact is that people who have a voice and a status sometimes need to be careful in how they express their views or research because, unfortunately, there are people around to will twist words, research, data etc. Another fact is that I know plenty of people in real life who come from all races, cultures, religions etc that are highly intelligent and successful.

I was making a general point that most people assume that when the subject of racial iq comes up and its a white person saying it then people assume that they are saying that white people have the highest iq in the world.

The subject of racial iq information is real, and if someone of his calibre can't speak about it then its a bad sign of a free society.

I don't really see why you felt you had to defend people from other 'races, cultures, religions' though. As if this professor is saying asian people have the highest iq, then you should be saying "hey I know white people who are highly intelligent too"

 

[Raz]

I was making a general point that most people assume that when the subject of racial iq comes up and its a white person saying it then people assume that they are saying that white people have the highest iq in the world.

The subject of racial iq information is real, and if someone of his calibre can't speak about it then its a bad sign of a free society.

I don't really see why you felt you had to defend people from other 'races, cultures, religions' though. As if this professor is saying asian people have the highest iq, then you should be saying "hey I know white people who are highly intelligent too"

It's not a general point since you did say

"But you, like many others, who read filtered newspapers with their own agendas, will think that these people are saying white people have the most intelligence."

I didn't say or imply I thought it.

The rest of the post above was just explaining what I meant, and that in the real world it doesn't make much difference where a person is from to be deemed intelligent.

 

[robgmun]

I must admit, having spent a lot of time in hospitals over the years, pretty much all my leading doctors and consultants have been either white or Asian. But is that a result of intelligence or opportunity?

That most doctors have come from poor 3rd world countries and despite that they become high level professional tells me its certainly intelligence. You also can't ignore the same inherit intelligence you see from China despite not being much richer until the last decade. And of course when you have the similar race that had intelligence and opportunity you get what happened in Japan in the last 70 years.

 

[jsmoke]

Ever watched Jeremy Kyle?

 

[GGizmo]

It's not a general point since you did say

"But you, like many others, who read filtered newspapers with their own agendas, will think that these people are saying white people have the most intelligence."

I didn't say or imply I thought it.

The rest of the post above was just explaining what I meant, and that in the real world it doesn't make much difference where a person is from to be deemed intelligent.

But you did seem to imply that this guy was talking about racial iq to say white people are better, when you typed this: "There are plenty of people who would happily subjugate or oppress others because of being ''superior'."

You didn't say that this guy wasnt doing that, or its ok to talk about the subject.

From what I can see this guy talked about the subject of racial iq and its become a trigger for the politically correct lobby to attack him.

Racial IQ is a real subject and people should be able to talk about it without assumptions being put on them. The reason why someone talked about politically correctness is because that automatically puts a bad assumption on people talking about something unPC, which you appeared to do in your reply. If I have missed the part were this particular guy was saying white people are better than X, Y or Z then let me know. But so far I haven't seen that.

 

[Raz]

But you did seem to imply that this guy was talking about racial iq to say white people are better, when you typed this: "There are plenty of people who would happily subjugate or oppress others because of being ''superior'."

You didn't say that this guy wasnt doing that, or its ok to talk about the subject.

From what I can see this guy talked about the subject of racial iq and its become a trigger for the politically correct lobby to attack him.

Racial IQ is a real subject and people should be able to talk about it without assumptions being put on them. The reason why someone talked about politically correctness is because that automatically puts a bad assumption on people talking about something unPC, which you appeared to do in your reply. If I have missed the part were this particular guy was saying white people are better than X, Y or Z then let me know. But so far I haven't seen that.

Ok fair enough, it wasn't my intention to make it seem that it was what this guy was saying, I meant "plenty of people" as in those who would use that research/data/evidence to justify subjugation or oppression, not that the guy in question was calling for that.