Wokeness or Something

[hammerofglass]

What we have here is a man caught in an outright lie trying to bluff his way out past people who all know the subject better than he does.

[hammerofglass]

To be clear anyone who actually reads even just that section he was pointing to in the wikipedia article apparently knows the subject better than he does.

[TGLS]

type a topic into Wikipedia

Yeah, and I did. It said this (key part highlighted):

Discussions of race and intelligence – specifically, claims of differences in intelligence along racial lines – have appeared in both popular science and academic research since the modern concept of race was first introduced. With the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century, differences in average test performance between racial groups were observed, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Further complicating the issue, modern science has shown race to be a social construct rather than a biological reality, and intelligence has no undisputed definition. The validity of IQ testing as a metric for human intelligence is itself disputed. Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

So do you want to cite something that doesn't contradict your conclusion?

[Frustration]

That statement doesn't contradict anything I've argued, TGLS.

Let's be specific, here: what part of my argument are you actually trying to contradict? The claims about IQ score distributions between self-identified racial groups? The claim about how IQ performance is linked to potential success in medical school? Or the logic which produces the conclusion that the potential pool of candidates capable of successfully graduating from medical school will have disproportionally fewer members from groups with lower average IQ scores?

'Genetics' has nothing to do with it. Do NOT fabricate arguments and attribute them to me.

[TGLS]

That statement doesn't contradict anything I've argued, TGLS.

Let's be specific, here: what part of my argument are you actually trying to contradict?

Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

The heritability of IQ holds even when environmental factors like SES are eliminated.

So do you want to revise your statement there?

[Frustration]

The heritability of IQ holds even when environmental factors like SES are eliminated.

So do you want to revise your statement there?

So is the problem that you don't understand what 'heritability' means? Or that you don't understand what 'environmental factors like SES' means?

'Genetics' is not explicitly referenced, nor it is implicitly referenced by exclusion. My statement is completely accurate, and it stands, particularly as it was in response to the utterly false claim that wealth and education determine IQ scores.

[TGLS]

So is the problem that you don't understand what 'heritability' means? Or that you don't understand what 'environmental factors like SES' means?

Well for one thing you used an acronym without specifying what it means (Social/Economic Standing? I dunno.), but it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

'Genetics' is not explicitly referenced, nor it is implicitly referenced by exclusion.

And that's not the point I'm making either Let's start over. Here's what you wrote.

The heritability of IQ holds even when environmental factors like SES are eliminated.

In other words, environmental factors are irrelevant to IQ differences between groups.

Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

In other words, IQ differences between groups are caused by environmental factors, not genetic factors.

Now it doesn't really matter as what you think are causing the differences in IQ between groups, but as long as it isn't environmental factors, the article you yourself cited is going contradict you.

[clearspira]

I would recommend a very good book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It makes a very good case for all of the geographical differences in intelligence and IQ throughout history being down to temperate weather, availability of resources, and availability of beasts of burden. Sea access also helped for expansion and trade. Europe and the East had a plentiful amount of all of these things, as did Egypt thanks to the Nile, and thus saw great technological advancement earlier than the likes of Africa or Australia.

TL;DR we are all humans.

[hammerofglass]

One hour summary by the author. Relevant bit starts 48 minutes in.


youtu.be/oZEAf8mZkl8

There's a national geographic series too but I haven't seen it yet.

[McAvoy]

You didn't make a basic claim. This isn't me asking for sources on Flat Earth or If the Moon landing was faked.

Wrong. This is exactly how rudimentary the information in question regarding the specific topic is. It's Psych 101 stuff.

Not everyone will be up to date on the intricacies of IQ testing especially when it relates to different races.

And I'm sure there are people who couldn't explain why the arguments claiming we didn't land on the Moon are nonsense. Nevertheless, the information about that is readily available; people only don't know the facts because they're too lazy to perform a basic search.

What shouldn't be tolerated is people who make claims about something and refuse to provide it.

What shouldn't be tolerated is people too lazy to type a topic into Wikipedia and then demand sources for basic information.

So what we are seeing is that you are too lazy to make the effort to provide a source.

Since you like to talk down to people here. I will explain the concept of a source.

You make a claim. We ask for a source. As in the source of your claim. Doesn't matter if it's beneath you to actually provide it just because we can Google it. Middle School English 101. You make a claim, we want to know the source of your claim. Not that hard of a concept. But here you are dancing around it.

Yes we can Google it. Hell took me all of five seconds find much better sources than fucking Wikipedia. You see, a 12 year old or younger was already taught the concept of a source. Middle School English 101.

You made the claim. You provide the source. Burden of Proof is on You.

Stop being lazy. Stop dancing around it. Provide the source or shut up.

12 years are taught this. Pretty basic stuff. Middle School English 101.