Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
10 / 23 posts
0 votes

Is Wikipedia biased?


Posts: 214

 I found this article with barely any citations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

I'm willing to entertain the idea that in between group IQ differences  are not due primarily to genetics but you can't just make a blanket statement that the scientific consensus is that IQ differences are due to environmental factors without citing any meta analysis, and then link to an IQ test page that says IQ is predominantly genetic according to twin studies. Oh, and then add 'PS, according to science, race is a social construct rather than a biological reality'. I mean wtf.

last edit on 5/11/2024 6:00:16 AM
Posts: 214
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

Ok I see what they mean now with that race thing. It's that two Asians can be further apart genetically than an Asian and white person, because only a small part of our DNA determines how we look. But how we look MUST still be statistically correlated with our overall DNA make-up, I would bet, because we inherit how we look.

This is like saying because we can't define exactly when a shitty pile of stick becomes a house, taxonomy loses its purpose entirely. So, anything can become a house because a house is a social construct. Nothing is a house. Houses do not exist.

last edit on 5/11/2024 6:54:56 AM
Posts: 4375
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

They say race is a social construct, because acknowledging genetically distinct groups would also involve acknowledging deterministic differences between them.

Posts: 4383
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

They say race is a social construct, because acknowledging genetically distinct groups would also involve acknowledging deterministic differences between them.

 Okay, Charles Murray.

Thrall to the Wire of Self-Excited Circuit.
Posts: 4375
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

I don't see what he's said that is wrong. Granted, my familiarity with him is on the basis that a chapter of The Bell Curve discussed IQ and race. The data on that isn't ambiguous; people are more trying to say environment is the main cause of the differences.

Posts: 32864
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

They say race is a social construct, because acknowledging genetically distinct groups would also involve acknowledging deterministic differences between them.

A lot of the issues lumped in with race can often be seen as a byproduct of classism and geographical history. A lot of what amounts to the sociological data versus black people in the US for example can be connected to how their economic history has lended to slower generational growth, and other races put through the same constraints would show similar difficulties. 

Low income situations can mean having lead painted walls, moldy foundations, and fiberglass, worse qualities of food and rest, less access to education, crazier drugs and dangers readily available, and their peers are just as open to these things as they are for a snowball effect culturally (gangs, factory vices, etc). Change the environment and you'll see changes as quickly as two to three generations later. 

Environment promotes what traits are seen as essential towards success/survival and towards what is deemed gregarious. If you keep people in a harsh environment, the ones who do best within those constraints are the ones whose traits will spread to the next generation. Change the environment, change what is deemed gregarious, and you'll see the culture change with it, even if that's done through adoption. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on 5/11/2024 1:01:32 PM
Posts: 4375
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

Nobody serious is saying that environment doesn't play some role. It just doesn't play as much of a role as people need it to, in order to support blank slate arguments. Monozygotic twin studies make it clear that we have defined cognitive patterns that we inheret, which are a superset for highly-correlated traits such as temperament and intelligence.

MZ twins have an IQ correlation that ranges from 0.6 to 0.8 depending on the study, which increases to 0.85 to 0.9 in shared rearing environments. It's unlikely many of these studies account for the Wilson Effect, which found that "results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood."

Do you believe that someone can become more intelligent than they already are?

Posts: 32864
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

Nobody serious is saying that environment doesn't play some role.

'Some role' is very vague, and many do have the impression that the race you're born as is the stronger predisposition rather than being birthed as a byproduct of gregarious trends and survival needs. 

Take a race and put them into a drastically different environment, then give them time to produce offspring for enough generations. They will conform to the conditions of their environment overtime as per Darwin, seeing "the fittest" as whatever said environment needs, rather than making it plainly about short term adaptations. 

If you live somewhere where brute force power or stamina is respected, then those will be who make more children, while if you're somewhere that prides intelligence or cunning you'll see different gregarious trends turn out a different set of parameters. Even something as small as who the current Pop Idols are can affect who ends up having children vs not based on how closely they can resemble their figures of success. 

Do you believe that someone can become more intelligent than they already are?

That's not my point at all, you can't just throw people who were fit for one environment into another and expect it to work. If that worked, all we'd need to do to fix the problem is throw enough money at it. Rather than a Psychology situation, this is more Sociological. 

It's not about someone, but rather how a community can evolve based on what is seen as attractive and capable of survival within those conditions. Control the conditions one needs to be seen as successful hard enough to pass the ingrained history (ie: adoption) and you'll see trends change as quickly as three generations. 

Fixing something like this takes the use of media propaganda to reshape what success looks like. I believe the answer, short of drastic reshaping of someone's environment, lies in Cultivation Theory. If you can control what's culturally trending, you can affect who will and won't succeed in producing offspring. 

There's also other factors to take into account like quality of sleep and diet which affect the end product, but that's almost a tangent. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on 5/11/2024 9:22:13 PM
Posts: 214
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

TC, you're not really advocating for the stance of Wikipedia, what you're advocating for is basically eugenics.

What Wikipedia is saying is that the IQ differences between the races is due predominantly to environmental factors as opposed to genetic factors. What you're saying is that it's basically genetic and Wikipedia is wrong, but if you run an eugenics program then after some time you could force a race as a whole to become more intelligent.

Not that I agree with either one. But you're basically not really addressing the topic.

Also, I doubt the left leaning folks who wrote those blanket statements would agree with your idea for a race-targeted eugenics program to correct the course of the black race or whatever.

last edit on 5/12/2024 1:29:37 AM
Posts: 4375
0 votes RE: Is Wikipedia biased?

Nobody serious is saying that environment doesn't play some role.

'Some role' is very vague, and many do have the impression that the race you're born as is the stronger predisposition rather than being birthed as a byproduct of gregarious trends and survival needs. 

Take a race and put them into a drastically different environment, then give them time to produce offspring for enough generations. They will conform to the conditions of their environment overtime as per Darwin, seeing "the fittest" as whatever said environment needs, rather than making it plainly about short term adaptations. 

If you live somewhere where brute force power or stamina is respected, then those will be who make more children, while if you're somewhere that prides intelligence or cunning you'll see different gregarious trends turn out a different set of parameters. Even something as small as who the current Pop Idols are can affect who ends up having children vs not based on how closely they can resemble their figures of success.

You acknowledge that genes are largely responsible for outcomes, just not with the conclusion that race (which is defined by clusters of genetic similarity) is a major factor. Or maybe I am reading between the lines too much there? Millenia of different selective pressures and genetic drift within isolated populations are what makes races what they are, in a literal sense. I'm not saying that going forward, each race or ethnic group has traits that are set in stone. But I am saying that it would be naive to think races are just simply visually distinct, and that the internals are not as different as the physiogomy.

 

Do you believe that someone can become more intelligent than they already are?

That's not my point at all, you can't just throw people who were fit for one environment into another and expect it to work. If that worked, all we'd need to do to fix the problem is throw enough money at it. Rather than a Psychology situation, this is more Sociological. 

It's not about someone, but rather how a community can evolve based on what is seen as attractive and capable of survival within those conditions. Control the conditions one needs to be seen as successful hard enough to pass the ingrained history (ie: adoption) and you'll see trends change as quickly as three generations.

Fixing something like this takes the use of media propaganda to reshape what success looks like. I believe the answer, short of drastic reshaping of someone's environment, lies in Cultivation Theory. If you can control what's culturally trending, you can affect who will and won't succeed in producing offspring. 

There's also other factors to take into account like quality of sleep and diet which affect the end product, but that's almost a tangent. 

If most people in a group did not breed, only those who met some criteria? Then yes, we would see a strong trend toward some direction, relative to the origin. The verbal IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is I think the most obvious reprentative of this, where a group had a genetic bottleneck, and the successful ones at the time were travelling merchants. And because of the history of Jews in Europe, the selective pressure never totally eased.

Ashkenazi verbal IQ could probably be dropped in 3 generations if only the really dumb ones reproduced...but in reality, the modern era has soft pressures. So what I mean to say is it would take another genetic bottleneck, not a change of pop stars. Otherwise, the needle has to be moved slowly and consciously over time. It seems based on what you are saying that you are aware that race differences are more than skin deep, but with emphasis on the caveat that traits are not immutable.

10 / 23 posts
This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.