Nature AND Nurture

It's not measuring environmental ones

That's not what IQ measures

If you ONLY examine NATURE, you conclusions are OF COURSE going to be based ONLY on nature

Until they examine both, 'willl be fuzzy'

It's only a measure of general intelligence

It's fuzzy why?

It says why

No, it's fuzzy because all the genome isn't mapped yet..... So it's margin of error is an issue

It's so close though it can give a range

23 and me won't do it, not because it's inaccurate.... Because the reaction

It's not measuring success in the workplace.... I'm not sure your understand what's being measured.

<:OOF:459550070942203924>

The WAIS-IV yields scores on four domains: verbal, perceptual, working memory, and processing speed. The reliability of the test is high (more than 0.95), and it shows substantial construct validity. The WAIS-IV is correlated highly with other IQ tests such as the Stanford-Binet, as well as with criteria of academic and life success, including college grades, measures of work performance, and occupational level. It also shows significant correlations with measures of everyday functioning among the mentally retarded.

http://open.lib.umn.edu/intropsyc/chapter/9-1-defining-and-measuring-intelligence/

More than .95 reliability....that's almost perfect...an unheard of reliability Stat....it's just true.

.95 !

This is near perfection.

The test works.

Hh

reposting this because I never got a response

@Deleted User race is still a sub-optimal grouping mechanism if you're trying to select for highly polygenetic traits such as intelligence or emotional temperament, and there's no particular reason if you're trying to exclude and/or include people based upon traits such as intelligence to do so along racial lines. The genetics of different population groups fall along normal distributions and are not uniform across any single group- genetics is something that acts out mechanistically on an individual/pair level first and only by circumstance as part of a larger subpopulation. The unifying factor of who is decided to be 'black' and 'white' is largely done based upon aesthetic appearances- not actually intelligence or emotional temperament- and appearances that are derived from relatively few genetic mutations compared to things like intelligence.

That might depend on the definition of "race".

White and Black aren’t Races in the first place @skreee

it doesn’t matter you can apply the criticism to whatever traditional racial/ethnic subgroups you want to draw lines around @L0GAN

What's the question, race is real.

d u h

@L0GAN dosent seem to think that

Race is biological, genetic population clusters by region
Carrying that forward the relative groups have group ranges of height, build, color and skin type, and yes IQ and temperament because yes, the brain is a part of the body.
It's an identity - based on History heritage traditions and even civilization
It's a political group....do I need to define that ? People define themselves as a part of a tribe. In fact the tribal self identity is nearly perfectly correct. If someone in the USA checks the "white" box they are 99.1% european.....

Eg there is no "I don't know what race I am" problem, not in reality.

Hope that helps.

@skreee

Distibutions do differ they are not always perfect bells, also

All of what I stated is uncontroversial....I haven't even begun to talk about controversial ideas

The controversy comes when we discuss the practical applicationsof this reality

Also!!!

there is controversy over whether race is biological

While they didn't have the science to back them they way they had now.....many post darwinian philosophers predicted this and they were right!!!

So all these ideas go back at least 100 years ...plus some!!!

The political ramifications I mean

@Deleted User I’m not arguing that the distributions are the same however if your goal is to cluster people based on traits then doing so based on race is still sub-optimal. Identification with a tribal identity is primarily done based upon visual differences that are based on relatively few mutations- and is also a dumb way to organize society if your goal is to maximize certain genetic traits.

Literally all the same arguments

You guys should read Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard

Yes because you seemed to imply that because the bell curves are different that it somehow changes the calculus